#80600 - 05/06/06 04:20 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Thank you for that gracious response, sir. It's much appreciated.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80601 - 05/06/06 06:23 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Is that the case? or are there parts of the fossil record that the Flood does not neatly explain?
See my earlier post on that point.
Quote:
It is me recognising that you have made up your mind in a particular area (from my perspective, in defiance of some pretty strong evidence)
Huh? I am quite surprised at your statement, and left with the question, 'Who' is acting "in defiance of some pretty strong evidence"?
What is your response to the listed items, and to the photographs? Let's be specific:
* Do you agree or disagree that "Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial."
* Do you agree or disagree that "Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.)"
* Do you agree or disagree that "The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas."
* Do you agree or disagree that "These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years."
* Do you agree or disagree that "Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change."
* Do you agree or disagree that "The fossilization process must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found."
* Do you agree or disagree that "In the belly of the above 14-foot-long fish is a smaller fish, presumably the big fish’s breakfast. Because digestion is rapid, fossilization must have been even more so."
* Do you agree or disagree that "This delicate, 1 1/2-foot-long wing must have been buried rapidly and evenly to preserve its details."
Please do state if you agree or disagree with each of the foregoing items of evidence, and, if you disagree, the extent to which you disagree, and the basis for your disagreement. Please provide cites in support of your position, if you disagree.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80602 - 05/06/06 06:38 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
I agree with all of those statements. Bevin has showed clearly that, while rapid fossilization is relatively rare, and the exception rather than the rule, it's definitely something that can happen and completely fits within science's understanding of the diverse range of possible fossilization processes. (I was wrong in saying that fossilization is always a process that takes a long time: I should have said that the most common forms of fossilization take a long time.)
If I concede all of these points, which I happily do, what case does it make? That's been my question all along about this inquiry into fossilization. All that this shows is that rapid fossilization is possible. It does not show that all fossils were formed rapidly - far from it, the vast majority of fossils are not like the ones in these photos, they are of bones and teeth, indicating that they formed over longer periods.
So if the point of all this discussion is to show that some fossils can form rapidly, fair enough. But if it's to claim that *all* fossils formed rapidly, then nope, that case is very far from having been made.
Edited by Bravus (05/06/06 06:43 AM)
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80603 - 05/06/06 06:50 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
Bevin has showed clearly that, while rapid fossilization is relatively rare, and the exception rather than the rule,
That is a specific issue at this point. 'relatively rare'? That would be at odds with a couple of the statements in the above list. On what basis would you be able to say that rapid fossilization is relatively rare?
Quote:
It does not show that all fossils were formed rapidly - far from it, the vast majority of fossils are not like the ones in these photos, they are of bones and teeth, indicating that they formed over longer periods.
What are the percentages for each category, and what is the basis for determining such percentages?
Quote:
But if it's to claim that *all* fossils formed rapidly, then nope, that case is very far from having been made.
Nowhere was such a statement made. However, the evidence of rapid fossilization, found all around the world, would seem to be significant--wouldn't you say?
Edited by David Koot (05/06/06 07:15 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80604 - 05/06/06 07:15 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Registered: 11/22/03
Posts: 777
Loc: Beyond your grasp
|
Late to this thread so maybe this has been said? But ... Quote:
Bravus said:
Or do people still wish to maintain an absolutely strict literalism - and therefore embrace geocentrism?
The problem with "an absolutely strict literalism" is that words never mean the exact same thing to one person that they do to another. We could even feasibly argue what it means to be "absolutely strictly literal" with ANY statement, Biblical or otherwise. In your example of the "sun standing still" does this mean it simply ceased to "move across the sky" or could we get even MORE literal and say it "froze" in space-time at that moment, no more gyrations, vibrations, nuclear activity, solar flares, etc.??? I mean really, how literal does someone want to get? That's the problem. Even "LITERAL" means different things to different people.
_________________________
"After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" -- T.S. Eliot
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80605 - 05/06/06 07:22 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
David: couldn't find precise numbers, but all the sources I read on fossils, including the ones I linked earlier in this thread, talked about the relative prevalence of fossil types in qualitative terms. This paper talks a bit about the *reasons* for those relative prevalences: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_1998/spriggs.htm Again, this is a pretty simple, factual question, and the answer is pretty uncontroversial. If your question is intended to lead to a claim that the majority of fossils were rapidly formed and are therefore soft body fossils, that's a huge claim. Or is there simply some attempt to tire me out making me research every little detail again and provide cites for everything. This whole process would be a lot more motivating and a lot less frustrating if you would be willing to clearly lay out the case you're trying to make so that the evidence could be used to explore that case, rather than this rather meandering exploration of the whole field.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80606 - 05/06/06 07:24 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Nico: but that's kinda the point - these guys want to claim that the words mean the same thing to everyone, and that only their particular understanding of the words is correct. That's a very explicit claim that they are making. So I have no argument with what you're saying - but I'm not the one you should point that particular distinction at.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80607 - 05/06/06 07:34 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
This whole process would be a lot more motivating and a lot less frustrating if you would be willing to clearly lay out the case you're trying to make so that the evidence could be used to explore that case, rather than this rather meandering exploration of the whole field.
Case I'm trying to make????? I am trying to determine what the facts are. That is necessary in order to make any kind of case for anything. Beyond that, however, I do have a viewpoint. I think the evolutionists have been guilty of selective perception and have ignored or downplayed evidence which tends to refute their theory. That is a gut feeling after reading a whole bunch of stuff put out by the evolutionists. I have read much less by the creationist camp than I have by the evolutionists. I was not impressed with a sense of objectivity, and I noticed that when the theory is challenged, evolutionists typically resort to ridicule. Not a good advertisement for their theory.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
61 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, c freeland, carolaa, CoAspen, Coulsty, Curly, darlene, dgrimm60, Dottie, fca, fccool, forgie, Gerry Cabalo, Gladussee, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, Loren Fenton, LynnDel, max, Maxi, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Nan, Neil D, Nightingale, Norman, olger, pkrause, Planey, Redwood, Robert, Sapphire, SMAN, Taylor, vern, 17 invisible),
420
Guests and
233
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 05/19/07
Posts: 130
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
