|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution vs Creation | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes! That is exactly what Mark said: 'evolution accomodates everything.' So perceptive of you Fred, to pick that out of what Mark wrote. I'm concerned that your logic circuits are devolving, Fred. I don't suppose it would occur to you that evolution might just be correct, would it? Nah.
quote: And what do you suspect that we see? Hominids immediately above Vendian metazoans? Indeed, in the greater scale of things, evolution is gradual, however there are jumps that are explained by PE.
quote: Actually, large scale evolution is clearly defined in the fossil record. And what about the other scientists? All dishonest, eh?
quote: Still fighting the gradualism battle, eh, Fred? Did you notice that Eldredge and Tattersall are evolutionists? Why is that? Can you give me anyone here who is a strict gradualist? If not, why not, and why are you beating this dead horse?
quote: All phyla? Are you sure about this? Besides what is a short period of time to you? Did you know that the animal Kingdom appeared at one point in time! Now, there's evidence against evolution!
quote: Oh Fred, talk about stories! How many assumptions are you basing yours on?
[quote]
Please document this. How do you come up with this time span?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, as usual, I have to slow things down a bit for Fred. Okay, try this: What Mark said did NOT indicate that 'evolution accomodates everything,' as you somehow interpreted it. He said, I believe, that evolution explains the entire fossil record. That is hardly 'everything.' This is a simple propaganda tactic on your part and really adds nothing to the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
A few more points regarding Fred's latest post.
quote: Yep, there's a reason for that.
quote: It is also a miniscule part of the record that must be explained. Or would you rather ignore it?
quote: Yep, there's a reason for that, too. They are not credible finds.
quote: Well, let's see... It couldn't be that the theory of evolution is correct, could it? Seems to me that any theory that contradicts yours is, by definition, wrong. Is that what you call science?
quote: No, it could be that they were buried as they died in water and were buried by normal sedimentary processes. How does you data refute this possibility?
quote: Well, they must be wrong.
quote: Not at all. As your floundering on the issues shows us, creationism cannot explain the fossil record. You have made our point quite well, thank you.
quote: So, since mudflows eroded steep canyons in soft pyroclastics, you think that this proves all canyons were cut in the same way? Please, Fred, learn a little geology before you embarass yourself further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So then, you agree that some canyons may take 'millions of years,' or at least a very long time? If not, then what are you saying?
quote: NOw, which geologists are these? You mean Steve Austin? Or is that Stuart Nevins? Or both?
quote: I'm not aware of a sign.
quote: Probably. I'm not sure of the length of time, but it was certainly more than 4000 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Fred: I think you meant to say, "...how to answer a cretionist parroted phrase."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote: To a single event? Yes.
quote: You have to assume first that the story is true. I think this is a misunderstanding of the stream capture hypothesis or some other fairly complex geological concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I do not recall such a thing. Could you document this? How did Austin/Nevins investigate multiple layers of sediment in Spirit Lake? Were the trees standing upright in the deeper sediments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonofasailor:
I think my original post is being forgotten. SOS[/B][/QUOTE] Yes, that happens. Many times, threads turn into personal soap boxes and the original line of thought is completely lost. Unfortunately, much of what has happened here has gone on many times before (just in case you didn't get the undercurrent of a history). And much of what we have read on this thread has been posted many times before. You get used it.
quote: Yep, heard this before. Not a substantial statement, but part of the routine.
quote: This is actually contrary to what usually happens. Most evolutionists were steeped in creation lore for the first dozen years or more of life before seeing the actual evidence. But never mind. This is part of creationist legend.
quote: Yes, I remember reading Dawkins in my youth. [/sarcasm] quote: Actually, this has been done at least to a large degree. However, perhaps I should take a quick stab at # 4.
quote: The short answer is: unless you know something additional about about any particular date, you don't know that it is accurate. The best thing to do is check on the credibility of the researcher. If the author is creationist, then you can pretty much bet that the radiocarbon date is invalid. I would go with authors published in the peer-reviewed literature. There are a lot of ways to screw up a radiocarbon date. That is why we don't leave it to amateurs at any step in the process. The only real problem is that some people feel that if there is a potential source of error, then the entire method is invalid. This is over-simplified logic. If we used it in every day life, we would still be living in caves. Basically, check the credentials of the author and you can make a qualitative judgement as to the validity of a radiocarbon date. If you want to get further into this, there are many websites and books that deal with the methodology of carbon dating. Even most high school textbooks will give you a general idea, including some of the pitfalls waiting for the uninitiated researcher. To Fred: Remember, I'd like to hear about the research by Austin/Nevins on the stratified log beds in Spirit Lake; and also the story (fairy tale?) about the Grand Canyon outlet being at a higher elevation than the inlet. Seems to me that someone might have noticed this and it would be one of the wonders of the world. Both of these stories you have told are kind of vague and difficult to respond to unless you can give us more information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Just a gentle reminder for Fred. He has made a lot of assertions on this thread. It would be good form to answer at least some of the issues, rather than coming back every two months and dumping the same old 'stuff.'
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024