Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
IN DESPERATION, ALLCAPSDAVE AWKWARDLY QUOTES AN ALREADY AWKWARD AIG ARTICLE
Starting to get how desperate your mentors' efforts to prove the unprovable are, dave?
Let's see...
| Quote | | Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers. Consider the following factors: |
Which, since life began at sea, is entirely consistent with ToE... On the other hand, "relatively immobile" marine organisms are STILL never 'mixed' in diferrent strata, with no occurences of say, modern clams or crabs with trilobites and ammonites- or are clams faster than trilobites?
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | Vertebrate fossils are exceedingly rare compared with invertebrate (without a backbone) sea creatures. The vast proportion of the fossil record is invertebrate sea creatures, and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even rarer. |
Also true, and also entirely irrelevant with the 'flud' and entirely consistent with ToE- in fact, the very argument shows that the people making it have absolutely no idea about how fossils are formed. And of course, the lack of mixing between modern and ancient invertebrates and vertebrates remains.
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood12 and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometers of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil. |
OK, this is the most absurd and laughable claim I've ever heard from a creo. Do they actually believe that humans lived so far apart from each other, for their bodies to be distributed evenly? WTF? Did every human being actually live alone in an area of about 31.5 km2, dave? Where are the cities? the densely inhabitated valleys and rivers? And why do we apparently have so many finds of "post-flud" remains, when humans were supposedly much less in numbers?
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | A global Flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first—many of these are immobile, or relatively so. They are also abundant and generally robust (for example, shellfish).13 As the waters rose to envelop the land, land creatures would be buried last.14 Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which, in turn would be buried before upland plants. |
Like I said, perfectly in accordance with ToE- on the other hand: Where are the sea-dwelling creatures of simillar size and mobility? WHY are they so distinctively found in different layers? Mosasaurs and Whales? Icthyosaurs and dolphins? Not to mention modern sharks and ancient ones?
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare. |
Triceratops and rhinos? Protoceratops and buffalo? Iguanodons and titanotheriums and mammoths and elephants?
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | Further, the more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and mammals such as cattle, for example.15 |
Velociraptors and cheetahs? Dromeosaurs and antelopes?
Pteranodons and vultures? Archaeopteryx and pigeons? Not to mention Eohippus and modern horses? And cattle, smarter than pack-hunting large-brain carnivors like raptors? wtf?
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | Another factor is the sorting action of water. A coal seam at Yallourn in Victoria, Australia, has a 0.5 m thick layer of 50% pollen. The only way such a layer of pollen could be obtained is through the sorting action of water in a massive watery catastrophe that gathered the plant material from a large area and deposited it in a basin in the Yallourn area. |
Totally irrelevant with the issues discussed, this "argument" shows how desperately your mentors are trying to find something to fill a page, dave. And even so, this is an argument against a "massive watery catastrophe", and for a single isolated one -like a plain old river flood, or many repeated ones. How would pollen be deposited in a sediment in the middle of a raging flood with rain and upheaval that covered the entire globe, dave? How wouldn't it get dilluted? And if the deposition happened after the main "flood event" what was the pollen doing there in the first place?
Creo explanation: n/a
| Quote | | ‘Cope’s Rule’ describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water. |
It shouldn't, and it doesn't. Trilobites got to be really big at some point, dave, and ammonites too, not to mention Orthoceras (that was like a giant squid with a shell). And most modern day shellfish are still pretty small, and are yet only found in their own strata, as they should be. Big trilobites and small trilobites: together. Big Clams and small clams: together. Big trilobites and big clams: nope. Small trilobites and small clams: Nope.
Creo explanation: n/a
...Aaaaand that clears off another AiG puff of smoke, dave. Got anything else?
You start to see how it is, right dave? As hard as you try to look away, as hard as you press your hands against your ears and shout "LALALALALALA", the fossil record screams at you my friend. Palaeontology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, all Science screams at you. And what they actually say is "MILLIONS OF YEARS! MILLIONS OF YEARS! MILLIONS OF YEARS!"
And all your self-inflicted autism cannot make that sound go away.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
