|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
Thanks for the book reference! But I would disagree with you on a few things. As for USA killing people, you cannot put someone to death without indisputable evidence, or numerous witnesses, (at least that is the way it's supposed to be). The Earth's age is disputable, otherwise why would there be people who dispute about it? Young Earth creationists do actually have some good evidence. I do not know all of it, but I do know a little if you want to hear it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
sorry bout that. Thanks for enlisting the Genesis topic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Young Earth creationists do actually have some good evidence. I do not know all of it, but I do know a little if you want to hear it.
The evidence belongs in the dates and dating forum I would presume. Please lets hear it! I've been here a year and no one has bothered to show us. You also need to handle the evidence which falsifies the idea of a young earth. I'd suggest you have a look at:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: You haven't been reading the news, have you? About a year and a half ago the governor of Illinois commuted the sentences of all the death row inmates because it was determined there were too many examples of innocent people being sentenced to death. Do a google search for "ryan death penalty". -
quote:I have no idea why people dispute it. The earth is so obviously, clearly over 4 billion years old, based on multiple, independent lines of evidence in many different scientific fields, that it is mind bobbling that anyone in an industrialized nation in the 21st century can still maintain a belief in a literal reading of genesis. --
quote:They might. However, if they do then for some reason they choose to hide it; I have seen so very little good evidence in favor of creationism. -
quote:Yes, indeed I do! But put in in another thread - this one is for the lack of human remains in Mesozooic strata (or even older strata). Would you like to take a shot at that one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
I would do it, but you are debating carbon-14 dating and other like methods at the present. I don't want to switch subjects on you now. But if you really want me to give you my few evidences, post something that would be easy for me to reply to so I don't have to spend a long time catching up on what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
Okay, I do have something to say about the geological column. There is no indisputable evidence that the rock layers represent layers of time. Rock layers can also be formed by natural disasters. You also have to admit that the fossil record is severely lacking of any intermediate links. There should be more intermediate links than the inindividual species themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
Actually Ned, come to think of it, nevermind. It is already hectic enough without another forum to watch out for. Sorry I can't help you out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:The method of formation of the layers can usually be easily determined by trained geologists. -
quote:I admit no such thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Actually Ned, come to think of it, nevermind. It is already hectic enough without another forum to watch out for. Sorry I can't help you out. Then resist the temptation to make assertions that you don't have time or the knowledge to back up. That goes for the geologic layers too. You aren't the first to make those assertions (heck you're not even in the first 100) and the result is the same whenever anyone is asked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
Can you please admit that there are not as many intermediate links as there should be? That would make me feel a whole lot better about debating with you. If you have done the research, you should know that the "intermediate links" that have been found are iffy at best. The link you most likely think is the best between man and ape is, "Australopithecus afarensis." I believe that since pretty much all the evidence points to the guess that it is an ape, that it is an ape and an ape only.
p.s. I know about the ankle and hip joints. You don't have to bring that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
Sorry bout that. I'll try to manage my debates more carefully next time. But I really do have a little of what the young earth creationists say, but I'm not as good as they are at explaining it, and here is not the place.
This message has been edited by Proboscis, 05-07-2004 04:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
But there should be more intermediate link fossils than individual species themselves, that you should admit. Darwin even stated that there would have to be a lot more intermediate links than there are now.
This message has been edited by Proboscis, 05-07-2004 04:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Can you please admit that there are not as many intermediate links as there should be? How many "should" there be?
If you have done the research, you should know that the "intermediate links" that have been found are iffy at best. I'm pretty sure, at this point, that you haven't done the research. Research does not consist of reading without suspicion literalist web sites. Research would be actually reading something about the actual discoveries. Ideally the original papers but that is a bit too much to expect. Popularizations by the actual researchers is a pretty resonable subsitute. This is an assertion, again! Now it is time to explain, in your own words, with supporting evidence why they should be described as "iffy". {qsThe link you most likely think is the best between man and ape is, "Australopithecus afarensis." I believe that since pretty much all the evidence points to the guess that it is an ape, that it is an ape and an ape only. [/qs] There are, of course, a series of "links". Since you've done so much research you're aware of all the same evidence we are. It is therefore odd that we are so far apart in our assessement of it. We should try to figure out why that is. Perhaps if you started by describing both how many links there "should be" and why you think that number is reasonable. Then you could describe what you think a "link" should be like. It appears that we have different ideas on what a link is. That might explain the discrepancy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Proboscis Inactive Member |
After rereading your post, it made me believe that you think I don't actually have evidence. I do and if you REALLY want to here it, I guess i can switch forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
But there should be more intermediate link fossils than individual species themselves, that you should admit. Care to show your calculations? I think that what you are saying is so obvious I don't know why you bother to state it. Some species are represented by one specimen. It is, of course, very desirable to have as many samples of a species as you can find. Off the top of my head I'd say that a majority of species are represented by more than one sample. So?
Darwin even stated that there would have to be a lot more intermediate links than there are now. I think you're right he said something like that. But his "now" isn't our "now". When he made the statement, 150 years ago, there were pretty much zero homonid fossils. He, rightly, pointed out that his theory required more as support. Guess what! We found 'em. Another thing we have learned in the meantime is a lot about how fossils form (and more importantly how they aren't easily formed). This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-07-2004 04:59 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024