Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,806 Year: 12,918/6,534 Month: 201/2,210 Week: 142/390 Day: 51/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which view makes sense of the fossil record ?
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 6 of 48 (734688)
08-01-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 10:44 AM


Have you ever read any of Faith's posts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 10:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:08 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 48 (734697)
08-01-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:15 AM


Your first link has nothing about out-of-place fossils, and reveals a misunderstanding of "living fossils".
The "fossil" pollen was collected by the spectacularly incompetent Burdick and has been long debunked. E.g. CC341: Out-of-place pollen asa: Precambrian Pollen. PRATTs are boring.
The blog-entry shows why the request to find a human in the Cambrian is a Red-Herring because the fossil record have never belonged to Charles Darwin. Because certain animals are found in certain places, it's a rigged game, you already know that I don't have the ability.
It does no such thing. A rabbit in the Cambrian would be a major problem for evolution.
Since you know so much about the fludde, what is the consensus of all these creationist PhDs on where the pre-fludde and post-fludde boundaries are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:15 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 26 of 48 (734725)
08-01-2014 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:47 AM


a lot of creationists such as I and the folk at CMI, incorporate a flood-boundary as a conjectural part of our model. It seems very much as though the evolutionists here didn't even know this, otherwise the blanket-statement would never have been mentioned because it's effectively to shoot ones self in the foot.
I'm certainly aware of that. I 'my pretty familiar with the problems of such models. You have been around here long enough to know that your characterization of the reality - based group here is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 48 (734727)
08-01-2014 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 2:09 PM


Great argument. The lack of evidence against evolution is evidence against evolution.
Oh, and if you asked one of us why the fossil record is evidence for evolution you'd get something like "because the order of the fossil record can be derived from first principles of the ToE without any knowledge of the fossil record". No mention of Darwin.
I see you are holding on to pollen. It's not anomalous, it's thoroughly debunked. I One of the oldest PRATTs. You aren't much different from Faith.
And while I'm here, what's the consensus on the fludde boundaries?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 48 (734784)
08-02-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by herebedragons
08-01-2014 10:23 PM


I think Mike was referring to the entire, if I may use the phrase, geologic column rather than just the Grand Canyon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by herebedragons, posted 08-01-2014 10:23 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2014 11:02 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 39 of 48 (734825)
08-02-2014 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by herebedragons
08-02-2014 11:02 AM


However, defining flood boundaries is only the very first step in supporting the idea.
Yup. Notice that Mike has so far ignored my request for the consensus on those boundaries. I surmise that's because for every "major" boundary there's a creationist who thinks it's a fludde boundary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2014 11:02 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022