Hudders

Dinosaurs wiped out by asteroid or comet? New study suggests a faster smaller comet rather than a bigger slower asteroid.

64 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, SDA said:

I'm giving a hypothesis on the flood text, I have no evidence they died out in a flood. I just said there was a mass extinction at the K/T boundary and that fits my theological hypothesis.

 

It's a fairly flimsy hypothesis. Why select the K/T extinction? What about the other major extinction events? Why K/T and not any of the other major extinction events like the Tr-J (Triassic/Jurassic) or the P-Tr (Permian/Triassic) or the Late Devonian or O/S (Ordovician/Silurian) extinction events?

And really, none of the details of the K/T extinction matches Noah's flood anyway. One of the big things that we know about the K/T extinction, from when the subject was first investigated by the Alvarez family and co in the 1980s, is that this point in history was characterised by a distinct layer of iridium isotope spread out around the Earth. The Alvarez's investigated all layers they could find around the world with rock exposed from that time period. This included, from memory, going to places like New Zealand. What they found was that this iridum was everywhere, but that the layer decreased in thickness in a uniform way as it spread out from a maximum thickness in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico. There they found a crater around 14 miles wide that straddled the coastline of the Caribbean Sea, centred around the town of Chixalub. This was one major extinction event caused by a meteoroid slamming into Earth at massive speed, causing tidal waves that flowed around 200 miles into the modern state of Mississippi. I once read that the likely Moment-Magnitude scale earthquake intensity measurement for the event was probably around 13.0Mw, which is incredible given that the Fukushima earthquake was around 9.0Mw and this is on an exponential scale.

This, of course, bears no resemblance to a flood of Noah wherein the fountains of the deep broke up and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights etc causing water to sit on top of the land for almost a year.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SDA said:

"Yet creationists do practice a form of systematics, called "baraminology", and for creationist science it is surprisingly rigorous and internally consistent."

"The supremacy of the biblical criteria is explicitly admitted to by Wood and others (2003) in their guidebook to baraminology, so all their claims of "objectivity" notwithstanding, the results will never stray very far from a literal reading of biblical texts. I will give the baraminologists credit in one area: they are up-front about their motives and predispositions and true to their biblical criteria and methodology, which is more than can be said about "intelligent design" proponents."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/baraminology

1

Fortigurn is right about the link. NCSE is the National Centre for Science Education, which has a primary goal of defending American classrooms against the teaching of creationism and other non-scientific, non-factual ideologies. You may as well be quoting Answers in Genesis in order to try and get a definition of evolution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hudders said:

It's a fairly flimsy hypothesis. Why select the K/T extinction? What about the other major extinction events? Why K/T and not any of the other major extinction events like the Tr-J (Triassic/Jurassic) or the P-Tr (Permian/Triassic) or the Late Devonian or O/S (Ordovician/Silurian) extinction events?

Other's do.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_98-110.pdf
https://works.bepress.com/marcus_ross/11/

I'm not a geologist. I let the creationist geologists work it out and then select the one that seems most appealing.

It might be flimsy but I'm only interested in possibility for YEC not probability. That is all that I need at a personal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SDA said:

It is a semantics (definition) issue then.

The entire history of domestic breeding shows me there are limits in the amount of change.

Maybe if you are comparing just two breeds. It's different when you look at a chain of species, like, for example, that of cetacean evolution where there are about half a dozen clear steps incrementally linking land based creatures (e.g. pakicetus) with marine mammals like Orca, dolphin and baleen whales.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hudders said:

Fortigurn is right about the link. NCSE is the National Centre for Science Education, which has a primary goal of defending American classrooms against the teaching of creationism and other non-scientific, non-factual ideologies. You may as well be quoting Answers in Genesis in order to try and get a definition of evolution.

I know it doesn't support it in the conclusion but my point was if you accept creationist assumptions then are doing a 'scientific approach'.
Of course if you don't agree with those assumptions then you will conclude it doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hudders said:

Maybe if you are comparing just two breeds. It's different when you look at a chain of species, like, for example, that of cetacean evolution where there are about half a dozen clear steps incrementally linking land based creatures (e.g. pakicetus) with marine mammals like Orca, dolphin and baleen whales.

