|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Or maybe he's confused and ignorant and can't maintain a coherent argument. Another common creationist trait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You could always form a Cambrian Cow Consortium (CCC) and go looking. And you'd either find a CC or continue indefinitely. IMHO scientific tests are not necessarily finite time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I googled "ocean floor sediment layers." Funny there's really nothing at all similar to the geo column down there. Lying again. The claim was layers, not rocks. I looked at that search and count five on the first page that discuss layers on the sea floor, including at least one sonar image that clearly shows layers:
And if you go to the image search version , you can easily see:
Remember, it's layers, not rocks. And those layers exist. Exactly how to those layers fail to resemble the geologic column?
Ocean floor sediment cores which also doesn't demonstrate anything along the lines of the formation of a geo column. So much for your knowledge of geology. I looked at that search... it's an image search, and you missed this one:
quote: Layers out the wazoo. And you missed:
And:
And:
And:
quote: Layers, Faithie-poo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And somewhere in there someone remarked that considering how old the earth supposedly is, a few billion years or so, there should be a lot more stuff on the ocean floors than there is. Must be someone just as ignorant as you.. The ocean floors are much younger than the Earth. Plate Tectonics. The Atlantic is only around 130 million years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't know why you are all insisting the sediments in the ocean are at all like the geo column when they clearly aren't. I produced the links that show that they aren't. You produced links and claimed that they show you are correct. I looked at the links and they prove you wrong.
All you've done is assert that they are. See above, from cursory inspection of your links (which you obviously did not do).
There's no similar layering and I can't find any evidence of fossilization going on in anything I looked at either. Exactly what evidence would you expect to find if fossils werr being formed? Something like Whale Fall?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I notice you skipped over my proof of your lies. Typical.
Location problem: Now we're told that it is continuing, but not where it originally accumulated. No, it's continuing at the bottom of the oceans. Which of course makes no sense if we're talking about the sequential record of time on earth during which its flora and fauna evolved from primitive to modern forms. If that's what it's about it makes no sense for it to stop accumulating where it's accumulated for supposedly hundreds of millions of years and start all over again at the bottom of the sea. Pretty incoherent, but it hasn't stopped accumulating. It never has. BUt the sea flor on which it has accumulated ahs been moved to underground or land. Sea floor has been subducted and uplifted over billions of years.
And what happened to the Principle of Superposition in this scenario? That only makes sense when the strata continue to accumulate on top of one another, each new layer representing a more recent time period with more recently evolved life forms. Having it continue at the bottom of the ocean blows that one out of the water as it were. Completely incoherent. The principle of superposition applies. Each layer accumulating at the bottom of the ocean (and on land) represents a new time period with more recently evolved life forms.
Fossil Record? At the bottom of the sea it can only accumulate MARINE fossils, if indeed anything gets fossilized at all under those circumstances. "MODERN" marine life of course, but still marine life, the primitive stuff, not the highly evolved stuff. According to the theory I mean Yup, pretty much (but not only) marine fossils get fossilized at the bottom of the sea. And land animals get fossilized on land and in swamps and what-not. Each fossil is modern at the time it forms. Do you think that we expect billion-year-old fossils to be forming now? Billion-year-old fossils formed billions of years ago, and were subducted or uplifted,
Time factor. After a few billion years the ocean floors SHOULD have accumulated quite a bit more than they seem to have done For the hundredth time, including several times in this thread, ocean floors HAVE accumulated lots more than we see today. But the ancient ocean floors have been removed by subduction and uplift (for both of which we have solid proof). Today's ocean floors are only a couple of million years old at most.
the sediments accumulating at the bottom of the ocean really don't look like those in the geologic column. The geo column is limestones and sandstones and shales (oh my), but is that what is continuing at the bottom of the oceans? Mostly calcareous and siliceous ooze, the precursors of limestone. Some clay that is the precursor of shale. In the shallower parts of the ocean, sand that is the precursor of sandstone. Sediments are not sedimentary rock, and do look a little different. But close investigation reveals the true story, that one becomes another over long time periods and the appropriate conditions.
I get laughed in my face every day at EvC, but laughter isn't scientific argument it's just the effect of an ossified paradigm It's hard not to laugh when you can't even remember the mainstream explanation of the age of the ocean floor and its accumulated stuff from one message to the next. Talk about ossified, your brain... Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Typo, I meant "couple of hundred million.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
And this process is going to put the newly forming sedimentary layers on top of the continents? Sounds to me like it's going to bury them under the continents. Both. Some goes on top, some goes underneath, some of what goes underneath comes back in solid or liquid form.
