Jump to content


Photo

An Observation


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 July 2017 - 05:17 PM

It's a matter of presenting a case for each, then the individual chooses, subjectively perhaps, which explanation is best. Ultimately a personal choice which has nothing to do with science.

None of us it 100% objective.  The best we can do is try to be as objective as possible.  As you say, in the end how we prioritize the evidence is a personal choice that is, at a minimum, somewhat subjective.



#42 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2017 - 11:37 PM

What I asked to Wibble also counts for you:

Would you kindly provide evidence/support for the assessment in bold. All too often people state "if this would happen, we expect that", without actually providing support.

 

Please provide evidence for the assessment in bold.

 

 

 

 

Popoi: It’s pretty much exactly the same problem that your transitional fossil argument thad. 

 

There is no problem with that argument Popoi, the problem is your limited ability to understand deductive reason. Some things logic teaches, just aren't up for debate. You can throw all of the excuses you want at the problem, the fact is we would expect no transitionals if we hadn't evolved and an abundance if we had. The parsimonious explanation isn't the explanation which involves four hundred ad hoc excuses, mate.

 

 

Wibble abandoned his argument when it was noted he didn't have the evidence to support it, or when his assessment was shown to be wrong.

 

So please provide the evidence to support yours. As I see it, the only evidence provided was the 'napkin-math' (as Popoi put it, I like the term), but as both Piasan and I showed, the implications as proposed by the author where wrong.



#43 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2017 - 11:41 PM

 

Take your 4 billion people and assume that each and every one of them has been buried.  Forget that many cultures destroyed the bodies of their dead (Vikings, Romans, and Hindus come to mind.)  Let's just ass-u-me that each and every one of those 4 billion bodies was buried.  Confine the burials only to the (roughly) 24 million habitable square miles of the planet.  That leaves us about 166 bodies per square mile (64 per square km).  That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.  If we figure each body to be about 5 feet by one foot, the two bodies would be about 10 square feet.  My property is 435,600 square feet. 

 

Gotta love the imperial system. sqr miles, acres and sqr feet all in a single calculation. :D



#44 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2017 - 02:43 AM

 

Piasan:  Yours are equally easy to deal with .... if you think them through.

 

Take your 4 billion people and assume that each and every one of them has been buried.  Forget that many cultures destroyed the bodies of their dead (Vikings, Romans, and Hindus come to mind.)  Let's just ass-u-me that each and every one of those 4 billion bodies was buried.  Confine the burials only to the (roughly) 24 million habitable square miles of the planet.  That leaves us about 166 bodies per square mile (64 per square km).  That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.  If we figure each body to be about 5 feet by one foot, the two bodies would be about 10 square feet.  My property is 435,600 square feet. 

 

That means there's about a 0.002% chance of finding a body.... if I dig deep enough.  Most of the holes I dig are post holes and are rarely more than 16 inches (40 cm) deep.  There would be zero chance of finding anything that's just 18 inches down.... and most burials are far deeper than that.    IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.

 

The reason we don't find bodies all over the place is we shouldn't expect to.

 

Well, what's clear is you haven't thought it through, because my claim isn't that all those bodies will be equally spread out, nor was my claim that you would find them buried underneath you, that was McMurtry's claim. My claim is it is a simple fact that if we have on about 6,000 years, about 240 generations of people, at most we would expect a certain amount of people's remains. We find relatively few. But if we have 100, 000 years, that's approx 4,000 generations.

 

So my claim is we should find a portion if there were 4 billion buried (which is the conservative estimate remember), much more in line with that figure.

 

It's easy to give ad hoc excuses then say "in fact we would expect the figure we have". 

 

 

 

Piasan: and most burials are far deeper than that.    IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.

 

 

Where did I claim we should expect it? My claim is if 4 billion bodies/artefacts, existed, we would find a much larger number than we do. Your little strawman is a wild goose chase. Poor Piasan, he though the maths would make him look smart but didn't even realise they had nothing to do with what mike say. :gotcha:

 

And why would I believe the bodies would be spread evenly? Didn't you even notice that faulty premise in your maths?

 

 

 

Piasan:  That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.

 

No it doesn't, it's a non-sequitur. If you have 166 bodies per square mile, that doesn't mean you can expect to find two in your 10 acres, because 80% of them might be in a location that is only a small portion of that square mile.

