Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
mike the wiz

My I.D Syllogism

Recommended Posts

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2020 at 6:28 PM, wibble said:

 All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

the exact same thing can be said of transitionals between animal phyla.

none has never been found, and never will.

apparently life was absent then was "just there" in all its shining glory.

don't start with the "standard" explanation, koonin already dismissed that as unreliable.

next.

also, common descent was thought to explain the biomolecular commonality between organisms.

HGT is another proven possibility.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the following might be relevant:

If the genes of each species are assumed to be perfectly tuned to current function, mechanistic convergence should often result, leading not only to erasure of evolutionary history, but also to extensive homoplasy in the molecular and cellular machinery of diverse species. Thus mid-20th Century biology usually assumed that species were the durable units of evolution while organs, genes, and cells evolved to match the functional demands placed on those species (Fig. 1A). When new species formed, it was expected that their genes would then diverge, and with them the cells and organs that they specified, in parallel with the opportunity for divergence that speciation This assumption of parallelism across levels has now been widely dropped. By the start of the 21st Century, molecular evolution had taught us that genes duplicate within species, and protein-coding genes are often recognizably conserved for tens or hundreds of millions of years, longer than the duration of many species.

 

Even systematics has had to abandon many strictures that were part of the Modern Synthesis. If species are the durable unit of biology, and if natural selection quickly molds genes to current utility, then most genes should diverge at the time of speciation events, given views like Mayr's. Here again, analyses of newly abundant sequence data in the late 20th Century showed that rather than a highly congruent coalescence of genes at the times of speciation events, the coalescence times of alleles among species are highly variable. As such, species trees and gene trees often cannot be equated.

 

the above obliterates natural selection as the primary cause of evolution.

like koonin said, the concept of progress in evolution is unwarranted.

as a matter of fact, koonin doesn't mince words about it:

 The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next? The answer that seems to be suggested by the Darwinian discourse of 2009: a postmodern state not so far a postmodern synthesis. Above all, such a state is characterized by the pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 3/13/2020 at 4:00 PM, what if said:
  On 3/6/2020 at 11:28 PM, wibble said:

 All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

the exact same thing can be said of transitionals between animal phyla.

none has never been found, and never will.

apparently life was absent then was "just there" in all its shining glory.

That's actually a good point. Especially since it's an agnostic stating it rather than an, "irate religious fundamentalist". Of course on EvC forum the evolutionists' answer to, "What If"s existence is that he is a creationist in disguise, believe it or not. (for they sometimes read these forums)

So that's good logic, "what If" because the same could be argued for transitionals. However Wibble's famous, "bunny in the cambrian" argument is basically just an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T which means, "point refuted a thousand times". He repeats it endlessly, the tactic with this fallacy is that by endless repetition people will believe something to be true because of how many times it is stated.

Looks like you didn't buy it though.

I will address it just because we can't let his rhetoric go too unchecked or readers might be gullible enough to think creationists don't have answers to this guff.

The answer is that we don't argue the Cambrian is an era of time that passed. As creationists we believe the, "Cambrian" is a name given to certain rocks on earth. We believe Cambrian rock was laid down at the same time as the, "later" rocks. As I have tried and tried to teach Wibble in the past to no avail :rolleyes: if you want to understand the creationist position, you can't use an evolutionary history as an assumption. So then our explanation for the Cambrian, "period" is that it was basically the marine environment that existed perhaps close to the coasts in the pre-flood world where there were only two major continents called Gondwana and Laurasia. When the first flood tsunamis trawled the oceans in waves like a tidal action, of hit, retreat, hit, retreat, mostly it was the slow moving marine forms that were deposited first. 

One would assume that Wibble at least has the knowledge that a rabbit is not a marine form living on the ocean floor. But then at this stage I have to wonder if I am being overly optimistic. At this stage to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if Wibble turned out to be a fourteen year old girl posting from the school library, and feigning knowledge by googling issues as they arise. :P

There is actually merit to the notion that finding a fossil WAY out of place, before it's clade ever arose, being a big falsification of evolution. I done Wibble the courtesy of remembering his argument; which is that the push back must precede the clade. His logic was good on that point, because obviously if we find a human BEFORE primates allegedly arose, then that's impossible for evolution, but if we find a human still at a time AFTER the first primate common ancestor, then that's still at least hypothetically tenable for evolution.

HOWEVER, just because this would be a fantastic falsification of evolution doesn't mean we should expect to find that evidence. That would be an argument-from-silence. This is a fallacy which occurs when if you don't find evidence of species P you conclude it did not exist. It is a type of argument from ignorance.

I have explained this all before to Wibble, but he simply employs the repetition-fallacy called, "ad nauseam". Sort of like if I shown documentary evidence of my age but he kept referring to me as an, "old man" for month after month after year after year. The fallacy, "works", because it's human nature to believe something if it is repeated over and over and over again even if there was never any intellectual merit to the thing being repeated. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wibble: All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

I think also it's fair of me to point out that this relies on hindsight-bias. That is to say, because the fossil record is largely uncovered, we already know that certain things won't be found in certain places, like say a horse in the pre-Cambrian. So this makes us ask the question, "why does an atheist evolutionist like Wibble ONLY insist this is the thing that would falsify evolution?"

Is not the answer because of hindsight - that you already know it's superbly unlikely to find things where they were not preserved?

This seems exactly the same as when atheists give you their opinion on what they would define as evidence of God. They deliberately think of something they already know doesn't happen or doesn't exist (hindsight bias) then because they know you will never be able to score through their goal hoop, they then assert the red herring thus; "Show me God's signature on the bones of vertebrates or He doesn't exist."

Conclusion: Why do you think this should impress us, Wibble?

There have been found for example, trackways of birds way out of place, before their clade, and you didn't conclude evolution was false, you tried to like the scientists, come up with an excuse that it was dino-prints, and it's the same with human tracks found out of place, you simply argue those things aren't what they clearly are. 

There are other examples, like the pentadactyl pattern being found as a track, before the pentadactyl pattern allegedly arose. (J.Sarfati. Book: The Greatest Hoax On Earth, page 134, and I quote from my own version of the book;

"Tracks of footprints found in Zalchelmie quarry in Poland are evidence of a two metre long four-limbed creature  dated at 397 million years. This predates the alleged fish-to-tetrapod transitional forms, including the now famous tiktaalik." - page 134.

He also noted that the evolutionists do not conclude evolution is falsified but instead just argue for a re-think of evolution, disproving Wibble's assertion that evolutionists would count this evidence as refuting evolutuion. Here was the scientists response to this;

"They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition." - page 134.

There you see it. Even something radically out of place is met with the same response from evolutionists of pushing evolution back or saying, "we need to rethink evolution".

The statement "we need to rethink/re-assess" can basically be interpreted as proving that evolutionists will never accept a falsification of evolution, instead they import the falsification to their personal character and fault themselves instead by saying, "WE are in error for not understanding evolution", when we all know they are not in error, it's that evolution is in error because it's false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, just to show there are things found, "out of place" here is a diagram I drawn for Wibble a few years back now, the file is degraded it's been so long now, yet he still argues there are no out of place fossils. The things highlighted by bubble wrap have been pushed back from a time "later" than the Cretaceous. I think his best argument was that I spelt "cretaceous" wrong. :consoling: The top diagram shows where you could have argued their silence(fallacy), as previously they were found at, "later" stages. The red text where they are now found in comparison.

 

today.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2020 at 11:00 AM, mike the wiz said:

I will address it just because we can't let his rhetoric go too unchecked or readers might be gullible enough to think creationists don't have answers to this guff.

Creationists always produce some kind of answer, the problem is that they seldom any good. Case in point below.

 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:00 AM, mike the wiz said:

The answer is that we don't argue the Cambrian is an era of time that passed. As creationists we believe the, "Cambrian" is a name given to certain rocks on earth. We believe Cambrian rock was laid down at the same time as the, "later" rocks. As I have tried and tried to teach Wibble in the past to no avail :rolleyes: if you want to understand the creationist position, you can't use an evolutionary history as an assumption. So then our explanation for the Cambrian, "period" is that it was basically the marine environment that existed perhaps close to the coasts in the pre-flood world where there were only two major continents called Gondwana and Laurasia. When the first flood tsunamis trawled the oceans in waves like a tidal action, of hit, retreat, hit, retreat, mostly it was the slow moving marine forms that were deposited first. 

Yes Mike, I know this is your answer to the problem but with the slightest bit of critical thinking, it all falls apart. You say the Cambrian is perhaps just a marine environment near the coast, being honest with yourself, are you sure a violent tsunami trawling the ocean would separate lifeforms in this way ? Are you sure no fish would be caught up in Cambrian sediment ? Why is the Cambrian fauna so alien to modern life, save the few "living fossils" that creationists cherry pick. Why aren't the sedentary or slow moving marine organisms like the molluscs, bivalves, sea urchins etc. all concentrated at the bottom of the geological column rather than spread vertically in a way that suggests they actually lived at that location where they are preserved. Like the sea urchins commonly found in Cretaceous chalk that creationists would say was deposited by physics busting algal coccolith blooms at the end of the flood. Why didn't the bloated carcasses of dinosaurs get deposited in the uppermost sediments with the modern day mammals rather than being buried below. There are an overwhelming number of things that bust your cosy little idea but you don't want to think about it.

 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:00 AM, mike the wiz said:

There is actually merit to the notion that finding a fossil WAY out of place, before it's clade ever arose, being a big falsification of evolution. I done Wibble the courtesy of remembering his argument; which is that the push back must precede the clade. His logic was good on that point, because obviously if we find a human BEFORE primates allegedly arose, then that's impossible for evolution, but if we find a human still at a time AFTER the first primate common ancestor, then that's still at least hypothetically tenable for evolution.

HOWEVER, just because this would be a fantastic falsification of evolution doesn't mean we should expect to find that evidence. That would be an argument-from-silence. This is a fallacy which occurs when if you don't find evidence of species P you conclude it did not exist. It is a type of argument from ignorance.

Glad you see it as a good argument. So you agree evolution is falsifiable ? 

Just asserting we shouldn't expect to find the evidence is not a very good argument. Why shouldn't we ?

On 3/15/2020 at 11:28 AM, mike the wiz said:
Quote

Wibble: All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

I think also it's fair of me to point out that this relies on hindsight-bias. That is to say, because the fossil record is largely uncovered, we already know that certain things won't be found in certain places

You are betraying your lack of knowledge, or deliberately being misleading. How can you say the fossil record is largely uncovered ? Whilst we have uncovered a huge number of fossils that together illuminate a distinct evolutionary pattern of life there is vastly more buried waiting to be found. Such as eroding sea cliffs where we have to wait for the sea to gradually uncover things.

