|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The abundance of fossils alone IS evidence yet you all refuse to see it, which I think is bizarre. The evidence is the fossils, not your claims about them. It seems you are incapable of comprehending this. You need to explain why and how the abundance of fossils supports your claim that they they are more consistent with a fludde than the mainstream scenario. Including how they are distributed in the stratgraphy. And making up more ad-hoc fantasies is not support. We see the abundance and have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanhk you very much for attempting to make this clear. I am too distracted right now to try to deal with it but do want to.
Okay, sure. To boil a gallon of water from room temperature takes a million joules (approximately - I'm only going to use ballpark figures), so to boil 10,000 gallons would take 10 billion joules. A candle gives off about a hundred watts, so it would take about 3 years (10 billion joules divided by 100 watts) to boil the water in the 10,000 gallon pot. To do it in one year, the year of the flood, would take 3 candles. Naturally the pot would never boil because a year is a long time and the candle heat transferred to the water in the pot would just radiate into the air. Now let's imagine that the heat of 3 candles for 175 million years were delivered to the 10,000 gallon pot, which would be equivalent to 525 million candles. Naturally the water would heat up much faster. In fact it would heat up so fast that the 10,000 gallons would take only .2 seconds to boil. Get the idea? This sounds very very strange to me but as I said I have to come back to it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The evidence is the fossils, not your claims about them. It seems you are incapable of comprehending this. You need to explain why and how the abundance of fossils supports your claim that they they are more consistent with a fludde than the mainstream scenario. Including how they are distributed in the stratgraphy. And making up more ad-hoc fantasies is not support. Good GRIEF I can't believe anyone would have such a view. The mere abundance of dead things seen all over the world is in itself something one would expect of the worldwide Flood: it fits with what the Flood was intended to accomplish, and it fits with the ideal conditions afforded by such a worldwide inundation for fossilization.
We see the abundance and have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe. That is no doubt part of the reason for the stubborn refusal to see its obvious compatibility with the idea of the Flood, you really think that, but nevertheless if you could just step outside that frame of reference for half a second I would think the applicability of the Flood would be obvious. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
A white swan is technically evidence that all swans are white.
The abundance of fossils - even if it were shown to be broadly consistent with the Flood story is little better. If it were to be shown that the Flood were the best explanation of the abundance Faith would have a point. Unfortunately for her, a large number of fossils is expected given an old Earth (for reasons that should be obvious). And that is all she has. If Faith had good evidence she wouldn’t bother with something so worthless. The fact that she puts it forward as her best example shows that she has no real case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: 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... I think we're all still trying to understand what Moose meant when he said you had a less wrong view of Walther's Law than I did, and that your flood model followed Walther's Law. He posted a reply later, but it didn't seem to address these issues and I still don't know what to think.
...but to call him a convert is extremely unfair of you... Yeah, I feel bad about that - I apologize and hope Moose forgives me.
...and can only make it harder for anyone to support anything I say. I don't follow your reasoning, but Moose's post was the strongest expression of support for your views that I think I've ever seen here, and on an extremely technical point, too.
Moose is clearly against the Flood idea,... But in saying that your flood model was consistent with Walther's Law it seemed to me that he was weakening on that position.
...he's clearly with my opponents,... Not in that post he wasn't.
...all he did was give an objective judgment of my position that Walther's Law could apply to the Flood model. Well, it certainly raised some questions that haven't been answered yet. I've posted quite a bit of information about Walther's Law to you. I hope you get a chance to look it over.
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. I don't think it costs anyone here to honestly express and defend their views. I certainly haven't seen any hostility or resentment expressed toward Moose. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The conditions for fossilization are not fulfilled by the Old Earth scenarios, you have to do a lot of piecemeal speculating to make it fit together. but the conditions are abundantly fulfilled by the worldwide Flood. You don't have the conditions and you don't have any reason for expecting to find preserved dead things either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Moose is clearly against the Flood idea,... But in saying that your flood model was consistent with Walther's Law it seemed to me that he was weakening on that position. But this is exactly what is so unfair. A person ought to be able to judge one small point as true without being considered to be weakening on the overall argument. The small point is that Walther's Law should apply to rising sea water whether it is slow or fast. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Flood argument, it's simply an observation he made about this one small point. What you are are saying is that nobody could ever agree with any factual statement I make because any small factual point supports the whole Flood model. This is nonsense and very unfair. You are confirming what I said: nobody could ever support the tiniest side point for fear it would sound like they are agreeing with my whole argument.
