Jump to content


Photo

Backtracking Again?


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#41 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 September 2017 - 09:39 AM

When I made the hasty list of three Groups, it was for the reason that it appeared that nobody here--from my reading--had any appreciation of what will NEVER be found as a fossil. I was correct!

there is only one group, and only one, that fills the bill.
and that is the fossils that belong to organisms that NEVER EXISTED. (and of course to organisms that have nothing to fossilize.)

the transitionals between animal phyla will NEVER be found, because they never existed.
this puts a HUGE question mark at the end of "common ancestry".

#42 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 03 September 2017 - 09:48 AM

Schera do

I realize that you are under a lot of stress caring for your mother. It must be very frustrating. Why don't you just try to make your point of what you are trying to demonstrate regarding the fossil record and unrepresented organisms? Try to be succinct.

.
I read this to determine whether it contained anything that furthers the discussion. I did not read "what if"'s.

It does not. I stand by my conclusion that you are shackled by some unknown force, disability or neurosis, or all of the above.

My mom is doing very well, the stress is the LEAST of recent years. I appreciate your concern.

I will continue to NOT read your posts.

#43 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 September 2017 - 10:01 AM

 

 

Schera: I stand by my conclusion that you are shackled by some unknown force, disability or neurosis, or all of the above.

 

Yah, sorry to inform you but if you still don't get it nobody cares what you think at this stage, since all you have done is patronise and insult us all for the past few weeks.


  • what if likes this

#44 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 03 September 2017 - 10:15 AM

 

When I made the hasty list of three Groups, it was for the reason that it appeared that nobody here--from my reading--had any appreciation of what will NEVER be found as a fossil. I was correct!

there is only one group, and only one, that fills the bill.
and that is the fossils that belong to organisms that NEVER EXISTED. (and of course to organisms that have nothing to fossilize.)

the transitionals between animal phyla will NEVER be found, because they never existed.
this puts a HUGE question mark at the end of "common ancestry".

 

 

what if

 

Agreed. This what I suspect Schera Do's point was, and he has had the opportunity to clarify for the record. He chooses not to. Maybe he now realizes his logic error. Schera Do's imagines that Group 3 would show that there existed organisms that were all the "transitions". 

 

I have not read Koonin that you often refer to. But I reach the same conclusion. The transitions between animal phyla will not be found because they never existed. The next question should be, so what has evolution been able to accomplish? I don't believe the UCA, "simple" single-celled organism model to be tenable. For insight into the nature of evolution, one must look into the research on what has been observed.



#45 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 September 2017 - 10:59 AM

what if
 
Agreed. This what I suspect Schera Do's point was, and he has had the opportunity to clarify for the record. He chooses not to. Maybe he now realizes his logic error. Schera Do's imagines that Group 3 would show that there existed organisms that were all the "transitions".

the only possible explanation would be that the major transitions from cellular life to animal phyla was driven by a catalytic event.
i have no clue as to how the different metabolisms could arise from a single source.

what compounds this problem is that the genetic and epigentic codes have remain unchanged across ALL life.
 

I have not read Koonin that you often refer to. But I reach the same conclusion. The transitions between animal phyla will not be found because they never existed. The next question should be, so what has evolution been able to accomplish? I don't believe the UCA, "simple" single-celled organism model to be tenable. For insight into the nature of evolution, one must look into the research on what has been observed.

the only real thing that keeps evolution alive is that the god concept seems so implausible.
there is no evidence at all that says life arose naturally.
there is no evidence at all that says animal phyla "descended" from one another.

#46 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 03 September 2017 - 12:15 PM

what if

Gneiss girl, on 03 Sept 2017 - 11:15 AM, said:snapback.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

the only possible explanation would be that the major transitions from cellular life to animal phyla was driven by a catalytic event.
i have no clue as to how the different metabolisms could arise from a single source.

what compounds this problem is that the genetic and epigentic codes have remain unchanged across ALL life.
 

 

the only real thing that keeps evolution alive is that the god concept seems so implausible.
there is no evidence at all that says life arose naturally.
there is no evidence at all that says animal phyla "descended" from one another.

 

 

Re: the only possible explanation would be that the major transitions from cellular life to animal phyla was driven by a catalytic event.

 

It seems to me, an assumption that cellular life transitioned to the multi-cellular animal phyla. 

 

The "catalytic event" responsible for life could be called an "intelligent causation?"

