TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > . . . and The Rest
Reload this Page Evolution bias distorts worldview
. . . and The Rest Discuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#196) Old
pozzolane pozzolane is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
pozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
Again, maybe you missed it the first time, just because things live together doesn't mean they die together.
Yes it does. If they lived together, they will die together - in the same geological stratigraphic layer. They don't have to die side by side, but I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for something that indicates they lived together (and not died together) by finding an example of their remains in a geological stratigraphic layer which evolution predicts you would not find fuzzy bunny's in. Do you know how stratigraphic layers are defined? The order of fossils. Do you know that basic geological stratigraphy indicates age (older deposits are under newer ones). If creationism were true, there would be nothing to base stratigraphic layers upon as there would be no date ordering to fossils. I'm not asking you to find this disorder, I'm only asking for a single Cambrian bunny fossil. Understanding this, why are there no bunny fossils in the Cambrian, chatmaggot?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#197) Old
Count Iblis Count Iblis is offline
Over 750 post club

 


Reputation:
Count Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputationCount Iblis has a large reputation
March 10th, 2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
We're not likely to construct an argument in the fashion you want us to.
You mean a scientific theory that makes testable predictions and has a history of getting those predictions right and doesn't have any predictions falsified by experiment and/or observation? You're right, I don't think Creationism will ever meet the requirements of science.

Quote:
Give us a chance. There's plenty in that thread and elsewhere to discuss. If you're willing to put aside your bigotry for a moment you might even find we have something to contribute .. even if we are spectacularly wrong on some things.
Well a good start would be to give a statement of the Theory of Creation. If Creationism were allowed to be taught in science class, what would you actually teach?



   
Reply With Quote
  (#198) Old
chatmaggot chatmaggot is offline
Silver Member
 chatmaggot's Avatar

 




Reputation:
chatmaggot is well respected by his peers
chatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pozzolane View Post
Yes it does. If they lived together, they will die together - in the same geological stratigraphic layer. They don't have to die side by side, but I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for something that indicates they lived together (and not died together) by finding an example of their remains in a geological stratigraphic layer which evolution predicts you would not find fuzzy bunny's in. Do you know how stratigraphic layers are defined? The order of fossils. Do you know that basic geological stratigraphy indicates age (older deposits are under newer ones). If creationism were true, there would be nothing to base stratigraphic layers upon as there would be no date ordering to fossils. I'm not asking you to find this disorder, I'm only asking for a single Cambrian bunny fossil. Understanding this, why are there no bunny fossils in the Cambrian, chatmaggot?
You have now asked two different questions. You first asked for a bunny fossil and a dino fossil to be found in the same layer.

NOW you are asking for a bunny fossil to be found in the cambrian geological layer.

Are you implying that dino's are also in the cambrian...or do you really know your geological column?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg animal_in_the_geologic_column.jpg (44.4 KB, 4 views)





fidelis usque ad mortem
   
Reply With Quote
  (#199) Old
chatmaggot chatmaggot is offline
Silver Member
 chatmaggot's Avatar

 




Reputation:
chatmaggot is well respected by his peers
chatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pozzolane View Post
Yes it does. If they lived together, they will die together - in the same geological stratigraphic layer. They don't have to die side by side, but I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for something that indicates they lived together (and not died together) by finding an example of their remains in a geological stratigraphic layer which evolution predicts you would not find fuzzy bunny's in. Do you know how stratigraphic layers are defined? The order of fossils. Do you know that basic geological stratigraphy indicates age (older deposits are under newer ones). If creationism were true, there would be nothing to base stratigraphic layers upon as there would be no date ordering to fossils. I'm not asking you to find this disorder, I'm only asking for a single Cambrian bunny fossil. Understanding this, why are there no bunny fossils in the Cambrian, chatmaggot?
You still have yet to show me whale fossils with coelacanth fossils?





fidelis usque ad mortem
   
Reply With Quote
  (#200) Old
pozzolane pozzolane is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
pozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
You have now asked two different questions. You first asked for a bunny fossil and a dino fossil to be found in the same layer.

NOW you are asking for a bunny fossil to be found in the cambrian geological layer.
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties, or are you purposely twisting my words because you know you have nothing to argue with? I said in my very first post (regarding bunny fossils) just a little further down, that evolution would be disproved if bunny fossils were found in the Cambrian. I never ever ever ever x1023 said anything about them next to a dinosaur.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#201) Old
pozzolane pozzolane is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
pozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
You still have yet to show me whale fossils with coelacanth fossils?
How do you propose lifting fossilized remains from the depths of the oceans? If you could, I'm sure you would find what you ask for.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#202) Old
pozzolane pozzolane is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
pozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
Are you implying that dino's are also in the cambrian...or do you really know your geological column?
Where have I ever said this? Find me my post where I stated this. Otherwise you are being dishonest. A common debate tactic for the creationist. Further, why would you dare to lecture me on the geological column. If your creationist conjecture is right, there should be no geological column.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#203) Old
chatmaggot chatmaggot is offline
Silver Member
 chatmaggot's Avatar

 