 

On 3/15/2020 at 11:28 AM, mike the wiz said:

There have been found for example, trackways of birds way out of place, before their clade, and you didn't conclude evolution was false, you tried to like the scientists, come up with an excuse that it was dino-prints, and it's the same with human tracks found out of place, you simply argue those things aren't what they clearly are. 

And they're not. Surely you must be embarrassed at some of Indy Dave's claims of genuine human prints. The bird trackways I showed you that the paper was redacted, because the rock was unequivocally shown to have been incorrectly assigned to the Triassic as I recall .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wibble said:

Yes Mike, I know this is your answer to the problem but with the slightest bit of critical thinking, it all falls apart. You say the Cambrian is perhaps just a marine environment near the coast, being honest with yourself, are you sure a violent tsunami trawling the ocean would separate lifeforms in this way ? Are you sure no fish would be caught up in Cambrian sediment ? Why is the Cambrian fauna so alien to modern life, save the few "living fossils" that creationists cherry pick. Why aren't the sedentary or slow moving marine organisms like the molluscs, bivalves, sea urchins etc. all concentrated at the bottom of the geological column rather than spread vertically in a way that suggests they actually lived at that location where they are preserved. Like the sea urchins commonly found in Cretaceous chalk that creationists would say was deposited by physics busting algal coccolith blooms at the end of the flood. Why didn't the bloated carcasses of dinosaurs get deposited in the uppermost sediments with the modern day mammals rather than being buried below. There are an overwhelming number of things that bust your cosy little idea but you don't want to think about it.

Wibble, this only represents your own famous thought experimentation. It's easy to play this game, as it's yet another example of hindsight-bias. All you do is take facts you know exist then basically say, "why don't X facts exist instead, they would if it was creationism!"

But really that's a game anyone can play. Unless mainstream science has underwent experimental science for a global flood, and studied a flood, it's actually pseudo-science you're indulging when you posit what a flood would or would not do. That is why in the victorian age, they dismissed a flood based on ZERO science, and in the 1970s Berthault performed hydraulics experiments which proved that the victorian scientists were wrong.

You're making the same mistake as they did then, you think you can predict what a flood would cause based on ZERO study of a world scale flood disaster. It's intellectually obtuse when evolutionists don't see that a world scale disaster of unprecedented and unknown proportion would throw up all kinds of discombobulating oddities, not least of which would be a fair portion of counter-intuitive scenarios. So when you produce these thought experiments, you do realise you're indulging pseudo-science, right? Because according to methodological naturalism, science cannot say anything about miracles like the world flood, nor does it study them AT ALL, it DISMISSES THEM, as part of it's very definition of, "science".

You can't have it both ways. Let's face it, science would be pretty useless in understanding a flood, the scientists that do work on flood models have admitted flood-science/geology, is in it's infancy, but those scientists are the ones that understand it more than evolutionists, who have dismissed it. But you as an amateur believe you know better than they do I have noted.

But really if you are honest with yourself you would admit that nobody can predict which things would be found where. All we can say is that we find what we do actually find where it actually is, then the creationist models for the flood incorporate that data to explain it as best they can, which is all that can be done with historical theory. It makes sense that a lot of the organisms found in the Cambrian being now extinct by the flood devastation, would appear preserved in flood rock. So it is explainable as something other than an evolutionary-order, because it would be a correct prediction that many species that perished in the flood, may have been more representative of those found in the fossils, the fossils being an indicator of what generally perished, and went extinct. The biosphere would have been astronomically different pre-flood.

I have tried to explain there are answers even if you don't accept them but it seems you just flippantly dismiss them. 

However the point in mentioning the Cambrian was to address your point that we should find something like a bunny in it. But our model says that the Cambrian is basically a preservation of solely marine forms. So the point I was making was that we as creationists could never expect to find a land mammal in the Cambrian. 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

Glad you see it as a good argument. So you agree evolution is falsifiable ? 

Just asserting we shouldn't expect to find the evidence is not a very good argument. Why shouldn't we ?

That's a slight misrepresentation of what I said though. The logic that finding something out of place, before it's common ancestor arose is good logic in that it would count as a falsification evidence for evolution. There are some examples of that, they might not be watertight, but as for expecting examples of it, not if the fossil record is largely uncovered and we know where and what we find in certain places in that record, because hindsight dictates that we know what was buried where, generally speaking. 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

You are betraying your lack of knowledge, or deliberately being misleading. How can you say the fossil record is largely uncovered ? Whilst we have uncovered a huge number of fossils that together illuminate a distinct evolutionary pattern of life there is vastly more buried waiting to be found. Such as eroding sea cliffs where we have to wait for the sea to gradually uncover things.

The fossil record is largely uncovered, which is a fair thing to say as it's a generalism which is true in that by and large we know the flora and fauna that characterises what you would call, certain, "eons", we basically and generally see a pattern. I don't think that is a, "distinct evolutionary pattern of life", as it's easy to claim that is what it is, once Darwin gives the order of his evolution based on the pattern he knew then. I believe a true pattern would show all of the transitionals and ancestors of evolution, not forms that arise, complete without any history then persist throughout the record, unchanged. Once again you're naming-and-claiming by use of bare assertion, rather than making a case that it is an evolutionary pattern. 

Sure, you want to just declare victory, but surely you know it's only your dumb average ignoramus that falls for victory-by-assertion. 

1 hour ago, wibble said:

And they're not. Surely you must be embarrassed at some of Indy Dave's claims of genuine human prints. The bird trackways I showed you that the paper was redacted, because the rock was unequivocally shown to have been incorrectly assigned to the Triassic as I recall .

I don't buy it. They only come up with re-assignments AFTER the fact, they only claim "human like" tracks AFTER the fact. Of course they re-assign it, but nothing that fits with evolution ever gets re-assigned. LOL! (why can't you see that?) I believe you can see it - if it fits with their theory of history they accept it, if it doesn't they mould it to somehow make it force-fit like a square peg in a round hole.

What you can't see is the deception here that is taking place. You are being lied to. They come up with the retractions and excuses because they bloody well know it breaks evolution.

"Embarassed" is an epithet. There are now well known examples of human tracks out of place, even a bell found in coal, of which a man passed a lie-detector test to confirm. There are numerous examples of things found out of place, basically the evolutionist response usually comes in two forms;

1. It's contamination.

2. The evidence isn't corroborated.

But the fact remains there have been non-creationists that have come forward with evidence that just doesn't fit with the evolutionary, "prehistory" story, we are told is true, that life originated long ago and far away in a slime pit.

Sorry, no sale. And I gave Sarfati's example of the track, the scientists answer was that we need to rethink evolution, he did not admit it counted as falsification evidence. You're not stupid Wibble, so why can't you see the glaring inconsistencies here? Because you are right in your logic, it SHOULD count as falsification evidence instead they come up with elaborate conjectural EXCUSES for evolution. Why is that?

I have to believe you see them but want to bury them as much as the scientists, because you suffer the same psychological denial they do. 

Surely deep down everyone must know that life can and only ever could be miraculous. So I guess you must lie to yourself, for what else can you do? It's no different when people do terrible things. look at the Moors murderer, he believed in a philosophy that, "any action is lawful" according to a materialist universe. He done that simply because he had to find a way to justify his actions in doing the despicable things he done. I am not comparing you to such a person by any means Sir, but it's the same kind of psychological justification with evolution, there is no way life could ever not be a miracle to you have to justify psychologically, the seeing of facts so you somehow TWIST them in the mind to mean evolution when they never did friend.

Think about it - where is macro evolution? Can it really be seen in the record? What is macro evolution? The invention of the millions of things we see presently, but guess what - you just find the same things, identical to how they look now, if you find them in the record - you never actually find them evolving in the record. Don't believe me? A jellyfish - you can now find one in the Cambrian and they look the same as todays, but do you find them evolving? No. you don't. Am I lying? No I am not, so then where does evolution reside? Answer: in the mind.

What about the Cambrian forms, dinosaurs and angiosperms? Did you know you find dinosaur kinds, but for as long as they are found in certain layers, they remain the same. Do you find how they evolved? No. Do you find Cambrian forms today? Yes, many now, but many extinct. For both the extant and the extinct do you ever see their evolution in the record? No. You just either find them and they're the same, or don't find them.

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE PLAIN REALITY? Or why can't you see the logic is obvious here - that this is exactly what we would expect if creation is true and things reproduce according to their kind? Or do you think in your twisted thinking, that if creation is true we should find evolution in the record?

That's the law of the excluded middle. For in this scenario, there are only two options. 1. Lifeforms change(majorly). 2. Lifeforms don't.

Which one would be evidence of creation and which one would be evidence of evolution?

Then go back and ask yourself which one you see, major change or major non-change. 

It's basically logic for babies. Even babies know that God exists. Trust babas to be wiser then men! :D 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2020 at 8:10 PM, Blitzking said:
Quote

You are not Dr. David N. Menton,  Dr. Johnathan Wells,  Dr. Duane Gish,  or any other of these people. You still need to study the ToE if you want to argue against it.

I have studied it.. More than you have I'm sure..

That's the problem.. The more one studies it WITH OPEN EYES, the more apparent it becomes that the whole fairytale of Evolutionism is a hoax on steroids that even YOU can't support with scientific evidence...

Good, fine excellent. So any falsehood you write from now on will not be treated as an error or ignorance, but as a willful falsehood.:smashfreak:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, mike the wiz said:
  On 3/13/2020 at 4:00 PM, what if said:
  On 3/6/2020 at 11:28 PM, wibble said:

 All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

the exact same thing can be said of transitionals between animal phyla.

none has never been found, and never will.

apparently life was absent then was "just there" in all its shining glory.

That's actually a good point. Especially since it's an agnostic stating it rather than an, "irate religious fundamentalist". Of course on EvC forum the evolutionists' answer to, "What If"s existence is that he is a creationist in disguise, believe it or not. (for they sometimes read these forums)

 

You do this very often. Complain about the behavior of the people of the EvC forum. You even opened an entire thread for it. Yet you never provide an example or link to such behavior.

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6901-evolutionist-help-mike-the-bully/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2020 at 12:00 PM, mike the wiz said:
  On 3/13/2020 at 4:00 PM, what if said:
  On 3/6/2020 at 11:28 PM, wibble said:

 All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

the exact same thing can be said of transitionals between animal phyla.

none has never been found, and never will.

apparently life was absent then was "just there" in all its shining glory.

That's actually a good point. Especially since it's an agnostic stating it rather than an, "irate religious fundamentalist". Of course on EvC forum the evolutionists' answer to, "What If"s existence is that he is a creationist in disguise, believe it or not. (for they sometimes read these forums)

So that's good logic, "what If" because the same could be argued for transitionals. However Wibble's famous, "bunny in the cambrian" argument is basically just an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T which means, "point refuted a thousand times". He repeats it endlessly, the tactic with this fallacy is that by endless repetition people will believe something to be true because of how many times it is stated.

