2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2013, 10:55 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
Hey, how did I miss this ?
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-12-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(17-12-2013 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  I understand quite well that:
Quote:The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever.
is incompatible with:
Quote:They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.

Why do I bother.

"Radical" being here used in a very dry and reserved scientific sense. Learning new things within a methodology does not invalidate the methodology. Have you forgotten the counting analogy already? Or are you just ignoring it...

Inconsistency as I meant it (y'know - the coherent sense) would mean an incompatible inconsistency. One which cannot possibly be accounted for within current understanding. The ever-elusive Cambrian rabbit.

I shall illustrate with an example which you will no doubt purposefully misconstrue. The rock outside my apartment is some of the oldest on the planet - the Canadian Shield. It is roughly two billion years old. There are no fossils. There was no multicellular life anywhere on Earth at the time. "Tetrapods arose a few million years earlier than previous evidence indicated" is perfectly commensurate with all current theories. Multicellular life fossilised in the Shield is not.

If ever there were one single fossil found in the Shield it would be a real radical specimen. Because it would be fundamentally incompatible with all modern theories. Of course, no such thing has ever been found. Despite a vast history of mining and exploration - no fossils. No inconsistencies.

Either you do not understand the difference, or you are pretending not to.

(17-12-2013 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:When the scientists start digging into rocks which are a certain age....Low and behold, they actually find fossil's which are correct for what ever age the rocks are.

Which they do.

Point being?

(17-12-2013 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  It was not considered "correct" to find tetrapod fossils in rocks of the age in which these fossils were found. It wasn't even close, as the abstract notes by saying "they force a radical reassessment of the timing."

Where "not even close" here means "18 million years", which is in fact eminently plausible.

(17-12-2013 07:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  It seems likely that people who make such claims are parroting stuff they've heard on youtube and don't really read up on the subject. I don't see why you'd defend that.

Whereas you can refer to one paper about a new development without understanding it, as if "learning new details" somehow invalidated the methodology - and why do I suspect that's merely some hack creationist copy-pasta work? - without any apparent understanding of geology, paleontology, or biology. Parroting, eh? Write what you know...

As a good little scriptural literalist, you're ideologically committed to full-on reality denial. I don't see why you'd defend that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
19-12-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
IOW, radical reassessment doesn't mean radical reassessment. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2013, 09:41 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(19-12-2013 09:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Or are you just ignoring it...
He has a tendency to do that. I'm still waiting for him to respond to Paleophyte's post. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
19-12-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(19-12-2013 09:38 AM)alpha male Wrote:  IOW, radical reassessment doesn't mean radical reassessment. Smile

So, you're just gonna go ahead and ignore literally everything else?

Okay, we can play that game.

You... do realize there's a difference between radical reassessment within the existing framework and radical reassessment which requires altering the framework, no?

'Cause that's a pretty elementary distinction. Which you are deliberately equivocating to make your facetious point. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-12-2013, 11:52 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(19-12-2013 09:41 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-12-2013 09:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Or are you just ignoring it...
He has a tendency to do that. I'm still waiting for him to respond to Paleophyte's post. Consider

I'm not holding my breath.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
19-12-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(16-12-2013 04:08 PM)alpha male Wrote:  However, you're wrong. Fossils are found in the wrong time. For example, consider tiktaalik. It's supposedly a fish-tetrapod transitional. The team that found it were specifically looking for something like it in the time and environment predicted by the model of the time. When they found it, it was trumpeted as a success of evolution.

However, a few years later fossil tracks from fully-formed tetrapods were found in Poland and dated to ten million years older than tiktaalik. This isn't from a creationist source, it's from Nature. Here's the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...e08623.pdf
Quote:The fossil record of the earliest tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins) consists of body fossils and trackways. The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.
So, "The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever." is wrong.

Tiktaalik isn't an example of an inconsistency in the fossil record. It's a lobe-finned fish, a group that's been around from the late Silurian to present. Tiktaalik is from the late Devonian, well within that range. No inconsistency.

Your contention with Tiktaalik is that it was initially interpreted to be a transitional form between the lobe-finned fishes and the tetrapods. Subsequent findings have cast that interpretation into doubt. Read the bit of your quote that you have in bold. This is a fine example of how science revises our understanding of the world based on new evidence.

An inconsistency in the fossil record would be the fossil of a rabbit from the Permian, a conifer from the Cambrian or a hominid in the Ediacaran.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
20-12-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(19-12-2013 12:08 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 04:08 PM)alpha male Wrote:  However, you're wrong. Fossils are found in the wrong time. For example, consider tiktaalik. It's supposedly a fish-tetrapod transitional. The team that found it were specifically looking for something like it in the time and environment predicted by the model of the time. When they found it, it was trumpeted as a success of evolution.

However, a few years later fossil tracks from fully-formed tetrapods were found in Poland and dated to ten million years older than tiktaalik. This isn't from a creationist source, it's from Nature. Here's the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...e08623.pdf
So, "The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever." is wrong.

Tiktaalik isn't an example of an inconsistency in the fossil record. It's a lobe-finned fish, a group that's been around from the late Silurian to present. Tiktaalik is from the late Devonian, well within that range. No inconsistency.

Your contention with Tiktaalik is that it was initially interpreted to be a transitional form between the lobe-finned fishes and the tetrapods. Subsequent findings have cast that interpretation into doubt. Read the bit of your quote that you have in bold. This is a fine example of how science revises our understanding of the world based on new evidence.

An inconsistency in the fossil record would be the fossil of a rabbit from the Permian, a conifer from the Cambrian or a hominid in the Ediacaran.
Tiktaalik was right where it was supposed to be. It's the footprints found subsequently that are the inconsistency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 11:02 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(20-12-2013 08:33 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Tiktaalik was right where it was supposed to be. It's the footprints found subsequently that are the inconsistency.

Lobe-finned fish were evolving into tetrapods about that point so finding footprints is inconsistent with the fossil record how? The only thing those footprints were inconsistent with was the theory regarding when tetrapods emerged. That theory's been updated to reflect the new data. It's what we call science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: