Page 10 of 18 [ 284 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 18  Next

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

28 Jan 2015, 4:38 am

Janissy wrote:
I didn't mean that any human would extend the Miller-Urey experiment to 4 billion years. I was trying to make an analogy to the actual earth but that didn't come across. :oops:

But in a sense....yes. Things that are impossible over years or even centuries or millenia do become possible with much bigger time scales. There is a theme in your dismissals of science (which you call "nom-science" but it isn't). This theme is not appreciating very large scales. Something that is impossible in the time scales of a human life (the time scale of an experiment, including extended experiments ) becomes possible when your time scale is billions of years. Likewise you are not appreciating just how much energy the sun beams to earth.
Prove it.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Jan 2015, 8:37 am

Oldavid wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Horse or cart, chicken or egg, what I've "tacitly" and overtly said is that religious morals are a human imposition, a straight jacket of someone else's rules.
Assuming that morals "evolve" out of nothing like everything else, of course.
Quote:
I also said that when I gave away religion, my beliefs and actions began to have greater moral integrity.
Only according to the "judgement" of your runaway ego.

No David, not ego but simple arithmetic. There were a number of things that I had difficulty with, as a Christian. Now I no longer judge them as intrinsically wrong. Most aspects of sexuality, killing when necessary (e.g. family threatened etc), loving self, enjoying myself on the Sabbath, women as leaders, being selfish, and many others. As a Christian, I believed all those things were wrong, yet intellectually I was conflicted about those beliefs. Now that I no longer have dogma telling me what's right or wrong, I have far fewer conflicting ethics. Simple arithmetic says with fewer conflicts, my beliefs have less holes, hence more integrity.

Oldavid wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Turning away from religion does not bankrupt anyone's morals or ethics.
Or do you think it does, David?
It necessarily reduces morals to a matter of temporary convenience.

Only if you're a robot. In another recent thread, I quoted the film Second Hand Lions. And I quoted it because in my heart I agree with it. Tell me where the moral inconvenience is me quoting this:

movie Second Hand Lions wrote:
Hub: Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

How is that a reduction to convenience, David?

Oldavid wrote:
An assumption is ... something that is presumed to be "true" without evidence or proof.

Both of your comments quoted here are subjective assumptions, about me, and about people's morals without religion. But that's ok, perpetual assumptions is how you play it. I can work with that.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

28 Jan 2015, 8:53 am

Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
I didn't mean that any human would extend the Miller-Urey experiment to 4 billion years. I was trying to make an analogy to the actual earth but that didn't come across. :oops:

But in a sense....yes. Things that are impossible over years or even centuries or millenia do become possible with much bigger time scales. There is a theme in your dismissals of science (which you call "nom-science" but it isn't). This theme is not appreciating very large scales. Something that is impossible in the time scales of a human life (the time scale of an experiment, including extended experiments ) becomes possible when your time scale is billions of years. Likewise you are not appreciating just how much energy the sun beams to earth.
Prove it.



The proof is the Law of Extremely Large Numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_truly_large_numbers
Quote:
The law of truly large numbers, attributed to Persi Diaconis and Frederick Mosteller, states that with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen.[1] Because we never find it notable when likely events occur, we highlight unlikely events and notice them more. The law seeks to debunk one element of supposed supernatural phenomenology.


The very large numbers are large amounts of time and large numbers of chemicals in the ocean.

You are probably about to bring up Borel in your very next post.
http://www.aetheling.com/essays/Borel.html
Quote:
Very simply, Borel said that events with a probability on the "cosmic" scale of 1 in 1050 simply will not happen. That's it, that's all there is to "Borel's Law." Creationists have jumped on this "Law" to justify their calculation that life cannot possibly have happened by evolution alone because it's probability falls under this threshold.


but... but.... but... he left out time on purpose for simplicity

large time scales matter

Quote:
The most obvious flaw in this kind of argument is the absence of time. If someone is rolling dice, it matters how many rolls per minute are made. In the context of evolution, it matters how often a lifeform reproduces itself, and how often an entirely new mutation can be expected to occur. An organism that reproduces once a century under conditions of very low exposure to mutations will evolve much more slowly than an organism that reproduces once a day and has a high rate of mutations.

