Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

Hey Arkathon,I just read through this thread, and was unable to put my finger on any evidence you've given. I read the links you posted, and unfortunately they provide no citations to any sort of scientific evidence, and so they are merely their own assertions.Perhaps you would provide a bulleted list of the points you've made, and your evidence for each. It would greatly help your argument. (NosyNed made a similar request last night...)(Also, if you think that the evolution of the male/female sexual system is impossible, I do hope you will start a separate thread so we can discuss that point.)Thanks.

Arkathon,Thanks. I (and apparently Lam) feel that the discussion is getting lost in the din of too many back-and-forth questions.Would you please state what the evidence is in the "Rockies" case, and how you specifically interpret it to support the Flood? as opposed to a evo/geo explanation?I really am trying to understand your point of view here...(As a side-note in reply to a comment you made: I'm sure you would call me an "evo" but I love faith and spirit, I don't hate it.)

Hey Arkathon,I'm really trying to be helpful here - when reading your posts you usually give a link or 'fact', claim to have defeated your opponents' arguments without further comment, and then write rambling jokey comments that don't help your argument at all.I read your linked reference; please provide:1) The point you are trying to make.
2) How the evidence you present supports your point or contradicts your opponent's point.Since the reference says absolutely nothing about other fossil types found in the same geological layer as the dinosaurs, I'm not sure how your point is proved.Just because the dinosaur fossils were found at an ocean bottom or mountaintop does NOT mean that fish or muskrat fossils were found in the same layer - that is a very simplistic view of things...The current exposure of geologic layers to the environment says nothing about the organisms fossilized there ages ago.You feel you have trounced your opponent with the "it died and floated out to sea" reference as proving Flood-fossil-shuffling, but your own source contradicts that point: Also, please restate your "Rockies" Flood evidence when you get a chance.Thanks.

As a follow-up to my previous post: As a clarification, you showed dinosaur fossils where you believe fish (or marine mammals) could live now.You have NOT shown dinosaur and mammal fossils in the same layer, which is the point of contention here.

Hopefully you've realized that you need to put fossilized "suspects" at the crime scene, and not live ones. This point is separate of the age of the fossils.Imagine an earthquake or erosion opening a chasm in the desert, revealing a dinosaur fossil at its bottom. Just because vultures, rattlesnakes, and coyotes now have access to the fossil, does not mean they will exist in fossilized form in that same layer.No one here is arguing about whether or not dinosaur fossils are in the sea bed.

That is very problematic to me. You are railing against the evos on this board and their "dull mind numbing usual old age senility of trying to fit everything in the religious evolutionary view."Those are very strong (offensive) words, considering we are past 80 posts on this (sequel) thread, your posts probably make up one-third of them, and you now admit you haven't given a single piece of evidence against this "dull mind numbing usual old age senility".Since you are armed with only a plethora of bare assertions, I wouldn't talk so rudely or proudly. Not a single shred of evidence?(And please keep in mind that many on this board have family and friends whose lives have been ripped apart by "old age senility" that you toss around like a casual insult.)

How dare I? What a ridiculous thing to bring up. What does Margaret Meade's opinion have to do with the science behind evolution? Nothing. If I told you that a Christian leader quoted as saying that Genesis should be taken figuratively somehow effected your argument, you'd call me ridiculous too. I didn't ask for a "superman agenda", I asked for a single piece of evidence - doesn't seem like so much in forum like this. You've admitted several times now that you had no evidence. I'm not sure why you're getting so confrontational now that I've said it back to you. Excuse me if I don't believe you that this comment referred to a "senile" fossil record. If you think that it is interpreted this way by readers, you are wrong. Your "analogy" doesn't make sense given the grammar of the sentence, or in general - I suggest you stop using it, along with "granny bacteria" and "cup o soup" creation - none of them make sense, and their use makes you seem rather ignorant.If you recall, I actually came into this thread trying to help you develop your argument so that I could understand it, and potentially have something to debate. For that, I've been grouped in with "hating" and "dull... senile" evos.Excuse me for having the good sense enough to ask you to be sensitive to the members of this forum who have been effected by the many syndromes that fall under "senility," and thus refrain from calling the arguments of the evos as such.I guess sensitivity is not a value common to your brand of Christianity.

Your 7:2 ratio would be a nice idea, if it wasn't for the fact that God commanded Noah to sacrifice by burnt offering the extra clean animals once they were on dry land again.The reason the clean animals were specified to be in excess was because unclean animals are unworthy of sacrifice to the Lord.Not to mention you are not taking into acount reproduction rate (age to maturity, number of offspring per birth), which would have more to do with recovering from a bottle neck than if there were initially one or a few pairs of animals.Interestingly, your 7:2 ratio theory is potentially testable. Unclean animals should have 2/7 the genetic diversity relative to clean animals, due to your claimed numbers at the Flood bottleneck.However, as I specified above, I don't see burned carcasses as having much reproductive success...

I think it's pretty important, in fact essential, to determine what evidence stems from true scientific method in these debates. Otherwise we are just babbling assertions at each other... You do realize that in science a hypothesis is usually based on evidence? The hypothesis is then tested to come to a conclusion.A problem only arises when the conclusion comes before the evidence and hypothesis. Then the public mind is wrong.Science never, ever "proves" anything, it only confirms or falsifies hypotheses and theories. Also, the scientific method defines what is science, not "tests". As an aside, the scientific method can be applied to auto repair, (and diagnostic "tests" can be done on an automobile).

Are you really serious? What are you basing this upon?I would hope you would have some solid evidence before you start ranking people intellectually by their current residence.You are rude, offensive, arrogant.

Anyone who tells you the theory of evolution has been proven is not a real scientist.If someone in the "public" tells you it has been proven, they are wrong and should not be taken as spokespeople for the scientific community.The theory is strong because it has been confirmed countless times and has never been falsified. The reason other theories (such as Lamarck) have fallen by the wayside is that they have been falsified. Robert, I posted a short subject hoping to clarify the "just a theory" insult to evolution. Please read:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution is "just a theory." -->EvC Forum: Evolution is "just a theory."The theory of evolution has probably withstood more scrutiny than any other theory in history. Absolutely, exactly, right on target.If evolution is falsified, or a better theory comes along, scientists will be the first to abandon evolution. Until either of these happen, evolution will be the prevailing theory.