Jump to content


Photo

Now I Understand Where The Water Came From


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 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 17 November 2017 - 03:45 AM

 

 

Wibble: Regarding dinosaurs, you have asserted "dozens of complete or nearly complete" specimens, which of those in your link are complete ?

 

 

 

Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argumentby leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

 

 

 

Wibble: Regarding dinosaurs, you have asserted "dozens of complete or nearly complete" specimens, which of those in your link are complete ?

 

Pterosaurs

 

https://www.google.c...griVbWn6at8V8M:

 

https://www.google.c...mj3gtE-pqC2cDM:

 

 

 

Wibble: complete

 

 

Actual claim;

 

 

 

mike the wiz: we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed

 

(Obviously the implication is of things killed by burial/fossilisation, which doesn't rule out obliteration of all or portions of the organism.)

 

 

 

wibbleWith your argument, with rapid burial whilst alive, pretty much all skeletons should be complete, rather than very rare specimens that are almost complete like that specimen.

 

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Straw_man

http://www.toolkitfo...sertion-fallacy

 

"almost complete" is closer to complete than not complete, especially if we are bickering over 3%. The pictures speak for themselves, we can tell what ALL of their anatomy is, must I actually show pictures of the dinosaurs and use up all of my picture file space just so everyone can see the skeletons? You're arguing "technically not complete" because one may be 96% or another may be 98%. If you are saying, "it must be 100%, and can't be 99.4%" then I can only laugh at you. The examples come in their whole form, you can plainly see they're basically complete however I never made any claim they must be complete. (double whammy) :)

 

(Readers should note that I am not claiming fossils of organisms should be complete in the sense of 100% identical to a living organism to the percentage which is a ludicrous request showing ignorance of fossilisation. I myself never claimed anything to do with completeness, but when I gave a list of, "complete" fossils, what I mean is the whole of the organism is there encased, where we can either see the entire skeleton or imprint, my original claim was, "exquisite condition", if you look at the links I gave for pterosaurs, spiders, frogs, beetles dragon flies, etc, because of their exquisite condition even children would immediately recognise what they are. If there is an assertion that most fossils are decayed, showing they had already died and were slowly fossilised over long periods then the person making such an assertion has to show that most are preserved as a decaying mass, or preserved partially but indeterminate because of the decay.)

 

To falsify such obviously exquisite preservation in the fossils, there would have to be none found eating, fighting, digesting, in the suffocation position, exquisitely preserved. That would falsify a flood if there was generally no such examples. From the abundance of evidence shown there are very many examples. If a flood had not occurred there would be little to none. If a flood had occurred to expect all to be preserved identically is a stupid argument but we would expect many examples which we do. If a flood had not preserved fossils while alive, none of them and they all looked like they had already died, that would falsify a flood or be such strong evidence against it because it would confirm fossils of decayed dead things were preserved rather than victims of a flood.

 

 

 

The fossil catches the moments just after a long-tailed pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchus, had swooped down and caught a small fish in the water, thought to be Leptolepides, when a larger predatory fish, Aspidorhynchus, managed to leap up and impale itself on the flight membrane of the pterosaur’s wing, pulling it back down to the water................Significantly this means that the pterosaur had not just recently died and was not floating in the water waiting for a scavenger to consume it. The pterosaur had just swooped down to catch the smaller fish and was part-way through swallowing it, when the Aspidorhynchus caught the Rhamphorhynchus and pulled it down into the water were it was drowned........So what does this mean for the 0.5 million years that the Solnhofen limestone deposit supposedly took to form? If the fossils contained within it require extremely rapid sedimentation, how can the length of time ascribed to it still remain?

 

The last part shows the logic - even if these three fossils alone were the only fossils ever found in those layers, it only takes this one example because they had to have been buried instantly, not over millions of years, because they died in their actions. So all it really takes is to find one fossil in a layer which is claimed to have formed over many millions of years, which clearly had to have formed quickly.



#22 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 17 November 2017 - 04:45 AM

 

 

mike the wiz: we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed

 

In regards to this statement just to clarify basic logic for those readers who struggle to understand, if a fossil is 94% preserved or 100% complete, both examples can still be exquisitely preserved, or even 78%. So "completeness" of the fossil is a red-herring

 

The modus tollens is if we do "NOT find them in exquisite condition, fighting, giving birth, eating, etc..." the modus tollens is not, "we don't find all of them doing this therefore a flood is false." That would be a non-sequitur. So it seems people making that suggestion, still don't know the A,B,C level of logic that deals with understanding what a conditional implication is. 

