Punctuated Equilibrium

[AV1611VET]

The only thing simple here is your ignorance of the actual facts. But that has already been established without a doubt.

Like you were there --- interesting how someone can be in possession of "actual facts" w/o ever having actually been there then, or knowing anyone who has.

 

[Tomk80]

Like you were there --- interesting how someone can be in possession of "actual facts" w/o ever having actually been there then, or knowing anyone who has.

The actual facts being our observations of the fossil record. Bryers claims that the k/t layer is special in it's transition, while in fact there are a number of similar transitions in the fossil record. He ignores these other facts. I am, in that respect, only commenting on our observations of the present state of the earth.

We can derive what happened from this record (note here that this gives us a historical record, which makes further moot of your embedded age nonsense). But that we can do this was not my point. My point was that we see similar transitions as the k/t layer in the fossil record. Bryers cherry picks the data by only looking at this layer while ignoring the others. I am currently assuming he is honest, which means he doesn't know about the other layers. It might be that he knows about them and dishonestly ignores them and if it were you posting what he posts, I'd consider that option.

 

[Hespera]

The actual facts being our observations of the fossil record. Bryers claims that the k/t layer is special in it's transition, while in fact there are a number of similar transitions in the fossil record. He ignores these other facts. I am, in that respect, only commenting on our observations of the present state of the earth.

We can derive what happened from this record (note here that this gives us a historical record, which makes further moot of your embedded age nonsense). But that we can do this was not my point. My point was that we see similar transitions as the k/t layer in the fossil record. Bryers cherry picks the data by only looking at this layer while ignoring the others. I am currently assuming he is honest, which means he doesn't know about the other layers. It might be that he knows about them and dishonestly ignores them and if it were you posting what he posts, I'd consider that option.

Cherry picking is not honest. So its a matter of how dishonest.

 

[Tomk80]

Cherry picking is not honest. So its a matter of how dishonest.

But you can be ignorant about the other data. The other data of transitional lines in the fossil record isn't mentioned often in popular media and this is where Bryers gets his information.

 

[Hespera]

But you can be ignorant about the other data. The other data of transitional lines in the fossil record isn't mentioned often in popular media and this is where Bryers gets his information.

To me cherry picking is selecting from available data that which suits you.
If you just present the little you know, well, that isnt cherry picking or dishonest, its just kinda ignorant.

You can pretty much tell if a person is ignorant of the subject they are talking about, it doesnt take long to figure it out. Get me in a conversation about cars! I wont last a minute.

What is really embarrassing is to watch someone who doesnt know he is ignorant and just keeps talking unaware of how foolish he looks.

 

[ragarth]

A couple problems here:
1) assumptions:
the k/t line represents the biblical flood
there were no world wide floods after the bliblical flood
the biblical flood modified the geologic strata before it to create a false representation of a timeline

Given these assumptions, we should see a marked difference between the geologic strata between samples before and after the flood. Is this the case?

2)assumptions:
flora and fauna can be divided into 'clean' and 'unclean' groups
before the flood the 'unclean groups' were dominant
after the flood the 'clean' groups were dominant
this shift in dominance is due to artificial selection by noah, ie, 7 clean to 2 unclean

If this is true, then we should see higher genetic diversity amongst the clean groups than the unclean groups. Is this the case across the board? Do we see higher genetic diversity amongst cheetahs, apes, and wolves than over turtles, crocodiles, snakes, etc?

To me, these are both predictions by the flood model stated above. Both predictions must be met for the flood model to have validity since these predictions arise from core assumptions of it. standard nota bene: referencing the supernatural to explain away these predictions invalidates the hypothesis, supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.

 

[Hespera]

A couple problems here:
1) assumptions:
the k/t line represents the biblical flood
there were no world wide floods after the bliblical flood
the biblical flood modified the geologic strata before it to create a false representation of a timeline

Given these assumptions, we should see a marked difference between the geologic strata between samples before and after the flood. Is this the case?

2)assumptions:
flora and fauna can be divided into 'clean' and 'unclean' groups
before the flood the 'unclean groups' were dominant
after the flood the 'clean' groups were dominant
this shift in dominance is due to artificial selection by noah, ie, 7 clean to 2 unclean

If this is true, then we should see higher genetic diversity amongst the clean groups than the unclean groups. Is this the case across the board? Do we see higher genetic diversity amongst cheetahs, apes, and wolves than over turtles, crocodiles, snakes, etc?

To me, these are both predictions by the flood model stated above. Both predictions must be met for the flood model to have validity since these predictions arise from core assumptions of it. standard nota bene: referencing the supernatural to explain away these predictions invalidates the hypothesis, supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.

Superstition; a notch or two below sophism. Good platform to stand on.

 

[AV1611VET]

... supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.

Is that how a scientist tells his wife he wants a divorce?

I can see it now --- "Honey, I've got something to say: Love is not science, it cannot..."

 

[Tomk80]

Is that how a scientist tells his wife he wants a divorce?

I can see it now --- "Honey, I've got something to say: Love is not science, it cannot..."

Oh brother...

 

[ragarth]

Is that how a scientist tells his wife he wants a divorce?

I can see it now --- "Honey, I've got something to say: Love is not science, it cannot..."

In terms of a scientist to his wife, it isn't science. In terms of a behaviorologist or neurologist critically studying love in a quantifiable way, it is.

There's nothing scientific about my saying 'I love you' to a dear one. It's an expression of my emotion and devotion towards another, and in that context it is not scientific. If it were, I'd have to say 'The site of you triggers a familial response within my brain that releases endorphins into my system, positively reinforcing the time I spend in your company.' Frankly I think 'I love you' sounds better.

 

[AV1611VET]

... supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.

Is that how a scientist tells his wife he wants a divorce?

In terms of a scientist to his wife, it isn't science. In terms of a behaviorologist or neurologist critically studying love in a quantifiable way, it is.

In that case, I would like to extend a very hearty THANK YOU to all the behaviorologists and neurologists out there that saved love from being considered superstition and quackery.

 

[ragarth]

In that case, I would like to extend a very hearty THANK YOU to all the behaviorologists and neurologists out there that saved love from being considered superstition and quackery.

Just men and women doing their job for the betterment of mankind. Perhaps we should have a 'hug a neurologist' day?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just men and women doing their job for the betterment of mankind. Perhaps we should have a 'hug a neurologist' day?

Ya --- well --- no neurologist or behaviorologist is going to stamp my marriage certificate:

HEDONISTIC CALCULUS - PASSED​

 

[ragarth]

Ya --- well --- no neurologist or behaviorologist is going to stamp my marriage certificate:

HEDONISTIC CALCULUS - PASSED​

And nobody ever claimed they should.

 

[NailsII]

The k-t line is, or should be, the great excellent piece of evidence for biblical creationism. It shows a clear difference in fauna/flora suddenly between two fossil assemblages.
Therefore we know it is the flood line.
We find under the line the unique world of dinos etc and above the mammal world.
The bible says indeed a ratio of 7:1 clean/unclean was on the ark. Since we know the mammals today are king and before it was not so then the ratio is the reason.
simple. The bible called the fossil record before it was discovered.

Is it me or does my previous post already answer your reply to it?

As opposed to a minor collection of stories from a stone-age tribe of desert nomads?
Really?
Are you offering a reason for this are, a line of scripture perhaps?
Mammals havn't took over the earth, we are still a minority in mass, numbers and diversity on this planet.
And your reasons for this line of thinking are?
Do you actually know what the fossil record shows or are you just repeating other people's words?

Why are there no homonid - or anything similar - remains found below the KT boundary. Your bible says that humans were made in creation week, lived for hundreds of years (well, some did anyway) and were fruitful and multiplied. So we should see human remains alongside the dinos.
Tell me why we don't see any.

The point you have totally missed is that 'the flood' would not show a "clear difference in fauna/flora suddenly between two fossil assemblages" because exactly the same animals are inhabiting the earth - just in different ratios.
So your point is mute.
Well, lame actually.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are there no homonid - or anything similar - remains found below the KT boundary.

You don't even want to know what my pet theory is on that - (well, okay, maybe you do) - but for the record, they didn't find any bones on the Titanic, either.

 

[ragarth]

A couple problems here:
1) assumptions:
the k/t line represents the biblical flood
there were no world wide floods after the bliblical flood
the biblical flood modified the geologic strata before it to create a false representation of a timeline

Given these assumptions, we should see a marked difference between the geologic strata between samples before and after the flood. Is this the case?

2)assumptions:
flora and fauna can be divided into 'clean' and 'unclean' groups
before the flood the 'unclean groups' were dominant
after the flood the 'clean' groups were dominant
this shift in dominance is due to artificial selection by noah, ie, 7 clean to 2 unclean

If this is true, then we should see higher genetic diversity amongst the clean groups than the unclean groups. Is this the case across the board? Do we see higher genetic diversity amongst cheetahs, apes, and wolves than over turtles, crocodiles, snakes, etc?

To me, these are both predictions by the flood model stated above. Both predictions must be met for the flood model to have validity since these predictions arise from core assumptions of it. standard nota bene: referencing the supernatural to explain away these predictions invalidates the hypothesis, supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.

These questions are still unanswerd. They're pretty integral to flood theory so answers should be readily forthcoming if flood theory holds water.

 

[NailsII]

You don't even want to know what my pet theory is on that - (well, okay, maybe you do) - but for the record, they didn't find any bones on the Titanic, either.

AV, I always have time for your input.
Just because I don't agree with you deoesn't mean I dont want to converse with you.

Anyway, the Titanic - that's because the vast majority of people jumped overboard.....
Or maybe it was a conspiracy, 9/11-style.

Besides, its a really poor answer AV.
Because if you have bones below the boundary (indicating earlier) and bones after (indicating later) and bones at the boundary.....
You see what I'm getting at here?

Even if we assume the flood really happened, then there should still be human bones below the flood line as approx. a third of the lifetime of our planet (indeed, the universe) has elapsed.

In that time we find a huge assortment of fossilised remains of all kinds of strange-shelled animals, fish, fish with limbs, 'primative' tetrapods, lizards, eggs, lizards with two types of teeth (ie mammal-like reptiles), then big lizards. Really big lizards.
The mammal-like reptiles become more common as you move up the layers, and see characteristic changes in jawbone configuration and the shape of the pelvis. Becoming more like modern mammals in fact.
Then lizards with feathers, then feathered animals with less reptilian-like features - more avian in fact.
More great big lizards, and loads of smaller ones.
Then the boundary.
Then much fewer lizards, and virtually no big lizards.
Then mammals.
Mammals with flippers.
Still, no humans.

Can you see the problem here?

 

[Naraoia]

In the same way that the fossil record supports creation?
Then show me why we do not find mammals in Devonian or Cambrian rock.
Nor birds or reptiles for that matter.

I've been there with Rob Byers. I figure the problem is that he doesn't accept that those geological periods are separate periods following each other and lasting appreciable lengths of time. Someone more geo-savvy should talk to him about the basics of stratigraphy; I don't feel competent to teach him that.

Your drawing conclusions from minor fossil assemblages.
There would be no mammal assemblages below the k-t line to any extent.
Mammals only took over the earth after the flood. This because of the ratio of clean/unclean on the Ark.

Took over, eh? Mammals are still the smallest class of tetrapods, and ray-finned fish outdo all other vertebrate classes combined. Talk about "overtaking".

Approximate numbers of currently described species from the IUCN Red List summary statistics:

Mammals: 5488
Birds: 9990
Reptiles: 8734
Amphibians: 6347
Fishes: 30700

As opposed to a minor collection of stories from a stone-age tribe of desert nomads?

Bronze age!

The k-t line is, or should be, the great excellent piece of evidence for biblical creationism. It shows a clear difference in fauna/flora suddenly between two fossil assemblages.

As do the other five major extinctions. But I've given up on that until a geologist explains to you why they are not the same event.

Therefore we know it is the flood line.

Except there is no evidence (that I know of) for a global flood in the K/T layers. You know, to "know" it is the flood line you'd first have to see some sign of a flood*.

Or so it would seem to this scientifically minded youngster here.

*IIRC I have heard something about tsunamis, but I don't know if I've just heard them mentioned in asteroid impact doomsday scenarios or as something that left actual evidence behind.

If this is true, then we should see higher genetic diversity amongst the clean groups than the unclean groups. Is this the case across the board? Do we see higher genetic diversity amongst cheetahs, apes, and wolves than over turtles, crocodiles, snakes, etc?

So glad you mentioned cheetahs

Great prediction, by the way. I think it's reps

 

[Hespera]

As for skeletons on the Titanic, bones dissolve in seawater at that depth / pressure.

Likewise with the Bismark, they found a lot of shoes but no skeletons.

A WWII U boat off the coast of New Jersey still has intact skeletons in it. The water there is much shallower.