...he's clearly with my opponents,... Not in that post he wasn't. Same problem. One small point of fact does not change a person's whole orientation. It's not as if he said it can't happen slowly according to the conventional theory. Unfortunately your way of thinking about this does suggest that none of this has anything to do with objective truth, it's all about emotional bias. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: No, we just have to assume that floods and rivers and swamps and volcanoes and sandstorms and so on were pretty much the same in the past as they are now. And with hundreds of millions of years worth of all those things, of course there are a lot of fossils. Your point is just silly nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, we just have to assume that floods and rivers and swamps and volcanoes and sandstorms and so on were pretty much the same in the past as they are now. And with hundreds of millions of years worth of all those things, of course there are a lot of fossils. To believe this accounts for all the fossils requires believing that local "floods and rivers and swamps and volcanoes and sandstorms and so on" are what is seen in the geologic/stratigraphic column and it is obvious that they are not. Most of the strata extend across vast areas which is not the case with any of the phenomena you refer to, and they do NOT produce flat sedimentary rocks over all that area. You are fooling yourself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
he mere abundance of dead things seen all over the world is in itself something one would expect of the worldwide Flood: That observation is not sufficient to call fossils evidence for the Flood. And as has been explained to you dozens of times, the problem is that the competing theories also are consistent with the same abundance of fossils. Do you have any counter, whatsoever, for that argument? Because to date you have not presented one. Further, the scientific view is consistent with the details of those fossils and is not consistent with the Flood. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: According to your uninformed opinion. In reality they are found. We’ve seen pictures of river channels, read reports of fossils produced by being covered in volcanic ash, I’ve even seen fossils buried in sandstorms, in a museum.
quote: Geological formations are not simply flat and featureless slabs of a single type of rock. We know this. If you don’t by now then the problem is entirely yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Oh, the abundance is probably consistent with a fludde. It's also definitely consistent with the mainstream explanation. So it's no basis for thinking one explanation is better than the other. So, unless you can make a rational argument that the abundance is not consistent with the mainstream explanation, it's a wash and discussing it is fruitless. BTW depreciating isn't rational argument; don't say "stupid", "silly", "ludicrous" or the like.
The distribution , now that's a different story. Again we have an explanation which is consistent with all else scientific we know about the Universe. You have "no known physics can account for it but something must have done it". We know a lot of physics. There's good reason to believe only direct Divine intervention could produce what we see by a fludde. There our explanation clearly is better, and the distribution of fossils is an observed fact that cries out for explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The mere abundance of dead things seen all over the world is in itself something one would expect of the worldwide Flood: it fits with what the Flood was intended to accomplish, and it fits with the ideal conditions afforded by such a worldwide inundation for fossilization. That is total and utter bullshit Faith and why it is bullshit has been explained to you a brazillion times and it is only the dogma of your Cult that you present, not any evidence. It is impossible for a flood to sort the samples found in reality in the order found in reality. There was never a Biblical Flood! That's fact and truth, Faith. Claiming there is evidence for the Biblical Flood is just lying and fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh, the abundance is probably consistent with a fludde. That is all I asked to be acknowledged. Thank you for that much. The rest is irrelevant. And if you are going to keep saying things like this would require divine intervention, which it wouldn't, I'm going to keep pointing out that the standard interpretation is indeed ridiculous,.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Where you find fossils forming today has absolutely nothing to do with the fossils in the stratigraphic/geologic column, which are clearly NOT found in such local places, as I explained.
The strata in the geo column are indeed flat and featureless and cover huge areas and that's where the Flood deposited all the dead creatures. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024