Well if you didn't have the age data, would you arrange the claudistics the same way?
I don't see the big tree continuation, I see no logical reason to join up the different coloured branches. They only join them up because of this last common ancestor.
It is over extrapolation.

e94d05918628658abd1b5713279b167d.jpg

Cladogram_of_Cetacea_within_Artiodactyla.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SDA said:

Other's do.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_98-110.pdf
https://works.bepress.com/marcus_ross/11/

I'm not a geologist. I let the creationist geologists work it out and then select the one that seems most appealing.

It might be flimsy but I'm only interested in possibility for YEC not probability. That is all that I need at a personal level.

This sounds to me like you are playing pick 'n' mix, where you select whatever appeals to you rather than being guided to your conclusions by the evidence. You are engaging in presuppositional apologetics by determining a conclusion and then running off to find evidence that supports your view. This isn't science. In fact, this is the complete opposite - I call it pseudoscience.

I find it interesting that you link to articles that use other extinction events. This demonstrates the farcical status of YECism as a movement, whereby there is absolutely no agreement about when the flood was meant to have happened. Almost every time period has, at some point, been identified by YECs as being the boundary for the flood, right the way through from PreCambrian to the Quarternary Periods. It basically shows that YECs have no clue what they are doing and have no idea how to reinterpret the data to fit their own narrative.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SDA said:

Well if you didn't have the age data, would you arrange the claudistics the same way?
I don't see the big tree continuation, I see no logical reason to join up the different coloured branches. They only join them up because of this last common ancestor.
It is over extrapolation.

2

Sorry, but why would I ignore the age data? I have no reason to do so. You may not like it, but the age data is accurate and is very valid for use in the formation of these charts. Radiometric dating has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The progression of life that radiometric dating of strata gives us is highly logical and can also be cross-corroborated by genetic comparisons for those species that still exist in the modern world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hudders said:

I find it interesting that you link to articles that use other extinction events. This demonstrates the farcical status of YECism as a movement, whereby there is absolutely no agreement about when the flood was meant to have happened. Almost every time period has, at some point, been identified by YECs as being the boundary for the flood, right the way through from PreCambrian to the Quarternary Periods. It basically shows that YECs have no clue what they are doing and have no idea how to reinterpret the data to fit their own narrative.

Not science in that sense but using scientific methods to fit data. So maybe not creation science but scientifish creation.

I'm just doing what I read in an evolutionist book, admitting the scientific data says X and admitting the biblical data says Y. I hold it in tension but pragmatically I put biblical data first due to my presuppositions.

"It basically shows that YECs have no clue what they are doing and have no idea how to reinterpret the data to fit their own narrative."
Insert quote about how evolutionists (creationists by substitution) disagreements between each other is not about doubting evolution but just disputing the details.
and insert quote give evolutionists (creationists by substitution)more time to resolve this.

I have to check somewhere where the evolution of the primates tree by geological evidence is different from the genetic tree [even though it agrees in the main]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hudders said:

reinterpret the data to fit their own narrative.

Data is neutral, it can be fitted to almost any model. It is the presuppositions that determine which narrative you try to fit the model to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not science in that sense but using scientific methods to fit data. So maybe not creation science but scientifish creation.

Not science in any sense. Not science, not scientifish, just plain old pseudoscience. Real science gathers evidence, draws a hypothesis and then tests it. If it passes the tests, then it gets promoted to scientific theory. What you're doing is completely backwards.

Image result for scientific method meme

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Insert quote about how evolutionists (creationists by substitution) disagreements between each other is not about doubting evolution but just disputing the details.

No, this is a lot more than that. This is not just comparable to some small dispute between scientists. This is creationists having absolutely no clue what to do with an entire field of science (geological history) and arriving at wildly different conclusions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SDA said:

Data is neutral, it can be fitted to almost any model. It is the presuppositions that determine which narrative you try to fit the model to.

No, data cannot be fitted to almost any model. Not when you are doing science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am closing this thread due to SDA failing to address evidence and repeatedly quoting from invalid sources.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.