 

Re: what compounds this problem is that the genetic and epigentic codes have remain unchanged across ALL life.

 

 

Could this not suggest something that works...a common design element?

 

 

Re: "the only real thing that keeps evolution alive is that the god concept seems so implausible.

 

Philosophically speaking, I think that for many, the God concept is unpalatable, not implausible. Science does not have answers for the "God concept." Science has its limits. It will never have all the answers. That is some of the problem with Schera Do's Group 3. Science can not reproduce Group 3. It is hypothetical, it doesn't exist and never will. Therefore one can only speculate, imagine, hypothesize , etc. on what it would contain.

 

Regarding:

"there is no evidence at all that says life arose naturally."

I agree

"there is no evidence at all that says animal phyla "descended" from one another. "

I agree



#47 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 03 September 2017 - 12:40 PM

When I made the hasty list of three Groups, it was for the reason that it appeared that nobody here--from my reading--had any appreciation of what will NEVER be found as a fossil. I was correct!

there is only one group, and only one, that fills the bill.
and that is the fossils that belong to organisms that NEVER EXISTED. (and of course to organisms that have nothing to fossilize.)

the transitionals between animal phyla will NEVER be found, because they never existed.
this puts a HUGE question mark at the end of "common ancestry".

...
Schera Do's imagines that Group 3 would show that there existed organisms that were all the "transitions".
...

.
Preposterous, fatuous, demonstrative of deficiency of reading comprension skills--and further evidence that your intellect is shackled by something yet to be identified.

I will type very slowly in the remote chance that it will help with a particular reader's comprehension: The ONLY way Group 3 contains "transitionals" is if transitionals existed or exist. I have no knowledge of transitionals, real, existing or imaginary. Unbleeping believable.

You "G g" have provided an exquisite example and reinforcement of my judgement of you.

I repeat and as an Agnostic feel somewhat silly: Consider Group 3 to be God's own Ledger of every species to have existed since life began on Earth. There is nothing hypothetical about the members of Group 3. We (humans) may, or may not, EVER know of the vast majority of the members of Group 3. There is one entry for EVERY extinct specie ever to have existed. This would be--IS--a subset of Group 3.

#48 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 03 September 2017 - 01:14 PM

 

 

 

When I made the hasty list of three Groups, it was for the reason that it appeared that nobody here--from my reading--had any appreciation of what will NEVER be found as a fossil. I was correct!

there is only one group, and only one, that fills the bill.
and that is the fossils that belong to organisms that NEVER EXISTED. (and of course to organisms that have nothing to fossilize.)

the transitionals between animal phyla will NEVER be found, because they never existed.
this puts a HUGE question mark at the end of "common ancestry".

 

...
Schera Do's imagines that Group 3 would show that there existed organisms that were all the "transitions".
...

 

.
Preposterous, fatuous, demonstrative of deficiency of reading comprension skills--and further evidence that your intellect is shackled by something yet to be identified.

I will type very slowly in the remote chance that it will help with a particular reader's comprehension: The ONLY way Group 3 contains "transitionals" is if transitionals existed or exist. I have no knowledge of transitionals, real, existing or imaginary. Unbleeping believable.

You "G g" have provided an exquisite example and reinforcement of my judgement of you.

I repeat and as an Agnostic feel somewhat silly: Consider Group 3 to be God's own Ledger of every species to have existed since life began on Earth. There is nothing hypothetical about the members of Group 3. We (humans) may, or may not, EVER know of the vast majority of the members of Group 3. There is one entry for EVERY extinct specie ever to have existed. This would be--IS--a subset of Group 3.

 

 

I thought you weren't going to read any more of my comments. 

 

There is NO doubt that there are organisms that have no representation in the fossil record. There is no doubt that there is a "Truth" about that which happened in Earth's history. But it is not accessible to science unless perhaps time travel is invented. The best we can do is look at Group 1, and 2, as it is found. Group 3 does not exist because we do NOT have representation in the fossil record of ALL the organisms that ever existed. We never will. I wish we could somehow access "God's ledger" to know what they are. The Bible, if that is what you are suggesting, is not a ledger. 

 

So, if Group 3 did exist or if we could somehow have a "ledger", what do you think we would find?



#49 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 03 September 2017 - 03:34 PM

Very interesting article Gneiss, it seems to me genuine scientists have shown human footprints nearly 6 million years old. Notice their conclusion, they imply that they now believe human feet had evolved earlier. Lol. This is the problem, even if they find humans at 40 million years they will say the same thing; "golly we didn't know they evolved that early"
 
So if humans were humans 6 million years ago, where is the missing 100 trillion skeletons?

 
Yes an interesting article but they haven't concluded a human made the tracks Mike, you would need bone fossils to be sure of that. If humans were found at 40 million years that really would be a major problem for evolution because this would be before the hominid clade arose (the group containing humans and our fellow great apes - chimps, gorillas etc, plus extinct ancestors). That would make no sense.

 

Here is an image of the prints. To my amateur eye they look too triangular and shortened to be human and look more apelike. However, the hallux looks straight which is a human characteristic.

 

Also, I've just noticed the scale bar on the left. They are very small feet !

 

Attached File  image_5185_2e-Trachilos-Footprints.jpg   211.83KB   0 downloads

 

 

So if humans were humans 6 million years ago, where is the missing 100 trillion skeletons?

 

 

Your grossly exaggerated figure not withstanding that's like saying with all the birds in the sky you see every day, where are all the missing bird corpses ? You don't see many do you ?
 



#50 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 September 2017 - 04:05 PM

It seems to me, an assumption that cellular life transitioned to the multi-cellular animal phyla.

it is.
and something must explain this transition.
you mustn't forget that chemistry doesn't work by magic.
what science gets wrong is, they are failing to realize that there may be an intelligence somewhere, somehow, no matter how absurd it sounds.

the above is probably the major reason gradualism is being defended so fiercely.
simple stuff gradually accumulating.
except the cell is anything but simple.
the cell was complete, epigenetics, transposons, all of it, from the get go. 
 

The "catalytic event" responsible for life could be called an "intelligent causation?"

no, because atoms and molecules follow laws.
you can't make something happen that's impossible, bottom line.
do you realize what that implies?
life is seperate from the cell, that's what.

 

Could this not suggest something that works...a common design element?

i can understand the DNA code remaining unchanged, but epigenetics code also?
also, a good deal of "intelligence" can be built into the program itself
it might be this "intelligence" that determine phyla.
i see no other way why it wouldn't be breached.
 
 

Philosophically speaking, I think that for many, the God concept is unpalatable, not implausible.

i have no idea how to rationalize god.
the only plausible explanation is an alternate reality.
alternate realities must exist becauase we have such things as pre big bang, and what is the universe expanding into.
who knows what kind of creatures inhabited such realms.

Science does not have answers for the "God concept."

correct.
i started to respond to this, then realized that it appears that science has been hijacked by a group of very bad people.
 

Science has its limits. It will never have all the answers. That is some of the problem with Schera Do's Group 3. Science can not reproduce Group 3. It is hypothetical, it doesn't exist and never will. Therefore one can only speculate, imagine, hypothesize , etc. on what it would contain.

and what happens when you DO speculate?

#51 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 03 September 2017 - 04:18 PM

...
I thought you weren't going to read any more of my comments.

There is NO doubt that there are organisms that have no representation in the fossil record. There is no doubt that there is a "Truth" about that which happened in Earth's history. But it is not accessible to science unless perhaps time travel is invented. The best we can do is look at Group 1, and 2, as it is found. Group 3 does not exist because we do NOT have representation in the fossil record of ALL the organisms that ever existed. We never will. I wish we could somehow access "God's ledger" to know what they are. The Bible, if that is what you are suggesting, is not a ledger.

So, if Group 3 did exist or if we could somehow have a "ledger", what do you think we would find?

.
I do give some members extra consideration or less consideration based on some quality or another. "Mike Summers" is a good example of one whom I have decided to give extra consideration, obviously.

In your case, I'm interested in what exactly prevents a self-identified "geologist/paleontologist" from comprehending what's missing from the geological record, as it exists. Of course, there may be an individual explanation, something particular to the person "Gneiss girl."

I can't explain the reason I expected someone in the field to have considered what I have asked everyone here to consider and that I'm shocked at the response of the putative hands-on person.

Perhaps, some form of denial is required to continue in a chosen field, lest something bring the entire intellectual edifice down to the ground.

I suspect that my extensive reading of Nietzsche has immunized me from being "shackled."

