Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 316 of 1163 (787457)
07-14-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Pressie
07-11-2016 6:29 AM


Re: Hubris
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Pressie, posted 07-11-2016 6:29 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 10:08 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied
 Message 325 by Pressie, posted 07-15-2016 5:37 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 317 of 1163 (787458)
07-14-2016 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Faith
07-14-2016 11:47 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 11:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 9:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 318 of 1163 (787460)
07-14-2016 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2016 6:35 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2016 6:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2016 12:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 323 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2016 1:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 330 by edge, posted 07-15-2016 5:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 319 of 1163 (787461)
07-14-2016 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by ThinAirDesigns
07-14-2016 3:25 PM


Re: Hubris
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-14-2016 3:25 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by PaulK, posted 07-15-2016 12:18 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 320 of 1163 (787463)
07-15-2016 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
07-14-2016 9:56 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 9:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 321 of 1163 (787464)
07-15-2016 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Faith
07-14-2016 10:08 PM


Re: Hubris
quote:
.,,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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 10:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 322 of 1163 (787465)
07-15-2016 1:25 AM


More fossil problems
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 1:19 AM Pollux has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 323 of 1163 (787466)
07-15-2016 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
07-14-2016 9:56 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 9:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 324 of 1163 (787467)
07-15-2016 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Faith
07-14-2016 10:51 AM


Re: geologic "Column"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 10:51 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 325 of 1163 (787469)
07-15-2016 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by ThinAirDesigns
07-14-2016 3:25 PM


Re: Hubris
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-14-2016 3:25 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by jar, posted 07-15-2016 8:57 AM Pressie has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 326 of 1163 (787475)
07-15-2016 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Pressie
07-15-2016 5:37 AM


Re: Hubris
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Pressie, posted 07-15-2016 5:37 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Pressie, posted 07-15-2016 9:33 AM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 328 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-15-2016 9:34 AM jar has replied

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


Message 327 of 1163 (787477)
07-15-2016 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by jar
07-15-2016 8:57 AM


Re: Hubris
But they pretend that they can, jar. 'Scientific' Magic!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by jar, posted 07-15-2016 8:57 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2374 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 328 of 1163 (787478)
07-15-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by jar
07-15-2016 8:57 AM


Re: Hubris
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by jar, posted 07-15-2016 8:57 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 07-15-2016 10:13 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 329 of 1163 (787479)
07-15-2016 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by ThinAirDesigns
07-15-2016 9:34 AM


the co-option of the movement
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-15-2016 9:34 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

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


Message 330 of 1163 (787490)
07-15-2016 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
07-14-2016 9:56 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 07-14-2016 9:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Faith, posted 07-15-2016 9:58 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024