Reputation:
chatmaggot is well respected by his peers
chatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pozzolane View Post
How do you propose lifting fossilized remains from the depths of the oceans? If you could, I'm sure you would find what you ask for.
Are you implying that the only marine fossils we have come from the depths of the ocean?





fidelis usque ad mortem
   
Reply With Quote
  (#204) Old
chatmaggot chatmaggot is offline
Silver Member
 chatmaggot's Avatar

 




Reputation:
chatmaggot is well respected by his peers
chatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pozzolane View Post
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties, or are you purposely twisting my words because you know you have nothing to argue with? I said in my very first post (regarding bunny fossils) just a little further down, that evolution would be disproved if bunny fossils were found in the Cambrian. I never ever ever ever x1023 said anything about them next to a dinosaur.
GREAT! I'm glad you never said that. It was Jukia who said it here.

You atheist all look-a-like in here.

To answer your question:

Quote:
...why are there no bunny fossils in the Cambrian, chatmaggot?
I would say for the same reason that there are no dino fossils in the cambrian!





fidelis usque ad mortem
   
Reply With Quote
  (#205) Old
pozzolane pozzolane is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
pozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
Are you implying that the only marine fossils we have come from the depths of the ocean?
No. And why am I not surprised that you continue to put words into my mouth. Fossils are extremely unlikely to form in normal conditions. The coelacanth became extinct in shallow waters in the Devonian ages (from what I've read on it). Whales didn't evolve until the eocene era. So even though the two swim side by side, fossil retreival for the pair would be impossible unless we can extract them from the depths of the oceans. So unless you can dive to the depths of the oceans to retrieve their fossils alongside a whale's, I cannot produce what you ask for. But ultimately it says nothing to your point. However, bunnies don't thrive in the depths of the oceans. Why don't we see their remains in the Cambrian?

Hint: Because they didn't exist in that geological era of time. Why? Because they hadn't evolved yet. What is the creationist explanation, chatmaggot? You keep dancing around the issue. Address it please.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#206) Old
chatmaggot chatmaggot is offline
Silver Member
 chatmaggot's Avatar

 




Reputation:
chatmaggot is well respected by his peers
chatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peerschatmaggot is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pozzolane View Post
No. And why am I not surprised that you continue to put words into my mouth. Fossils are extremely unlikely to form in normal conditions. The coelacanth became extinct in shallow waters in the Devonian ages (from what I've read on it). Whales didn't evolve until the eocene era. So even though the two swim side by side, fossil retreival for the pair would be impossible unless we can extract them from the depths of the oceans. So unless you can dive to the depths of the oceans to retrieve their fossils alongside a whale's, I cannot produce what you ask for. But ultimately it says nothing to your point. However, bunnies don't thrive in the depths of the oceans. Why don't we see their remains in the Cambrian?

Hint: Because they didn't exist in that geological era of time. Why? Because they hadn't evolved yet. What is the creationist explanation, chatmaggot? You keep dancing around the issue. Address it please.
I'm not dancing...I just know you won't like answer. However, I find it interesting that you claim that if creatures live together they will be found in the same geological strata.

Interesting to note is that someone emailed AIG about the bunny question and it was on their front page the other day. I had to laugh. Here is a snipet:

Quote:
So, where are all the bunny fossils? At first, it appears to be a riddle for creationists. The implication behind the question is that, if the fossil record isn’t an accurate record of millions of years of evolution, then why is there a neat order to it? If most of the fossil record was laid down all at once by the global Flood, then why are rabbits found only in “recent” Tertiary and Quaternary sediments rather than in the sediments belonging to the “ancient” Cambrian period?

First, we must look at the very validity of the geologic column. Is there actually a definable Cambrian period that exists in the sedimentary layers, independent of uniformitarian and evolutionary presuppositions? What we find is that the geological column is not nearly as straightforward as evolutionists suggest. For one thing, nowhere on earth is the entire fossil record visible. The schema is pieced together by correlating exposed rock layers from around the globe. So, it represents a composite picture, not an exact sequence that covers the globe. Radiometric dating and other evolutionary presuppositions are then applied to the composite column.

Instead, we see a tendency toward order. For example, when found at the same sites, marine fossils are generally in sedimentary layers well below dinosaur fossils. However, even this fact can be deceiving, because we don’t often find different kinds of fossils together. An incredible 95 percent of the fossils we find are of shallow marine organisms, like corals and shellfish—and sometimes we find those even in high sedimentary layers, even on top of Mt. Everest! The next 4.75 percent are fossils of algae, plants, and invertebrates (such as insects). That leaves only a quarter of one percent (0.25) of all fossils that are of vertebrates. But an incredible 99 percent of these fossils are only a single bone!
I doubt that you will read the above or believe anything in it...but I thought it was ironic that AIG discussed the very question you asked. It must an atheistic oldie but goodie.





fidelis usque ad mortem
   
Reply With Quote
  (#207) Old
pozzolane pozzolane is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
pozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peerspozzolane is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chatmaggot View Post
I'm not dancing...I just know you won't like answer. However, I find it interesting that you claim that if creatures live together they will be found in the same geological strata.
Why would I believe otherwise?! It makes perfect logical-rational- empirical-scientific sense.