#52 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 September 2017 - 01:51 AM

Very interesting article Gneiss, it seems to me genuine scientists have shown human footprints nearly 6 million years old. Notice their conclusion, they imply that they now believe human feet had evolved earlier. Lol. This is the problem, even if they find humans at 40 million years they will say the same thing; "golly we didn't know they evolved that early"

So if humans were humans 6 million years ago, where is the missing 100 trillion skeletons?

:gotcha: ;)

Yup.. It was a "Fact" for decades that "Man" arrived on the scene about 200,000 years ago.. Then recently it was adjusted to 300,000 and now THIS.. 6 MILLION years ago..

And they have the nerve to say that a Cambrian Bunny would falsify "Evolution"?? Like HELL it would!!! The hubris of this bunch is second to none....

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

#53 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 September 2017 - 02:07 AM

...I thought you weren't going to read any more of my comments.There is NO doubt that there are organisms that have no representation in the fossil record. There is no doubt that there is a "Truth" about that which happened in Earth's history. But it is not accessible to science unless perhaps time travel is invented. The best we can do is look at Group 1, and 2, as it is found. Group 3 does not exist because we do NOT have representation in the fossil record of ALL the organisms that ever existed. We never will. I wish we could somehow access "God's ledger" to know what they are. The Bible, if that is what you are suggesting, is not a ledger.So, if Group 3 did exist or if we could somehow have a "ledger", what do you think we would find?

.I do give some members extra consideration or less consideration based on some quality or another. "Mike Summers" is a good example of one whom I have decided to give extra consideration, obviously.In your case, I'm interested in what exactly prevents a self-identified "geologist/paleontologist" from comprehending what's missing from the geological record, as it exists. Of course, there may be an individual explanation, something particular to the person "Gneiss girl."I can't explain the reason I expected someone in the field to have considered what I have asked everyone here to consider and that I'm shocked at the response of the putative hands-on person.Perhaps, some form of denial is required to continue in a chosen field, lest something bring the entire intellectual edifice down to the ground.I suspect that my extensive reading of Nietzsche has immunized me from being "shackled."


"I suspect that my extensive reading of Nietzsche has immunized me from being "shackled."

Reading Nietzsche extensively has merely poisoned your mind with Satanic lies which you wanted to hear and therefore you have allowed a Demonic influence to control your thoughts and posess your soul..




"God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too." Nietzsche's The G*y Science


Not a good place to be, There is only one way for you to avoid slowly sliding into the abyss that you are surely headed.. Jesus Said "I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but my me".
  • Gneiss girl likes this

#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 September 2017 - 02:27 AM

 

 

Wibble: Yes an interesting article but they haven't concluded a human made the tracks Mike, you would need bone fossils to be sure of that

 

Not really, if you have definite human footprints and even evolutionist scientists that study the anatomy, say so. Also there is the Laetoli footprints at about 3 million years.

 

Sure - you can say the hominen clade had already arose, which is of course what you are trying to prove, for evidentially there is no such clade, it only exists as a picture in books. Like my atheist brother said last weekend when he came to visit, and I near fainted on the spot because I didn't know he had such acuity and honesty; "but they don't find anything between do they, they just inflate it in the press, you either find humans or apes, not the missing inbetween links."

 

I wonder if he saw the surprise on my face - here is an honest person that doesn't require evolution to back his atheism. At that moment I thought; "Wow, it isn't just creationists that notice such things despite the propaganda from Wibble that we are a small gang of crackpots, but heck even honest atheists, just aren't being convinced by the stories they put out there, which are a lot of hyped up wind based on a few bones."

 

Like me, he is convinced that if you find cat footprints, they belong to cats, and dog footprints they belong to dogs, but if we find human footprints what does Wibble assign them to? "Hominids".

 

Lol!

 

 

 

Wibble: If humans were found at 40 million years that really would be a major problem for evolution because this would be before the hominid clade arose (the group containing humans and our fellow great apes - chimps, gorillas etc, plus extinct ancestors)

 

First of all don't patronise me about obvious things; on my evolution tests I score highly showing I understand such things probably better than you. I also got 65% on the more difficult population genetics test and famous evolutionists, an educated ones at EVC got about the 70%. :P

 

Secondly this is an implied argumentum ad ignorantiam, meaning you have concluded that because you haven't found a human at 40 million years that it follows that there is no problem for evolution because there wasn't any. An implied argument from ignorance, which is an error because it is based only on silence in the fossil record. (arguing from silence).

 

If there are no human footprints at 40 million years, are there any for the types of animals that lived about 40 million years ago?

