Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[Wiccan_Child]

Since you are not the judge of probable, that doesn't matter.

Arguably. The probability of a given explanation being true is given by the scientific method (parsimonious things are more likely to be true than unparsimonious things; unevidenced things are far less likely to be true than heavily evidenced things; etc).
That's the whole point of science, dad.

Get out more.

Stunning refutation, truly, I'm speechless.

That's what I would be saying if you hadn't just flopped. I prefer the old dad.

 

[thaumaturgy]

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates

Well, whoever is responsible for that slideshow deserves an award for artwork. It brought some of the finest features of standard-issue Dadism PLUS all the art quality of the old "Children's Bible Stories" books like you used to find in the hospital waiting rooms. It was actually quite well drawn.

Of course I loved Jesus' sword, 1970's beard and mustache and everyone's bristling muscles + halo combination...oh,yeah, and curvaceous women. It pretty much had it all! (Was that transparent gold?? Wow, straight outta Dadism 101!)

I also liked how much Jesus kinda looked like GOD-MAN from Ruben Bolling's stuff!

Basically, this slideshow gets an A+!

Maybe someone should sync it up with some "hot music" (as was promised in heaven...unless of course that level of hot music isn't yet available to regular humans, at which point we'll have to settle for THIS

 

[dad]

Dad is doing what a "true believer" needs to do. Note how he demands others to "focus" and "make a point" in the threads. Obviously you and I and every one of the scientists like Frumious and Fish and just everyone on here has posted, in our years on here, a ton of scientific information in direct response to Dad. But when the science gets too hot, Dad retreats to his "unknowable unknown" and hides behind the great wall of ignorance.

The holy of holies in any of these anti-science debates is the great altar of ignorance, hidden behind the veil of confusion.

I am fascinated that Dad often will start out a thread, himself, in which he posts a link to a science story. Of course he immediately goes off the rails and tries to forcefit it into his own strange theories, but he's starting off down the right path of referencing science.

But when people bring science to bear from a solid background, suddenly Dad is no longer interested in what the scientists say or know. Because Dad knows that science can't "know" anything if unobserved.

It is a strange game and Dad is not the only one playing it. It betrays a deep-seated belief among creationists and "true believers" that they know science has inherent value, and they'd like you believe they have science on their side. Until it's shown they aren't familiar enough with the field, then that science suddenly becomes "strangely unnecessary" or "extraneous".

I'll be the first to admit that not everyone needs to be or should be a scientist. Just like I'm sure theres' something that Dad does that I couldn't do in real life (at least statistically speaking that is likely). But what torques me is that he (and others) come on here pontificating against science and can't substantively defend their points when real scientists come back and push back.

But, again, we all kind of know the truth behind it. All you need do is read their posts to see both their desperation to align science with their beliefs and their hopes that their use of randomly strewn scientific and technical terms will lend credence to their weak grasp of the science.

I'll also be honest enough to admit that I do that same thing too. I've been in situations where I'm new to a field of study and I'll try to expand out into it and put my foot firmly in my mouth. Every scientist on this board has had it happen to them.

But most of us learn that when that happens we walk back in shame, sit on the sidelines and watch and learn a bit more before we speak again.

I don't begrudge Dad or others the opportunity to express their ignorance, what I do begrudge them is the constant, willful, almost agressive active defense of their own ignorance as a virtue.

So, I'm OK that Dad has probably never actually set foot in a paleontology class. I'm OK that Dad couldn't keep up in a geochem class. We are not all supposed to be the same person. But what I wish was that Dad and others would acquiesce that sometimes someone may know more than they do.

But that would break their pride. And we are all human and pride is the tastiest of mortal sins.

Now, now, resorting to attacking the one that whumps you in a debate, rather than the content that was the instrument of the whumping is childish.
As for you puffing up education or science, and your perceived closeness to it, all I can say is this.

 

[dad]

Basically, this slideshow gets an A+!

Great, we do agree on some things.

 

[dad]

Arguably. The probability of a given explanation being true is given by the scientific method (parsimonious things are more likely to be true than unparsimonious things; unevidenced things are far less likely to be true than heavily evidenced things; etc).
That's the whole point of science, dad.

You are not the judge of parsimonious. You simply like to cheap out on the spiritual, and harp on the PO.

Stunning refutation, truly, I'm speechless.

Better to be silent and thought a fool, that to open the mouth, and remove all doubt, I suppose.

 

[dad]

I love these... substantial answers of dad's. I also notice he doesn't deny any of thaumaturgy's allegations... perhaps thaumaturgy's just hit a few nails hard on the head?

Or his head was hit by a few nails.

 

[dad]

So he is marrying Marilyn Monroe or do you still expect to spend eternity boinking her and other famous beauties as you claimed on a previous thread?

I see no need for them to be famous??

I thought the city was supposed to be transparent gold. It didn't look transparent to me.

Maybe the artist was not perfect. Or, maybe if it was, we would think the mansions were sitting up in the air?

 

[dad]

I would like evidence for every point that you make. I would like evidence of a flood layer.

Or against it. What sort of layer would you like? Undisturbed, perhaps?

I would like evidence that all organisms were created at the same time.

No reason to assume otherwise, as we have many organisms living as we speak. The evidence supports that, far as I can tell. But you can raise a point contra wise if you like.

Or, if you're one of those that think there was no dead until the fall, I would like to see fossils of organisms starting at the same point in time where there are, let's say, trilobites (a very common fossil from the Cambrian period) and any mammal in the same strata.

What about trilobites, precisely would lead one to suspect they were not created about the same time? Did they not have a starting point in the record????

I would like to see you propose a mechanism that would explain why radiometric dating says old earth, but how the rates have changed over time.

Easy. There was no decay before the spit. Only after, so I do not say rates have changed. Simply that the ingredients in the rock, or whatever were already there, doing something else other than being engaged in a decay process! Something that involved a now missing spiritual component in the mix.

(not started to decay after the fall or flood, at a constant rate scientists would then find evidence of a young earth). I would like to see evidence that the spiritual existed in all chemicals.

Well, that depend on the chemical. Can you prove any particular sample was post split??

Or even in some. I would like to know why Carboniferous coal has not flowering plant fossils in it.

O my heavens, we accidentally swung round back to the topic! Well, I thought I covered that??? Remember, the migration from Eden??

It could be my computer. They don't always work as they should. I'll let Wiccan_Child handle that.

Fine, when in doubt ask a witch, or a scientist, I suppose.

Really? It looked like childish, oversimplified drivel to me. But that is still irrelevant to the discussion.

True, better to stick to the topic. How things look to you, of course is not the measure of all truth.

 

[RedAndy]

Maybe someone should sync it up with some "hot music" (as was promised in heaven...unless of course that level of hot music isn't yet available to regular humans, at which point we'll have to settle for THIS

Not to blow my own trumpet, of course, but I think this would do the job much better....

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Trying to get back on track.

What is interesting is when you take all the paliogeographic evidence along with coal measures and glacial evidence we get a picture of the world quite different to today’s. Large parts of South America, South Africa, Australia and Antarctica were being affected by one of the worlds major Ice Ages. At the same time North America, Asia and Europe were sitting in the tropics, where major swamps were developed leading to the formation of the Carboniferous coal measures. The fluctuations between glacial periods and interglacial periods associated with Ice Ages also explain the cyclothems seen in the Carboniferous deposits world wide.

Cyclothem this thread

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are not the judge of parsimonious.

As I said before, you are correct: it is logic that is the judge.

You simply like to cheap out on the spiritual,

because there is no evidence for it. You arbitrarily assume it exists so that your exotic translation of antique texts might make sense (that it must make sense is itself another assumption on your part).

and harp on the PO.

The PO? I haven't mentioned the PO. Stop changing the subject.

Better to be silent and thought a fool, that to open the mouth, and remove all doubt, I suppose.

Nonsense. By keeping silent, you simply demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about, and can't adequately respond to criticisms of your position.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Now, now, resorting to attacking the one that whumps you in a debate, rather than the content that was the instrument of the whumping is childish.
As for you puffing up education or science, and your perceived closeness to it, all I can say is this.

[BIBLE]Proverbs 16:18[/BIBLE]

 

[Naraoia]

(*whines* Someone tell me what on earth "the PO" is )

 

[Nitron]

Pretty sure it's dad's idea of a world where the spiritual and physical are separate.

PO fishbowl => Methodological naturalism

 

[thaumaturgy]

(*whines* Someone tell me what on earth "the PO" is )

It means "Present Only", if I recall. It is how Dad hides his ignorance of how science is done. If something looks like data that might prove Dad incorrect, he lables it "PO" science.

Note how he intimated that a systematic paleontology was "PO-ology". For a man who wanted to tell us what he saw in the fossil record he could have done better to understand what an actual "systematic paleontology" was in relation to (classification and citation--an EXAMPLE).

It's abundantly clear that anything Dad doesn't understand suddenly gets mushed into his "PO" Lable.

How citation and classification falls into some "unknown past" is beyond me, but Dad's so insightful that he then denigrates those of us who've had to actually take classes in this stuff and learn some of it.

(I'll even admit stuff no creationist can ever admit about themselves: I'm no expert on paleontology. I've had classes, I've worked with paleo data, I've worked extensively with coal macerals and paleobotanical structures, but I'm not an expert in this area. But strangely enough that kind of stuff never seems to stop people like Dad from pontificating about what they see in the fossil record.)

ALSO: Note how Dad insists all people make valid points pertinent to the topic at hand. But when you do provide page after page after page after page of data (as I and many others on here have, so he has no reason to accuse me of not providing data), he simply denigrates it or blows it off. He can't address the science so he mocks it. Then he insists everyone provide more information than he can muster. Ironic.

 

[dad]

As I said before, you are correct: it is logic that is the judge.

