My Plastic Swimming Pool Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Take a plastic swimming pool and fill it half way with sand.

Then put down a layer of astroturf, some plastic trees, some plastic trilobites, dinosaurs, cows, horses, rabbits, birds, and finally, people.

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

Now take a hose and fill it up with water.

Take the pool and shake it violently from side to side.

Mess it up good, until there's nothing left but mud and debris and bodies floating around and down inside the sand.

Siphon the surface water and some of the other stuff off into another part of the yard.

Take what's left and make layers, starting at the bottom, in this order: trilobites, sand, dinosaurs, sand, some people.

Everything else is in another part of the yard.

Now lay down some astroturf, trees, flowers, etc, until its a paradise on the surface again.

Note that unbelievers digging down would assume what they're looking at is evolution in progress; whereas what you documented, and the order that you documented it, says something quite differently.

Here's my challenge:

If those people claim that they're seeing evolution in the sand -- despite what you documented -- would they be wrong?

I don't think you have to be a Rhodes scholar to know the answer.

 

[Yttrium]

If those people claim that they're seeing evolution in the sand -- despite what you documented -- would they be wrong?

I don't see why they'd be wrong. The pool universe has been re-created with a new order, and they're documenting the new order. The previous order has been thrown out and no longer applies.

 

[Sabertooth]

If you are talking about proposed life in the Gap, it would have existed before

• Light [Day 1], no need for eyes;
• Air [Day 2], no use for lungs &
• Dry Land [Day 3].

It will take some slick Bible acrobatics to insert those elements before Day 1, but you won't find them in Genesis 1.

 

[driewerf]

Take a plastic swimming pool and fill it half way with sand.

Then put down a layer of astroturf, some plastic trees, some plastic trilobites, dinosaurs, cows, horses, rabbits, birds, and finally, people.

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

...

Note that unbelievers digging down would assume what they're looking at is evolution in progress; whereas what you documented, and the order that you documented it, says something quite differently.

Here's my challenge:

If those people claim that they're seeing evolution in the sand -- despite what you documented -- would they be wrong?

What this post demonstrates is not the truth of Genesis or creationism (of whatever flavour, be it YE, OE, embedded age, GAP or any other) or the invalidity of the Theory of Evolution. What is shows is the incapability of AV1611VET to understand the notion of following the evidence.
Scientists (“unbelievers”, in AV1611VET’s challenge) don’t rely on authority, but on evidence. At every moment any scientist has a finite amount of data at his disposal. At every moment a scientist needs to work with that finite amount of data.
Let us take the geocentric model of Ptolemais. When Ptolemais formulated it, it was in agreement with the observations available at the time. During the following centuries, as data accumulated, the observations diverged gradually more and more from what to be expected from a geocentric model. So Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Keppler proposed the heliocentric model, which fitted the data available in the 16th century better. It took the invention of the telescope (and the genius of Galileo Galilei) to definitely show the heliocentric model right.
Yet, however wrong Ptolemais was, nobody ridicules him. For he did what every scientists ought to do: work with the data available.
I mentioned the telescope, which was a tremendous technological innovation in the 16th century. With each new technological innovation our possibilities to probe the physical world grows, both in wider variability as in accuracy and sensitivity. Where Galileo had only a very modest optical telescope at his disposal we now can investigate the Universe over the whole range of the electromagnetic spectrum, from X-rays to the longest radio waves. It is very normal and exiting that our understanding evolves with the growing technological possibilities too. But at each moment, the essence is to follow the evidence available.
Something none of AV1611VET’s challenges seem to reflect.

kind regards,
driewerf

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Take a plastic swimming pool and fill it half way with sand.

Then put down a layer of astroturf, some plastic trees, some plastic trilobites, dinosaurs, cows, horses, rabbits, birds, and finally, people.

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

Now take a hose and fill it up with water.

Take the pool and shake it violently from side to side.

Mess it up good, until there's nothing left but mud and debris and bodies floating around and down inside the sand.

Siphon the surface water and some of the other stuff off into another part of the yard.

Take what's left and make layers, starting at the bottom, in this order: trilobites, sand, dinosaurs, sand, some people.

Everything else is in another part of the yard.

Now lay down some astroturf, trees, flowers, etc, until its a paradise on the surface again.

Note that unbelievers digging down would assume what they're looking at is evolution in progress; whereas what you documented, and the order that you documented it, says something quite differently.

Here's my challenge:

If those people claim that they're seeing evolution in the sand -- despite what you documented -- would they be wrong?

I don't think you have to be a Rhodes scholar to know the answer.

You forgot a couple of key steps. As you lay down the layers, make sure each appears to be younger than the ones below. Ensure the total age appears to be billions of years older than the date you're going to claim you made this mess. Also, ensure the animals left in each layer appear to have evolved from the ones below. Fiddle with DNA to further support this deception.