False. It has never been refuted. The simple fact is that you need to produce such a fossil and that you don't. You produce a lot of words, but that's your usual smoke screen. If you had found such out of place fossil you would show. 

The rest of Mike"s post is this, a lot of words, no fossil. That's the essence. But Mike's answer isn't even internally consistent. i will answer parts of it.

Quote

 

Looks like you didn't buy it though.

I will address it just because we can't let his rhetoric go too unchecked or readers might be gullible enough to think creationists don't have answers to this guff.

The answer is that we don't argue the Cambrian is an era of time that passed. As creationists we believe the, "Cambrian" is a name given to certain rocks on earth. We believe Cambrian rock was laid down at the same time as the, "later" rocks. As I have tried and tried to teach Wibble in the past to no avail :rolleyes: if you want to understand the creationist position, you can't use an evolutionary history as an assumption. So then our explanation for the Cambrian, "period" is that it was basically the marine environment that existed perhaps close to the coasts in the pre-flood world where there were only two major continents called Gondwana and Laurasia. When the first flood tsunamis trawled the oceans in waves like a tidal action, of hit, retreat, hit, retreat, mostly it was the slow moving marine forms that were deposited first. 

One would assume that Wibble at least has the knowledge that a rabbit is not a marine form living on the ocean floor. But then at this stage I have to wonder if I am being overly optimistic. At this stage to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if Wibble turned out to be a fourteen year old girl posting from the school library, and feigning knowledge by googling issues as they arise. :P

There is actually merit to the notion that finding a fossil WAY out of place, before it's clade ever arose, being a big falsification of evolution. I done Wibble the courtesy of remembering his argument; which is that the push back must precede the clade. His logic was good on that point, because obviously if we find a human BEFORE primates allegedly arose, then that's impossible for evolution, but if we find a human still at a time AFTER the first primate common ancestor, then that's still at least hypothetically tenable for evolution.

HOWEVER, just because this would be a fantastic falsification of evolution doesn't mean we should expect to find that evidence. That would be an argument-from-silence. This is a fallacy which occurs when if you don't find evidence of species P you conclude it did not exist. It is a type of argument from ignorance.

I have explained this all before to Wibble, but he simply employs the repetition-fallacy called, "ad nauseam". Sort of like if I shown documentary evidence of my age but he kept referring to me as an, "old man" for month after month after year after year. The fallacy, "works", because it's human nature to believe something if it is repeated over and over and over again even if there was never any intellectual merit to the thing being repeated. :rolleyes:

 

Quote

 

Looks like you didn't buy it though.

I will address it just because we can't let his rhetoric go too unchecked or readers might be gullible enough to think creationists don't have answers to this guff.

 

It's not rhetoric, Mike, it's an easy way to falsify the ToE The simple fact is that YOU produce a lot of rhetoric.

Quote

The answer is that we don't argue the Cambrian is an era of time that passed. As creationists we believe the, "Cambrian" is a name given to certain rocks on earth. We believe Cambrian rock was laid down at the same time as the, "later" rocks.

Can someone be more inconsistent? In this very short passage the Cambrian is

  • an era of time passed
  • a type of rock
  • rocks laid down at the same time as others 

So no Mike it is just an era. Nothing else. We know that certain rocks were formed during that era, but the rocks aren't the era.

Also, Mike doesn't argue that it is an era of time passed to then state the opposite: all rocks were formed at the same time.

Quote

As I have tried and tried to teach Wibble in the past to no avail :rolleyes: if you want to understand the creationist position, you can't use an evolutionary history as an assumption.

The history as described by different sciences, (geology, paleontology etc) are not assumptions, but conclusions after doing research. So another thing you're wrong about. Qualifying this as an assumption is just rhetoric.

Quote

So then our explanation for the Cambrian, "period" is that it was basically the marine environment that existed perhaps close to the coasts in the pre-flood world where there were only two major continents called Gondwana and Laurasia. When the first flood tsunamis trawled the oceans in waves like a tidal action, of hit, retreat, hit, retreat, mostly it was the slow moving marine forms that were deposited first. 

So period is now in quote marks. Note that Mike wasn't going to argue that the Cambrian is an era of time passed, yet sneakily puts it in quote marks and labels it as a marine environment. So the Cambrian era is

  • an era of time passed
  • a type of rock
  • rocks laid down at the same time as others 
  • a marine environment

In this passage Mike assumes without any justification a pre-flood and a flood. But of course, through handy rhetoric evolutionary history is just assumptions while his assumptions will become facts.

Quote

One would assume that Wibble at least has the knowledge that a rabbit is not a marine form living on the ocean floor. But then at this stage I have to wonder if I am being overly optimistic. At this stage to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if Wibble turned out to be a fourteen year old girl posting from the school library, and feigning knowledge by googling issues as they arise. :P

One would also assume that Mike can read a full sentence 

 All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

The many thousand other examples were overlooked by Mike.

And a fourteen year old girl using  google would at least have a big advantage over Mike; a relation with the real world. 

More later.

 

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Perpetual_student said:

False. It has never been refuted. The simple fact is that you need to produce such a fossil and that you don't. You produce a lot of words, but that's your usual smoke screen. If you had found such out of place fossil you would show. 

The rest of Mike"s post is this, a lot of words, no fossil. That's the essence. But Mike's answer isn't even internally consistent. i will answer parts of it.

No, there are specific reasons, some people, (but perhaps only the intelligent ones) sometimes have a term for a, "lot of words", and that term is an; "explanation".

Some things need explaining. Especially if you need to explain them for the other person to understand properly. I provided lots of support for my words too, showing for example that a jellyfish used to only be found in the Permian but is now found in the Cambrian.

What does that mean logically? It means that it LOGICALLY PROVES to the degree of 100%, that had you previously argued that, "jellyfish should be found in the Cambrian but aren't", you would be committing the fallacy of arguing from silence

So it proves that this type of reasoning is poor reasoning, based on the denial of the antecedent rule being broken. Is it my fault if you don't understand what that means? If I need a, "lot of words" to explain what it means does that mean you are not interested in knowing what that means?

I would explain it but it seems explaining things is now against your rules. That leaves me baffled, that you think something as innocuous as an explanation is repugnant. Bizarro! So then can I give an explanation of why the logic is wrong? Seems not, so I won't. :smashfreak:

56 minutes ago, Perpetual_student said:

t's not rhetoric, Mike, it's an easy way to falsify the ToE The simple fact is that YOU produce a lot of rhetoric.

It's not, "rhetoric". Rhetoric is the use of devices such as fallacies of persuasion. Wibble actually used rhetoric by only using barely asserted epithets. I gave full explanations of why the things I said are true, which did not involve rhetorical devices. 

 

57 minutes ago, Perpetual_student said:

Can someone be more inconsistent? In this very short passage the Cambrian is

  • an era of time passed
  • a type of rock
  • rocks laid down at the same time as others 

So no Mike it is just an era. Nothing else. We know that certain rocks were formed during that era, but the rocks aren't the era.

Also, Mike doesn't argue that it is an era of time passed to then state the opposite: all rocks were formed at the same time.

I am afraid all this means is that you don't understand the creationist position very well. Perhaps then you should study it more.

I am not arguing that rocks are the era, I specifically said these words; " As creationists we believe the, "Cambrian" is a name given to certain rocks on earth".

In context what I was actually saying here is that from our perspective, various rocks have been selected and been called, "Cambrian", as though they were part of a fictional era. I was explaining out position as creationists. 

To say "we know certain rocks were formed during that era" is a false bare assertion. You don't even know that "era" existed. All you know exists is the rocks you call that era, but what we find is the rocks, nothing more. 

1 hour ago, Perpetual_student said:

One would also assume that Mike can read a full sentence 

 All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). 

The many thousand other examples were overlooked by Mike.

And a fourteen year old girl using  google would at least have a big advantage over Mike; a relation with the real world. 

More later.

More what? Assertions and accusations? There was no case you put forward here. Although I am not allowed to explain the difference between an argumentum ad ignorantiam and a conspicuous absence of evidence through the modus tollens, because in Perpetual-Student's world, they are just a, "lot of words" that apparently have no meaning.

Perhaps evil mike the creationist even invented these terms. :rolleyes: 

(And you should have read all of my posts, I gave many examples of fossils out of place by showing on those diagrams I drawn such examples as grass found with dinos, jellyfish in the Cambrian, and tracks of a quadruped made before the alleged evolution of quadrupeds.)

CONCLUSION: As usual our great, "interlocutor" sounds more like an angry man shouting at mike. :rolleyes: why can't we just discuss these things and if you don't understand my "lot of words" I can then explain them for you. 

(the bit about Wibble being a school girl was meant in jest, Wibble knows it was just a bit of mischief, he's smart enough to know when it's being inserted as a bit of naughty-mike, he doesn't even acknowledge it BECAUSE he knows me and knows there is nothing in it. If he is honest with himself he knows creationists can and have addressed the bunny in the Cambrian and are willing to give a response like mine, to that issue.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

You do this very often. Complain about the behavior of the people of the EvC forum. You even opened an entire thread for it. Yet you never provide an example or link to such behavior.

If, "very often" means, "once in a blue moon", then perhaps so. :rolleyes: All you have to do is click on, "mike the wiz" at Evc forum, because for my one post, you will find about one hundred evolutionist posts either in reference to that post, or previous posts I was addressing. Since I only go there on average once every four or five months, it should be easy to find evidence of those things.

But why would I lie anyway? The fact is one evolutionist thought, "what If" was a creationist. That is how absurd some evolutionists are, that anything, any fact, or any person that does not agree with evolution, like an IDist, is INSTANTLY regarded as a creationist.

Even our very own Goku says that agnostics that accept ID are kidding themselves, and are really believers in God and not true agnosts, or words to that effect. Ask him if you don't believe me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perpetual Student, I shall now give a, "lot of words" but it should be OBVIOUS those words have explanatory power. That is their purpose, to let you know WHY creationists don't need to provide a bunny in the Cambrian.

Now if you say, "well I don't agree, I think this proves evolution for me", FINE - I am not forcing you to agree, but the purpose of the explanation is to let you know why creationists take the creationist position on this issue. The purpose isn't to BAMBOOZLE you with a lot of words, but to try (and oh boy do I try) to get you guys to understand things properly.

If Piasan and Goku can understand it, then why can't you guys understand it?

Answer: Because they are actually reading my explanation, and even if they don't agree with it, they can at least understand my position, just as I have taken the time to fully understand their position, to fully understand evolution so that I don't misrepresent their position.

I realise this is a more sophisticated level of debate of course, but it is one that may propel you out of the low standard of debate you may seemingly be used to, where people just assert things without providing any provable words of explanation of proper discourse.

Ere long I must explain it.