Logic needs all the facts, what you cook up with half a deck is falsely called logic.

because there is no evidence for it. You arbitrarily assume it exists so that your exotic translation of antique texts might make sense (that it must make sense is itself another assumption on your part).

There is a world of evidence for it, You are in denial. Ask some witch that is in the higher levels, if you doubt me. I have met one or two. They know all about the spiritual.

The PO? I haven't mentioned the PO. Stop changing the subject.

The Physical Only is all you can have with no spiritual. Focus.

Nonsense. By keeping silent, you simply demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about, and can't adequately respond to criticisms of your position.

Well, then, go ahead, and make a point of some kind, and we shall see.

 

[dad]

(*whines* Someone tell me what on earth "the PO" is )

Physical Only. The universe we live in now, I would say is just that, what we call 'natural. That is the realm of science, and beyond that, it cannot go.

 

[dad]

[bible]Proverbs 16:18[/bible]

Preach it.

 

[dad]

Trying to get back on track.

What is interesting is when you take all the paliogeographic evidence along with coal measures and glacial evidence we get a picture of the world quite different to today’s. Large parts of South America, South Africa, Australia and Antarctica were being affected by one of the worlds major Ice Ages. At the same time North America, Asia and Europe were sitting in the tropics, where major swamps were developed leading to the formation of the Carboniferous coal measures. The fluctuations between glacial periods and interglacial periods associated with Ice Ages also explain the cyclothems seen in the Carboniferous deposits world wide.

Well, now, you have a certain story there. Let's look at the cyclothems.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
In geology, cyclothems are alternating stratigraphic sequences of marine and non-marine sediments, interbedded with coal seams. Unique to the Carboniferous and earliest Permian periods, they apparently formed as a result of marine transgressions and regressions related to decay and growth of ice sheets, respectively, as the Carboniferous was a time of widespread glaciation. Cyclothems were possible because of the extremely low topography of the interior lowlands the seas covered and uncovered, which is why they have been absent in the current ice age."



(A transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding.)

Now, since the water used to come up from below, one expects that water level fluctuations would occur in some places, near a source. What you like to call transgressions.

Prove that your myth must be the only acceptable point of view here.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Well, now, you have a certain story there. Let's look at the cyclothems.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
In geology, cyclothems are alternating stratigraphic sequences of marine and non-marine sediments, interbedded with coal seams. Unique to the Carboniferous and earliest Permian periods, they apparently formed as a result of marine transgressions and regressions related to decay and growth of ice sheets, respectively, as the Carboniferous was a time of widespread glaciation. Cyclothems were possible because of the extremely low topography of the interior lowlands the seas covered and uncovered, which is why they have been absent in the current ice age."



(A transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding.)

Now, since the water used to come up from below, one expects that water level fluctuations would occur in some places, near a source. What you like to call transgressions.

Prove that your myth must be the only acceptable point of view here.

Of course it’s a story, but one based on evidence and observation. Cyclothems are found in many Carboniferous sedimentary deposits and they show quite clearly that there was relative sea level change many times during this period.

Quote
Periodicity of cycles.
Mid Pennsylvanian estimates:
Arizona: 352 ka (Connolly and Stanton, 1992)

Other widely separated areas with different tectonic settings and styles of sedimentation:

• 235-400 ka (Heckel, 1986)
• 330-370 ka (Algeo, 1991)
• 230-385 ka (Goldhammer, et al., 1991).
  
  Given the error margins of time scales these still fall within the upper end of the Milankovitch band!!..... eccentricty of the Earth's orbit.

To make such a inference suggests that astronomic variables were the modulators of late Paleozoic ice sheet fluctuations as during the late Pliocene-Pleistocene. Would such be the case in the Paleozoic world?

The cyclothems were caused by sea level transgressions and regressions, which were the result of fluctuations in the Ice cap which at that time covered the southern half of the Earth.

Quote
Estimates of Carboniferous ice volume and sea level response (Crowley and Baum, 1991).

• Based on application of area volume relationships developed for Quaternary ice sheets
• estimates derived for Westphalian (305Ma)
• Three estmates made with different ice extent configurations
• Ice I- 17.9 million sq. km 39.8 million cubic km
• Ice II- 27.2 million sq. km 63.9 million cubic km
• Ice III- 40.0 million sq. km 108.4 million cubic km
• Greatest ice in West Gondwana, Antarctica-India-Mad., Australia, Andean
• sea level influence of Ice I (once volume adjusted to a water equivalent by mult. by 91.7% and reducing the sea level equivalent by 28.4% to adjust for the isostatic effects of ice loading on continental shelves) = 45-75m
• For comparision these figures are for the max. Pleistocene reconstruction
  Laurentide ice sheet- 11.6 million sq. km
  East Antarctic ice sheet- 10.2 million sq. km 21.8 million sq. km
• Maximum Pleistocene global ice volume- 65.4 million sq. km.

All Based On Evidence, Not Magic