Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 181 of 1163 (786932)
06-29-2016 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by caffeine
06-29-2016 1:15 PM


But that is the whole point of this thread, that rocks of different ages contain different assemblages of fossils. Lobsters are never found in rocks older than the Cretaceous; trilobites are never found in rocks younger than the Permian. A fact wholly unexplained from the creationist point of view.
If you had known Dr A as long as I have read him you would know that this is not what the thread is about.
Nevertheless, arguing-from-silence is a fallacy sometimes known as the denial of the antecedent.
It's not, "unexplained" from the creationist point of view, it's that there is a whole lot more assumptions we start from.
You assume (begging-the-question) that I have accepted these eras, but as creationists we assume that most of the layers happened in one year. So if we find trilobites in one layer and another creature such as an Ichthyosaur or nautiloid in another layer, (or whetever), from our perspective it would just mean that they lived in different ecological zones and were buried during the same era, all one era. At least TRY to understand what the creationist position is first!
It is a reasonable assumption because even today if a big flood came, we wouldn't necessarily expect to find white sharks in British seas. And you also have to consider the dispersal of the pre-flood super-continent.
It takes a lot more studying of the issue. Unfortunately evolutionists don't really care about studying it, they would rather take easy pot shots at creationists.
It all depends on starting assumptions. Arguing-from-silence is a fallacy, because sometimes silent species crop up early in the fossil record where previously silent. Grass has recently been found in dino-layers.
so arguing-from-silence has been proven time and time and time again to be fallacious reasoning. evolutionists find species earlier that were previously silent, and then they FORGET they argued-from-silence.
I remember they found a living-fossil, the wollemi pine tree. Previously it was silent. Recently they have found more than one lycopod in, "ancient" forests, and even evidence of wood, when they said wood came later.
When we think of the global flood, what is the percentage of species wiped out and obliterated? Obviously the percentage of fossils is TINY, most fossils are marine invertebrates IIRC.
We have explanations, it's just that you unjustly claim that we don't or believe we don't because you don't study those explanations properly, you guys only exist to throw eggs, just admit it. But I thank you Caffeine as you have not personally attacked me......YET.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by caffeine, posted 06-29-2016 1:15 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 3:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 5:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 182 of 1163 (786933)
06-29-2016 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:11 PM


Let me make a simple point Mike.
If the only examples of your expectations are rare outliers, then your expectations are based on error. You've implicitly admitted this to be true. That hardly supports your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 183 of 1163 (786935)
06-29-2016 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by PaulK
06-29-2016 1:35 PM


What did I, "admit"? Can you flesh our your argument Paul? Perhaps it was a tacit admission you think you uncovered? But I doubt it, I'm just too smart to be sloppy. And you know that Paul. (I robbed that from Ken Ham, he always says to Hugh Ross, "and you know that, Hugh".)
Though I can't hang around EvC too much, remember I am obliged to cleverly avoid the political scoring-system just for starters, secondly, beating my head against a wall isn't the most rewarding past-time. Do you think we will end up as best mates and agree with each other? Or do you predict we will go in circles? No offence but you're pretty obstinate when it comes to debate, my experiences tell me that you look for a fight, but in a kind of passive-aggressive way. I'm really OVER fighting, which is why I joined the EFF forum instead. I can have discussions with evolutionists there and it never turns into a fight. But this is a bit of a lions den for a creationist. Not that I have any trouble addressing the average-intelligence arguments from most evolutionists, but obviously it is not very smart to hang around just to get insulted, and have your credibility attacked all for the crime of being a devout Christian that believes we aren't all here by accident because a tornado assembled a 747 jet after blowing through a junkyard.
*rant over*
As for Dr A, if intellect were hearing, he couldn't, "hear a dump truck driving through a nitroglycerine plant" - National Lampoons Christmas vacation.
(Only kidding "Dr" A.)
(I think you guys have fed on me long enough, time to remain caged, I might come back and throw some meat in your cage in a few months, who knows you might have eaten each other by then, by thinking one of your number is a creationist spy)
(mikey-mischief complete)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2016 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 5:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 184 of 1163 (786936)
06-29-2016 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:56 PM


quote:
What did I, "admit"? Can you flesh our your argument Paul? Perhaps it was a tacit admission you think you uncovered? But I doubt it, I'm just too smart to be sloppy.
That's just empty boasting, Mike. And if you were that smart you could work it out quite easily.
But to make it clear, you claim that the Wollemi Pine is exactly what you expect, a modern species found in "deeper" layers. But that is a very rare occurrence - even most "living fossils" are simply members of larger taxonomic groupings which have otherwise disappeared. The modern species is not found in the "lower" rocks. That is the case with the coelacanths, for instance.
Given all the references to modern species in the early chapters of Genesis, this is strange indeed - if your views are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 185 of 1163 (786939)
06-29-2016 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 12:57 PM