So then in this specialised and insightful way we may proceed forth with great irkblasting trumpets across the oceans of knowledge, ho, ho, don't you know, and aim for that better position of excellence we fleetingly see in sportsmen. One sportsman of par excellence whom finished in the maillot jaune, a career of excellence, was the recently retired Martin Fourcade. When you picture me in debate, that is a vision you must possess, of a keen marksman aiming for all targets, and succeeding to excellence. For that is my aim, dear Sir, and I only do this thing for your very own personal pleasure, ho, ho, don't you know. 

Verily I say unto you, it is with great discombobulated misgivings that you pipe these dire misgivings of mikey doom upon my person here so affronted, etcetera etcetera, before I have even warmed up my writing pen.

Thus this rendering will represent the first course of my explanation of the creationist position ere long bunnies will hop forth, but not from Cambrian soups I tell thee!!

So then what have you learnt so far from my post? Shall I begin my explanation? Perhaps we shall let you digest the first course, before uttering so much as one diabolical attempt of rebuttal. For this is the great conflation of our age my dear recipients. That conflation is, that of the rebuttal being mixed with the response.

RESPONSE or REBUTTAL?

In my time, I see that 98% of evolutionists CONFLATE their response with a rebuttal. They believe if they have responded, then they have rebutted. This is the great pseudo-intellectualism of our age, that nowadays intellectually meritorious and cogent, germane babblings are not regarded according to acumen but according to consensus. Therefore if enough people AGREE that five and five being nine is, "close enough to the target", then apparently they then regard that as being intellectually meritorious.

This great indolence of the average soul, represents a ZERO content critical regime, where logic is basically understood to be a term from Star Trek. :rolleyes:

This is the beginning of my utterings dear Sir. Shall I begin the explanation for the bunny in the Cambrian now or should I drop you more pearls my boy? :rotfl3:

Mischief complete. (and let's face it you could lighten up a bit.) ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
17 hours ago, wibble said:

Yes Mike, I know this is your answer to the problem but with the slightest bit of critical thinking, it all falls apart. You say the Cambrian is perhaps just a marine environment near the coast, being honest with yourself, are you sure a violent tsunami trawling the ocean would separate lifeforms in this way ? Are you sure no fish would be caught up in Cambrian sediment ? Why is the Cambrian fauna so alien to modern life, save the few "living fossils" that creationists cherry pick. Why aren't the sedentary or slow moving marine organisms like the molluscs, bivalves, sea urchins etc. all concentrated at the bottom of the geological column rather than spread vertically in a way that suggests they actually lived at that location where they are preserved. Like the sea urchins commonly found in Cretaceous chalk that creationists would say was deposited by physics busting algal coccolith blooms at the end of the flood. Why didn't the bloated carcasses of dinosaurs get deposited in the uppermost sediments with the modern day mammals rather than being buried below. There are an overwhelming number of things that bust your cosy little idea but you don't want to think about it.

Wibble, this only represents your own famous thought experimentation. It's easy to play this game, as it's yet another example of hindsight-bias. All you do is take facts you know exist then basically say, "why don't X facts exist instead, they would if it was creationism!"

But really that's a game anyone can play. Unless mainstream science has underwent experimental science for a global flood, and studied a flood, it's actually pseudo-science you're indulging when you posit what a flood would or would not do. That is why in the victorian age, they dismissed a flood based on ZERO science, and in the 1970s Berthault performed hydraulics experiments which proved that the victorian scientists were wrong.

You're making the same mistake as they did then, you think you can predict what a flood would cause based on ZERO study of a world scale flood disaster. It's intellectually obtuse when evolutionists don't see that a world scale disaster of unprecedented and unknown proportion would throw up all kinds of discombobulating oddities, not least of which would be a fair portion of counter-intuitive scenarios. So when you produce these thought experiments, you do realise you're indulging pseudo-science, right? Because according to methodological naturalism, science cannot say anything about miracles like the world flood, nor does it study them AT ALL, it DISMISSES THEM, as part of it's very definition of, "science".

You can't have it both ways. Let's face it, science would be pretty useless in understanding a flood, the scientists that do work on flood models have admitted flood-science/geology, is in it's infancy, but those scientists are the ones that understand it more than evolutionists, who have dismissed it. But you as an amateur believe you know better than they do I have noted.

But really if you are honest with yourself you would admit that nobody can predict which things would be found where. All we can say is that we find what we do actually find where it actually is, then the creationist models for the flood incorporate that data to explain it as best they can, which is all that can be done with historical theory.

So again it is clear to see that you actually have no answer to the pattern in the fossil record. Instead of responding to the individual facts (urchins throughout the chalk) and reasonable scenarios (large dinos should be mixed with modern mammals) that I present you do your usual appeal to ignorance of how this imagined global flood would deposit things. Why would a vastly scaled up flood deposit things differently to a normal flood or tsunami that we can observe ? All you are doing in this verbiage is ignoring all reasonable interpretation of the evidence and just saying "oh neither I nor any creation scientist has any idea why this pattern is here and can't explain why the normal physics of moving water doesn't apply, but we a priori believe in the flood so know it just did it somehow and that's it". It's special pleading, Mike.

It is far more rational to say that the fossil record is as it is because it is a record of things that lived over a great time period, and over that period of time, the assemblage of life on earth has changed and novel forms arose while others became extinct. Instead of unnecessarily inventing a gigantic flood to account for the sediments in which the fossils reside, we can just use processes we know happen by observation. Things like normal floods which bury things, or lakes and oceans which gradually built up sediment on the lake/ocean floor. Or sometimes rather quicker burials such as slumps of sedimentation on continental shelves.

Let's try to pin you down to a specific point. How are there sea urchin fossils (Micraster spp.) throughout the hundreds of vertical metres of chalk we get here in southern England ? Moreover, there is a smooth transition of morphology as you move up through the chalk, so they transition into different species. I have tried this one on IndyDave but he was completely flummoxed and avoided responding. You see, this one is an example of creationists having one answer for one aspect of a problem but completely ignoring another which destroys their whole argument. The chalk is white because it is a very pure calcium carbonate, lacking any contaminating silt that would darken it. It is almost entirely made up of the "shells" of tiny coccolithophores, a type of algae. Creationists (Snelling, Roth) realize the flood couldn't have deposited the chalk because otherwise it would be contaminated, so they resort to monumental blooms of coccoliths during the relatively still waters in the latter flood stage, which, they say, deposited all this sediment in a matter of days/weeks. By itself that is ridiculous (lack of nutrients and light would limit production far below what they require) but they also never even acknowledge, let alone explain how there could be fossils of bottom dwelling sea urchins (and other things such as oysters) throughout the vertical column (and showing evolution to new species as well).

The sensible explanation is that the chalk was deposited at normal rates (like for example what we see off the Bahama banks today) and sea urchins and bivalves just lived there on the substrate, and their dead shells get slowly buried over time, hence their appearance throughout the sedimentary record, not all concentrated at the base as you would expect in a coccolith snowstorm.

17 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

It makes sense that a lot of the organisms found in the Cambrian being now extinct by the flood devastation, would appear preserved in flood rock. So it is explainable as something other than an evolutionary-order, because it would be a correct prediction that many species that perished in the flood, may have been more representative of those found in the fossils, the fossils being an indicator of what generally perished, and went extinct. The biosphere would have been astronomically different pre-flood.

It doesn't explain why there are no fish, cetaceans or things like modern crabs, lobsters etc. To say the biosphere would be "astronomically different" pre flood sounds like an after the fact justification. Does the Bible indicate that there was a very different assemblage of organisms in the pre flood world ?

 

17 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

The fossil record is largely uncovered, which is a fair thing to say as it's a generalism which is true in that by and large we know the flora and fauna that characterises what you would call, certain, "eons", we basically and generally see a pattern. I don't think that is a, "distinct evolutionary pattern of life", as it's easy to claim that is what it is, once Darwin gives the order of his evolution based on the pattern he knew then. I believe a true pattern would show all of the transitionals and ancestors of evolution, not forms that arise, complete without any history then persist throughout the record, unchanged. Once again you're naming-and-claiming by use of bare assertion, rather than making a case that it is an evolutionary pattern. 

There is no reason to expect "all of the transitionals" given the extreme (and expected) patchiness of the fossil record. Only if evolution proceeded in a stately manner, with all organisms worldwide gradually morphing, with continuous sedimentation in all habitats, even on land, with no gaps in preservation, would you expect all the transitionals. But that is not a reasonable expectation, nor is it how evolution generally proceeds.

Even so, we are lucky enough to have lots of transitional fossils but of course with your religious faith you have to dismiss these, then carry on asking for them.

17 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
19 hours ago, wibble said:

And they're not. Surely you must be embarrassed at some of Indy Dave's claims of genuine human prints. The bird trackways I showed you that the paper was redacted, because the rock was unequivocally shown to have been incorrectly assigned to the Triassic as I recall .

I don't buy it. They only come up with re-assignments AFTER the fact, they only claim "human like" tracks AFTER the fact. Of course they re-assign it, but nothing that fits with evolution ever gets re-assigned. LOL! (why can't you see that?) I believe you can see it - if it fits with their theory of history they accept it, if it doesn't they mould it to somehow make it force-fit like a square peg in a round hole.

What you can't see is the deception here that is taking place. You are being lied to. They come up with the retractions and excuses because they bloody well know it breaks evolution.

"Embarassed" is an epithet. There are now well known examples of human tracks out of place, even a bell found in coal, of which a man passed a lie-detector test to confirm.

Give me an example of what you believe looks like a genuine human track out of place then. The ones that Indy tried to pass off were laughable. The deception comes from the people who carved them, not the scientists.

The bird trackways were a conundrum when the paper was first published and of course you are going to say they only reassigned the stratum age because it broke evolution but I bet you never even read the basis for the correction so you are not in a position to assert it as deception. If there was deception involved how did it get through peer review to be published in the first place ? Should geologists be infallible and never incorrectly date a rock layer in a complicated sedimentary record ? 

A bell in coal huh ? Strange how a bell was lying around in a Carboniferous jungle but strangely no birds or mammal bones are ever found. You can't use your absence of land mammals in the Cambrian retort for the Carboniferous can you ? You just have to special plead that this forest didn't have these things you would expect living there.

18 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

WHY CAN'T YOU SEE PLAIN REALITY?

I can as far as my senses will allow me. The reality to me is that evolution is true and the book of Genesis is not.

Don't forget to respond to my chalk question ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

You're making the same mistake as they did then, you think you can predict what a flood would cause based on ZERO study of a world scale flood disaster. It's intellectually obtuse when evolutionists don't see that a world scale disaster of unprecedented and unknown proportion would throw up all kinds of discombobulating oddities, not least of which would be a fair portion of counter-intuitive scenarios. So when you produce these thought experiments, you do realise you're indulging pseudo-science, right? Because according to methodological naturalism, science cannot say anything about miracles like the world flood, nor does it study them AT ALL, it DISMISSES THEM, as part of it's very definition of, "science".