If those people who you have duped into believing the lie you have told accuse you of being an untrustworthy deceiver would they be wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

You forgot a couple of key steps. As you lay down the layers, make sure each appears to be younger than the ones below. Ensure the total age appears to be billions of years older than the date you're going to claim you made this mess. Also, ensure the animals left in each layer appear to have evolved from the ones below. Fiddle with DNA to further support this deception.

If those people who you have duped into believing the lie you have told accuse you of being an untrustworthy deceiver would they be wrong?

In your way of thinking, the people came from the animals, since both the animals and the people are made of plastic.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In your way of thinking, the people came from the animals, since both the animals and the people are made of plastic.

Non sequitur. Back to my point, though. Would people be correct to call you an untrustworthy deceiver?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would people be correct to call you an untrustworthy deceiver?

No.

As I said in the OP:

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

If I wanted to deceive, I wouldn't have you document it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No.

As I said in the OP:

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

If I wanted to deceive, I wouldn't have you document it.

As I pointed out in my post, you didn't document several important steps. So, would it be fair to call you deceptive?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Take a plastic swimming pool and fill it half way with sand.

Then put down a layer of astroturf, some plastic trees, some plastic trilobites, dinosaurs, cows, horses, rabbits, birds, and finally, people.

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

Now take a hose and fill it up with water.

Take the pool and shake it violently from side to side.

Mess it up good, until there's nothing left but mud and debris and bodies floating around and down inside the sand.

Siphon the surface water and some of the other stuff off into another part of the yard.

Take what's left and make layers, starting at the bottom, in this order: trilobites, sand, dinosaurs, sand, some people.

Everything else is in another part of the yard.

Now lay down some astroturf, trees, flowers, etc, until its a paradise on the surface again.

Note that unbelievers digging down would assume what they're looking at is evolution in progress; whereas what you documented, and the order that you documented it, says something quite differently.

Here's my challenge:

If those people claim that they're seeing evolution in the sand -- despite what you documented -- would they be wrong?

I don't think you have to be a Rhodes scholar to know the answer.

In your scenario, I as an unbeliever come across a swimming pool filled with junk. Being curious, I poke around and find the swimming pool is arranged in this order: plastic trilobites, sand, plastic dinosaurs, sand, plastic people, astroturf, flowers.

You then state, "Note that unbelievers digging down would assume what they're looking at is evolution in progress"

OK, I am an unbeliever, but no, sir, I would not assume that I saw evidence that plastic dinosaurs evolved into plastic humans. I would assume that I came across a pile of junk that some deranged man had arranged in this order.

For we have no evidence that plastic creatures can live and reproduce, and thus they could could never evolve.

But as for the real fossils we see down there, we have evidence that they were living creatures subject to variation and natural selection, and hence to evolution. And when we look down there and see the fossils trending in a path consistent with evolution, and we know there is much other evidence for evolution, then the fossil record becomes yet another evidence for evolution.

 

[Diamond7]

I don't think you have to be a Rhodes scholar to know the answer.

The answer is my wife would have a fit if I spent good money on all that junk.

 

[Larniavc]

Take a plastic swimming pool and fill it half way with sand.

Then put down a layer of astroturf, some plastic trees, some plastic trilobites, dinosaurs, cows, horses, rabbits, birds, and finally, people.

Document what you did, and the order that you did it.

Now take a hose and fill it up with water.

Take the pool and shake it violently from side to side.

Mess it up good, until there's nothing left but mud and debris and bodies floating around and down inside the sand.

Siphon the surface water and some of the other stuff off into another part of the yard.

Take what's left and make layers, starting at the bottom, in this order: trilobites, sand, dinosaurs, sand, some people.

Everything else is in another part of the yard.

Now lay down some astroturf, trees, flowers, etc, until its a paradise on the surface again.

Note that unbelievers digging down would assume what they're looking at is evolution in progress; whereas what you documented, and the order that you documented it, says something quite differently.

Here's my challenge:

If those people claim that they're seeing evolution in the sand -- despite what you documented -- would they be wrong?

I don't think you have to be a Rhodes scholar to know the answer.

Evolution would not have happened in this example like it did in the real world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution would not have happened in this example like it did in the real world.

* Paging Bradskii ... Paging Bradskii

 

[Hans Blaster]

In your way of thinking, the people came from the animals, since both the animals and the people are made of plastic.

People *are* made of animal cells, fellow mammal.

 

[AV1611VET]

People *are* made of animal cells, fellow mammal.

In the sense that we are animal, vegetable, or mineral.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the sense that we are animal, vegetable, or mineral.

Just animal (unless you are in a persistent vegistative state, but that doesn't make you a plant).