 

But I appreciate the time Fjuri and Piasan have given to show us some napkin maths.

 

 

 

Fjuri: As I see it, the only evidence provided was the 'napkin-math' (as Popoi put it, I like the term), but as both Piasan and I showed, the implications as proposed by the author where wrong.

 

Well, in a debate it's what I the debater am claiming. I never claimed what McMurtry claimed yet you stick to arguing his little comment because it's all you've got. CEASE arguing the strawman implication, that I am arguing what he argued about digging beneath us.

 

Even if you call correctly figured out maths by CMI "napkin-math", all that represents is a question-begging-epithet I am afraid.

 

Me? I'll go with being smart by observing the law of the excluded middle, by saying that either maths is figured out correctly or it isn't. If it is correct then it doesn't matter if it is a claim that two add two is four. So then, a conservative estimate for those generations in the stone age is about 4 billion bodies/artefacts.

 

As for my "evidence" of missing transitionals, one can only hope you are aware of what a conditional implications gives us in science by prediction as shown by Popper, which seems incredibly optimistic given your recent posts. So then, if our claim as creationists is that macro evolution didn't happen, it would "follow" that the evidence for that would be a lack of evolution, meaning a lack of transitionals, since they would never have existed under creation, apart from the tautological handful.

 

So then the only evidence we can predict is their non-existence, for how else can non-existence leave a trace we can call, "tangible evidence"? Lol. That is like requesting I show evidence there isn't a pink unicorn in the room.

 

The evidence there isn't, is it's absence. In logical absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless and if and only if the absence is conspicuous. So then with a pink unicorn it is a conspicuous absence of evidence meaning we can conclude it is not there, but if it is an invisible pink unicorn, it isn't conspicuous because we wouldn't expect to see it.

 

Fjuri. You and the two Ps can, with great energy, try and worm out of the fact that the transitionals and the fictionally absurd amount of billions of dead bodies, somehow could exist without a trace. Me? I go with precise logical rules, and I obey them, and they show according to those rules, that the best explanation is the negation of those claims, given we would expect exactly what we see from creation, not evolution.

 

So yes, you can if you so wish create many "escapes" for the obvious, but I am not hanging around here to be patronised by those feeble, ad-hoc rescue devices. I value my own high standards and cannot converse with those that have no interest in intellectual honesty, for it is plainly obvious that the best explanation of the lack of evidence for these evolutionary claims, is that there simply hasn't been that amount of time available because there wasn't that amount of people living for that long. 

 

This is my last post in this thread (because I regard the PRETENCE that I have argued the "we should find beneath us a body" tactic, to be mendacious, and I can't respect liars that pretend I have claimed things I haven't because they can't read properly.) You continue with that strawman so as to try and highlight the maths you can figure out. That's because you're desperately hoping it has some relevance where in fact, I am afraid, it simply doesn't, because it doesn't change the fact we should find a very great many more remains from 4,000 generations of people, than 240, and digging beneath us directly hoping they were spread equally, has nothing to do with my claim.

 

So what does your maths prove? You took a course in maths?   :rolleyes:

 

I can also count; http://evolutionfair...e-7#entry139106



#45 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 July 2017 - 05:50 AM

...
Me? I'll go with being smart by observing the law of the excluded middle, by saying that either maths is figured out correctly or it isn't. If it is correct then it doesn't matter if it is a claim that two add two is four. ...
...

.
What would be the relevance of that claim to any of our subjects?

#46 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,117 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 24 July 2017 - 06:37 AM

 

 

Piasan:  Yours are equally easy to deal with .... if you think them through.

 

Take your 4 billion people and assume that each and every one of them has been buried.  Forget that many cultures destroyed the bodies of their dead (Vikings, Romans, and Hindus come to mind.)  Let's just ass-u-me that each and every one of those 4 billion bodies was buried.  Confine the burials only to the (roughly) 24 million habitable square miles of the planet.  That leaves us about 166 bodies per square mile (64 per square km).  That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.  If we figure each body to be about 5 feet by one foot, the two bodies would be about 10 square feet.  My property is 435,600 square feet. 

 

That means there's about a 0.002% chance of finding a body.... if I dig deep enough.  Most of the holes I dig are post holes and are rarely more than 16 inches (40 cm) deep.  There would be zero chance of finding anything that's just 18 inches down.... and most burials are far deeper than that.    IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.

 

The reason we don't find bodies all over the place is we shouldn't expect to.

 

Well, what's clear is you haven't thought it through, because my claim isn't that all those bodies will be equally spread out, nor was my claim that you would find them buried underneath you, that was McMurtry's claim. My claim is it is a simple fact that if we have on about 6,000 years, about 240 generations of people, at most we would expect a certain amount of people's remains. We find relatively few. But if we have 100, 000 years, that's approx 4,000 generations.

 

So my claim is we should find a portion if there were 4 billion buried (which is the conservative estimate remember), much more in line with that figure.

 

It's easy to give ad hoc excuses then say "in fact we would expect the figure we have". 

 

 

 

Piasan: and most burials are far deeper than that.    IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.

 

 

Where did I claim we should expect it? My claim is if 4 billion bodies/artefacts, existed, we would find a much larger number than we do. Your little strawman is a wild goose chase. Poor Piasan, he though the maths would make him look smart but didn't even realise they had nothing to do with what mike say. :gotcha:

 

And why would I believe the bodies would be spread evenly? Didn't you even notice that faulty premise in your maths?

 

 

 

Piasan:  That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.

 

No it doesn't, it's a non-sequitur. If you have 166 bodies per square mile, that doesn't mean you can expect to find two in your 10 acres, because 80% of them might be in a location that is only a small portion of that square mile.

 

But I appreciate the time Fjuri and Piasan have given to show us some napkin maths.

 

 

 

Fjuri: As I see it, the only evidence provided was the 'napkin-math' (as Popoi put it, I like the term), but as both Piasan and I showed, the implications as proposed by the author where wrong.

 

Well, in a debate it's what I the debater am claiming. I never claimed what McMurtry claimed yet you stick to arguing his little comment because it's all you've got. CEASE arguing the strawman implication, that I am arguing what he argued about digging beneath us.

 

Even if you call correctly figured out maths by CMI "napkin-math", all that represents is a question-begging-epithet I am afraid.

 

Me? I'll go with being smart by observing the law of the excluded middle, by saying that either maths is figured out correctly or it isn't. If it is correct then it doesn't matter if it is a claim that two add two is four. So then, a conservative estimate for those generations in the stone age is about 4 billion bodies/artefacts.

 

As for my "evidence" of missing transitionals, one can only hope you are aware of what a conditional implications gives us in science by prediction as shown by Popper, which seems incredibly optimistic given your recent posts. So then, if our claim as creationists is that macro evolution didn't happen, it would "follow" that the evidence for that would be a lack of evolution, meaning a lack of transitionals, since they would never have existed under creation, apart from the tautological handful.

 

So then the only evidence we can predict is their non-existence, for how else can non-existence leave a trace we can call, "tangible evidence"? Lol. That is like requesting I show evidence there isn't a pink unicorn in the room.

 

The evidence there isn't, is it's absence. In logical absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless and if and only if the absence is conspicuous. So then with a pink unicorn it is a conspicuous absence of evidence meaning we can conclude it is not there, but if it is an invisible pink unicorn, it isn't conspicuous because we wouldn't expect to see it.

 

Fjuri. You and the two Ps can, with great energy, try and worm out of the fact that the transitionals and the fictionally absurd amount of billions of dead bodies, somehow could exist without a trace. Me? I go with precise logical rules, and I obey them, and they show according to those rules, that the best explanation is the negation of those claims, given we would expect exactly what we see from creation, not evolution.

 

So yes, you can if you so wish create many "escapes" for the obvious, but I am not hanging around here to be patronised by those feeble, ad-hoc rescue devices. I value my own high standards and cannot converse with those that have no interest in intellectual honesty, for it is plainly obvious that the best explanation of the lack of evidence for these evolutionary claims, is that there simply hasn't been that amount of time available because there wasn't that amount of people living for that long. 

 

This is my last post in this thread (because I regard the PRETENCE that I have argued the "we should find beneath us a body" tactic, to be mendacious, and I can't respect liars that pretend I have claimed things I haven't because they can't read properly.) You continue with that strawman so as to try and highlight the maths you can figure out. That's because you're desperately hoping it has some relevance where in fact, I am afraid, it simply doesn't, because it doesn't change the fact we should find a very great many more remains from 4,000 generations of people, than 240, and digging beneath us directly hoping they were spread equally, has nothing to do with my claim.