It's correct to say that once you do away with the laws of nature and get into the supernatural that science isn't going to be useful anymore, but the fact that you think there would be "all kinds of discombobulating oddities" and "a fair portion of counter-intuitive scenarios" is kind of the point.  If all this inexplicable supernatural stuff was going on, why does the result still make sense to the naturalistic explanation?

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

You can't have it both ways. Let's face it, science would be pretty useless in understanding a flood, the scientists that do work on flood models have admitted flood-science/geology, is in it's infancy, but those scientists are the ones that understand it more than evolutionists, who have dismissed it. But you as an amateur believe you know better than they do I have noted.

It seems you can have it both ways, if science would be pretty useless and yet there are still scientists that do work on flood models.  Perhaps your efforts would be better spent explaining to them why their work is futile?

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

The fossil record is largely uncovered, which is a fair thing to say as it's a generalism which is true in that by and large we know the flora and fauna that characterises what you would call, certain, "eons", we basically and generally see a pattern. I don't think that is a, "distinct evolutionary pattern of life", as it's easy to claim that is what it is, once Darwin gives the order of his evolution based on the pattern he knew then.

Why is it easy to claim that is what it is if it's not actually?  Do you find it easy to claim that things aren't what they are in other areas of life?

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

I don't buy it. They only come up with re-assignments AFTER the fact, they only claim "human like" tracks AFTER the fact. Of course they re-assign it, but nothing that fits with evolution ever gets re-assigned. LOL! (why can't you see that?) I believe you can see it - if it fits with their theory of history they accept it, if it doesn't they mould it to somehow make it force-fit like a square peg in a round hole.

This isn't true though.  You quoted (well, quoted Sarfati who was quoting) an article about how new tetrapod tracks were found that indicated Tiktaalik was not as close to the fish to tetrapod transition as was thought.  Your whole chart earlier was premised on the idea that scientists have reassigned the origin of quite a few things that are still considered to fit within evolution.  I think it's more likely that you don't know about them because you get most of your science news from creationist sources, and "evolution happened in a slightly different way than we thought" isn't a very juicy headline for those types.

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

even a bell found in coal, of which a man passed a lie-detector test to confirm.

A lie detector isn't reliable enough to be used in court in many places when it's concerning events that happened in the recent past.  The idea that you could do it with events that happened 60 years prior and consider it reliable enough to overturn anything seems obviously absurd to me, especially in the case of a story that's likely been told quite a few times over the years.

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

There are numerous examples of things found out of place, basically the evolutionist response usually comes in two forms;

1. It's contamination.

2. The evidence isn't corroborated.

But the fact remains there have been non-creationists that have come forward with evidence that just doesn't fit with the evolutionary, "prehistory" story, we are told is true, that life originated long ago and far away in a slime pit.

Claims of evidence, sure.  Do you understand why establishing corroboration and testing for contamination are important things in science?

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

Sorry, no sale. And I gave Sarfati's example of the track, the scientists answer was that we need to rethink evolution, he did not admit it counted as falsification evidence. You're not stupid Wibble, so why can't you see the glaring inconsistencies here? Because you are right in your logic, it SHOULD count as falsification evidence instead they come up with elaborate conjectural EXCUSES for evolution. Why is that?

Hold up, that's not what they said, even in Sarfati's second hand quote.  What they said was "They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition".  You can read it here if you like.  The phrasing there is important, because it contains the specific things that they think need to be reassessed.  The timing, ecology, and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition are not central predictions of evolution, they're specific historical details.  If your calculation of something like a comet's trajectory is contradicted by new evidence, it may be that physics was wrong, but it's more likely that some of the more specific historical factors involved in that calculation were wrong.  It might help you to read up on the idea of auxiliary hypotheses in science.

On 3/20/2020 at 8:16 PM, mike the wiz said:

What about the Cambrian forms, dinosaurs and angiosperms? Did you know you find dinosaur kinds, but for as long as they are found in certain layers, they remain the same. Do you find how they evolved? No. Do you find Cambrian forms today? Yes, many now, but many extinct. For both the extant and the extinct do you ever see their evolution in the record? No. You just either find them and they're the same, or don't find them.

I found a modern form of dinosaur earlier tonight, actually (well, 12 of a certain piece of a particular species).  Unfortunately much of the evidence has been destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, popoi said:

It's correct to say that once you do away with the laws of nature and get into the supernatural that science isn't going to be useful anymore, but the fact that you think there would be "all kinds of discombobulating oddities" and "a fair portion of counter-intuitive scenarios" is kind of the point.  If all this inexplicable supernatural stuff was going on, why does the result still make sense to the naturalistic explanation?

It seems you can have it both ways, if science would be pretty useless and yet there are still scientists that do work on flood models.  Perhaps your efforts would be better spent explaining to them why their work is futile?

Why is it easy to claim that is what it is if it's not actually?  Do you find it easy to claim that things aren't what they are in other areas of life?

This isn't true though.  You quoted (well, quoted Sarfati who was quoting) an article about how new tetrapod tracks were found that indicated Tiktaalik was not as close to the fish to tetrapod transition as was thought.  Your whole chart earlier was premised on the idea that scientists have reassigned the origin of quite a few things that are still considered to fit within evolution.  I think it's more likely that you don't know about them because you get most of your science news from creationist sources, and "evolution happened in a slightly different way than we thought" isn't a very juicy headline for those types.

A lie detector isn't reliable enough to be used in court in many places when it's concerning events that happened in the recent past.  The idea that you could do it with events that happened 60 years prior and consider it reliable enough to overturn anything seems obviously absurd to me, especially in the case of a story that's likely been told quite a few times over the years.

Claims of evidence, sure.  Do you understand why establishing corroboration and testing for contamination are important things in science?

Hold up, that's not what they said, even in Sarfati's second hand quote.  What they said was "They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition".  You can read it here if you like.  The phrasing there is important, because it contains the specific things that they think need to be reassessed.  The timing, ecology, and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition are not central predictions of evolution, they're specific historical details.  If your calculation of something like a comet's trajectory is contradicted by new evidence, it may be that physics was wrong, but it's more likely that some of the more specific historical factors involved in that calculation were wrong.  It might help you to read up on the idea of auxiliary hypotheses in science.

I found a modern form of dinosaur earlier tonight, actually (well, 12 of a certain piece of a particular species).  Unfortunately much of the evidence has been destroyed.

"If all this inexplicable supernatural stuff was going on, why does the result still make sense to the naturalistic explanation?"   

If the Big Bang makes sense to the naturalistic explanation, you either dont know what it claims OR you havent thought about it using logic, reason, and critical thinking skills.

if Abiogenesis makes sense to the naturalistic explanation, you either dont know what it claims OR you havent thought about it using logic, reason, and critical thinking skills.

If a universal common ancestor for all flora and fauna, makes sense to the naturalistic explanation, you either dont know what it claims OR you havent thought about it using logic, reason, and critical thinking skills.

I COULD DO THIS ALL DAY..

No.. I'm sorry, crazy intellectual fascists with a shared neurotic agreement who control the narrative that keep trying to shove naturalistic square pegs into super naturalistic round holes is NOT a rational argument...

 

Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation.  It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.

Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence.  It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.

Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence.  It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.

On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific.  With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion.  Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or worse...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 11:19 AM, wibble said:

So again it is clear to see that you actually have no answer to the pattern in the fossil record. Instead of responding to the individual facts (urchins throughout the chalk) and reasonable scenarios (large dinos should be mixed with modern mammals) that I present you do your usual appeal to ignorance of how this imagined global flood would deposit things. Why would a vastly scaled up flood deposit things differently to a normal flood or tsunami that we can observe ? All you are doing in this verbiage is ignoring all reasonable interpretation of the evidence and just saying "oh neither I nor any creation scientist has any idea why this pattern is here and can't explain why the normal physics of moving water doesn't apply, but we a priori believe in the flood so know it just did it somehow and that's it". It's special pleading, Mike.

It is far more rational to say that the fossil record is as it is because it is a record of things that lived over a great time period, and over that period of time, the assemblage of life on earth has changed and novel forms arose while others became extinct. Instead of unnecessarily inventing a gigantic flood to account for the sediments in which the fossils reside, we can just use processes we know happen by observation. Things like normal floods which bury things, or lakes and oceans which gradually built up sediment on the lake/ocean floor. Or sometimes rather quicker burials such as slumps of sedimentation on continental shelves.

Let's try to pin you down to a specific point. How are there sea urchin fossils (Micraster spp.) throughout the hundreds of vertical metres of chalk we get here in southern England ? Moreover, there is a smooth transition of morphology as you move up through the chalk, so they transition into different species. I have tried this one on IndyDave but he was completely flummoxed and avoided responding. You see, this one is an example of creationists having one answer for one aspect of a problem but completely ignoring another which destroys their whole argument. The chalk is white because it is a very pure calcium carbonate, lacking any contaminating silt that would darken it. It is almost entirely made up of the "shells" of tiny coccolithophores, a type of algae. Creationists (Snelling, Roth) realize the flood couldn't have deposited the chalk because otherwise it would be contaminated, so they resort to monumental blooms of coccoliths during the relatively still waters in the latter flood stage, which, they say, deposited all this sediment in a matter of days/weeks. By itself that is ridiculous (lack of nutrients and light would limit production far below what they require) but they also never even acknowledge, let alone explain how there could be fossils of bottom dwelling sea urchins (and other things such as oysters) throughout the vertical column (and showing evolution to new species as well).

The sensible explanation is that the chalk was deposited at normal rates (like for example what we see off the Bahama banks today) and sea urchins and bivalves just lived there on the substrate, and their dead shells get slowly buried over time, hence their appearance throughout the sedimentary record, not all concentrated at the base as you would expect in a coccolith snowstorm.

It doesn't explain why there are no fish, cetaceans or things like modern crabs, lobsters etc. To say the biosphere would be "astronomically different" pre flood sounds like an after the fact justification. Does the Bible indicate that there was a very different assemblage of organisms in the pre flood world ?

 

There is no reason to expect "all of the transitionals" given the extreme (and expected) patchiness of the fossil record. Only if evolution proceeded in a stately manner, with all organisms worldwide gradually morphing, with continuous sedimentation in all habitats, even on land, with no gaps in preservation, would you expect all the transitionals. But that is not a reasonable expectation, nor is it how evolution generally proceeds.

Even so, we are lucky enough to have lots of transitional fossils but of course with your religious faith you have to dismiss these, then carry on asking for them.

Give me an example of what you believe looks like a genuine human track out of place then. The ones that Indy tried to pass off were laughable. The deception comes from the people who carved them, not the scientists.

The bird trackways were a conundrum when the paper was first published and of course you are going to say they only reassigned the stratum age because it broke evolution but I bet you never even read the basis for the correction so you are not in a position to assert it as deception. If there was deception involved how did it get through peer review to be published in the first place ? Should geologists be infallible and never incorrectly date a rock layer in a complicated sedimentary record ? 

A bell in coal huh ? Strange how a bell was lying around in a Carboniferous jungle but strangely no birds or mammal bones are ever found. You can't use your absence of land mammals in the Cambrian retort for the Carboniferous can you ? You just have to special plead that this forest didn't have these things you would expect living there.

I can as far as my senses will allow me. The reality to me is that evolution is true and the book of Genesis is not.

Don't forget to respond to my chalk question ;-)

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolutionism, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity.  Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold.  Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds.

However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset.  This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be.  The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place.  This philosophical bias is neither objective nor scientific, but amounts to religious prejudice.  We should never forget that any statement about God is inherently religious, whether it be the theist's affirmation or the atheist's denial.

When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one.  The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim.  It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.

Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design, (2) whitewashes this philosophical/religious dogma with spurious claims of supporting scientific evidence, and then (3) markets this lie to the world as though it were a proven fact, accepted by all "reputable scientists", and which must be taught to impressionable schoolchildren lest our society fall into collapse and ruin.

This is clearly a recipe for deceiving the masses into denying God, or marginalizing those who continue to believe in a Creator, and this is one of the greatest challenges of our day for those who love the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 6:19 PM, wibble said:

So again it is clear to see that you actually have no answer to the pattern in the fossil record. Instead of responding to the individual facts (urchins throughout the chalk) and reasonable scenarios (large dinos should be mixed with modern mammals) that I present you do your usual appeal to ignorance of how this imagined global flood would deposit things. Why would a vastly scaled up flood deposit things differently to a normal flood or tsunami that we can observe ? All you are doing in this verbiage is ignoring all reasonable interpretation of the evidence and just saying "oh neither I nor any creation scientist has any idea why this pattern is here and can't explain why the normal physics of moving water doesn't apply, but we a priori believe in the flood so know it just did it somehow and that's it". It's special pleading, Mike.

I will try and get back to Popoi and Wibble. I will make a start here, there is a lot to deal with, sorry if I don't address everything. I know Perpetual Student seems to HATE the fact I use a lot of words but it is very difficult to explain things which aren't always generally understood by people, if they haven't looked into those things. And be honest, evolutionists generally don't look at the models or explanations we put forward, to any depth.

That's a lot to answer for don't you think. I think the problem is here Wibble, these subjects you think I have no answers for were not really a part of my response but it doesn't mean I don't have explanations for them it just means we have to acknowledge to some degree that SCIENCE has certainly NOT studied these things. Had it studied them from the presumption of a flood geology, obviously 250 years of science would create more thorough answers than the couple of decades creation scientists have had. 

The pattern in the fossil record, I do have an answer to and it seems you didn't read it. I said earlier how that is explainable because all of the extinct forms that now are not presently living on earth, were wiped out by the flood, or at least as a generalism, it makes sense that the fossil record REPRESENTS those forms mostly wiped out by the flood. The explanation in part has to do with ecological zonation and geographical provincialism. Fine flushbunking terms that get me off the hook, ho, ho, don't you know. ;) :Just_Cuz:

So basically a pattern would be expected in that the pre-flood world would be very different, todays flora and fauna would be the scant remains of a now living desert compared to that world. How then can we find a, "modern" mammal with dinosaurs (a goal hoop you have changed because the goal hoop used to be, "mammal")if the modern mammals in the pre-flood world would have represented a very tiny portion compared to todays world which would represent thousands of years of genetic thinning?

I even wrote a topic about it and shown a chart with a ratio, showing the ratio difference between kinds and species today compared to then. For all we know the rat for example, which has a huge population in todays world, might have been a relatively rare creature back then, in a world CHOCKED FULL with created kinds, and less genetic thinning. 

There are answers Wibble, but to be honest I don't think your mind stops to think about them, I think there's a switch that click, whereby your brain says, "switch off time, this is preposterous to me". 

On 3/21/2020 at 6:19 PM, wibble said:

It is far more rational to say that the fossil record is as it is because it is a record of things that lived over a great time period, and over that period of time, the assemblage of life on earth has changed and novel forms arose while others became extinct. Instead of unnecessarily inventing a gigantic flood to account for the sediments in which the fossils reside, we can just use processes we know happen by observation. Things like normal floods which bury things, or lakes and oceans which gradually built up sediment on the lake/ocean floor. Or sometimes rather quicker burials such as slumps of sedimentation on continental shelves.

But I think that's a sloppier explanation instead of one flood which explains many types of evidence we find which this uniformity view doesn't explain. We don't see things generally rotting slowly, and disarticulated. We largely see exquisite preserval. Trackways for example, are ubiquitous, flat gaps are ubiquitous, planated surfaces and erosional remnants are ubiquitous. With a flood we expect the same features all over the world, but not with uniformity. 

Also have you any idea how many things they have no proven occur quickly? Oil, limestone, desert varnish, fossils, coal.

It's true to some extent what you are saying, that a little energy over a long time can create similar results to a lot of energy over a little time. Having looked into these matters, I believe a lot of energy over a little time explains the situation better than having to invoke millions of missing forms. 

So I agree there is an induction of evidence that seems to fit well with eons, just as there is for a flood, but while I accept the evidence that sort of fits with eons, it seems to me you dismiss the evidence that doesn't. 

On 3/21/2020 at 6:19 PM, wibble said:

Let's try to pin you down to a specific point. How are there sea urchin fossils (Micraster spp.) throughout the hundreds of vertical metres of chalk we get here in southern England ? Moreover, there is a smooth transition of morphology as you move up through the chalk, so they transition into different species. I have tried this one on IndyDave but he was completely flummoxed and avoided responding. You see, this one is an example of creationists having one answer for one aspect of a problem but completely ignoring another which destroys their whole argument. The chalk is white because it is a very pure calcium carbonate, lacking any contaminating silt that would darken it. It is almost entirely made up of the "shells" of tiny coccolithophores, a type of algae. Creationists (Snelling, Roth) realize the flood couldn't have deposited the chalk because otherwise it would be contaminated, so they resort to monumental blooms of coccoliths during the relatively still waters in the latter flood stage, which, they say, deposited all this sediment in a matter of days/weeks. By itself that is ridiculous (lack of nutrients and light would limit production far below what they require) but they also never even acknowledge, let alone explain how there could be fossils of bottom dwelling sea urchins (and other things such as oysters) throughout the vertical column (and showing evolution to new species as well).

The sensible explanation is that the chalk was deposited at normal rates (like for example what we see off the Bahama banks today) and sea urchins and bivalves just lived there on the substrate, and their dead shells get slowly buried over time, hence their appearance throughout the sedimentary record, not all concentrated at the base as you would expect in a coccolith snowstorm.

Are we really going to do this here, though? You're dumping (elephant hurling) a lot on to my lap here. It's quite a turn away from what we were discussing Wibble, I get the feeling you're trying to get me to play whack-a-mole again. I don't think urchins adapting into urchins is what I would be looking for as evidence of evolution, and you would need to show specific evidence of these claims, and perhaps pictures or diagrams for me to know properly what you're on about, given I have not looked into this specific example. 

My explanation for chalk is that a flood could have raked areas that had been since creation time, just basically LUSH, quiet areas, without any mixing of any other material, if those areas were a large surface area. The thickness of the chalk can be explained with my explanation, as being a lot thicker vertically NOW, because THEN it was basically horizontally spread out. It got trawled and dumped, so any difference between the top and bottom might represent (slightly), where each species was before it was trawled. But you're asking me to create a model, and chase a red-herring. Suffice to say, you can explain it under creation, as you can with evolution and eons. 

On 3/21/2020 at 6:19 PM, wibble said:

It doesn't explain why there are no fish, cetaceans or things like modern crabs, lobsters etc. To say the biosphere would be "astronomically different" pre flood sounds like an after the fact justification. Does the Bible indicate that there was a very different assemblage of organisms in the pre flood world ?

It would be a DRAMATICALLY different world, because of the ratios of species/kind, now, compared to then would be so different it would be like another world. That's because in the pre-flood world, that world was POST-creation. In the beginning the world was, "very good". I don't know if it was perfect, but basically everything that existed was sort of like God's zoo, where everything was in it's place. The correct place. Diseased or viruses have been proven to arise much, much later than creation. Why do you think that is? Because things get into the wrong place! Symbiotic hosts that go extinct, organisms that are not in the region they were designed to exist in. So in the pre-flood world you would get an ecological zone (ecological zonation) where you would get a variety of organisms that wouldn't really have any reason to speciate. So then, there would be a world JAM PACKED with animal kinds, every kind we have ever found in the record of death (fossils) and the living record.

That's a sobering thought, just think how rich that world would be, that every species that ever existed would be present.

This would create a tiny percentage of species, because everything would be very, very, balanced and concentrated. But our world now represents a desert by comparison, where there has been thousands and thousands of years of genetic thinning caused by allopatric speciation. 

By analogy, so you can picture this. Imagine we have a house with parents and twelve children, and each child has one quarted of a bedroom each. But momma and poppa let ten of their children be adopted. Now the two children left in the big house have four bedrooms each or whatever, and they dominate it. In time they spread out, get into places they shouldn't be, get cocky and have their toys strewn all over the kitchen, etcetera, etcetera...

In other words Wibble, have you ever thought it through? To be honest, I don't think you have thought through what things a biblical history would throw up compared to an evolutionary one. 

On 3/21/2020 at 6:19 PM, wibble said:

There is no reason to expect "all of the transitionals" given the extreme (and expected) patchiness of the fossil record. Only if evolution proceeded in a stately manner, with all organisms worldwide gradually morphing, with continuous sedimentation in all habitats, even on land, with no gaps in preservation, would you expect all the transitionals. But that is not a reasonable expectation, nor is it how evolution generally proceeds.

Even so, we are lucky enough to have lots of transitional fossils but of course with your religious faith you have to dismiss these, then carry on asking for them.

This is just nonsense. "Religious faith" has nothing to do with the slothful induction fallacy, which I have explained time and time again. Even the evolutionary scientists if they sat down and done the maths (which they dare not do for love or gold) would come up with a figure of 99% or more, missing transitionals.

The tiny percentage of "candidates" they have put forward, change like fashion, so why should I believe they really ever were transitionals? For example is it my religious faith that states that the mesonychids used to be the ancestors of whales but now the artiodactyls are?

.....I am tired with you now, Wibble, your posts are now devolving into personal comments and rhetoric, you seem to fall back on those things or play whack-a-mole, when I come up with good answers. The fact is I have shown examples of out of place fossils and I have shown a creationist would never expect a bunny in the Cambrian. 