Why? because you say so?
Sure. That is why we are here.
To discuss.
Ever heard of a bare-assertion before?
Hear of them??? I see them every day, posed by evidence-challenged YECs.
I am guessing not. "Hey, our guy has just beaten you all to a pulp! What, my evidence? Didn't you hear me, our guy has just beaten you all to a pulp."
Lol! That's me refuted then.
Do you have a point, other than the fact that you cannot address the opening post?
Shouting "we win" might prove a great deal to you. And my dad is bigger than your dad, Edge.
Did someone say that?
Dr. A demolished the yexplantions for the fossil record. Do you have a response?
This is called elephant-hurling.
Just one of them. I was giving you a choice.
It should be easy for you.
I could elephant-hurl a list of of the things that uniformatarianism can't explain at you too, what would it prove?
Heh, heh...
YECs never do that, do they?
Did you think I was going to address the list of things you say show an old age? Poor dear thinks I'm stupid enough to be baited when he hasn't addressed anything I said.... Awww, that's so cute.
So, you admit that you will not address any of the issues brought up in the OP,
Duly noted.
When you don't deal with someone's arguments and just go for attacking their credibility rather than rebutting what they specifically say, this is called argumentum ad hominem. Didn't you know that? It is one of the fallacies of diversion, because it distracts people into thinking that if they can just detract from the arguer, then the argument doesn't have to be dealt with.
You might as well have just said, "oh Mike, you big dick head for being a creationist".
Erm.....okay then. Nice talking to you too.
Actually, no. I was criticizing your post. The paragraph in question was not clear.
And if you need me to explain why the reproduction of jellyfish only requires jellyfish then we are in for a very long night. I suggest I bring my hand-puppets next time I visit the forum. In case you still don't get it here is an analogy; Imagine I sat down to dinner and I needed a knife, a fork and a plate to eat my food, imagine if you then said to me, "here is a spoon too,". I would look at you with an incredulous face would I not? So then, "evolutionary stasis" as an oxymoron, is amusing to me, giving these facts.
So my "understanding" wasn't, "jumbled" to begin with. The term, "jumbled" was a question-begging-epithet. Don't you find it rather embarassing to tell someone who understands what they are saying completely, they don't understand when you yourself have just said, "I need a translation of this paragraph".
Yeah. It's a pretty straightforward comment. Please rewrite the paragraph.
Yes - YOU need a translation, because you are not smart enough to understand deductive reasoning, whereas I am.
This is coming from a guy who just complained about ad hominem arguments ...
If there is a theory of created kinds as the antecedent then as confirmation, our consequent would be, "then there would follow similar type creatures, basically unchanged", whereas for evolution an apriori prediction is that we would expect to see the transitionals.
And we do. So, your point is?
Using the modus tollens (method of destruction) we can then falsify the claim if there is a conspicuous absence of evidence, which is regarded as falsification-evidence according to Popper.
But there is a conspicuous presence of evidence. What are you talking about?
So next time YOU don't understand, don't pretend that is because of my stupidity. If YOU don't understand then YOU are the one that doesn't have a basic grasp of deductive reasoning. For if identical animal kinds don't count as evidence kinds have remained unchanged, then please show me how to qualify evidence for baramins. There is only one other option according to the law of the excluded middle, and that is that the fossils would, "not" look the same.
Or you might just not be very clear in your posts ...
So, what kinds of Cambrian animals are identical to modern kinds?
In other words you would have to argue that if we predicted what we would find in the fossils APRIORI to our knowledge of the fossils, we would expect evidence of baramins to look different, and not look the same.
But how do they look? Sorry, I am not a baraminologist.
AHAHAHAHAHA! What a brilliant example of reductio-ad-absurdum!
Where is that? You seem to be rambling.
If only you had the intelligence to understand why. Alas, you never will. A simpler explanation would need hand-puppets, and why should I hang around here to have tomatoes and eggs thrown at me, when I have so cleverly avoided your political scoring-system.
Yes, you have avoided addressing the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:57 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 186 of 1163 (786940)
06-29-2016 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:00 PM


No, ROCKS come with fossils and isotopes in them Dr A. Goodness me, don't tell me you think a neurosis exists in the rocks? Your neurotic agreement that the rocks are ages, exists between your ears, Sir. What exists as reality, is the facts themselves, which are the rocks.
Actually, we distinguish between the time periods and the rocks in them. For instance: the 'Cambrian Period' and the 'Cambrian System'. In shorthand, the "period" or "system" may be omitted.
Or are you saying rocks don't exist and eras do?
In general, we say that both do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 187 of 1163 (786941)
06-29-2016 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:11 PM


So if you knew the fallacies you would commit them? (argumentum ad hominem for example)
That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum, I can refute the statement by use of the modus tollens because the consequent would be ABSURD.
If you knew all of the fallacies you make, you would not make them by attacking my credibility, be attempting to argue I don't understand and am muddled. I am not muddled at all, but if you love FALSEHOOD and LIES then that's your problem, why should I make it mine?
You do understand that logical fallacies are not always fallacious, do you not?
They can all be used as rhetorical tools. Just as we use opinions for support, though they are not, strictly speaking, evidence.
You say, "bring on the argument" in so many words, but essentially I have done what I came to do, I revealed DrA's rubbish for what it is. Now all you guys can do is hang around throwing eggs and tomatoes and declaring my defeat.
Hmmmm, must have missed that.
I would never have expected that.
As for the facts, we all have the same facts but it's how we interpet them. It's also the missing facts that count, as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Nonsense. It is necessary for you to ignore a ream of facts on an ad hoc basis, in order to maintain your YEC scenario. Do you want to discuss some of them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 188 of 1163 (786942)
06-29-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:30 PM


You assume (begging-the-question) that I have accepted these eras, but as creationists we assume that most of the layers happened in one year. So if we find trilobites in one layer and another creature such as an Ichthyosaur or nautiloid in another layer, (or whetever), from our perspective it would just mean that they lived in different ecological zones and were buried during the same era, all one era. At least TRY to understand what the creationist position is first!
Okay, I understand. Then, please find for us the trilobite zone that is the same age (or month) as the dinosaur zone.
Should'a been done by now, I would guess.
It takes a lot more studying of the issue. Unfortunately evolutionists don't really care about studying it, they would rather take easy pot shots at creationists.
I beg your pardon ...
How many years have you studied the fossil record?
so arguing-from-silence has been proven time and time and time again to be fallacious reasoning. evolutionists find species earlier that were previously silent, and then they FORGET they argued-from-silence.
I remember they found a living-fossil, the wollemi pine tree. Previously it was silent. Recently they have found more than one lycopod in, "ancient" forests, and even evidence of wood, when they said wood came later.
Please document. This sounds interesting. Did this discovery overturn all of paleontology when it happened?
When we think of the global flood, what is the percentage of species wiped out and obliterated? Obviously the percentage of fossils is TINY, most fossils are marine invertebrates IIRC.
Well, that would be preferential preservation due to the environment. Wouldn't you expect marine invertebrates to be buried by sediment more readily?
We have explanations, it's just that you unjustly claim that we don't or believe we don't because you don't study those explanations properly, ...
Actually, we have studied them and found them lacking. The fact that you (all) continue bringing them up shouldn't require us to go back and do the work all over again.
you guys only exist to throw eggs, just admit it.
Actually, I exist to learn about the world around me. I don't expect to have knowledge revealed to me.
But I thank you Caffeine as you have not personally attacked me......YET.
Well, Caffeine hardly knows you ... yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 189 of 1163 (786950)
06-29-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:00 PM


No, ROCKS come with fossils and isotopes in them Dr A.
That's what I said.
Goodness me, don't tell me you think a neurosis exists in the rocks?
No, of course I don't think that. Are you insane?
Your neurotic agreement that the rocks are ages, exists between your ears, Sir.
I did not agree to that. Are you insane?
Or are you saying rocks don't exist and eras do?
Of course I am not saying that. Are you insane?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 190 of 1163 (786951)
06-29-2016 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:30 PM


We have explanations ...
Can you produce one, or would you rather pollute my thread with insane gibberish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 191 of 1163 (786952)
06-29-2016 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 1:56 PM


I think you guys have fed on me long enough ...
So you are going to run off without discussing the topic?
As the remainder of your gibberish is not (so far as one can tell) relevant to the topic, or to any topic, or to reality, it does not seem to merit a reply so much as a get-well card.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 192 of 1163 (786961)
06-30-2016 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 12:28 PM


mike the wiz writes:
Well, technically speaking what do you define them as? Do you define them as, "eras", because if you do, you should know that they don't come with evolutionary tags on them.
They are time periods.
I know that you won't ever get this in your head, but the Cambrian is not a 'rock layer'. The Ordovician is not a 'rock layer'. The Silurian is not a 'rock layer'. Etc.
They are not rocks.
The individual fossil sequences were at first mainly recognized and named in Europe. Geologists and paleontologists then went all over the world and studied outcrops to determine whether or not the fossils occurred in the same sequence elsewhere in the world as in Europe.
Nearly all (except two, the Paleocene and Ordovician) of the main subdivisions were named and studied before evolutionary theory came around in 1859.
The geologic time scale was thus named and ordered before and independent of evolutionary theory and radiometric dating.
Jan Peczkis didn't tell you the truth about what he calls "The Geological Column". They are not rock layers. They are time periods. And time periods don't have depth below surface or thickness of rocks or rate of deposition or anything like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 193 of 1163 (786965)
06-30-2016 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 12:28 PM


Oh, I'll quickly answer your question without an explanation. Anything but 'rock layers'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:28 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 194 of 1163 (786967)
06-30-2016 7:15 AM


Bot Verification
"Khan...you had it your way once, are you game for a re-match?.....Khan?....I'm LAUGHING at the "superior" intellect!" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2016 7:24 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 196 by Tangle, posted 06-30-2016 7:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2016 11:15 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 198 by edge, posted 06-30-2016 6:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 202 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2016 7:38 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 203 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 7:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 195 of 1163 (786968)
06-30-2016 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by mike the wiz
06-30-2016 7:15 AM


I see that you still don't know what the Cambrian is. You still don't know what the Ordovician is. You still don't know what the Silurian is, etc.
Mike, they are not 'rock layers' at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by mike the wiz, posted 06-30-2016 7:15 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024