Borel left time out of his rule of thumb because he wanted to simplify these kinds of problems for those too innumerate to follow a more complex argument. Unfortunately, in so doing he oversimplified, and opened the door to all manner of misinterpretations. All by itself, the simple absence of time in an invocation of "Borel's Law" is sufficient to completely invalidate a creationist argument.


The impossible is always impossible but the improbable becomes likely when your numbers are large enough.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/It_is_mathematically_impossible_to_achieve_macroevolution_by_mutation_and_natural_selection*
Quote:
It is mathematically impossible that 1+1=3. It is not mathematically impossible for any statistically improbable event to occur. Given the Law of Truly Large Numbers, such events, taken as a category, are actually quite common. This usage of the phrase "mathematically impossible" is a meaningless hyperbole.


*don't be fooled by the title of the link, it's rebuttals to that claim



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Jan 2015, 5:45 pm

^^ impressive, as always :)


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

28 Jan 2015, 6:38 pm

So David now that your entropy argument has been destroyed you are moving the goal posts to claim the input of energy cannot lead to increased complexity!! !! I suggest you look at the propensity for complexity and species numbers in relation to relatively high energy areas compared to lower areas. This is not only the case on the surface of the earth but but also true for the oceans.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

28 Jan 2015, 11:00 pm

Quote:
1 – EVOLUTIONISM AND RELATIVISM


The Evolutionism is one of the "dogmas" of modern mind.


It goes beyond the purely biological field, and is applied to everything: nothing more is considered to be stable, for it is believed that everything evolves. In this sense, the belief in Evolutionism can be pointed as one of the causes of the triumphant relativism in our days. There would not be any absolute value. No truth, neither moral, neither beauty, neither religion, nor dogmas, nothing would be stable, because all would be under the law of evolution, this one, indeed, is taken as absolute.


So, the actual Evolutionism is more than a biological theory: It is an absolute principle – a religious dogma – of a relativist metaphysics. And there we see it is a symptomatic and revealing contradiction: relativism founds its bases in an absolute principle!

The scope attributed to the Evolutionism is so metaphysic that – obviously – reaches the religious sphere: God Himself is considered an eternal becoming, and not as the Immutable Being, “That one that is" (Ex III, 12).


Father Teilhard de Chardin – who Stephan Jay Gould judges to be the main responsible for the famous fraud of the man of Piltdown (Cfr. JAY GOULD, Stephen, A Conjuração de Piltdown, in A Galinha e seus Dentes, ed. Paz e Terra, São Paulo, 1992, pp. 201 a 226, and, from the same author, O Polegar do Panda, Martins Fontes, S. Paulo, pp. 95 a 109) — has declared:


"Evolution, is it a theory, a system, or a hypothesis?

It is much more than that. It is the general condition to which all theories, all hypothesis, all systems should kneel; a condition to which they must refer to, from now on, in order for them to be taken in account and to be right".(TEILHARD de CHARDIN, The human phenomenon, p. 245).


Julian Huxley, by his turn, shows how the dogma of evolution imposes itself as the foundation of the modern relativist religion:


"In the evolutionist way of thinking, there is no place for supernatural (spiritual) beings capable of affecting the course of human events, nor there is necessity of them. Earth was not created. It was formed by evolution. The human body, the mind, the soul, and everything that was produced, including laws, moral, religions, gods, etc., are entirely result of evolution, by means of the natural selection". (Cfr. HUXLEY, J. Evolution after Darwin, p. 246, apud OSSANDÒN VALDÈS, Juan Carlos, En torno al concepto de evolución, article in the Philosophica magazine, of Santiago, Chile, doctrinary Suplement of the Jesus Christus maganize, number 50, of Buenos Aires).


We believe that these statements by Teilhard de Chardin and Huxley are enough – beyond the exam of what happens today – to confirm what we said above: Evolutionism is the fundamental dogma of modern relativism.


Today, this dogma is impinged by continuous repetition and accepted by everybody, since all society breathes it continuously.


In professor Ossandón Valdés’ article, one finds a quotation from J.C. Mansfield in which he proposes:


"Let high-school students be soaked up with the thinking of evolution so that they get used to think all in terms of process, and not in terms of a static situation".

Clearly, this is what has been put in practice, in worldwide scale, to create in the youth a relativist mentality.

http://www.montfort.org.br/old/index.ph ... ang=eng#I7



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

29 Jan 2015, 2:36 am

Oldavid wrote:
Quote:
1 – EVOLUTIONISM AND RELATIVISM


The Evolutionism is one of the "dogmas" of modern mind.


It goes beyond the purely biological field, and is applied to everything: nothing more is considered to be stable, for it is believed that everything evolves. In this sense, the belief in Evolutionism can be pointed as one of the causes of the triumphant relativism in our days. There would not be any absolute value. No truth, neither moral, neither beauty, neither religion, nor dogmas, nothing would be stable, because all would be under the law of evolution, this one, indeed, is taken as absolute.


Meanwhile we have a religion which has itself evolved in its morals. What was acceptable in the OT - slaughtering of children from other races, taking women as concubines, and so on - is no longer acceptable in the NT. Even today, Christians would be hard put trying to argue the positives of slavery, even bond-servants. No, nothing evolving there.

Society has evolved too. We now have women voting and holding careers. OMG!

The above quote is squarely aimed at people who fear change (which is most of us to some degree) and by association making the word evolve into a 'dogma' word. Oh, let's fear the dogma of change... we don't want it!

Tough... things evolve. You could say it's a bit of a fad word, but it fits so well.

As my job evolved, I was given more responsibility.
Common goals became more important as our relationship evolved.
The situation with ISIS is evolving into a full on crisis.


What the heck is wrong with 'evolve' as a verb?

The whole montfort rant is an opinion based on the above-quoted faulty premise.

See the sudden leap here:

Oldavid wrote:
Quote:
So, the actual Evolutionism is more than a biological theory: It is an absolute principle – a religious dogma – of a relativist metaphysics. And there we see it is a symptomatic and revealing contradiction: relativism founds its bases in an absolute principle!

I so want to quote the Frenchman from Monty Python. :lol:

Oldavid wrote:
Quote:
Julian Huxley, by his turn, shows how the dogma of evolution imposes itself as the foundation of the modern relativist religion:

"In the evolutionist way of thinking, there is no place for supernatural (spiritual) beings capable of affecting the course of human events, nor there is necessity of them. Earth was not created. It was formed by evolution. The human body, the mind, the soul, and everything that was produced, including laws, moral, religions, gods, etc., are entirely result of evolution, by means of the natural selection".

Yep.. it all evolves. If it didn't, God's people would still be slaughtering children in other tribes, taking concubines and slaves, and doing other nasty things that were not only acceptable back then, but their God-given right.

No... nothing really changes. Everything stays the same.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

29 Jan 2015, 2:48 am


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,076

29 Jan 2015, 12:19 pm

Humans being per their own natural existence are perhaps one of the most fascinating examples of entropy overcome by mind over matter, at LEAST, DURING THE span of one lifetime.

Science suggests that the decline of strength and speed is inevitable after one reaches the age of 30.

Of course that empirical evidence is based on a sedentary population, moreover, after the age of 30.

NORMALLY animals REcreate themselves through the course of the lifespan through activities of rest and exercise to meet and adapt to the challenges of life.

l leg press 500LBS with my legs, per Nautilus Parallel leg press machine from the time I am 21 to just last year in the Spring Time frame.

