Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   calling creationists
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 21 (6103)
03-04-2002 5:57 AM


honk, honk!!
calling all creationists!!!
last chance to save your sinking theory!!
thought i should bring this up:
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Umm, which Flood model are you describing? According to Genesis, the entire world was covered in about 40 days. That's pretty fast by any standards."
--Yes that is fast, though in being more specific for randomness would be more like flooding the earth in a matter of an hour or some hours. Though even if you were to do this, you would still find a remnance of a uniform burrial, though it sertainly would be much more random. Also then you have very little obsticle for environmental conditions such as the rising ice age killing the dinosaurs at the point of the K-T boundary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Au contraire, mon frere. There is literally NO mechanism that can account for fossil stratigraphy EXCEPT geologic time. Let me make this perfectly clear: NO FLOOD MODEL YOU'VE PRESENTED EXPLAINS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD. (Sorry for shouting.) There are NO repeat NO anomalies as would be required by any global flood. Not to mention the utter lack of any geological evidence of rapid deposition. Not to mention the utter inability of a Flood - of any size - to explain things like fossilized mudcracks, raindrops, animal tracks, bioturbation, evaporite formations, etc etc etc.
i hope for a reply to the above quote, with NO SUPERNATURAL AND/OR UNEXPLAINABLE ORGANIZATION OF THE FOSSIL STRATA!
here's the challenge: prove to the neo-nazi-evilutionists that a flood could
a) organize the fossil strata in such away so that it appears that evolution has occured
and
b) fail to fossilize one modern animal...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 04-11-2002 1:06 PM quicksink has not replied
 Message 4 by ksc, posted 04-28-2002 10:31 PM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 21 (6147)
03-05-2002 5:45 AM


pushing this one just so that i can get an answer..

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 21 (8451)
04-11-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-04-2002 5:57 AM


Quicksink,
Am I to understand you correctly that ?? literally without geometry correlation of strata to anything one can name no concept of time would even be metaphysically possible. I tend to think this is what you mean by "no mechanism". In spirit, am I wrong here@?
I had tied for years to think of how bio-strucuture could "encode" long amounts of time for functional release but even evolution thinking biologists do not seem ready for that idea which I tend to realize now in what Mayr calls "proximate" biology. I think Mayr was misgrown the biology but that is besides your point I take it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-04-2002 5:57 AM quicksink has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 4 of 21 (9084)
04-28-2002 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-04-2002 5:57 AM


The fossils record is just as expected if a great flood deposited the strata. First the sea creatures perished then the marshy then the land animals. Why do you say this can't happen in this order?
Do you know there are many ways that sorted the fossils?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-04-2002 5:57 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 04-28-2002 10:46 PM You have not replied
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 04-28-2002 11:09 PM You have not replied

     
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 5 of 21 (9086)
04-28-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ksc
04-28-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Do you know there are many ways that sorted the fossils?
The fossil record in the geologic column is one of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, concident with increasing age as indicated by radiometric dating. How does a single flood explain not only this, but also the evidence in the geologic layers themselves about where, when and how they were deposited?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ksc, posted 04-28-2002 10:31 PM ksc has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 21 (9087)
04-28-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ksc
04-28-2002 10:31 PM


--I can agree with both ksc and Percipient in some areas regarding fossil deposition. ksc isn't going to get too far if his argument were to be as vague as he put it, though he has a point (though some-what vague still).
--Percipient would however be incorrect to say that 'modern' forms are less found with increasing depth. This technically would only be true if infact uniformitarian deposition were allready true, so you cannot place a circular argument on the issue. Scorpions for instance are found virtually unchanged in the fossil record in 420 million year sediment deposits (on the uniformitarian scale). He is also relatively correct that radionucleic dating within its assumptions will give older dates as you increase in sedimentary depth (daughter isotopes are found in higher quantities, that is for Parent/Daughter isotopic ratio's). Paleontology and fossil deposition isn't my favorite topic within the argument for the Flood, I am more into Flood Mechanics. However, some of my studies on radioisotopic dating seemingly is beginning to propel my thinking on radioisotopes. I am haveing some thought on radioitosopic deposition within lithophilic elements, or something along that line.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ksc, posted 04-28-2002 10:31 PM ksc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 04-29-2002 12:10 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-29-2002 12:56 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 7 of 21 (9091)
04-29-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
04-28-2002 11:09 PM


TrueCreation writes:

Percipient would however be incorrect to say that 'modern' forms are less found with increasing depth.
On the contrary, increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth is precisely what we find. This is the primary reason that many years before Darwin formulated his theory it was already realized that life had evolved over time.

Scorpions for instance are found virtually unchanged in the fossil record in 420 million year sediment deposits (on the uniformitarian scale).
Your statements don't seem to reflect the understanding of someone who has read 10 geology books.
The lifetime of some species is short, of others is long. Some species have existed virtually unchanged for over hundred million years, while others have made only a brief appearance, flitting into existence through speciation and out again through extinction in only a geological instant.

He is also relatively correct that radionucleic dating within its assumptions will give older dates as you increase in sedimentary depth (daughter isotopes are found in higher quantities, that is for Parent/Daughter isotopic ratio's).
Radiometric dating has been explained to you several times now, so I don't understand why you're still raising the same simplistic objections. Dating methods have not only been cross-confirmed literally thousands of time, but the isochron methods render the daughter isotope issue moot. Not only that, but despite all the potential problems of the early dating techniques that Creationists love to cite, such as for U/Pb, the dates of the highly accurate modern methods broadly confirm those of the supposedly inaccurate earlier approaches.

However, some of my studies on radioisotopic dating seemingly is beginning to propel my thinking on radioisotopes. I am haveing some thought on radioitosopic deposition within lithophilic elements, or something along that line.
I have no idea what this means, and I don't think you do, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 04-28-2002 11:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 7:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 8 of 21 (9094)
04-29-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
04-28-2002 11:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Percipient would however be incorrect to say that 'modern' forms are less found with increasing depth.
Percipient would be perfectly correct to say it and visit to a natural history museum with a decent fossil collection would confirm out. The deeper the deposition (in general, of course, allowing for disturbances to the stratigraphy) the more unlike modern forms the fossils become. Of course, there are some genera which which fit persistent niches and they can be found in more or less modern form going way back. That is entirely to be expected.
BTW, Percy did not create a circular argument but dates the ages of these forms with radiometric dating. I know you don't trust radiometric dating, but that really is up to you. Percy's argument is perfectly sound, unless radiometric dating is wrong, but that is a different issue on which you have failed to make noticeable progress elsewhere in the forum.[/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 04-28-2002 11:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ksc, posted 04-29-2002 2:17 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 7:34 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
ksc
Guest


Message 9 of 21 (9100)
04-29-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mister Pamboli
04-29-2002 12:56 AM


Of course the fossil record also bears witness to the flood of Noah with the sudden appearance of complex and sophisticated fossils found in the basement cambrian formations with no ancestral linage leading up to them.
If evolutionwere true then there should be an ancestral linage.
The geological record favors the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-29-2002 12:56 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-29-2002 2:38 AM You have not replied

     
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 10 of 21 (9101)
04-29-2002 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ksc
04-29-2002 2:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ksc:
Of course the fossil record also bears witness to the flood of Noah with the sudden appearance of complex and sophisticated fossils found in the basement cambrian formations with no ancestral linage leading up to them.
Where to start? Firstly, the appearance is not quite so sudden as is often made out. Secondly this fantastically efficient "sorting" of organisms by the flood, is quite unbelievable given the complete lack of expected exceptions
and thirdly there is evidence of ancestral lineage. There are clearly homologous structures in a very large number of Cambrian species which indicate common ancestry.[b] [QUOTE]If evolutionwere true then there should be an ancestral linage. The geological record favors the flood. [/b][/QUOTE]
The geologic record most certainly does not favour the flood, as was first demonstrated by profoundly Christian geologists many many years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ksc, posted 04-29-2002 2:17 AM ksc has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 21 (9116)
04-29-2002 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
04-29-2002 12:10 AM


"On the contrary, increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth is precisely what we find. This is the primary reason that many years before Darwin formulated his theory it was already realized that life had evolved over time."
--Excuse me percy, yes I was incorrect in saying this in this mannor. Infact after I realized the flaw and thinking about it after a while, I would expect it to be along this line. 'simpler' forms are more prone to change and adaption through natural selection from more factors vulnerable than other forms such as isolating populations. However I would be interested in seeing more information on these differences, I am not too much into zoology and paleontology, though it does interest me a bit.
"Your statements don't seem to reflect the understanding of someone who has read 10 geology books."
--Geology incorperates some paleontology, however not at all as much as the the actual field of paleontology, I am more into the studies in Geologic mechanics and lithospheric dynamics (plate tectonics)along with various sedimentary and rock formations. So I would be more prone to display a higher lack of knowledge in paleontology rather than geology.
"The lifetime of some species is short, of others is long. Some species have existed virtually unchanged for over hundred million years, while others have made only a brief appearance, flitting into existence through speciation and out again through extinction in only a geological instant."
--This is a simple factoid I took into account in my thoughts for my first comment.
"Radiometric dating has been explained to you several times now, so I don't understand why you're still raising the same simplistic objections."
--I had not displayed objections in my post?
"Dating methods have not only been cross-confirmed literally thousands of time, but the isochron methods render the daughter isotope issue moot. Not only that, but despite all the potential problems of the early dating techniques that Creationists love to cite, such as for U/Pb, the dates of the highly accurate modern methods broadly confirm those of the supposedly inaccurate earlier approaches."
--I don't think it would be wise for me to cite my objections untill I have more information on radioisotopic dating.
"I have no idea what this means, and I don't think you do, either."
--I do know what I am talking about. A lithophilic element is pertaining to elements that tend to become concentrated in the silicate phase of meteorites or the crustal rocks of the earth. Something that is of study in the realm of the distribution of radioactive isotopes in the earth and some Geochemistry. I do believe the rest is self-explanitory when I say 'radioisotopic deposition within lithophilic elements, or something along that line'.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 04-29-2002 12:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-29-2002 11:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 21 (9117)
04-29-2002 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mister Pamboli
04-29-2002 12:56 AM


"BTW, Percy did not create a circular argument but dates the ages of these forms with radiometric dating. I know you don't trust radiometric dating, but that really is up to you. Percy's argument is perfectly sound, unless radiometric dating is wrong, but that is a different issue on which you have failed to make noticeable progress elsewhere in the forum."
--This was not a statement regarding radioisotopes, I stated that 'This technically would only be true if infact uniformitarian deposition were allready true, so you cannot place a circular argument on the issue'. As for your first paragraph, see my last post to percy.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-29-2002 12:56 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 13 of 21 (9128)
04-29-2002 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by TrueCreation
04-29-2002 7:31 PM


TrueCreation writes:

'simpler' forms are more prone to change and adaption through natural selection from more factors vulnerable than other forms such as isolating populations. However I would be interested in seeing more information on these differences, I am not too much into zoology and paleontology, though it does interest me a bit.
This reply avoids the issue you yourself raised. Fossils in the geologic column increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth. The geologic column is a record of change over time. It shows species passing into and out of existence. Some persist in the geologic record for long periods, some for short. Deflecting discussion with a "like to see more information" type of comment is evasive. The amount of information available in the early 1800s was sufficient for students of nature to conclude evolution had happened - no more is necessary.
A map of the entire United States will tell you that New York and San Francisco are about 3000 miles apart. Your hope that more detail will reveal the earth is really only 10,000 years old is like hoping that detailed examination of roadmaps for the individual states will reveal that San Francisco and New York are actually both in Manhattan.
Just as a map of the entire country is more than sufficient for a solid estimate of the distance between New York and San Francisco, what you already know about fossils, geologic layers and radiometric dating is more than sufficient to understand that the earth is a very ancient place.

