Evolution Deceit?

[A4C]

Did you bother to read my post about polystrat or are you just copy and pasting?

It is useless to try and convince us that it took millions of years to put down stata layers except when it comes to polytrat fossils

IT WONT WASH Sorry

 

[A4C]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
That is the the most pathetic attempt of refuting something that I have ever seen. It should be read by all the evolutionists here just to see how limp your colleague's arguments are.

 

[Arikay]

So it is useless to try and explain what scientists really say because you would rather accept the strawman version?
Um, ok.

The fact is, no matter how many times creationists try to simplify it and put words in other peoples mouths, science says that we always need to look at the details. The details say that many layers were layed down over millions of years, but some weren't and we need to look at the details to find out which is which. Many creationist groups have an all or nothing mentality, but science in not that way. No current scientist says that the polystrat layers were layed down over millions of years, because they weren't.

So to repeat myself, only creationists claim those layers represent millions of years. For a creationist site to claim that scientists say that as well is an outright lie and a strawman.

It is useless to try and convince us that it took millions of years to put down stata layers except when it comes to polytrat fossils

IT WONT WASH Sorry

 

[Arikay]

Show us how it is pathetic.
Or did I make the mistake that I thought you would provide actual evidence. If so, everyone else can have fun, there is no point in trying to have a conversation with those who do not want to.

I shall even start a new thread devoted entirely to you showing how it is pathetic (with solid data to back you of course) if you would like.
(How come very very few creationists ever take me up on my offer to create a new thread and discuss the claim in detail?)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
That is the the most pathetic attempt of refuting something that I have ever seen. It should be read by all the evolutionists here just to see how limp your colleague's arguments are.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is useless to try and convince us that it took millions of years to put down stata layers except when it comes to polytrat fossils

IT WONT WASH Sorry

Each type of strata can be layed down in different time periods, irrespective of if they contain trees or not. Conglomerate material contain large rocks is most obviously caused by sudden land or mud slides. Limestone requires quiet waters and long time periods for large amounts of stone to accumulate. What do we see around these polystrate tree fossils? Types of strata that only require short amounts of time to accumulate, time periods that are well within the range for a tree to remain standing after it dies. In many cases the layers are consistent with a change from a swampy/marshy bog to swifter flowing river ecology, and then even a switch back to swamp. Other polystrate fossils are consistent with changing river beds. While some may claim that these strata were laid down millions of years ago, no one is claiming that it took millions of years for these strata to form. Again, all we get from you is creationist deceit. When will it stop? Do I need to drag out those polystrate telephone poles for you again, the polystrate bridge? I think I might even be able to dig up a polystrate schoolhouse if you want.

 

[cerad]

The "perished" portion of this statement appear to have been overlooked:

From evolution point of view the order depended on the order they "evolved" whereas the Flood gives the order in which they perished.

Any thoughts on how one type of plant may have "perished" before another type of plant during a flood? Assuming the plants grew in the same area.

 

[A4C]

In other words the polystrata fossils could not possibly be made by a Flood but they were definenately made by a flood. I think I get it now

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words the polystrata fossils could not possibly be made by a Flood but they were definenately made by a flood. I think I get it now

Are you saying that local floods never happen, only global floods? Also, you ignore stacked polystrate forests. These demonstrate successive burial and regrowth of forests, something impossible for a one time event, such as a global flood, to create. Polystrate fossils can be explained without invoking a global flood, and therefore polystrate tree fossils are not evidence of a global flood.

 

[Arikay]

Almost. Polystrat fossils could have been made by The Flood, but they are not evidence against non flood geology.

Of course, the big question if they are evidence for the flood is why they are so rare?
It would seem as if a flood that layed down most of the layers we see today would produce mostly polystrat fossils and non polystrat fossils should be rare.

 

[A4C]

Almost. Polystrat fossils could have been made by The Flood, but they are not evidence against non flood geology.

Of course, the big question if they are evidence for the flood is why they are so rare?
It would seem as if a flood that layed down most of the layers we see today would produce mostly polystrat fossils and non polystrat fossils should be rare.

Well actually you have spoken against your own hypothosis. A Global flood would be so devastating to tree growth that you could expect nearly every one to be uprooted and float -and not be seen in the fossil record at all. It would be the execption to see one standing but in a local flood it would be more commonplace Do you really think local floods produce so much sediment that cover trees under hundreds of feet of sediment?