I leg press 900LBS, just months later, as I simply find an adaptation through all natural challenge in martial arts and ballet dance to get almost twice as strong during that time period.

AND TO BE CLEAR, this is just one example in my life that I use here, as I can empirically prove it in videos and Hi-Definition photography evidence.

I come ARMED WITH FACTS, YES, in legs, as well.

I overcome what science suggests is inevitable entropy, in strength, among males at my age of 54.

I did it with mind over matter, WITH MIND AND BODY BALANCE.

Human mind and body balance, per mind over matter, IS the GREATEST ENTROPY BREAKER THERE IS, at least in human existence, as is.

OLDDavid, if you are weak now at your age, perhaps that colors your opinion of the entire Universe.

But nah.. Not me.. NOT ME who IS STILL MOVING Metaphorical mountains with the power of HUMAN WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND simple belief IN ME with Trust in Mother Nature TRUE per ALL THAT IS. :)

All metaphorical and all literal MIXED where the FLESH AND BLOOD HITS the REAL ROADS OF LIFE.

YOU can dwindle away to entropy if you like, but I OPERATE with the Power of HUMAN relative FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND THE BELIEF IN ME WITH TRUST IN MOTHER NATURE TRUE, as something much more, than a frigging material reductionist science view.

MAGIC IS IN THE MIND AND SOUL, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HEaRT.

Science is just a sketch, a black and white sketch, of what REAL INTEGRATED HUMANS WILL AND CAN DO in living COLOR.

While the pursuit of science is cool, the pursuit of human magicK AKA FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL IS DIVINE.

And nah, while the New Testament has a few metaphors for it, there is NO EVIDENCE.. THAT I FOR ONE BRING to the table of flesh and BLOOD irrefutable EVIDENCE.

THE TRUE HUMAN FACT IS, if one believes in WHAT SCIENCE 'TELLS' 'us' alone THAT can kill what IS the true potential of HUMAN SPIRIT.

IN THAT Sense, SCIENCE CAN be an incredibly unhealthy tool.

HUMAN RELATIVE FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND BELIEF blows science AWAY, PER WHAT REALLY COUNTS AS A HUMAN BEING.

And nah, it doesn't have to be anything associated with religion OR culture either, as religion AND CULTURE tends to do even WORSE IN TRUE human effect and AFFECT BY oppressing, repressing, and subjugating human nature, through illusory fears, for materialistic gains.

I'm all about the flesh and blood, AS that's wHere REAL LIFE STARTS AND ENDS THE ROAD, of what we know now of 'OUR' realITy.

ALL these written words AND OTHER ABSTRACT SYMBOLS are NOTHING COMPARED TO REAL HUMAN BEING.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

29 Jan 2015, 5:11 pm

Ok so now that your attempts to fabricate science have been exposed we have the "i dont like it as it suggests morals are subjective" canard followed by the "evolutionism/evolutionists is/are a religion all to itself/themselves canard"

For the first one, well supply evidence that there is Objective morals. I know I can supply many examples of how morals change, Narrator has already suggested some of them.

Now for the asinine "Evolutionist" Canard. This word is used by creationists to suggest that anyone who understands and accepts Evolutionary BIology is subjegating themselves to a doctrine, and anyone accepting its postulates do so as a priori assumptions. To suggest this is bordering upon slander. Anyone who has read the scientific literature would understand just how false this "assumption" is. You are suggesting that there is some kind of symmetry between between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine and you are completely wrong.

Evolutionary BIology has been tested, retested and subjected to every possible attempt to disprove it, and yet rather than being thrown in the bin as a crazy idea it has grown, matured, become ever more complex and marvelous, and right here is the difference between a scientific theory and doctrine, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. Evolutionary biology is so easily falsified, all it would take is the wrong fossil to be in the wrong geological layer and wam its finished. As J. B. S. Haldane is famously reported to have said when asked what evidence he would accept to disprove Evolutionary theory "fossil rabbits in the precambrian".