The problem here is that a supposedly continuous accumulation of strata containing a supposedly ever-evolving record of life forms up through those strata, in order to continue to BE that record, has to build ON TOP of the previously accumulated strata plus life forms, Yes. You just are intellectually incapable of understanding or even remembering modern geological theory. You've seen and read many accurate descriptions of exactly how this happens and you haven't even remembered that it exists. Start with Dr. A's geology thread.
but this is obviously no longer happening Oh it is. We measure it. We have, as you have already forgotten, all sorts of evidence including photos of layers on the sea floor, and we know a lot about them.
where it can only accumulate marine life, and where, according to your scenario, it's all getting subducted under the continents and disappearing anyway You get an occasional non-marine fossil in marine sediments. But as I wrote above and you obviously don't understand because you haven't a clue about the mainstream geology is, some of it goes on top and some goes below. Of the stuff which goes below, some of it returns in solid or liquid form, it doesn't just disappear. We have images of it happening today. And you are ignoring that some goes on top. There are detailed investigations and scenarios for how this has happened for lots of interesting places. You've been exposed to a few of them, but of course you don't remember and can't learn.
Whatever you're saying it doesn't answer the problem of the discontinuation of the building of the Geologic Timetable. Ther's no problem to answer. Just a few looney tunes who can't face reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I see, so what happened is that what accumulated over a few billion years on the sea floors has been subducted and burned up and that's that. See my reply above. There are three classes: 1. Stuff that gets pushed on top of other stuff.2. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff, and is never seen again. 3. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff and returns in one form or another (uplift, lava). I know that comprehending the concept of three (very broadly stated) classes is difficult, but it's required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Bears zero resemblance" is an intensely subjective statement. A scientist would explain what differs between the two states and why those differences are significant. Unlike a petro-brained fundy, who would just assert.
{ABE} Of course, there is a resemblance; both are layered. So it's definitely [/I]not zero resemblance. Now Faith should argue how little resemblance there is, and give reasons and evidence. Who am I kidding! Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Of course there are reasons for it, but the differences make the ocean floor sediments unrelated to the Geologic Timetable, as so many other things about them make them irrelevant. This is not the Geologic Timetable, for the many reasons I've already listed. As usual, you have not listed any reasons. You've just asserted that there is no relationship.
Marine fossils of course, what else, but not even of the complexity of the marine fossils in the lower levels of the Geo Column. Certainly no addition to the Holocene or whatever the most recent time period in the Geo Timetable is supposed to be, with its mammals and other creatures supposedly evolved through the whole sequence of "time periods" from the Precambrian on up. You didn't look at my whale fall link, of course. Whale fossils are forming now. Mammals, big mothers. Of course you have no clue about how many fossils and what type we expect to see with our knowledge of the sea floor. How much of it do you think we've seen? Not much at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You and other creationists have had ample opportunity to dispute various forms of radiometric dating in our threads here. You (as a group) have failed. The evidence you have presented has been shown to be inaccurate and unsupported time and again. This is true for both your specific claims and others found on creationist websites and in creationist literature. And everywhere else it has been discussed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It's something Faith believes. One can't help wondering where all the material the flood deposited to form the geologic column came from, and Faith's answer is that it washed off the antediluvian landscape. But most of the layers of the geological column are marine, and so the material of these marine layers, including their fossils, originally lay on land. Which of course makes no sense at all. It hasn't been absolutely clear what the nature of Faith's original material was in your view. You could be interpreted as saying that the original material on land was marine. Of course, it's hard to make any sense whatsoever out of her mish-mosh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
...because of water content or something like that. if water content can mess up a reading, just THINK of all the errors you guys are refusing to consider. I see you admit you don't understand the argument presented about the water. Such problems are detectable and avoidable, as was discussed in the paper you don't understand. You don't even understand your problem. You are tying to discredit all radiometric dating. There is, of course, lots of evidence you ignore that radiometric dating is accurate. But you are trying to find a bad result or two. That's pointless A few errors don't matter. A lot of errors (presuming for the sake of argument that you can demonstrate a lot of error) don't matter. Why, even if you could demonstrate that the vast majority of radiometric dates are wrong that wouldn't matter. One correct radiometric date destroys your young earth. You need to demonstrate that all radiometric dates are wrong, every single one of them. The only way to do that is to find a systemic error that invalidates the whole kit and kaboodle. The RATE group, comprised of pretty much all the YECs that understand radiometric dating, acknowledged this fact. They tried to invoke accelerated nuclear day (AND), i.e. fast decay rates. This would indeed falsify the whole kit and kaboodle if it had happened. They failed miserably because their claimed evidence for such acceleration was bogus and AND would leave subtle traces such as no water on the molten surface of the Earth and all life gone twice over from radiation and heat. (They acknowledged these minor issues in 2005 and expressed hope that further research would lead to a solution. There has been no furhter research.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024