If it weren’t the exception, wouldn’t polystrate fossils in fact be more common than they are? Wouldn’t they, then, be the rule, rather than the exception?
You have answered at last. Please read my comment to Voyager about ONE of the problems for history and linguistics if what “would have been” had actually happened. (We essentialy agree on the necessary time-frame.)
I don’t want to be too rough on you, because I was once in the same – you’ll pardon the expression – BOAT! 
I kept trying to pin down people with arguments I couldn’t support.
Here’s more. Your “Flood”, would have destroyed Stonehenge, the oldest Egyptian pyramids, and 100,000+ annual layers of polar ice accumulation as shown by ice-core samples.
Picture me holding up my right index finger and blowing across it. It’s been fun and you have had a good run. Perhaps the next time you choose to debate it will be something you can maintain. I wish you well.
True Blue Jack
Interest is correct on the bouyancy issue. Creationists are clear proof that recent beings can be full of hot air.
It’s entertaining; the Creationist version of Whack-a-mole.
“Fossils on mountains” < WHACK >
"Floodwater ordered the fossils < WHACK >
“The Earth’s crust was changed” < WHACK >
“Super genetic Adam and Eve” < WHACK >
“Buoyancy !” < WHACK >
“Waterworld” < WHACK >
What do you think of this article?:
:rolleyes:
Look: geologists aren’t just making this up to suit evolution. Creationist geologists were realizing this before evolution was even proposed. It’s not some “saving grace” made up to fit: its demonstrated by countless different lines of evidence all supporting the same conclusion.
Interest, not to blow your cover but are you my pastor? If not, then he gets his information the same place you do.
You don’t see any problem keeping a very large zoo fed and cared for over the course of 200+ days? And like I tell others when I’m in these conversations, saying ‘God did it’ is not a valid answer.
I actually developed the idea of super genetics independently when I was about 14 or 15. I went on to research it a bit and found that my idea rested on faith alone, with no evidence or science to support it. I tossed the idea. I suggest you do the same.
Voyager has already offered up the two proper methods of developing a theory, echoing a well known board member obsessed with logic. He has also showed how the creationist method is flawed. Read post #59 again and see if you can spot the flaw in logic.
I’d like to add further: Do you really think that there has been a conspiracy that has spanned 2000+ years, with the soul purpose of invalidating the creation myth? Do you think all the scientists in history, many of them believers, have had the bible beside their notes for comparison? The theory of an old earth was around long before evolutionary theory. In fact, the geological research that led to the conclusion that earth is ancient opened the door for scientists to look at how species develop of vast periods of time. Then some guy gets in a boat and sees a finch with a different beak, badda bing badda boom, you’ve got the origin of species
So all the people with dark-skin genes moved to Africa, and southern India, and Australia, and those with light-skin genes moved to Europe? And it’s purely coincidence that people with dark skin colours are in the tropics, and people with light skin colours are in cool tempoerate climates? Sounds like wishful thinking to me, wanting to deny natural selection even on aq small scale within a single species.
And why do people with different skin colours get back together again, mating in the West Indies, when they’ve been avoiding this for all the centuries previously? Is there something in the Caribbean air that encourages miscegenation, while whities and blackies kept well away from having sex each other as they moved away from Mount Ararat, or wherever else the Ark was supposed to land?
It makes sense. Our species has always been racist.
Us caucasians went north and waited until all the southern dark-skins got sunstroke. Then we attacked. We would have expanded sooner but it’s cold up here.
And if you can’t provide a “pebble” of it, you’re willfully bluffing…
How do you know how old those things are
I have a question. It doesn’t have a lot to do with what everyone is currently talking about, but it does have to do with Evolution.
Where are all the transitional forms?
I know they’ve found things like ‘Lucy’ and probably more, but if Evolution is true (I only accept it as a theory) then after millions and millions of years of creatures slowly changing into the animals we know today, then there should be thousands of transitional forms. In fact we should be up to our armpits in them, but scientists have only found a few.
Polar ice sheets freeze in annual layers. When you take a core sample (which basically entails boring into the into the ice with a hollow, cylindrical drill and pulling out a “core” shaped sample) you can count the annual layers like the rings of a tree.
Well, a lot of them are kept in places like the Smithsonian. Does that answer your question?
The reality is that you probably don’t know what a transitional form is, and are expecting the wrong things out of the fossil record.
But you tell me: what do you think a transitional form is? How would you know it when you see it? What do you think it would be characterized by?
Oh no. The transitional fossil question. He’s got us now. Whatever shall we do?
Oooooo, a classic. Look in the mirror. Everything is a “transitional form”.
If evolution were true, shouldn’t creationists be developing different arguments?
Just to be clear, Interest, what you really need to understand is that when people say that evolution is descent with modification, they mean it.
There is no transitional form that is half-fish, half-reptile. There never will be. Such a thing like asking for there to be something like “half-bird, half-duck.” All life is sub-categories, variations on what came before. It ISN’T one thing turning into something else, and certainly not a modern thing turning into another modern thing (it’s a little more messy than that, because scientists don’t really use terms like “reptile” and “fish” in such a way, as those terms are sloppy an incomplete categories).
For instance:
Birds aren’t just descended from dinosaurs: they ARE dinosaurs (if we have that lineage correct, and at this point, we’re pretty much sure we do). So you will never find a half-dinosaur/half-bird. All birds ARE dinosaurs. What you will find, then, are ALL birds bearing distinctive features that are variations on the basic dinosaur bodyplan. And you will find fossils of dinosaurs that have features found in modern birds: like feathers, for instance. These fossils may not be the direct ancestors of modern birds (some could be, some could not be), but these distinctive features mark them as demonstrating key morphological transitions along a particular branch of life.
No: natural selection would predict that those with bad arguments would die out, and only those with good arguments would survive and produce progeny. The problem is that the process is very slow, and takes many generations.
Which eruption of Mount St. Helens? Mount St. Helens is a composite volcano (or stratovolcano), a term for steep-sided, often symmetrical cones constructed of alternating layers of lava flows, ash, and other volcanic debris.
Are you talking about the 1980 eruption? The 1980-86 dome building period? The current eruption that has been going for almost two years now? Or the myriad of eruptions going back, perhaps 10,000 years?
Have you ever been, or studied Mount St. Helens? There is nothing orderly about it, other than it erupts with regularity (according to geologic time frames).