Aside from all the evidence separating Evolution from doctrine, there is also the little matter of the ability for a scientific theory to make predictions, something that Evolutionary theory has done on many many occasions, again this is something that a religious doctrine can never do.

So whilst you disparage those who understand evolutionary biology as Evolutionists, you might as well call us gravitationists, or for those of us who accept germ theory microbists, and as for those darn electromagnetists!! !


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

30 Jan 2015, 1:06 am

Conversation with you chaps is every bit as stimulating and interesting as trying to discuss the integrity of L Ron Hubbard with a coven of Scientologists.

Your ideology has nothing more to do with science than Scientology does... which you know but are desperately trying to avoid by steering the argument to a criticism of your version of a religion you know even less about than science.

You will, doubtless, also simply ignore the fact that the "geologic column" doesn't exist anywhere on Earth... it's just another fanciful invention of circular reasoning to support the assumed ideology. It goes like this: Assumption; nothing turned itself into simple organisms which turned themselves into more complex ones. So; rocks containing the fossilised remains of simpler organisms are older than rocks containing remains of more complex ones... which "proves" that simpler organisms are precursors of the more complex ones.

Completely ignoring the innumerable examples of where the different types of fossils are mixed up or even upside down the clever salesmen get to work creating idealised "geologic columns" to stick in children's school books, on cereal packets... everywhere they have a captive audience, in fact. It's a clever marketing trick that's even more pervasive and successful than the "things go better with Coke" slogan that has people all over the world paying lots of money to fill themselves up with that poisonous concoction.

"Evolutionary biology" has never been tested, can never be tested, in any practical way (as in observing it happening) because it is defined in a way that precludes any possible test... "billions of years", for example. Any real test of the supposed mechanism have invariably showed up as impossible conjecture. You need "worm holes" and "black holes" to detach the ideology even further from observable reality than even billions of years can provide.

Darwinism remains a philosophically, physically, chemically, biologically, mathematically impossible ideological presumption.

That, which I quoted above, is only the introduction to a short book. I hope that someone with a functional mind will read the rest of it.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

30 Jan 2015, 1:36 am

Ahhh now I see. You would rather plumb new depths of the discussion rather than answer criticism of your previous posts. And if you think pejoratives are an answer then think again.

So David, it seems all you are here to do is preach at us. You are all pompous bluster and no substance if that's all you wish to do - no better than that Muslim chap who comes here and preaches at us, just as certain of his beliefs.

Why pose an argument if you're not going to respond to any criticism of it? Why should we respond at all, if all you plan to do is throw pejoratives at any reply?

Your method reminds me of a strange version of Monty Python's room for an argument or room for abuse sketch.
Yes it is... No it's not.. 'tis.. isn't.. that's not an argument.. yes it is..

Perhaps kraftie was right all along. You're just pulling our leg.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

30 Jan 2015, 3:44 am

I think this post by AngelRho explains the issue well

AngelRho wrote:
To the Christian, God is easily explained as transcendent, thus there is no need to prove that God exists. That God exists is axiomatic to our faith. So if we are able to reasonably conclude that there IS a God, there's no point in trying to prove what we already know.


These people are so used to just making statements and believing in things without any supporting evidence they think they can do the same in debates about well founded scientific theories.

Essentially they are saying there is a massive world wide conspiracy spanning just about every scientific discipline and the vast majority of scientists possibly numbering in tens of millions to lie and cover up the truth regarding creation. The reason for their gargantuan claim is a book, written over 2 millennia ago. It would be funny if the consequences were not so dire. Brainwashing children to believe their nonsense is child abuse and detracts greatly from the worthy goal of having a scientifically literate population.

Time and again I have asked David to provide evidence for his claims and invariably he either ignores the request, belittle my understanding (without giving the necessary evidence) or simply refuses on spurious grounds. Its all the more pathetic considering his early threat to destroy our arguments with logic and evidence.