 

By analogy imagine if I claimed, "this race driver is exquisite, his car handling skill superb!", would that argument be affected if someone said; "but you must show he is 100% perfect, and has never had an accident."

 

That would be a desperate counter-argument.

 

The semantics over what we regard as, "complete", as a kind of technical completeness where we discuss percentage, is just that; semantics, it won't change the fact we have found fossils in the act of attacking each other, and we can even deduce what had happened, like when the pterosaur swooped down to catch a fish and another large fish impaled itself. This was altogether captured forever in time as a fossil, we also have other examples showing us what we need to see in order to satisfy my claim that the organisms were living when they were fossilised, as would happen in a flood. We have fossil fights, fossil births, fossils eating, fossils with their necks thrown back, fossils which are preserved in "fluid" positions, like they were swimming or moving when they were fossilised. We would expect fossils of things preserved while living, and we find them. Had we not found any, that would falsify a flood because the claim of the bible is that all life was killed, and so that life would show it had been fossilised by the flood while living, not after death.

 

It's pretty basic logic. The claim such evidence doesn't favour a flood and instead favours millions of years, is a claim depending on contradiction.



#23 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:14 AM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]But really it's only evolutionists that insist that the matter be completely scientific.

If it's going to try to be (or more to the point appear) scientific at all, it needs to go all the way, yes. It fundamentally doesn't work otherwise.

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]So you might think a flood can't be falsified. Not really though, all historical models have contradictory evidence and if we assume one model is true then such evidence can't falsify the true one. With that in mind, the correct way to falsify a flood can only be the correct employment of the modus tollens where there is an absolutely watertight conditional implication.[/font

You've said this multiple times, but I don't think it's actually true. If your model has been contradicted, your model is wrong. That's a different thing than saying that the model is inaccurate to some extent. The purpose of a model is to simplify the thing being modeled, with the acknowledgement that doing so introduces some amount of inaccuracy. A model of the solar system that's modeled as a handful of point masses is much easier to understand and extrapolate from than the actual solar system, but it's also less accurate. "This model deviates by X%." is a very different statement than "Maybe God knows how to get around thermodynamics?".

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]CONCLUSION; You can't falsify a flood unless you have a really strong prediction where there is a conspicuous absence of unavoidably expected evidence. However you can provide evidence against a flood.

My point is that when miracles are in play there is no unavoidably expected evidence. Evidence and expectation rely on consistent natural processes to work. A miracle is pretty much by definition a suspension of the normal operation of those processes.

If you can say that hydroplates happened but Earth wasn't sterilized like we would expect because miracles, why can't you say that a flood happened but we didn't find fossils exactly like we expected because miracles?

#24 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 17 November 2017 - 08:57 AM

 

 

PopoiIf your model has been contradicted, your model is wrong

 

Perhaps then I should have used the term, "inconsistent" evidence. Obviously if X is true there can't really be a true contradiction of X, which was my point, there are lots of types of evidence evolutionists claim can't fit with a flood but they're not omniscient and they technically don't know if it can be explained. I myself don't see any silver-bullet contradiction of a flood. 

 

 

 

Popoi: "This model deviates by X%." is a very different statement than "Maybe God knows how to get around thermodynamics?".

 

Logically to be a consistent Christian I MUST claim God knows how to solve problems and since I never argued in my life the flood was anything less than a miracle caused by God........ The point isn't scientific. You yourself, as soon as you give any opinions about what God can or can't do, have left the realm of science, haven't you? But I myself am not claiming the flood is solely scientific. If you personally only find meaning from something solely scientific, that is your point of view not mine but from a logical perspective it seems absurd to treat the flood as solely-scientific to the point of saying that we must find Noah's dna.

 

But I am not saying that a miracle was definitely needed, I myself would consider three logical possibilities;

 

1. God knows a way to disperse heat. (Lol, talk about stating the obvious.)

2. Miracle.

3. A flood did not happen. 

 

I believe by faith 1 or 2 because a flood still makes sense of so much of the evidence where evolution fails, such as the general fixity of kinds and total lack of transitionals, etc...

