Joined: July 2006
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 08 2008,05:22)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 06 2008,17:06)|
There's only really one thing I want to talk about. I mean, there are alot of things we could talk about. So I've picked one, one I've actually found quite interesting as I had not heard about it before I happened upon it as a by-product of this thread. And I rather think that makes us even and therefore immune to the "I'm not a scientist" defence.
Those !! jellyfish.
On this page you say:
And this is the earliest mention of jellyfish on this thread, and I guess that's the whole basis for your position on the issue. That they look just like the "modern" jellyfish. I further presume, extrapolate rather as you've never really put the pieces togeter, that this also forms part of the basis that the earth "could be" 6000 years old. "Old" jellyfish look like "new" jellyfish and so maybe, perhaps, old jellyfish is really not that old after all?
Something like that?
In any case I refer you back to my first post on the matter where I link to this page:
An amazing Cambrian quarry in Central Wisconsin
| The medusae jellyfish fossils have so far been found in seven layers in the quarry, representing some 12 vertical feet of rock and corresponding to a span of time of about one million years. Hagadorn, et. al. state that the quarry's features are "consistent with an intermittently exposed intertidal and shallow-subtidal setting that was probably located in a shallow lagoonal area with limited wind fetch . . . . within a possible sandy barrier island system on the flank of the Wisconsin dome may have further restricted the environment, and severe tropical storms provide a plausible mechanism for medusoid stranding.|
And of course the point is that Walt Brown claims
|Thousands of fossilized jellyfish have been found in central Wisconsin, sorted to some degree by size into at least seven layers (spanning 10 vertical feet) of coarse-grained sediments. Evolutionists admit that a fossilized jellyfish is exceptionally rare, so finding thousands of them in what was coarse, abrasive sand is almost unbelievable. Claiming that it occurred during storms at the same location on seven different occasions, but over a million years, is ridiculous.|
What happened? Multiple liquefaction lenses, vertically aligned during the last liquefaction cycle, trapped delicate animals such as jellyfish and gently preserved them as the roof of each water lens settled onto its floor.
Note how Walt uses the devastating critique of "unbelievable" and "ridiculous" to demolish the argument. And "liquefaction lenses"? A quick google search gives us 19 results and most refer back to creationscience.com, nothing relevant to the reader wanting to know more about this mechanism.
See the picture to the left of my name on every post FTK? It's a jellyfish!
So, I ask you, which account of the formation of those jellyfish fossils is more credible, given neither of us are going to go there and look for ourselves?
Of course, in response to all that you said
|Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,11:56)|
|Here you go, OM. |
Gather some knowledgeable PhD's and let's get it set up.
And when pressed on the idiocy of that (the "challenge" linked to involved publishing a book!) FTK you responded
|Have you already forgotten why I have chose not to defend Brown's work? |
News flash - I am not a scientist.
You have told me time and time again that I'm an idiot who is taken in by crackery and liars. Therefore, it is your obligation to debate the source rather than debate the idiotic uneducated followers of the lame theory.
You must debate the true source of your disgust in order for those of us who find these theories compelling to take your seriously. True, it would be a long and daunting task, but with a team of players it could be done.
As I noted at the start I am not a scientist. Neither are you. I'm asking about your opinion regarding the book that at the time you were recommending everybody read and how it deals with the evidence (the fossils and their arrangement) and how the mainstream scientists deal with the evidence. Who's account do you find more credible?
Earlier you wanted to escape from the BW to respond to one of my posts. Well, ffs, respond to this then.
ftk, you want I post this on every page?
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand