|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2403 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Sorry -- missed this question.
Price is considered by many to be the father of modern deluge geology. Without Price, Faith would most likely not exist (as a participant here). JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not exactly. I can't prove anything but there are certainly possibilities that might explain it, simply because water is known to lay down strata, and there are currents and even layers in the oceans that could explain how sediments get sorted, and if sediments then also other objects such as the corpses of creatures. But this is just a longwinded way of saying Flooddidit. We know that this is your position. How did Flooddoit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But this is just a longwinded way of saying Flooddidit. We know that this is your position. How did Flooddoit? No, I suggested in that paragraph you dismissed how it probably did it. And that suggestion is logically better than the OE nonsense that has slabs of rock representing millions of years of time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Price is considered by many to be the father of modern deluge geology. Without Price, Faith would most likely not exist (as a participant here). Price no doubt made many useful observations, and as you say probably did inspire Flood geology, but the Flood is so obviously the explanation for the strata and the fossils someone else would have done the work if he hadn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Your suggestion was vague - too vague to be called a serious attempt at an explanation -and almost certainly impossible. How it can rationally be considered better than a perfectly reasonable explanation that does fit the facts, I have no idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Except that the Flood is obviously not a valid explanation for the fossils and the strata. That is why Flood geology was invented by an apologist for a YEC denomination, and is rejected by science. Honest searchers for the truth rejected the Flood, because the evidence was very solidly against it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Radiolarians and diatoms are similarly sized microscopic critters that occur in similar sea environments, though diatoms often live deeper. there are abundant species of both in the fossil record, but while radiolarians are found from the Cambrian up, diatoms are only first found in the Triassic.
Their sorting in the record is such that they can be used to date rocks, with in some cases the diatoms can refine the date to within 50,000 years. One would expect a Flood to mix up these critters, not have them sorted into the layers in which they are found. Diatoms can produce immense deposits, and when part of sediment flows undersea can entomb other fossils. One could also ask how the Flood spread the Iridium layer around the Earth so that it is found at the end of the Cretaceous, including in the midst of the Deccan traps lava flows which occurred above water Most regulars know the following, but for newbies and lurkers, an excellent book available on the internet is Daniel Wonderley's " Neglect of Geologic Data by Creationists" It has a wealth of information showing how a young Earth and Flood does not fit with what is observed. His web site also has a good account on corals. He was a Christian, and was prepared to go where the evidence led.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, I suggested in that paragraph you dismissed how it probably did it. I must have missed it. Try again.
And that suggestion is logically better than the OE nonsense that has slabs of rock representing millions of years of time. That's based on observable processes and confirmed by all the evidence. You can't specify the processes, and your model has not been confirmed by any evidence because you don't have a fucking model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Why should there be any tendency at all for one species to be found together instead of scattered among all the other kinds of fossils that are found at that same level (or "time period?") Why are all the nautiloids bunched together in that layer of the Redwall limestone instead of scattered throughout that "time period" wherever it is represented, which certainly isn't only in the Grand Canyon area. They are found scattered throughout that time period. Did you think they were only found in the Redwall Limestone? Where did you get that idea? What is more, as you would know if you had been paying attention, there are lots of other fossils in the Redwall, so the nautiloids in the Redwall are indeed "scattered among all the other kinds of fossils that are found at that same level (or "time period?")".
No, clearly there is some kind of sorting. I just don't see that the sorting so clearly represents evolution as is claimed, it merely shows grouping of creatures of the same kind ... No it doesn't. This kind of proves the contention in my OP: creationists aren't trying to explain what the fossil record looks like; they're trying to explain what they fantasize the fossil record looks like. Not that you're doing particularly well at that, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not an American or Canadian so I don't really have a clue who those creationists and people who told them that they talked nonsense from days gone by were. I was lazy not to look it up on Wiki, though.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The important point is that at the time Ellen G. White (founder with her husband of SDA) and Price, were making their initial claims (she claimed she had a vision and witnessed "Creation" and that it really did take place in just one week and that the Flood sculpted the Earths surface) most Christian, Evangelical and otherwise had long accepted that the Earth was old and that there was no world-wide flood during the time mankind existed.
The "Creationism" and "Young Earth" and "Flood" movements were a small fringe minority reform movement within mostly US and Canadian Christianity. It was not the common beliefs but rather a return to what was being discarded even two hundred years earlier; a return to the level of knowledge that had been common in the 15 and 16 hundreds. The period from the turn of the century saw the introduction of the automobile and truck and the Tent Revival circuit populated by showmen like William Jenning Bryan and Bill Sunday but by the late twenties even the Tent Revival was becoming less popular. But Creationism, Young Earth and an actual Flood remained, just as today, a small minority fringe group of Christianity. And just as today, from the very beginning not one proponent has ever been able to present any model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob that could explain what is fact (the actual ordering of fossils, or geological features or salt beds or sand or limestone cliffs or the evidence from continued human cultures over time) using Creation Science or Flood Geology.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
But they pretend that they can, jar. 'Scientific' Magic!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2403 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
Yep -- contrary to the assertion that deluge geology is "obvious", it was on it's way out for the exact opposite reasons and was salvaged only when a fraud of a 'prophet' (Ellen G. White) sold her visions to the gullible.
Deluge geology requires one to conclude first ('the bible contains the literal truth') and then begin the rationalization process. Without Ellen G White and Price and Morris and Ham, this shit would be vastly more fringe than it is now. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Don't forget the Showmen and the Snake Oil Salesmen because they really were charismatic entertainers.
But there is yet another important layer that played a significant part and that is the power of Politics. In particular some of the Populist politicians found that co-opting the Tent Revival industry was a powerful base to generate support and opposition to the currently held positions. The advent of the truck and car were accompanied by the introduction of radio and those two factors allowed the mass marketing that was adopted early on by the Tent Revivalist as well as figures like Father Coughlin, Huey Long and his brother Earl. The movement was a pathway to power and wealth and so prospered.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, I suggested in that paragraph you dismissed how it probably did it. And that suggestion is logically better than the OE nonsense that has slabs of rock representing millions of years of time.
Do you mean that reference to 'flood currents' or something like that? If so, just remember that not only do the fossils occur in a sequence, but it is a non-repeating sequence. And why were there no currents depositing dinosaurs in the Cambrian time?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024