I may return to the thread to address more when I can, but from popoi probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

we have to acknowledge to some degree that SCIENCE has certainly NOT studied these things. Had it studied them from the presumption of a flood geology, obviously 250 years of science would create more thorough answers than the couple of decades creation scientists have had. 

Creationists are fond of providing long lists of scientists from 200 years ago who also held to a literal belief in Genesis. So what you don't seem to grasp is that there was a presumption of flood geology. But when the scientists went looking for physical evidence for this belief they discovered this was belief was actually untenable. That's why there was a shift in the paradigm to long ages and natural processes, because it had infinitely more explanatory power. There is absolutely no reason to return to a demolished myth.

 

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

There are answers Wibble, but to be honest I don't think your mind stops to think about them, I think there's a switch that click, whereby your brain says, "switch off time, this is preposterous to me

Yeah, all your answers are fabrications because the only reason you propose them is to to preserve your belief in your mind. One can always dream up stories about why a pattern is not due to the sensible reason if the thought of being wrong about a deep rooted belief is horrifying to you. (awaits whining about epithets :rolleyes:)

 

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

But I think that's a sloppier explanation instead of one flood which explains many types of evidence we find which this uniformity view doesn't explain. We don't see things generally rotting slowly, and disarticulated. We largely see exquisite preserval.

That is so unbelievably far from the truth Mike. Why do you keep persisting with this line ? For example, I've told you several times (should I complain about your memory ?) that an intact dinosaur skeleton has never been found. There are always at least some bones missing. From memory, our best T Rex is about 70% complete, for example. The vast number of finds are single bones, usually worn. Obviously when you just google images (like you might do) but never go out in the field and look for fossils, or read the writings of palaeontologists, then you will suffer from extreme selection bias.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Are we really going to do this here, though? You're dumping (elephant hurling) a lot on to my lap here. It's quite a turn away from what we were discussing Wibble, I get the feeling you're trying to get me to play whack-a-mole again. I don't think urchins adapting into urchins is what I would be looking for as evidence of evolution, and you would need to show specific evidence of these claims, and perhaps pictures or diagrams for me to know properly what you're on about, given I have not looked into this specific example. 

My explanation for chalk is that a flood could have raked areas that had been since creation time, just basically LUSH, quiet areas, without any mixing of any other material, if those areas were a large surface area. The thickness of the chalk can be explained with my explanation, as being a lot thicker vertically NOW, because THEN it was basically horizontally spread out. It got trawled and dumped, so any difference between the top and bottom might represent (slightly), where each species was before it was trawled. But you're asking me to create a model, and chase a red-herring. Suffice to say, you can explain it under creation, as you can with evolution and eons.

You can  use my Chalk thread if you like if you want specific evidence.

Suffice to say, the Biblical flood cannot explain it the way you do here. For the raking and dumping you propose, then that requires vast, powerful currents  arriving from elsewhere that would inevitably be thick with contaminating sediment. These currents can't just appear in isolation where the chalk sediment is or perhaps you can just appeal to a supernatural act as you have resorted to before to explain flood features. And of course, your answer also does nothing to explain the vertical distribution of urchins that by the laws of physics would settle out first before all the chalk sediment. 

I brought up the chalk because it is a vivid, easy to grasp demonstration as to why 'flood geology' is deader than a disarticulated fossil duck.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

How then can we find a, "modern" mammal with dinosaurs (a goal hoop you have changed because the goal hoop used to be, "mammal"

That's not true. I've always emphasised modern mammals because its long been known that small extinct early mammals co existed with dinos, we have the fossils; they survived the asteroid and evolved to fill the niches left vacant.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:
On 3/21/2020 at 6:19 PM, wibble said:

There is no reason to expect "all of the transitionals" given the extreme (and expected) patchiness of the fossil record. Only if evolution proceeded in a stately manner, with all organisms worldwide gradually morphing, with continuous sedimentation in all habitats, even on land, with no gaps in preservation, would you expect all the transitionals. But that is not a reasonable expectation, nor is it how evolution generally proceeds.

Even so, we are lucky enough to have lots of transitional fossils but of course with your religious faith you have to dismiss these, then carry on asking for them.

This is just nonsense. "Religious faith" has nothing to do with the slothful induction fallacy, which I have explained time and time again. Even the evolutionary scientists if they sat down and done the maths (which they dare not do for love or gold) would come up with a figure of 99% or more, missing transitionals.

You avoided answering the meat of what I said (the first paragraph).

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

.I am tired with you now, Wibble, your posts are now devolving into personal comments and rhetoric, you seem to fall back on those things or play whack-a-mole, when I come up with good answers.

I beg to differ Mike. I think if you reviewed our posts the lion's share of the personal comments and rhetoric consistently comes from you. I was quite taken aback by the defensive vitriol you directed to Goku in a recent post (though I commend you for apologising later)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Creationists are fond of providing long lists of scientists from 200 years ago who also held to a literal belief in Genesis. So what you don't seem to grasp is that there was a presumption of flood geology. But when the scientists went looking for physical evidence for this belief they discovered this was belief was actually untenable. That's why there was a shift in the paradigm to long ages and natural processes, because it had infinitely more explanatory power. There is absolutely no reason to return to a demolished myth"

NONSENSE

Speaking of the non existent "Geologic Column"  We are to assume that "For millions of years" there was a light dusting of limestone that laid out perfectly with no erosion marks only to ABRUPTLY change to light dusting of sandstone all laid out perfectly even, Then a continuous dusting of coal for a few million years perfectly even on top and bottom then BACK to limestone for a few million then ABRUPTLY change to a light Shale rainfall and THEN Arkose for a few million THEN Siltstone.. All Perfectly laid out in order...

Where did all of this material come from?? Outer Space??

All of this mental and emotional contortions just to deny the obvious? That it was all laid out due to hydrologic sorting from the cataclysmic flood of Noah in Genesis? Are whales and trees not going to rot completely over the "millions of years" while the sediments form over them? (Polystrate Fossils) 

Just more silver bullets that pierce the corpse of Darwinian Evolutionism....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wibble said:

Creationists are fond of providing long lists of scientists from 200 years ago who also held to a literal belief in Genesis. So what you don't seem to grasp is that there was a presumption of flood geology. But when the scientists went looking for physical evidence for this belief they discovered this was belief was actually untenable. That's why there was a shift in the paradigm to long ages and natural processes, because it had infinitely more explanatory power. There is absolutely no reason to return to a demolished myth.

Would I fail to grasp it if I wrote an explanation for it Piasan seemed to accept a while back dealing with the genetic fallacy I explained to him? He gave the same argument, and he seemed to accept my counter-argument. Not that I misrepresent him as he did not say he agreed with me a flood occurred of course.

They basically knew nothing back then. So when you say "what you don't seem to grasp is there was a presumption of flood geology", how can that be, when I have even given explanations as to why the genetic fallacy is not a sound argument? That fallacy occurs when there is something in the past which no longer applies today, or has meaning today because of situational changes that have occurred today. 

Here is where the conversation with Piasan took place;

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6913-trackways-all-over-the-world-best-evidence-soft-sediments/&page=7&tab=comments#comment-150741

Here is what I said;

Quote

This is called the genetic fallacy, where you only give significance to scientists far in the past that dismissed a flood based on victorian-aged evidence. The problem is a lot of the evidence for a flood they have uncovered is recent. They did not know back then that flume experiments conducted in the 1970s proved you could get laminated, stratified, sorted facies from hydraulic action. They did not know about planated surfaces, or erosional remnants or the BEDS model.

The fact is they did not know a lot in the 17th century, and not much more in the 18th century, Piasan, yet you guys constantly parrot this about how folk dismissed a flood prematurely. They also accepted evolution prematurely. Need I remind you most scientists of Darwin's day accepted evolution based on natural selection alone. Today no evolutionist would accept evolution based on NS alone. 

So to point to history is to basically look to ignorant opinions. What happened in history is scientists prematurely turned away from their Creator and very quickly accepted a naturalist theory by Darwin based only on NS alone. That proves they were not led by the evidence, but accepted evolution based only on Darwin's conjectural offerings. Also in case you forget, recently you argued small catastrophes over eons, local catastrophes, rather than a flood, which is a tacit admission that what those historical scientists argued was wrong, because a lot of the uniformity they argued has been replaced now with neo-catastrophism which is a mixture of uniformity and catastrophism.

So if all the evidence fitted with their beliefs in uniform, slow, predictable processes, why do evolutionists now argue catastrophe? So they were wrong back then about a lot of things, so why assume they were correct about a flood? 

The genetic fallacy occurs when only the history of a matter is discussed, the fault is that it ignores how a present-day situation may have changed the topic of discussion so that it's historical relevance no longer holds relevance in the present day. Back then their concept of a flood wasn't "infant", it wasn't even born, Pi. They were simply wrong in their predictions as to what would be expected from a flood. Only in the last few decades are we starting to see how hydraulics and large sediment deposition would answer for a lot of the facts we see.

3 hours ago, wibble said:

Yeah, all your answers are fabrications because the only reason you propose them is to to preserve your belief in your mind. One can always dream up stories about why a pattern is not due to the sensible reason if the thought of being wrong about a deep rooted belief is horrifying to you. (awaits whining about epithets

Yes but this is just spin-doctoring. You're just putting spin on my motives. All I see as a rational thinker, are two explanations, one which doesn't depend on hundreds of thousands of missing transitionals, if not millions, and another that would perfectly explain why we see that the extinct forms don't generally exist now. OF COURSE they wouldn't if most of them were made extinct by the very flood that made them extinct. Why is that to, "dream up" a story, when it makes perfectly rational sense?

3 hours ago, wibble said:

That is so unbelievably far from the truth Mike. Why do you keep persisting with this line ? For example, I've told you several times (should I complain about your memory ?) that an intact dinosaur skeleton has never been found. There are always at least some bones missing. From memory, our best T Rex is about 70% complete, for example. The vast number of finds are single bones, usually worn. Obviously when you just google images (like you might do) but never go out in the field and look for fossils, or read the writings of palaeontologists, then you will suffer from extreme selection bias

And I have countered you on this claim before now, too, which you also forget. My answer is that it is a red-herring fallacy when you say that the fossils must be a 100% articulation as that isn't my claim, it is a strawman to imply I am stating they must be 100% pristine. That comes across as desperate. If the fossils were mostly disarticulated we wouldn't be able to figure out their anatomies. Of course they are not going to be 100% preserved but the point is we have mass burials even of many examples of what they refer to as, "graveyard fossils". We have all of their anatomies, we can compare jellyfish then to living jellies, same with bats, and all types of insects. Snails, nautiloids, octopus, spiders, frogs, etc, etc..

You say most are single bones, can you support that? But even if it were true, that wouldn't change that we wouldn't expect a uniform process of eons to provide the exquisite fossil record we have uncovered.

How about a complete fossil whale skeleton in the Chilean desert, like here;

https://creation.com/chile-desert-whale-fossils

They found 20 complete baleen whales.  Or how about the fossil graveyard for Ichthyosaurs they found, one giving birth, as well as soft tissue they found at that site?

Are you saying under uniformity, they died and slowly rotted? Are you saying a massive deposition of unconsolidated flood material would not be conducive to burying and preserving them?

That would be like saying that chewing and swallowing my food would be no good for digestion. Lol!

3 hours ago, wibble said:

You can  use my Chalk thread if you like if you want specific evidence.

Suffice to say, the Biblical flood cannot explain it the way you do here. For the raking and dumping you propose, then that requires vast, powerful currents  arriving from elsewhere that would inevitably be thick with contaminating sediment. These currents can't just appear in isolation where the chalk sediment is or perhaps you can just appeal to a supernatural act as you have resorted to before to explain flood features. And of course, your answer also does nothing to explain the vertical distribution of urchins that by the laws of physics would settle out first before all the chalk sediment. 

I brought up the chalk because it is a vivid, easy to grasp demonstration as to why 'flood geology' is deader than a disarticulated fossil duck.

No it depends how thick the bed is. You're failing to use your imagination. The chalk is pure after a while depending on the trawl, like if you put something muddy under water, and a large jug you may say, "but the water would be muddy", but not if it continues to clean it off until it is gone. Basic critical thinking shows us that the more material you add, the less and less the contamination until finally it's so thinned you don't even find it. The contamination may be so spread out and thinned that we can't even detect it, after all there are things in chalk you don't ever want to know about, such as "some eggs are found in marine sedimentary rocks, even chalk that is believed by uniformitarian scientists to accumulate very slowly".

More things have been found in chalk that don't fit with eons.

Let's see if rock record fits with a flood;

Quote

British geologist Derek Ager in his book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record4 marvelled at the way sedimentary rocks layers persisted for thousands of kilometres across continents. Like a blanket, they are relatively thin compared with the area they cover.He mentioned the chalk beds that form the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Southern England and explained that they are also found in Antrim in Northern Ireland, and can be traced into northern France, northern Germany, southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Turkey and Egypt. He described many other cases, yet even after that he said, “There are even more examples of very thin units that persist over fantastically large areas … ”Layers of sediment blanketing such huge areas point to something unusual happening in the past. Today, blankets of sediments are not being deposited across the vast areas of the continents; if they were it would be difficult for humans to survive. Rather, sedimentation is localized, confined to the deltas of rivers and along the narrow strips of coastline.A curious feature of these sedimentary blankets is that they contain evidence of rapid, energetic deposition. Geologists describe various strata as a “fluvial environment” or a “high energy braided stream system”,6 which is another way of saying the sediments were deposited by large volumes of fast flowing water that covered a very large area.

 

3 hours ago, wibble said:

That's not true. I've always emphasised modern mammals because its long been known that small extinct early mammals co existed with dinos, we have the fossils; they survived the asteroid and evolved to fill the niches left vacant.

Yes but it doesn't matter, you just push it back, even if I did find a "modern" mammal in dino eons you would just then say, "now show me one in the Silurian". 

 

3 hours ago, wibble said:

I beg to differ Mike. I think if you reviewed our posts the lion's share of the personal comments and rhetoric consistently comes from you. I was quite taken aback by the defensive vitriol you directed to Goku in a recent post (though I commend you for apologising later)

I should think you should be more appalled by the lack of any intelligent argumentation by Goku, just thinking that what a scientist says about creationists being on the level of flat-earthers when those two issues aren't even MODERATELY similar, when analysed by critical analysis. You will see there, that Goku and his scientist did not give anything except the maligning of creationists by use of rhetoric. 

If I questioned that scientist, do you really believe if I tested him on flood geology or the more obscure creationist explanations, that he would even know what I was talking about? And what about the scientists that have just as much in the way of qualifications, but would completely disagree with him?

Goku was being an opportunist, now you are being an opportunist by trying to use my apology to make it seem I am an example of personal attacking and rhetoric when in actual fact that type of thing would represent about 3% of my content compared to perhaps 75% rhetoric from your content.

EXHIBIT A:

3 hours ago, wibble said:

I brought up the chalk because it is a vivid, easy to grasp demonstration as to why 'flood geology' is deader than a disarticulated fossil duck.

:rolleyes:

Or EXHIBIT B perhaps:

Quote

Wibble: all your answers are fabrications

The difference between you and I, is that I use reasoned defences, not rhetorical devices such as playing it up, playing it down, spin doctoring, maligning, accusing, and epithets, as well as misrepresentations and bare assertions. 

Whether you like it or not, these things lace your writings, NOT MINE. By accusing me of the things you do, you are merely indulging the tu-quoque tactic.

EXAMPLE

Thin boy calls large boy, "fat", so large boy says, "you are fat".

Just firing it back at me won't make me guilty of the things you do Wibble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2020 at 5:42 PM, Blitzking said:

Speaking of the non existent "Geologic Column"  We are to assume that "For millions of years" there was a light dusting of limestone that laid out perfectly with no erosion marks only to ABRUPTLY change to light dusting of sandstone all laid out perfectly even, Then a continuous dusting of coal for a few million years perfectly even on top and bottom then BACK to limestone for a few million then ABRUPTLY change to a light Shale rainfall and THEN Arkose for a few million THEN Siltstone.. All Perfectly laid out in order...

Where did all of this material come from?? Outer Space??

You don't know much do you. Where do you think the sediment comes from that lies on the ocean floor today. Outer space ? (actually a small proportion does). There are these things called rivers that carry silt to the sea. There are plankton an other organisms that deposit a steady rain of material. And surely even you knows where coal comes from, right ?

 

On 3/23/2020 at 5:42 PM, Blitzking said:

All of this mental and emotional contortions just to deny the obvious? That it was all laid out due to hydrologic sorting from the cataclysmic flood of Noah in Genesis? Are whales and trees not going to rot completely over the "millions of years" while the sediments form over them? (Polystrate Fossils)

 Hydrological sorting would show that the layers actually grade into one another when you looked at the grains up close. You wouldn't get sharp divisions of sediment type. The fact that we do is one of many reasons why the Genesis flood has long been known to be a myth.

You need to update your arguments rather than persist with the polystrate fossils strawman. Polystrate trees were explained 150 years ago (look up John William Dawson). I don't know what whales you are referring to, perhaps you'd like to clarify and I'll try to educate you (though I know you won't listen).

On 3/23/2020 at 5:42 PM, Blitzking said:

Just more silver bullets that pierce the corpse of Darwinian Evolutionism....  

In your dreams Blitz....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wibble said:

You don't know much do you. Where do you think the sediment comes from that lies on the ocean floor today. Outer space ? (actually a small proportion does). There are these things called rivers that carry silt to the sea. There are plankton an other organisms that deposit a steady rain of material. And surely even you knows where coal comes from, right ?

 

 Hydrological sorting would show that the layers actually grade into one another when you looked at the grains up close. You wouldn't get sharp divisions of sediment type. The fact that we do is one of many reasons why the Genesis flood has long been known to be a myth.

You need to update your arguments rather than persist with the polystrate fossils strawman. Polystrate trees were explained 150 years ago (look up John William Dawson). I don't know what whales you are referring to, perhaps you'd like to clarify and I'll try to educate you (though I know you won't listen).

In your dreams Blitz....

"There are these things called rivers that carry silt to the sea." So these "things called rivers" carry siltstone for a few million years and leave a perfectly flat layer and THEN immediate change to coal for a few million years and leave a perfectly flat later of sediment on top only to ABRUPTLY change over to Siltstone for several million THEN sandstone for several million THEN shale THEN limestone etc etc. ALL LAID OUT PERFECTLY FLAT ONE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER AROUND THE ENTIRE GLOBE?????

Wow, that's a LOT of water running through your "rivers" AND they have AN EXTREMELY PRECISE METERING SYSTEM...LOL..

Why not just believe what God said? HE was there and said there was a Global Flood!! And THAT is backed up by all of the evidence.... 

Oh, I know why, 

"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" RICHARD DAWKINS 

 

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

 

https://www.icr.org/article/why-does-nearly-every-culture-have-tradition-globa/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"There are these things called rivers that carry silt to the sea." So these "things called rivers" carry siltstone for a few million years and leave a perfectly flat layer and THEN immediate change to coal for a few million years and leave a perfectly flat later of sediment on top only to ABRUPTLY change over to Siltstone for several million THEN sandstone for several million THEN shale THEN limestone etc etc. ALL LAID OUT PERFECTLY FLAT ONE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER AROUND THE ENTIRE GLOBE?????

Wow, that's a LOT of water running through your "rivers" AND they have AN EXTREMELY PRECISE METERING SYSTEM...LOL..

It's not all perfectly flat one on top of each around the entire globe. You're making things up out of ignorance (again).

And I didn't say it was rivers that accounted for all the sediment. There is the biogenic material as well. What do you think happens to sediment when it enters the ocean ? Do you think all if it remains floating about gradually decreasing the clarity of the water as it builds up ?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/sedimentation-rate

https://mem.lyellcollection.org/content/41/1/1

You didn't respond (for obvious reasons) to what you should expect under hydrological sorting - the grading between layers that should be there giving the illusion of sharp divisions when not looking closely at the rock. This alone destroys the flood argument but you are scared of contemplating such things.

 

11 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Why not just believe what God said? HE was there and said there was a Global Flood!! And THAT is backed up by all of the evidence....

All of the evidence ?  :lol:

None so blind as those who will not see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wibble said:

It's not all perfectly flat one on top of each around the entire globe. You're making things up out of ignorance (again).

And I didn't say it was rivers that accounted for all the sediment. There is the biogenic material as well. What do you think happens to sediment when it enters the ocean ? Do you think all if it remains floating about gradually decreasing the clarity of the water as it builds up ?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/sedimentation-rate

https://mem.lyellcollection.org/content/41/1/1

You didn't respond (for obvious reasons) to what you should expect under hydrological sorting - the grading between layers that should be there giving the illusion of sharp divisions when not looking closely at the rock. This alone destroys the flood argument but you are scared of contemplating such things.

 

All of the evidence ?  :lol:

None so blind as those who will not see...

"You didn't respond (for obvious reasons) to what you should expect under hydrological sorting"

THIS is what we should expect and THIS is what we observe.. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/qGaFkMRdRkFU5uoo8

 

"All of the evidence ?"

INDEED

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

https://isgenesishistory.com/90-minutes-of-evidence-for-the-global-flood/

"None so blind as those who will not see."

AGREED..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms