Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 only thing simple here is your ignorance of the actual facts. But that has already been established without a doubt.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Is that how a scientist tells his wife he wants a divorce?... supernatural is not science, it cannot be falsified or proven, and is therefore superstition and crackery.
Oh brother...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..."
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 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.... 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.
Ya --- well --- no neurologist or behaviorologist is going to stamp my marriage certificate:Just men and women doing their job for the betterment of mankind. Perhaps we should have a 'hug a neurologist' day?
Is it me or does my previous post already answer your reply to it?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.
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.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?
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.Why are there no homonid - or anything similar - remains found below the KT boundary.
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.
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.
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.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.
Took over, eh? Mammals are still the smallest class of tetrapods, and ray-finned fish outdo all other vertebrate classes combined. Talk about "overtaking".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.
Bronze age!As opposed to a minor collection of stories from a stone-age tribe of desert nomads?
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.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.
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*.Therefore we know it is the flood line.
So glad you mentioned cheetahsIf 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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?