Geology incorperates some paleontology, however not at all as much as the the actual field of paleontology, I am more into the studies in Geologic mechanics and lithospheric dynamics (plate tectonics)along with various sedimentary and rock formations. So I would be more prone to display a higher lack of knowledge in paleontology rather than geology.
The sedimentary layers you mention are named for the periods of life contained within them: Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, etc. Our understanding of the geologic and fossil information in the layers developed simultaneously. Even Creationism recognizes this when they mistakenly claim that dating is circular (the layer tells what life will be found there, the life found there tells what layer it is). You can't possibly have read 10 geology books without knowing the intimate relationship between the fossil record and the geologic column of sedimentary layers.

This is a simple factoid I took into account in my thoughts for my first comment.
Unless this translates as "I was wrong" or "I spoke without thinking", I have no idea what this means.
Percy writes:

Radiometric dating has been explained to you several times now, so I don't understand why you're still raising the same simplistic objections.
TC replies:

I had not displayed objections in my post?
Are you asking if you posted messages in response? Or are you asking if you addressed the issues? If the latter, then no, you haven't. You not only didn't address them, you didn't even indicate an understanding of them. Every geology book includes a discussion of radiometric dating. This is yet another indicator lending me doubt that you've read any.

I don't think it would be wise for me to cite my objections until I have more information on radioisotopic dating.
This statement isn't consistent with your just previous question, "I had not displayed objections in my post?" If you don't think you know enough to address the issues now, then obviously you couldn't have addressed them in earlier messages.

I do know what I am talking about.
Someone who feels constantly called upon to claim that he does *to* know what he's talking about is in need of some serious self examination.
Look, TC, everyone, including me, likes you and likes that you're here, but that doesn't change the fact that you're transparently pretending you know and understand far more than you do. The act was fun for a while, but it's getting old and wearing thin.

A lithophilic element is pertaining to elements that tend to become concentrated in the silicate phase of meteorites or the crustal rocks of the earth. Something that is of study in the realm of the distribution of radioactive isotopes in the earth and some Geochemistry. I do believe the rest is self-explanitory when I say 'radioisotopic deposition within lithophilic elements, or something along that line'.
I have no idea what this means, and I don't think you do, either.
A lithophilic element is simply an element found in the lithosphere. That's pretty much all naturally occurring elements. It has nothing specifically to do with radioactive isotopes at all.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 04-29-2002 7:31 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Joe Meert, posted 04-30-2002 12:41 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 15 by joz, posted 04-30-2002 9:51 AM Percy has replied
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 05-04-2002 12:50 AM Percy has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 21 (9129)
04-30-2002 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-29-2002 11:53 PM


Hey TC,
Remember the discussion about keeping things simple. Drop the attempt to try and sound sophisticated (your spelling is enough to discredit that attempt!) and try to post simple, reasoned arguments. The more you try to 'sound' intelligent, the more you read like Brad McFall.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-29-2002 11:53 PM Percy has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 21 (9140)
04-30-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-29-2002 11:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
A map of the entire United States will tell you that New York and San Francisco are about 3000 miles apart. Your hope that more detail will reveal the earth is really only 10,000 years old is like hoping that detailed examination of roadmaps for the individual states will reveal that San Francisco and New York are actually both in Manhattan.
Well to an observer travelling at 0.9999944444 of the speed of light they are only 10 miles apart.....
Of course that observer is about 300 times as heavy as he is at rest (must be a he no woman would voluntarily make herself heavier) and probably has enough problems breathing without worrying about manhattan and San Francisco only being 10 miles apart.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 04-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-29-2002 11:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-02-2002 5:30 PM joz 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