David the difference between yourself and those you have been trying to preach to (describing your behaviour as an attempt at debate is too far a stretch) is we are all prepared to be proven wrong, and given the evidence will happily change ideas and understandings. You on the other hand are so obstinate, so delusional, so wrapped up in your warped ideas of the natural world that nothing will ever change your mind.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

30 Jan 2015, 8:02 am

Oldavid wrote:
You will, doubtless, also simply ignore the fact that the "geologic column" doesn't exist anywhere on Earth... it's just another fanciful invention of circular reasoning to support the assumed ideology. It goes like this: Assumption; nothing turned itself into simple organisms which turned themselves into more complex ones. So; rocks containing the fossilised remains of simpler organisms are older than rocks containing remains of more complex ones... which "proves" that simpler organisms are precursors of the more complex ones.

Completely ignoring the innumerable examples of where the different types of fossils are mixed up or even upside down the clever salesmen get to work creating idealised "geologic columns" to stick in children's school books, on cereal packets... everywhere they have a captive audience, in fact. It's a clever marketing trick that's even more pervasive and successful than the "things go better with Coke" slogan that has people all over the world paying lots of money to fill themselves up with that poisonous concoction.



You won't listen to me but maybe you will listen to a fellow Christian. The following website is written by a Christian for Christians. The author calls himself an "old earth creationist" and he has geology knowledge.

http://geochristian.com/tag/stratigraphic-column/
He debunks your above statement (because it is also used by other young earth creationists) . His concluding nremarks:
Quote:
The discovery of grass in dinosaur dung isn’t that big of a change. Paleobotanists had been saying that grass appeared sometime in the Paleocene or early Eocene (perhaps around 55 million years ago), and now we know that there was at least some grass around in the very late Cretaceous (a little over 65 million years ago). In any case, it appears that grasses were probably a minor constituent of the Mesozoic fauna. Perhaps I’m wrong on this. I don’t think any actual fossils of Cretaceous grass leaves have been found. In regards to the Coelacanth, which was once thought to have gone extinct in the Cretaceous but then discovered alive in the Indian Ocean, I think we should expect this sort of thing from time to time. There are fossils that, as far as we know, only lived in the Tithonian age of the Jurassic. Do we know everything? We should expect that for at least some of our index fossils (those fossils that are supposed to tell us the age of the rock in a very narrow range) that some survived somewhere and could even still be alive today.

These are little things. Grass appeared a bit earlier than we knew. Coelacanths survived throughout the Tertiary without leaving any fossils, but they are alive today. The plain and simple fact is that the geologic column exists. What the young-Earth creationists would need to find in order to overturn the well-established and well-justified concept of the geologic column is something like a mastodon in Devonian sediments, or an ostrich in the Ordovician. Until then, I’ll accept Cambrian-Ordovician-Silurian-Devonian… as an observation that is in need of an explanation.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

30 Jan 2015, 8:52 am

It's simple! Either nothing turns itself into everything or it doesn't!

Look, Janissey, I don't give a stuff if someone who claims to be Christian says that the Moon is made of cheese. I'm only talking about observable reality... science.

"Well-founded "scientific" theories" are only well founded because the establishment media plugs them incessantly. It does not mean that there is any realistic basis for the superstition.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

30 Jan 2015, 9:17 am

THE FAILURE OF DARWINISM AND ITS FULLER IMPLICATIONS

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
(Adler and Adler: Bethesda, Maryland, 3rd ed. 1986) 368 pages, hardback $19.95.

reviewed by John F. McCarthy
Click here to buy Evolution: A Theory in Crisis from Amazon Books The central thesis of this book is that Darwin's theory of evolution has not been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since its publication in 1859. Denton succeeds in refuting Darwinian evolution in terms of the empirical facts as they are known to natural scientists today, yet, for emotional reasons, he cannot entirely give up the theory. Because of the irrational element of this attachment, some of the historical judgments that he expresses are unsubstantiated and contradictory.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt26.html