|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 2459 of 2887 (832150)
04-30-2018 9:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2451 by Percy
04-30-2018 9:13 AM
|
|
Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
"Pretty flat" is not flat as any rock in the geo column which was obviously formed originally as a flat wet expanse of sediment that in many cases covered so many hundreds of thousands of miles any comparison with lumpy bumpy fields with things growing on them that cover only a hundredth or thousandth of that area is ludicrous. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2451 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 9:13 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2487 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 6:17 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2462 of 2887 (832154)
04-30-2018 9:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2451 by Percy
04-30-2018 9:13 AM
|
|
Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
Simply crushing a lumpy field with things growing on it is not going to produce anything like the rock surfaces found in the geo column. I'm sorry I give such short shrift to your posts since you put so much time in on them, and I know I do, but I think so much of what you say really isn't worth thinking about. Sorry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2451 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 9:13 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2481 of 2887 (832192)
04-30-2018 4:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2478 by Percy
04-30-2018 3:52 PM
|
|
Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
The whole idea of landscapes in ancient time periods is impossible. What evidence is telling you this? I'm talking about the idea that a layer of rock in the geo column represents a landscape. The rock itself is the evidence against the idea.
A 6500 year old landscape is ancient and possible, right? As far as I know there is no rock that is purported to represent such a supposed landscape. I think you are completely missing the point. As for the rest I've given the evidence and am not going to repeat it because you didn't get it then and won't get it now either. Cheers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2478 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 3:52 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2491 of 2887 (832202)
04-30-2018 9:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2486 by Percy
04-30-2018 5:57 PM
|
|
Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
I'm talking about a bald flat rock with no signs of ever having been anything but a bald flat rock in the making, in other words a huge flat expanse of wet bald sediment. Most strata, especially since the pre-Cambrian, contains signs of life. The Kaibab contains fossils of sea floor life. When what is now the Kaibab was on the sea floor, what is it about slow sedimentation gradually burying the layer to great depths that you have a problem with. Are you just unable to entertain my completely different point of view or are you refusing? 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? Are you unable to picture the great slabs of rock that make up the geologic column, or if you prefer, any given stratigraphic column? The sandstone or the mudstone or the limestone etc? Can you not see them in your mind extending far and wide across the land flat as a pancake, which show up in the core samples among all the other vast slabs of rock? Can you not envision them as originally a vast expanse of flat wet sediment on which nothing in a particular "time period" could have lived? Do you really believe your pictures of "flat" fields could ever become a flat single-sediment rock from any depth of burial? Really? Flat as the rock with the archaeopteryx in it? Really? The depth might lithify it, but not flatten it and not turn it into a single sediment from the mixed soils and sediments that exist on any landscape. 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 well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2486 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 5:57 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2493 of 2887 (832204)
04-30-2018 9:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2492 by edge
04-30-2018 9:03 PM
|
|
Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
A bunch of numbers that as far as I can tell have no necessary relation to anything real that can be pictured. Just a lot of mystification. I see mid ocean ridges which look like tiny threads of heat beneath a gigantic volume of cold water, like trying to heat ten thousand gallons of water with a candle, and volcanoes, even many of them, as tiny little anthills beneath that same volume, just so many more candles in relation to the enormous amount of water, and I can figure in friction from the movement of the continents, but except for the beginning jolt the friction should give way to the momentum, and the volume of the cold ocean water continues to impress me, as does the idea that any degree of increased heat would bring on the ice of the ice age. All those "joules" are really quite meaningless. Oh I'm probably way underestimating, but the point is that there is nothing to take seriously in the speculations of people who reject the Flood for starters. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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 2492 by edge, posted 04-30-2018 9:03 PM | | edge has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2496 of 2887 (832207)
04-30-2018 9:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2494 by edge
04-30-2018 9:27 PM
|
|
Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
To my incredulity you answer with your credulity. "All of that heat released in one year is simply astounding." I wasn't insincere, I really wanted to see some calculations I could follow. Maybe there aren't any. See if you can find anything, some homely analogy perhaps, like my ten thousand gallon pot over a candle. abe: Take your time, I'm going to go make some dinner and then watch the second season of "Unforgotten." Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2494 by edge, posted 04-30-2018 9:27 PM | | edge has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2498 of 2887 (832211)
04-30-2018 11:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2497 by NoNukes
04-30-2018 10:51 PM
|
|
Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
But this is one of those accusations that comes up against the Flood all the time. If they can't make it make sense they shouldn't bring it up. They don't get to call themselves right without proving it. Just saying the heat released was "simply astounding" doesn't cut it. I really did hope to get at least a ballpark idea of how they get to their view, but maybe it's not possible. But of course we can just drop the subject. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2497 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2018 10:51 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2500 of 2887 (832213)
04-30-2018 11:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2499 by DrJones*
04-30-2018 11:36 PM
|
|
Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Sure I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2499 by DrJones*, posted 04-30-2018 11:36 PM | | DrJones* has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2530 by Percy, posted 05-01-2018 2:46 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 2502 of 2887 (832215)
04-30-2018 11:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2501 by Coyote
04-30-2018 11:40 PM
|
|
Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2501 by Coyote, posted 04-30-2018 11:40 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 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 |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 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 |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 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 1474 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 1474 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 |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 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 1272Percy 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 |
|
™ Version 4.2
