16%

[Jerry Smith]

In another thread, Nick claimed:

Also, even in the 1% of the globe (0.4% if you count the oceans) where you can find all the supposed layers of the geological column, the total depth of the OBSERVED geologic column is 16% of the depth of the THEORIZED geologic column. What happened to the other 84%? Special pleading, of course.

I have repeatedly asked for his calculations. I suspect he, or John Woodmorappe, either made them up, or based their calculations on faulty ASSUMPTIONS. I am determined to keep this thread on top until Nick comes back and provides the calculations he or JW used to reach this conclusion, complete with any ASSUMPTIONS that he (or JW) used to make the calculations.

I am also waiting on some authentication of the premise of these questions:

And what about those portions of the 99% of the rest of the land mass where layers are out of the expected order?

and

Where you can find footprints of reptiles that appear in a layer 150 million years before reptiles with feet supposedly evolved?

Lets find out whether these questions have a basis in factg or if they are just another of "Nick's third set of teeth".

 

[Jerry Smith]

Nick's 3rd set of teeth, the "footprint" with a trilobite, The Kow Swamp fossils...

... the "coso Artifact", the Paluxy "man-tracks"....

These all have something in common. They would have been the factual basis for a good counter-evolutionary argument.

If they hadn't been malarkey.

Now we have a geological column missing 84% of its depth, and reptile "footprints" before reptiles evolved... Why am I guessing there is no substantial evidence for either of these?

Why? Why-oh-why? Why-oh-why-oh-why is it that evolutionists are the one listening to charges of incompetence and dishonesty from the very people on these boards who have promoted this fraudulent evidence against evolution or for a "creationist" model?

How long should we put up with it?

 

[Jerry Smith]

16%... bump

 

[Jerry Smith]

<bump>

 

[Jerry Smith]

<bump>

 

[Starscream]

Good-luck, Jerry.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The funny thing is, that he will most likely follow the M.O. and keep stating this falsehood about the geologic column in the future.. Despite the fact that he already knows it is false, and is proving it a false claim by not showing his work or the "assumptions" it is based on -- or more accurately, showing John Woodmorappe's work and the assumptions it is based on...

 

[Jerry Smith]

This is apparently one of the "honest mistakes" randman believes that creationists have made. See what a hurry they are in to jump in here and set the record straight!!

 

[Starscream]

Jerry, it looks like you are being ignored. Why? Why, why, why?

 

[Jerry Smith]

<bump>

Specific reason?

This is what happens when Nick makes a positive claim about the evidence for scientific theories and observations.

He quickly dodges supporting the claim, never admits it was a false claim, then continues to complain that the evidence for evolution is "imaginary" and requires too much interpretation. I think I will bump another thread too... be right back.

 

[Sauron]

Another BUMP-FEST!



Another thread attains ETERNAL LIFE, because it won't die until Nick addresses it.

And since everyone knows that Nick will never do so, this thread LIVES FOREVER!

 

[Jerry Smith]

<bump>

Here's to longevity

 

[seebs]

Poing.

I really would like to see this answered; I don't like it when people give the impression that Christians dodge hard questions.

 

[Jerry Smith]

<bumped> again, because np has the gall in another thread to accuse "you guys" (apparently meaning those here who won't deny evolution) of not caring about the "truth."

 

[seebs]

Indeed.

Come on, Nick. You're making Christians look slimey, by making a claim, and then not showing your work. If the geological column is 16% of the expected height, that means:

1. We have a clear expectation of the height which is accurate to two significant figures.

2. You know what that expectation is.

3. You know what the measured height is.

4. They differ by a ratio of about 6 to 1.

So... how about you provide those first three values, and show your sources?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by seebs
Come on, Nick. You're making Christians look slimey,

Nah. I know lot's of Christians & I know that Nick isn't representative of them. He is just making creationists look slimey.

 

[seebs]

Ahh, but Jerry, you're unusual. A lot of the lurkers assume that this kind of dodging is typical for us, and every visible example counts for a *LOT* of quiet lurkers.

 

[randman]

From what I can tell, the evolutionists here have universally dodged and failed to address Nick's point over and over again. Yet you have the gall to demand he keep discussing things with you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
From what I can tell, the evolutionists here have universally dodged and failed to address Nick's point over and over again. Yet you have the gall to demand he keep discussing things with you.

Quite the opposite!! I would love for him to stop discussing things with us. But if he is going to, and isn't going to go to the trouble of actually telling the truth, correcting his errors, or supporting his unfounded assertions (and accusations) then yes, I think we are justified in pressing him to - it gives him a chance to earn some credibility and at the same time, if he forgoes the opportunity, it gives lurkers and debaters the necessary insight into his character to realize that his bogus claims are baloney and hot air.

 

[Jerry Smith]

As for dodging and failing to address Nick's points:

It is so rare that he will stick his neck out to make an actual point (the majority of his time here is spent just blustering about how everything scientific is imaginary), that it would be difficult to track down the threads where he does indeed make one. However, I think that when he has made points, myself and others have been quick to respond to the points and to discuss them until np digresses to more sarcasm, bluster and baloney. As a matter of fact, this thread is an attempt to address one of his points, and the "Creationist's errors" thread si an attempt to address more than one of his (and your) points.