 

If there are no pine trees at 40 million years but they exist presently, and existed about 200 million years ago does that mean they didn't exist 40 million years ago? :gotcha:



#55 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 04 September 2017 - 03:13 AM

This is mainly aimed at Mike the W ...

...
This last form is "being kind."

I can only conclude that "Wibble" is not sane.

.
For the record, "wibble" may be considered "not sane" for the reason that he continues to "debate" with someone who it has been shown repeatedly peddles errors while pummeling others with named fallacies.



#56 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 04 September 2017 - 06:34 AM

 

Wibble: Why, has a hominin fossil been found in the Mesozoic or something ?


A red-herring you repeat as an ad nauseam fallacy. (repeating a false argument).
 
We don't expect to find hominens there, because our flood model doesn't say that humans were underwater fish that should be found in the Cambrian. Our models says that whatever organisms you find, happen to be the ones buried in that zone.


It is you who continues with the ad nauseum responses that are already refuted. This geographical separation idea does not hold water when you look at the fossil record. As I've told you before, and you will continue to ignore, dinosaur bones have been found on every continent. Many dinosaurs have been found here in England. Were humans and all modern mammals all living entirely separately from dinosaurs with no overlap, and the catastrophic currents of the Flood never mixed them up ? By the way, no modern fish are in Cambrian (or earlier) rock, why is that ? (I'm sure I've asked you that before as well - will he respond this time ?)

 


Yep, ignored again as expected.

Again, geographical separation does not explain the pattern in the fossil record for you. Dinosaurs and human fossils are not "separated by 10,000 miles" as you speculated in another post recently. For instance, Tanzania has a rich dinosaur fossil record, and this country is famous for early hominin finds such as Australopithecus, including the Laetoli tracks which you would assert are fully human. But they are never found in the same layers.

It is ridiculous to suggest (under your model) that somehow all modern animals never shared the same space with dinosaurs but conveniently, non modern, extinct mammals did. Don't you think it more logical to interpret these observations showing that none of today's mammal groups, including humans, existed during the Age of Dinosaurs but the progenitors did ?

Once the dinosaurs disappeared at the K-T boundary, mammals rapidly diversified to fill the vacated niches, that's what the fossil record shows.

Any chance of a response on the lack of Cambrian fish ?



#57 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 September 2017 - 06:51 AM

 

 

Wibble: Again, geographical separation does not explain the pattern in the fossil record for you. Dinosaurs and human fossils are not "separated by 10,000 miles" as you speculated in another post recently

 

No you haven't understood what I meant. I meant that dinosaurs at the time of the antediluvian pangea, might have been a long distance away from humans. You do realise that now the continents are not one super continent I presume? So then surely you must understand that I speak laterally about one land mass, not vertical positions in the placement of the rocks now. So i was speaking of the placement of living things while not buried, not dead, buried things, as they are placed NOW.

 

You're not thinking it through. Yes there may be a physical distance now between lower rocks and higher rocks, which is small but obviously where those organisms lived at the time there may have been distance. Basically the marine forms buried close now to the higher layers would have been taken there by the water. Obviously a more modern flood model shows it's not the simplistic bath-tub type flood that evolutionists sometimes envision, but very convoluted with many phases and types of hydraulic action.

 

 

 

Wibble: It is ridiculous to suggest (under your model) that somehow all modern animals never shared the same space with dinosaurs but conveniently, non modern, extinct mammals did.

 

But why on earth would I claim that? You do love your strawmans don't you?

 

The words, "modern" and, "non-modern" here, are used as question-begging-epithets, because you would call a jellyfish "non-modern" not because of evolution theory saying it is, but because recently they found jellyfish in much, much older layers. So if you find a "modern" form in an older layer, you will then call it, "non-modern".

 

So how can I win, if it's heads it's evolution, if it's tails it's evolution.

 

There are, "modern" forms found with dinosaurs, like birds, mammals. There are modern forms such as dragonflies. But you would reply to that by saying, "they're ancient because they are found in ancient rock." Exactly, it's a catch 22, if I say you can't find them in modern rock you will say it's because they didn't exist (arguing from silence fallacy) and if I say "there are modern forms with dinos" you will say, "they're ancient".

 

But if they become ancient if they are found in older layers, how can I satisfy your request? So then qualify modern forms for me. Do you mean something that exists now? Because I can show you many things that exist now that are buried either in the same layer as dinos or close.

 

:acigar:

 

 

 

Wibble: Once the dinosaurs disappeared at the K-T boundary, mammals rapidly diversified to fill the vacated niches, that's what the fossil record shows.

 

You're free to believe that happened. Me personally, I think what lived in the antediluvian world is explainable because of the time organisms have had to radiate since then.

 

You can't think in modern terms, a lot of the fossils we find are unknown, extinct and sometimes bizarre creatures, that we never knew existed. I believe in the past it was the opposite of today, the ratio of kinds/species would have been drastically different. Think of the pre-flood pangea-continent as a very large zoo, where God has created an unimaginable variety of creatures, limitless. They have no reason to migrate, they are basically in the same zone they were created to exist in. Now then, today we have a lot, lot, lot, lot less of them, but what we do have is many more species, "of" what we do have.

 

So now 1 kind may have an average of 50 species but THEN there may have been maybe only 3 species to a kind, on average. This would explain why the fossils are so rich in providing new forms. You forget that the dinosaurs themselves, all of them, are now extinct. The world that was then, under the flood model, was tremendously different to the world now.



#58 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 September 2017 - 09:16 AM

I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

hmmmm . . .
i doubt any scientist would make such a comment.
i know i wouldn't.

pasteurs experiment did not disprove spontaneous generation. it proves maggots doesn't come from rotting meat.

also, i doubt if a scientist would say "i do not want to believe in god"
what a scientist wants to believe is completely irrelevant, except from a confirmation bias standpoint.

#59 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:05 AM

 

 

Regarding:

it is.
and something must explain this transition.
you mustn't forget that chemistry doesn't work by magic.
what science gets wrong is, they are failing to realize that there may be an intelligence somewhere, somehow, no matter how absurd it sounds.

 

 I don't know that a transition needs to be explained if it never occurred. We shouldn't assume that it did occur. And, of course chemistry doesn't work by magic. Material things, matter, energy, life, must follow physical laws. With that in mind, is intelligence physical? 

the above is probably the major reason gradualism is being defended so fiercely.
simple stuff gradually accumulating.
except the cell is anything but simple.
the cell was complete, epigenetics, transposons, all of it, from the get go. 

 

I agree that the cell is anything but simple. What epigenetics and transposons are able to add to evolution's capabilities is a valid area for further research. 

 

no, because atoms and molecules follow laws.

you can't make something happen that's impossible, bottom line.
do you realize what that implies?
life is seperate from the cell, that's what.

 

What if, yes agreed. Atoms and molecules follow physical laws. I would say that life is more than a cell. 

 

i can understand the DNA code remaining unchanged, but epigenetics code also?

also, a good deal of "intelligence" can be built into the program itself
it might be this "intelligence" that determine phyla.
i see no other way why it wouldn't be breached.

 

I think a better way of phrasing it is that "information" is built into the program. An intelligence is the source of the information. But at this point we have a lot to learn about the "program" itself. 

 

and what happens when you DO speculate?

 

Well, I guess we end up in a lively discussion then! The exchange of ideas can open up new ways of thinking about the scientific evidences and ways that scientists could direct their research. 

 



#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:40 AM

No you haven't understood what I meant. I meant that dinosaurs at the time of the antediluvian pangea, might have been a long distance away from humans. You do realise that now the continents are not one super continent I presume? So then surely you must understand that I speak laterally about one land mass, not vertical positions in the placement of the rocks now. So i was speaking of the placement of living things while not buried, not dead, buried things, as they are placed NOW.

Yeah ..... as I recall, you have a lot of problems with measured velocities over millions of years but no problem at all with continents scooting along the planet at speedboat velocities (tens of km (or mi) per hour).

 

Obviously a more modern flood model shows it's not the simplistic bath-tub type flood that evolutionists sometimes envision, but very convoluted with many phases and types of hydraulic action.

All of the modern flood models have the same fatal flaw.....   each of them releases so much heat energy it would boil the oceans many times over.  Some would melt the surface of the planet.

 

Now, you may attack the "logic" of this all you want, but it goes something like this:

1)  Enough heat energy to boil the oceans or melt the surface of the planet will increase atmospheric temperatures above the boiling point of water.

2)  If the atmosphere is above the boiling point of water, the heat will destroy all life on the planet.  Most specifically, all humans will die.

3)  Humans are still here.

4)  The models are false.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users