 

 

 

Popoi: If it's going to try to be (or more to the point appear) scientific at all, it needs to go all the way, yes. It fundamentally doesn't work otherwise.

 

Yes but if the full truth is not solely scientific, then this argument means little. You need to read Hawkins' post here, it is excellent in describing that historical theories themselves are not even scientific "all the way"; http://evolutionfair...scent/?p=140915

 

You see you are trying to argue that only science counts but I don't accept your argument. First you must prove that only "science" is valid. That simply isn't the case, an argument can consist of scientific facts in it's parts without being wholly scientific, you can form a sound syllogism and the argument itself is not a scientific argument, but uses scientific facts.

 

 



#25 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 17 November 2017 - 10:36 AM

But I myself am not claiming the flood is solely scientific. If you personally only find meaning from something solely scientific, that is your point of view not mine but from a logical perspective it seems absurd to treat the flood as solely-scientific to the point of saying that we must find Noah's dna.
 
But I am not saying that a miracle was definitely needed, ...


But there's a problem in claiming God used a miracle. Whatever God does, He does to draw people to Himself. But as soon as you suggest it might be a miracle, many people start rolling their eyes and losing interest. This isn't totally sinful. It's just all too easy to be wrong unless the Scriptures explicitly says what happened and it's clearly a miracle. Raising someone from the dead is clearly a miracle. But there aren't enough details given about the flood to be sure.

On a related issue, I used to be convinced that surely the Lord used evolution to produce a man into which He injected the first soul, Adam. In that theory, man evolved but Adam was the first human because he was the first animal with a soul. I still think the theory fits well with Scripture. The death in God's warning about eating the fruit was a spiritual death, not physical.

But I've now totally abandoned this theory because of science. I started reading about gene expression, how RNA polymerase temporarily splits open the DNA helix to transcribe a messenger RNA chain which is then processed, exits the nucleus and is captured by a ribosome which translates each three-nucleotide codone to one amino acid (which is brought to it by a transfer RNA) and thus builds the encoded protein. But that's not all. There is a very complex hierarchy within each cell. And there are levels of hierarchy of cells forming subsystems, systems and organs.

And supposedly nature violated thermodynamics to bring extreme order out of disorder to produce the sensationally well organized and functional bodies we enjoy everyday, all by chance with no fossils that captured transitions.

Since I've rejected the pseudoscience (or is it a religion?) of evolution, I'm left with no option but to believe that God supernaturally "poofed" life into existence. Atheists don't have that option, so they're stuck trying to defend a thoroughly debunked 19th century theory.

But we're not there yet on the flood. Sure, piasan quotes sources that say Noah would be cooked. But I wonder how many more nuggets of truth like ringwoodite are waiting to be unearthed that will explain it satisfactorily using only the Lords own laws of physics.

#26 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 17 November 2017 - 10:49 AM

 

 

Ken Jackson:  Sure, piasan quotes sources that say Noah would be cooked. But I wonder how many more nuggets of truth like ringwoodite are waiting to be unearthed that will explain it satisfactorily using only the Lords own laws of physics.

 

I'm not against this possibility, Ken. As a student of logic I don't rule out explanations. 

 

That's one reason I don't like argumentum ad ignorantiam; "we can't find a way this flood could have solved the problem, therefore it can't have happened." So I agree that arguing from ignorance is unacceptable, in fact I mentioned that in my original post to Piasan.

 

 

 

Ken: But there's a problem in claiming God used a miracle.

 

My position on the flood itself is that it was a miracle in the sense of it being defined as an act of God, it wasn't a natural disaster that randomly occurred. From my perspective it had to be a highly orchestrated event because if it was just a natural flood, chances are it would be curtains for all life on earth including Noah and the ark. Basically my own beliefs though they may sometimes stray from the normal, is that God intended to wipe out the dinosaurs because they would become a pest that would wipe out mankind and the mammals. I also believe God created certain geomorphology because He intended to bring about countries where man would spread out on the earth, so whether it be grand canyon or Ayers rock or the white cliffs of Dover, I believe these features likely had some artistic intention to them, to give countries their own signature.

 

However this doesn't preclude a scientific explanation for some effects such as heat. So I am open to the possibility that God simply solved such problems scientifically or that they were not actually problems to begin with because of unknown factors. After all this really isn't hard, repeatable science, all we can do is build models to fit circumstantial evidence. From my own perspective, for me personally I can accept a flood happened because I see no alternative history anyway, evolution is basically a logical joke to me, to my mind God done it, the details are just not totally known.

 

So it's not that I am claiming God used a miracle really, it's just one possible explanation for Christians because as you say; ", I'm left with no option but to believe that God supernaturally". Exactly, just like we have to believe God turned the water into wine. Atheists may say, "unacceptable" but I don't have to value what they say. I also don't really care what they say, or if they roll their eyes because I believe their whole worldview is an absurd shambles.



#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:40 PM

 

mike the wiz we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed

 
In regards to this statement just to clarify basic logic for those readers who struggle to understand, if a fossil is 94% preserved or 100% complete, both examples can still be exquisitely preserved, or even 78%. So "completeness" of the fossil is a red-herring
 
The modus tollens is if we do "NOT find them in exquisite condition, fighting, giving birth, eating, etc..." the modus tollens is not, "we don't find all of them doing this therefore a flood is false." That would be a non-sequitur. So it seems people making that suggestion, still don't know the A,B,C level of logic that deals with understanding what a conditional implication is. [/font]

 


I never made that claim about behaviours being preserved ("So it seems people making that suggestion" is obviously referring to me), why make up things ?

I asked you how many of the dino fossils in your google link were complete because you labelled it "complete or nearly complete dinosaurs". Excuse me for being pedantic but I would have thought that "nearly complete" would include all the specimens that weren't actually complete....which suggested that you were asserting that there are 100% complete specimens, as in ones with no missing bones.

In post #11, you said this:
 

we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed because of being preserved..... So had we found no fossils like that, and they were generally in a semi-rotten state by majority that would be a falsification.


I see you ignored my point about selection bias when you do a google search for fossils. Does it not concern you that you are getting a skewed picture of the general completeness of fossils by being a casual armchair google image searcher ?

But anyway, back to your above quote, the flesh has gone from all fossils obviously, so by "semi rotten" you must mean an incomplete skeleton, right ? Your argument seems to be that due to sudden burial alive, animals killed weren't left in the open to be dismembered by scavengers, or rot away for the bones to be separated by water flow or whatever.

So we can substitute "semi rotten" with "partial skeleton" and if that was the state by majority then by your own words that would be a falsification of your flood.

If we look up the list of T. Rex fossils we find that none are complete (in common with all other dinos as I said). The famous specimen "Sue" is the best preserved with about 80% of bones present. However, almost all are much less intact than this, if you look at the info for the specimen "Bucky" it states that it is the sixth most complete (out of more than 40) specimen ever found and this only has 34% of its bones.

I'd wager that you could look up any dinosaur or indeed any other animal and get a similar picture (or worse).

So if you are to be honest with yourself, this does not fit with your flood suddenly burying most things alive but does fit with normal processes of dead animals being exposed for a period of time with later chance burial.



#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 November 2017 - 06:30 PM

Here's one article discussing the discovery of glycine in interstellar space:

They measured the spectral lines of the clouds - Sagittarius-B2, Orion-KL and W51 - over a four-year period using the 12-metre telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Arizona.

The frequencies of certain transitions in glycine, which are known from experiments in the lab, provide a characteristic signature for the molecule. Knowing this spectral "fingerprint", the researchers were able to identify 27 glycine lines at frequencies between 90 and 265 GHz in the clouds. This confirms the results of earlier searches for interstellar glycine in which tantalizing evidence was provided by a handful of spectral lines.

My apologies for leaving out the link to the article.



#29 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 17 November 2017 - 08:45 PM

Here's one article discussing the discovery of glycine in interstellar space:


From the article:

The chemical process that actually produces glycine in the interstellar medium is not understood, ...


Not understood. Yeah, well I can't understand the concept of a big glob of glycine floating around in outer space. And there must be a lot of it if they detected 27 lines amidst the noise.
 

The researchers claim that the discovery of glycine is the first step in establishing the crucial link between amino acids in space and the emergence of life in the solar system or, indeed, elsewhere in the galaxy.


Wishful thinking. Even if there is an incomprehensible large glob of glycine adrift in the cosmos, each molecule has only ten atoms. And it's only one of the twenty amino acids needed for life. And you still have to assemble thousands of proteins with hundreds of precisely ordered amino acids. That's an AWFUL lot of order to happen upon by chance.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users