Quote:
Interesting to note is that someone emailed AIG about the bunny question and it was on their front page the other day. I had to laugh. Here is a snipet:
Was it a nervous laugh? The reason why they address it, is because it's a perfectly valid and difficult question for creationists to answer.

Quote:
I doubt that you will read the above or believe anything in it...but I thought it was ironic that AIG discussed the very question you asked. It must an atheistic oldie but goodie.

I read it and had a good laugh myself. They attack the validity of the geological column (just like I proposed to you that you should do in order to remain consistent), in order to assert that a global flood did it.


Quote:
So, where are all the bunny fossils? At first, it appears to be a riddle for creationists. The implication behind the question is that, if the fossil record isn’t an accurate record of millions of years of evolution, then why is there a neat order to it?
Yep, that's exactly it. Care to explain the order?

Quote:
If most of the fossil record was laid down all at once by the global Flood, then why are rabbits found only in “recent” Tertiary and Quaternary sediments rather than in the sediments belonging to the “ancient” Cambrian period?
Good question.

Quote:
First, we must look at the very validity of the geologic column.
Of course. When something doesn't fit in with your bigoted opinion, it must be the evidence that is wrong and not your preconceived notions. Very scientific. Are you making notes, Stripe?

Quote:
Is there actually a definable Cambrian period that exists in the sedimentary layers, independent of uniformitarian and evolutionary presuppositions?

Yes.


Quote:
What we find is that the geological column is not nearly as straightforward as evolutionists suggest. For one thing, nowhere on earth is the entire fossil record visible.
Only in a few places we find "old" exposed strata due to uplift caused by plate movement or other geological processes (such as erosion). Otherwise, we'd have to dig thousands of feet, and we don't have that capability. It's the best we've got. What do you creationists have, except half baked conjecture and already refuted argument?

Quote:
The schema is pieced together by correlating exposed rock layers from around the globe. So, it represents a composite picture, not an exact sequence that covers the globe.
A very good composite picture. One that is far better than this article would lead an uneducated reader to believe. How very dishonest of them.

Quote:
Radiometric dating and other evolutionary presuppositions are then applied to the composite column.
You mean scientific analysis? Calling them presuppositions is extremely ignorant. But they have to do this in an attempt to remain consistent. I wonder if this writer enjoys the luxury of driving their car to work, cooking a meal in their microwave, or surfing the web on the very computer they typed the above sentence on. They probably presuppose the technology will work each time they press the power button, eh!?

Quote:
Instead, we see a tendency toward order.
We see order.

Quote:
For example, when found at the same sites, marine fossils are generally in sedimentary layers well below dinosaur fossils. However, even this fact can be deceiving, because we don’t often find different kinds of fossils together.
A speed bump for no-one. I already explained why whales are not seen with coelacanth. It is no obstacle for evolution, even though creationists like to think it is.

Quote:
An incredible 95 percent of the fossils we find are of shallow marine organisms, like corals and shellfish—and sometimes we find those even in high sedimentary layers, even on top of Mt. Everest!
Mt. Everest wasn't always a mountain. Guess what it used to be? A sea bottom. Surprise! Geology explains this nicely with plate tectonics. And how do I know that the mountain formed via the collision of two plates, rather than it being previously preformed but submerged by a global flood? Because the mountain is still growing to this day by about 1cm each year as the plates continue to collide.

Quote:
But an incredible 99 percent of these fossils are only a single bone!
A complete and outright lie. So now that this writer from AIG has done a little jig, where's the rest of the article in which they answer the bunny question? They completely red herring'd the question and jibber jabbed about radiometric dating being an "evolutionary presupposition". They don't refute the validity of the geological column, but just attempt to undermine it's accuracy (note that in order for them to disprove the theory of evolution, they can't just undermine the accuracy of the geological column, they must put it to bed!) All things considered, that article provided no answer (not an honest answer, anyways). But it's completely in line with what kind of dishonest behavior a creationist must resort to in order to remain consistent.




Last edited by pozzolane; March 10th, 2009 at 09:49 PM..
   
Reply With Quote
  (#208) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 10:52 PM

I'm interested in how a creature might get fossilised in deep water ocean....

I can think of no way that it could happen quickly enough.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#209) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 6000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
I'm interested in how a creature might get fossilised in deep water ocean....

I can think of no way that it could happen quickly enough.
Underwater landslides?

http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/20.../skred_english

I think deep ocean trenches and continental shelves would probably provide good places for that.

The fact remains large aquatic creatures have been fossilized so there must be a mechanism, even if you can't think of one.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#210) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
March 10th, 2009, 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
Underwater landslides?

http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/20.../skred_english

I think deep ocean trenches and continental shelves would probably provide good places for that.

The fact remains large aquatic creatures have been fossilized so there must be a mechanism, even if you can't think of one.
I can guarantee you that the fossilised remains you speak of were not found in landslide deposits.

In order for deep sea creatures to be fossilised they would have to be caught in a shallow environment and then have large amounts of sediment dumped on them all at once.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
tsunami, turbiditary


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2012 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.