 

So what does your maths prove? You took a course in maths?   :rolleyes:

 

I can also count; http://evolutionfair...e-7#entry139106

 

 

The underlined sentence of your tantrum is not necessarily true.  Given the population growth rate, decline in infant mortality, etc. far, far more people walked the earth during the last 240 generations than the previous couple of thousand.   As far as your comment concerning concentrated burials, that is probably more true in recent times as people lived in cities, etc.  Even so, how many Roman burials have we found and how does that number compare to the number of Romans that actually lived?  I think it would still be a pretty small percentage...even for an advanced civilization like the Romans.  Now, going back before civilization (before your 240 generations), there is no reason to believe burials (when they took place) would be highly concentrated.  People were nomadic; there was no farming, no cities, etc. people spread out and followed the herds.  And I see zero reason to expect we should find an abundance of their fossils.



#47 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 July 2017 - 07:04 AM

Me? I'll go with being smart by observing the law of the excluded middle, by saying that either maths is figured out correctly or it isn't. If it is correct then it doesn't matter if it is a claim that two add two is four. So then, a conservative estimate for those generations in the stone age is about 4 billion bodies/artefacts.

Is it correct? How do you know?

I am afraid, it simply doesn't, because it doesn't change the fact we should find a very great many more remains from 4,000 generations of people, than 240, and digging beneath us directly hoping they were spread equally, has nothing to do with my claim.[/b][/color][/font]

How many more? How do you know that estimate is correct?

#48 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2017 - 08:06 AM

Popoi, technically speaking nobody's estimate can be 100% correct in the manner you want it to be so it's a red herring, without knowing for sure some facts about the past, even the most qualified mathematician on earth can't give us a factual figure, so that isn't the point of the maths. 

 

Suffice to say, it makes logical sense that 4,000 human generations would produce many more bodies than 240.

 

 

 

Norman: The underlined sentence of your tantrum is not necessarily true.  Given the population growth rate, decline in infant mortality, etc. far, far more people walked the earth during the last 240 generations than the previous couple of thousand.

 

That's begging the question, for you to assume the "decline" came from a figure in the past which was always poor. How do you know conditions were the same in the past. Basically your argument is this; "you don't know there wasn't mortality problems therefore there was." That's an argument from ignorance Norm, you don't get to jump to the conclusion there "was" simply because you want 100,000 fictional years to have existed.

 

Provide the evidence that shows people existed for 100,000 years. You can't, all they can show is a figure that fits with a recent creation.

 

That's all we need to support creation - a figure that fits.

 

Think about it this way, imagine by analogy there are two people, one claims a 50 seater bus would give you about 50 people seated, and let's say for arguments sake 40 people get off the bus. Now sure, you can also argue if you believe a bus is a 500 seater bus that "the seats simply were not filled" but the disparity between the two figures means the figure is expected for the 50 seater bus but realistically we expect a larger one for the vastly large fictional bus that can seat 500.

 

Now before you think, "you're wrong", I'm not because the difference is that of about 250 human generations in about 6,000 years and about 4,000 generations in 100,000 years.

 

So then sure - technically you can say, "the seats weren't filled". BUT - and here's the clincher - what reason will that give me to believe in a 500 seater bus? Is your argument for a 500 seater bus predicated on the fact that 30 people got off a bus we could not see?

 

In the same way we have a figure for the stone age, of finds which fits with the biblical history, and technically you could create a whole host of arguments as to why it still could be a history of 100,000 years, BUT - what rational reason do I have to believe it, when the figure fits perfectly with the bible's shorter history?

 

Can you answer that - can you give me any reason to believe it? Would I believe in a 500 seater bus because you shown me 30 passengers? No, so why would I believe an absurdly false history existed? At least give me some reason to believe it. Taking the evidence which fits creation and saying, "that's the reason"? Well, that's like saying, "here, here is 5 billion missing dolphins on a beach, THAT is the reason you should believe 5 billion dolphins washed ashore."

 

Erm....no Norm - that's the reason I shouldn't believe it. :gotcha:



#49 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 July 2017 - 08:19 AM

Me? I'll go with being smart by observing the law of the excluded middle, by saying that either maths is figured out correctly or it isn't.

i have to ask, how in the world can you put a specific number on something that you have no idea what that number is?

do you even realize how many assumptions you are making in regards to your argument?

since this is a "historical argument" the math can NEVER be considered "correct".
correction, the math can be correct, but it can never be considered as an actuality.
assumption, assumptions, doncha just love 'em?

#50 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2017 - 09:25 AM

"What If" I think the number is reasonable. It's impossible for it to be correct but you just can't escape that with 4,000 generations for 100,000 years there's going to be an enormous figure even if you are extremely conservative.

 

I think that's very reasonable. Nobody can escape that for about 6,000 years we have 240 generations and yet there are about 7 billion people on the planet today. 

 

It seems to me a 100 thousand year stone age is a nice story to tell the kids at night but in reality humans because of our intellect (or at least some of us), will dominate the planet quickly once the compound mathematics kicks in. The more people you have the bigger the figure gets, and in the stone age they had the same homo sapien intellect.

 

Interestingly in the evo news they are now saying they have found a homo sapien that pushes back homo sapiens a lot further;

 

300, 000 year old homo sapien found recently, here you can read it;

 

https://www.theguard...the-human-story

 

So take that figure of 4,000 generations and make it 12,000 generations of homo sapiens. What a lot of fictional codswallop - where are the bodies? Where are the artefacts since they had homo sapien intelligence?

 

:gotcha:

 

(I like the article name human, "story", yes - that's what it was, we now know they were wrong about homo sapiens so it in fact was a story, proving scientists can be wrong. if they are wrong this time why not wrong about the whole thing? Answer; no reason why they aren't wrong, because their predictions always fail. Look at how vestigials turned out to not be vestigials, look at how junk DNA isn't junk DNA at all, but the master design of the Master Designer, Who is even smarter than mike! ;)

 

One of Popoi's complaints was if the bones survive, well look at this quote of something three times older;

 

 

 

They knew the remains were old, but were stunned when dating tests revealed that a tooth and stone tools found with the bones were about 300,000 years old....................................Apart from being more stout and muscular, the adults at Jebel Irhoud looked similar to people alive today. “The face of the specimen we found is the face of someone you could meet on the tube in London,” Hublin said. In a second paper, the scientists lay out how they dated the stone tools to between 280,000 and 350,000 years, and a lone tooth to 290,000 years old.


#51 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 July 2017 - 12:01 PM

Popoi, technically speaking nobody's estimate can be 100% correct in the manner you want it to be so it's a red herring, without knowing for sure some facts about the past, even the most qualified mathematician on earth can't give us a factual figure, so that isn't the point of the maths. 
 
Suffice to say, it makes logical sense that 4,000 human generations would produce many more bodies than 240.

Sure, but that's not the claim that was made. Specifically, it was that we have found enough bodies to support 240 generations but not 4,000, implying that there's at least a ballpark estimate of how many bodies we should find. I'm looking for a justification of that estimate.

Think about it this way, imagine by analogy there are two people, one claims a 50 seater bus would give you about 50 people seated, and let's say for arguments sake 40 people get off the bus. Now sure, you can also argue if you believe a bus is a 500 seater bus that "the seats simply were not filled" but the disparity between the two figures means the figure is expected for the 50 seater bus but realistically we expect a larger one for the vastly large fictional bus that can seat 500.

The number of people getting off a bus in and of itself doesn't prove anything. You have to fill it in with additional assumptions about buses (buses generally operate at close to full capacity, the majority of people on the bus are getting off at this stop) in order to make any kind of conclusion. If either of those turn out to be wrong (this bus is not very popular, not many people use this stop) then your conclusion is going to be flawed.

Think of it this way: If you take 15 balls out of a bag, how many balls would you estimate are in the bag? How many balls would you expect to have taken out if there were actually twice as many as you estimated inside?

One of Popoi's complaints was if the bones survive, well look at this quote of something three times older;

Ok but that still doesn't address the objection. Finding something that has been preserved for a long time tells you that things can be preserved for that long, but it doesn't tell you much about how likely it is that the average one will be. If you find a burrito in my freezer dated from last year (this is very possible), how likely are you to find evidence of the one I bought last week?

#52 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2017 - 01:05 PM

 

 

Popoi: The number of people getting off a bus in and of itself doesn't prove anything. You have to fill it in with additional assumptions about buses (buses generally operate at close to full capacity, the majority of people on the bus are getting off at this stop) in order to make any kind of conclusion. If either of those turn out to be wrong (this bus is not very popular, not many people use this stop) then your conclusion is going to be flawed.

 

The analogy for the buses isn't to conclude anything as such, it's just an example of how one line of evidence isn't really relevant for one claim compared to the other because the disparity is so big.

 

If 30 or 40 people get off a 50 seater bus that's just the thing we would expect. But that has no real meaning for a claim of a 500 seater. It's not a proof, or a conclusion, it's just that the line of evidence is consistent/expected with one claim, and irrelevant to the other. If we find about 2,000 finds for the stone age, that's hardly inconsistent with a biblical age. That is certainly feasible. It's not something that particularly strikes me as having any relevance to "350,000 years" of homo sapien.

 

 

 

 

 

 Popoi: I'm looking for a justification of that estimate

 

The say so of mikey Kirk.

 

You can count on it my lad! :D

 

(Don't forget if you read back in this thread really it was you guys who really took this issue to heart and ran with it whereas I myself didn't claim anything. If you read my initial comment in context my main point was only that there are many issues that pertain to the age-debate. That's the reason I brought it up, to show Wibble that with the age-debate, it's amazing just how many lines of evidence pertain to it so it doesn't seem realistic to only focus on one issue.)



#53 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 July 2017 - 03:15 PM

Wibble abandoned his argument when it was noted he didn't have the evidence to support it, or when his assessment was shown to be wrong.


Hold your horses Fjuri, I still think the argument is a decent one (though it looks I'm in a minority of one here :D ). I only ever argued that the ammonite observation strongly favoured the mainstream view, not that it was some kind of slam dunk, which Mike W somehow decided I was claiming.

Empty shells of dead ammonites lying flat on the sea bottom, slowly getting covered in sediment, with this process continuing in a relatively stable environment over a long period of time seems to me to be a more sensible interpretation than the silt layer being dumped in hours ? days ? and recently killed ammonites all sinking at the same rate as the clay particles (to produce the even vertical distribution) and all dropping in the horizontal position.

Why I don't think they would all be horizontal under the Flood scenario is because they floated vertically when alive (there is evidence for this, it's not just an assertion) so I would think (I'm more tentative here) that freshly killed ammonites would also sink vertically, or perhaps tumble. Given that rapidly depositing silt will present a very soft surface I picture the fallen shells ending up embedded in a variety of angles.

Even if I'm unsafe with that particular argument there is still the question of the benthic fauna (bivalves etc.). They are mixed in evenly with the ammonites. Why would that be ? It seems much more reasonable to interpret this as a contemporary assemblage of bottom dwelling animals and actively swimming ammonites in the water column. When they died they obviously ended up preserved together in the sea floor mud. With a Flood why would the heavier bivalves not all settle out in a lower layer ?

You also have to ask why this specific ammonite species (Pavlovia rotunda) is only found in a 30m vertical section with different species found above and below (ammonites are very useful in stratigraphy because of the rapid evolutionary change shown in the record by this group). In the pre Flood ocean did multiple ammonite species all exclusively inhabit separate depths of water and when the flood dumped all the sediment it managed to keep all these species completely apart without any mixing ?



 



#54 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 July 2017 - 03:26 PM

 

Wibble: The trouble is you inflate the weight of the superficial youth evidence as if it is a serious challenge to the rock solid evidence of great age.

 
This is the use of question-begging epithets, though. It isn't "superficial" that collagen reasonably could only last 3 million years, it's based on actual extrapolations taken from experiments of known decay rates in the present. It's strong evidence that any collagen you find in dinosaur tissue, is 3 million years old or under. As for the "rock solid" evidence of age, what is that really though? I can't think of one solid example of age, that won't depend on some dodgy dating method, and we have had that discussion. It just isn't that convncing so how "solid" can it be.

 


You always jump on "epithets" yet you regularly use them yourself. In the above you've said "dodgy dating method" and you are incapable of writing the phrase "millions of years" without prefixing it with the word "fictional" :rolleyes:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users