 

[A4C]

I now notice that polystrata trees are now combined with the Grand Canyon as geological phenomena that floods caused and were once considered outside of the realm of a flood cause. I wonder if you all have anymore you want to fess up to?

 

[Split Rock]

I now notice that polystrata trees are now combined with the Grand Canyon as geological phenomena that floods caused and were once considered outside of the realm of a flood cause. I wonder if you all have anymore you want to fess up to?

How about fessin up that what you call sink-holes are really meteor impacts which you are hopeless to explain with your 6,000 year old earth? Or (I am asking a second time now) are you suggesting there was a Global Flood on the Moon as well?

 

[Split Rock]

Well actually you have spoken against your own hypothosis. A Global flood would be so devastating to tree growth that you could expect nearly every one to be uprooted and float -and not be seen in the fossil record at all. It would be the execption to see one standing but in a local flood it would be more commonplace Do you really think local floods produce so much sediment that cover trees under hundreds of feet of sediment?

You are the one arguing against your own case. You just stated that a "Global Flood would be so devastating to tree growth that you could expect nearly every one to be uprooted and float -and not be seen in the fossil record at all." Why then do we see entire forests fossilized in the geological record? Opps!

 

[A4C]

How about fessin up that what you call sink-holes are really meteor impacts which you are hopeless to explain with your 6,000 year old earth? Or (I am asking a second time now) are you suggesting there was a Global Flood on the Moon as well?

Lets just get the geology of earth right before we consider the moon or any other heavenly body. If God in His wisdom wanted to create the moon with sink holes in it who are you or I to argue against Him doing that?

 

[Arikay]

1) How did I speak against my hypothesis?

2) But we should expect to see other fossils to be polystrat as well, many animals should be seen crossing strata, and not just local flood strata but they should be seen crossing strata that scientists actually claim is seperated by millions of years.

3) Who said that the local floods produced hundreds of feet of sediment?

Well actually you have spoken against your own hypothosis. A Global flood would be so devastating to tree growth that you could expect nearly every one to be uprooted and float -and not be seen in the fossil record at all. It would be the execption to see one standing but in a local flood it would be more commonplace Do you really think local floods produce so much sediment that cover trees under hundreds of feet of sediment?

 

[Split Rock]

Lets just get the geology of earth right before we consider the moon or any other heavenly body. If God in His wisdom wanted to create the moon with sink holes in it who are you or I to argue against Him doing that?

LOL! "In his Wisdom," you crack me up!. Maybe... Just Maybe, they aren't sink holes... maybe they are actually meteor impacts! Maybe... Just Maybe, the craters that look the same on earth are ALSO meteor impacts! Now, God looks even Wiser!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Lets just get the geology of earth right

That's going to be a difficult task for a person admittedly ignorant of even the basics of geology and who obviously has no desire to educate himself.

The geology of the earth has already been "gotten right" and as a result your position has been disproved no matter how deep into the denial hole you choose to sink.

 

[Loudmouth]

I now notice that polystrata trees are now combined with the Grand Canyon as geological phenomena that floods caused and were once considered outside of the realm of a flood cause. I wonder if you all have anymore you want to fess up to?

How about fessing up to the fact that polystrate trees can be caused by local flooding that is occuring even now. How about fessing up to the fact that polystrate trees do not prove that a global flood occured.

 

[A4C]

How about fessing up to the fact that polystrate trees can be caused by local flooding that is occuring even now. How about fessing up to the fact that polystrate trees do not prove that a global flood occured.

OK I confess that floods produce dirty water and provided there is not too much water current (like a protected area from water turbulence for instance)and that it rains long enough (ie 40 days) and there is a long period of time (like 1 year) when the sediments can settle according to their type while the water does not receed there will be fossil evidence of polystrata trees. As far as I know there is only one flood that produced that so I cannot confess that other than the Noah flood can do it. Sorry if that is not what you wanted me to confess.

 

[kemaldohak]

The theory of evolution collapses long before one gets to any claims about the evidence of fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth.

When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.

The first thing that must be said is that the claim that inanimate materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.

The theory of evolution claims that a living cell-which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear-nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions of the earth. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason.