Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 69 (106367)
05-07-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by JonF
05-07-2004 4:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 05-07-2004 4:24 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 4:49 PM Proboscis has replied
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 4:58 PM Proboscis has replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 69 (106368)
05-07-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AdminNosy
05-07-2004 4:40 PM


Re: Sorry this is a little off topic
sorry bout that. Thanks for enlisting the Genesis topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by AdminNosy, posted 05-07-2004 4:40 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 69 (106371)
05-07-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:44 PM


Love to hear 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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:44 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 69 (106375)
05-07-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:44 PM


quote:
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).
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:
why would there be people who dispute about it?
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:
Young Earth creationists do actually have some good evidence.
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:
I do know a little if you want to hear it.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:44 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:08 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 69 (106376)
05-07-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
05-07-2004 4:49 PM


Re: Love to hear it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 4:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:12 PM Proboscis has not replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 69 (106377)
05-07-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
05-07-2004 4:58 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 4:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 5:18 PM Proboscis has replied
 Message 26 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:25 PM Proboscis has not replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 69 (106379)
05-07-2004 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 5:00 PM


Re: Love to hear it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:00 PM Proboscis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 5:23 PM Proboscis has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 69 (106382)
05-07-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 5:08 PM


quote:
Rock layers can also be formed by natural disasters.
The method of formation of the layers can usually be easily determined by trained geologists.
-
quote:
You also have to admit that the fossil record is severely lacking of any intermediate links.
I admit no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:08 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:33 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2004 6:09 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 69 (106386)
05-07-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 5:12 PM


Re: Love to hear it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:12 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:27 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 30 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:38 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 69 (106387)
05-07-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 5:08 PM


Intermediate links
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:08 PM Proboscis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 5:34 PM Proboscis has replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 69 (106390)
05-07-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
05-07-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Love to hear it!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 5:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 69 (106392)
05-07-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chiroptera
05-07-2004 5:18 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 5:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 5:44 PM Proboscis has not replied
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2004 6:50 PM Proboscis has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 69 (106393)
05-07-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 5:25 PM


Re: Intermediate links
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:25 PM Proboscis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Proboscis
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 69 (106394)
05-07-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
05-07-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Love to hear it!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 5:23 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 6:02 PM Proboscis has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 69 (106395)
05-07-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 5:33 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 5:33 PM Proboscis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024