Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2506 of 2887 (832219)
05-01-2018 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2491 by Faith
04-30-2018 9:00 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Are you just unable to entertain my completely different point of view or are you refusing?
If you can’t support your point of view why should anyone believe it. At least the mainstream view has evidence and makes sense.
And we might ask you the same. Do you unable to entertain the mainstream view or just refusing ? It’s not as if you have any real evidence against it.
quote:
Because having to keep answering this sort of total adherence to the status quo point of view is depressing in the extreme and makes me feel Why bother?
That is why you need real evidence and real argument. Just posting a daft opinion without considering the rival view - or even the real evidence - is hardly a winning strategy.
quote:
Are you unable to picture the great slabs of rock that make up the geologic column, or if you prefer, any given stratigraphic column?
In fact I can. With the many surface features at unconformities, with the interleaved deposits, with the lenses of differing materials reported at many places. Picturing them as massive featureless slabs is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation.
But that seems to be one of your standard tricks. I don’t know why you are surprised it doesn’t work on others, when it has failed so often before. You should be ashamed that you let yourself fall for it.
quote:
You want evidence. Wow. All I can do is try to make you see what is really there, that's the only evidence. You really have no evidence at all Percy. The fossils? They are better evidence for the Flood. The Geologic Timescale is the Emperor's New Clothes. I realize I have the advantage of being outside the charmed circle of what you all like to call Science, so I can see stuff you can't see, but I would think that by now it would at least be a little bit familiar.
Oh dear. Still trying to pretend that fossils are evidence of the Flood? We KNOW that isn’t true. And the rest is simply a wilfully ignorant opinion.
You certainly are wasting your time, but it certainly isn’t our fault. Get real evidence and a real case instead of whining that nobody worships you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2491 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 9:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2509 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 1:32 AM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2507 of 2887 (832220)
05-01-2018 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2498 by Faith
04-30-2018 11:34 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Wrong. It is entirely possible that you are incapable of grasping the science. And of course, they should still bring it up regardless of your lack. Otherwise, we end up with the idea that the most ignorant folks win every time.
But of course we can just drop the subject.
How convenient would that be?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2498 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 11:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2508 of 2887 (832221)
05-01-2018 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2491 by Faith
04-30-2018 9:00 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
I realize I have the advantage of being outside the charmed circle of what you all like to call Science, so I can see stuff you can't see, but I would think that by now it would at least be a little bit familiar.
This is an old Buzsaw tactic. Claiming that your own ignorance protects you from being deceived by Science. It is no more charming a ploy when you use it.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2491 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 9:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2516 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:05 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2509 of 2887 (832222)
05-01-2018 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2506 by PaulK
05-01-2018 12:29 AM


The fossils as evidence for the Flood
Oh dear. Still trying to pretend that fossils are evidence of the Flood? We KNOW that isn’t true. And the rest is simply a wilfully ignorant opinion.
This is such a piece of nutty confusion. I'd think a moderately intelligent person could at least grasp that evidence can have different interpretations. All you are doing is asserting your favorite interpretation, because the evidence itself of the great abundance of fossils does indeed support the Flood.
The Flood was intended to kill all land life, the huge numbers of fossils are certainly good evidence for such an event.
The conditions of a worldwide Flood, the soaking of the entire planet, would have been optimal for the burial and fossilization of a huge number of dead things.
I'm not at this point even making any further claims that are also supportive of the Flood or against the conventional interpretation. These two ought to make the point. You can still prefer your own interpretation but it's just biased stubbornness, willful ignorance for sure, that has a closed mind to the obvious fact that the existence of the fossils fits the Flood model very well.
Everyone will now want to argue all the points in favor of the other model. That's what always happens but it's the wrong thing to do. The fossils ARE good evidence for the Flood. It's time to get a grip and recognize that simple fact.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2506 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2018 12:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2511 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2018 2:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 2535 by Percy, posted 05-01-2018 3:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2510 of 2887 (832224)
05-01-2018 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2410 by Percy
04-29-2018 4:30 PM


Re: Walther's Law aside (again)
Hey, finally someone defending your model - you've won a convert, congratulations!
This has been bothering me. I much appreciated moose's support of my argument but to call him a convert is extremely unfair of you and can only make it harder for anyone to support anything I say. Moose is clearly against the Flood idea, he's clearly with my opponents, all he did was give an objective judgment of my position that Walther's Law could apply to the Flood model. He was being objective. It probably cost him in this atmosphere to say anything supportive of anything I say, and now it can only be all the harder for him or anyone else because you've tarred him with my views.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2410 by Percy, posted 04-29-2018 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2540 by Percy, posted 05-01-2018 3:32 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 2511 of 2887 (832225)
05-01-2018 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2509 by Faith
05-01-2018 1:32 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
quote:
This is such a piece of nutty confusion. I'd think a moderately intelligent person could at least grasp that evidence can have different interpretations. All you are doing is asserting your favorite interpretation, because the evidence itself of the great abundance of fossils does indeed support the Flood.
The fact that evidence may have different interpretations hardly means that it favours your interpretation over any other.
Selecting one aspect of that evidence and claiming that it is consistent with your view is not even enough to show that your interpretation is valid. And we know that another aspect - the order in the fossil record - cannot be explained by the Flood.
Moreover you have yet to show that the actual abundance of fossils is consistent with the Flood story. From past discussion it seems that the mainstream view does better even there.
quote:
The Flood was intended to kill all land life, the huge numbers of fossils are certainly good evidence for such an event.
There is nothing in the fossil record that indicates it was formed in a single event. Indeed, the evidence points the other way. Not to mention the fossils that were buried in sandstorms, which hardly indicates a flood. The mainstream view better explains this evidence.
quote:
The conditions of a worldwide Flood, the soaking of the entire planet, would have been optimal for the burial and fossilization of a huge number of dead things.
Which might be sensible if fossils were found at the bottom of the geological column rather than being spread through it. Again, the mainstream view does better.
quote:
I'm not at this point even making any further claims that are also supportive of the Flood or against the conventional interpretation. These two ought to make the point. You can still prefer your own interpretation but it's just biased stubbornness, willful ignorance for sure, that has a closed mind to the obvious fact that the existence of the fossils fits the Flood model very well.
Since the order of the fossil record doesn’t fit the Flood model at all - and you know it - this is hardly an honest assessment. Even your above arguments are obvious examples of confirmation bias which fail to provide any analysis or consider the details (wilful ignorance for sure!). So this is just that standard Creationist trick of attributing your flaws to your opponents.
quote:
Everyone will now want to argue all the points in favor of the other model. That's what always happens but it's the wrong thing to do. The fossils ARE good evidence for the Flood. It's time to get a grip and recognize that simple fact.
The simple fact is that there is no aspect of the fossil record that favours the Flood explanation over the conventional view. On the other hand the order of the fossil record convincingly refutes the Flood view. In the face of that, to call the fossil record good evidence of the Flood is simply a lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2509 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 1:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2515 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:01 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 2558 by Percy, posted 05-01-2018 7:01 PM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 2512 of 2887 (832226)
05-01-2018 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2502 by Faith
04-30-2018 11:53 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
OK I can't call them wrong but they don't get to be right without being able to make it make sense to a nonscientist.
That's really stupid Faith. Reality wins even if you don't believe it is real. They are right even if you refuse to learn enough to understand the very basics.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2502 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 11:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 2513 of 2887 (832227)
05-01-2018 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2502 by Faith
04-30-2018 11:53 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
OK I can't call them wrong but they don't get to be right without being able to make it make sense to a nonscientist.
So a scienfic fact isn't right until it's submitted to someone who can't understand it because she hasn't had the training, hasn't the motivation and doesn't have the intelligence to peer review it?
That makes a lot of sense.
I suppose the correct methodology is to test whether the result confirms or denies a biblical story?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2502 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 11:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2514 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 6:58 AM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2514 of 2887 (832229)
05-01-2018 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2513 by Tangle
05-01-2018 6:28 AM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
So a scienfic fact isn't right until it's submitted to someone who can't understand it because she hasn't had the training, hasn't the motivation and doesn't have the intelligence to peer review it?
There's no scientific fact here, there's just a bunch of speculation about what would have happened in the distant past that nobody witnessed. There must be all kinds of variables nobody has thought of, but although that should stop anyone from declaring a "fact," for some reason it doesn't. At least when it comes to speculations that are against the Flood? This is about math, anyway, not scientific anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2513 by Tangle, posted 05-01-2018 6:28 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2519 by Tangle, posted 05-01-2018 7:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2515 of 2887 (832230)
05-01-2018 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2511 by PaulK
05-01-2018 2:23 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
The fact that evidence may have different interpretations hardly means that it favours your interpretation over any other.
I was VERY careful not to claim the evidence "favors" my interpretation. I just want it acknowledged that it is as much evidence for my interpretation as for yours.
As I expected, you won't deal with the simple topic, you have to change the subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2511 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2018 2:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2517 by jar, posted 05-01-2018 7:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 2518 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2018 7:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2516 of 2887 (832231)
05-01-2018 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2508 by NoNukes
05-01-2018 12:53 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
I realize I have the advantage of being outside the charmed circle of what you all like to call Science, so I can see stuff you can't see, but I would think that by now it would at least be a little bit familiar.
This is an old Buzsaw tactic. Claiming that your own ignorance protects you from being deceived by Science. It is no more charming a ploy when you use it.
I'm far from claiming ignorance, NN, I'm saying that since I'm not committed to your paradigm I am able to see things you can't, and I believe that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2508 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2018 12:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2531 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2018 2:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 2517 of 2887 (832232)
05-01-2018 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2515 by Faith
05-01-2018 7:01 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
Faith writes:
I just want it acknowledged that it is as much evidence for my interpretation as for yours.
But once again, you are simply spouting utter nonsense. Fossils are NOT evidence for the Biblical Flood; rather the fossils are direct and overwhelming evidence that they did NOT die in some global flood and that has been explained to you a Brazillion times.
No flood can sort the biological, geological, radiometric, isotopic, cultural and chemical samples in the order found in nature and reality.
The fossils alone are sufficient evidence to conclusively state that no Biblical Flood ever happened.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2515 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2518 of 2887 (832233)
05-01-2018 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2515 by Faith
05-01-2018 7:01 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
quote:
I was VERY careful not to claim the evidence "favors" my interpretation
If it doesn’t it’s hardly good evidence for the Flood. You need to be more careful in your weasel-wording.
quote:
just want it acknowledged that it is as much evidence for my interpretation as for yours.
That obviously isn’t true for the reasons I gave.
quote:
As I expected, you won't deal with the simple topic, you have to change the subject
And that’s an outright lie. As expected. Really, Faith falsely accusing me of acting like you is hardly going to work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2515 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:01 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2519 of 2887 (832234)
05-01-2018 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2514 by Faith
05-01-2018 6:58 AM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
There's no scientific fact here, there's just a bunch of speculation about what would have happened in the distant past that nobody witnessed. There must be all kinds of variables nobody has thought of, but although that should stop anyone from declaring a "fact," for some reason it doesn't. At least when it comes to speculations that are against the Flood? This is about math, anyway, not scientific anything.
And now you're changing the subject. You made this general statement are you retracting it?
Faith writes:
OK I can't call them wrong but they don't get to be right without being able to make it make sense to a nonscientist.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2514 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 6:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2520 of 2887 (832235)
05-01-2018 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 2349 by Percy
04-28-2018 3:44 PM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
I'm calling you on your dismissal of my argument about the two different trilobites. That argument is nothing less than brilliant and I refuse to accept your dismissal. I argued it from the point of view of the basic genetics of the creature. The only way you could answer it is by finding a trilobite example that I can't explain in the same way.
Here's my Message 2285:
Faith in writes:
From Percy's Message 1272
Percy writes:
Here are two different trilobite species. Please explain how they could possibly be the same species:
Here's a page illustrating a more commonly represented trilobite type in which the genal and pygidial spines are evident. And here's the picture:
All it would take is the isolation of a portion of the population in which those features were somewhat larger than in others, so that over generations of breeding within the isolated population they would become exaggerated to the degree seen in the second illustration. This principle of exaggeration of a trait over generations is illustrated by Darwin's breeding of pigeons for that very purpose: to increase a particular trait. The same principle is seen in the Pod Mrcaru lizards through natural selection of larger head and jaw exaggerated over generations of breeding within the new population started with the ten original individuals.
At the same time the pleural spines of the trilobite, those "leg" like things, would have been reduced in the original founding group. That's all it takes, isolation of individuals whose features are already exaggerated or reduced by generations of previous isolation events. They are all naturally occurring trilobite genetic possibilities, so they are all the same Kind.
There is a great variety of trilobites for sure, but as you look through the images available on the web you should notice that they are all the same creature with different features either emphasized or deemphasized, but they all have the very same features. There is a very spider-like one whose pleural spines look like many long spider legs for instance, but it's still a trilobite and those are its pleural spines. Seems to me the original trilobite genome carried all these possible variations, and processes of selection through isolation over the generations caused the different features to emerge to characterize many different subspecies.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2349 by Percy, posted 04-28-2018 3:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2521 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2018 7:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 2525 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2018 9:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 2594 by Percy, posted 05-02-2018 1:33 PM Faith 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