In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children
In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F
On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
- Comments on
- same video as previous.
- 5:56 "discovered how the continents themselves shift, tear and collide"
On what time scale?
Millions of years or around the Flood, especially post-Flood?
What if the real discovery is instead where on today's land there was land, coasts and beaches ("Cretaceous" etc if land fauna) and sea (like where you find whales)?
6:01 In Flood Geology, Grand Canyon is NOT the work of slow erosion. I refer you to Creation Ministries International as well as to their url creation.com for more info on GC from the Flood believing p o v.
By now, I am no longer really expecting to get an answer on the question I posted at the beginning, btw.
- The Living Past
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl That's because it won't let me post anything in that comment thread. Anyway,
0:45 The true reason why we have a way of knowing any different is because we have what's known as the scientific method (the tool that has doubled the average human lifespan and taken us to the moon). Scientific knowledge builds on itself. As time goes on ideas that are not supported by evidence fall out of favor for more reliable and precise reasoning.
1:48 Steno was a well known counter-reformation activist. I don't see how that's arguable.
3:15 It's not that the animals Cuvier was describing really were incompatible with modern life (after all, all life is eventually related) it's that he used the fact that they seemed so odd as grounds to classify them as extinct (which they are, despite what "Dr." Kent Hovind might try to to tell you). Show me your source regarding the bio geographical mystery of Cetaceans please.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 0:45 "the scientific method (the tool that has doubled the average human lifespan"
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35"
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Tudor Times Demographical Stats
1:48 "Steno was a well known counter-reformation activist. I don't see how that's arguable."
What is arguable is your representation of Counterreformation as suppression of Reformation. It involved that too in some places.
Protestants of Salzburg had to move to Berlin.
BUT it involved LOTS of other stuff and Steno was in the other stuff. In his case giving some Catholic pastoral to Catholics who had been stranded by the Reformation.
"Linzer Sanden Formation, Upper Oligocene (Chattian)
Cetotheriopsis lintianus (Mammalia Cetacea Mysticeti Cetotheriopsidae)"
On my page over Austria:
Palaeocritti Blog : Austria
Which mirrors the palaeocritti site over Austria. More important, I'll link to their versiion of the Austrian Cetacean:
Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals : Cetotheriopsis lintianus
"he used the fact that they seemed so odd as grounds to classify them as extinct (which they are, despite what "Dr." Kent Hovind might try to to tell you)"
He had pretty good evidence in local eyewitness account and tradition.
Some of you guys seem to think that anyone agreeing with Hovind simply takes his words rather than weighs his arguments.
- 5:18 "whether crossing scourched dunes in Egypt of Morocco" ....
OK, palaeontologists go through some pains to get fossils, that means their interpretation of them is correct?
Vasco da Gama went through some pains too. Do you know what discovery of his was most exciting to contemporaries in Europe back then?
The Southern Cross. He interpreted it as the sphere of fixed stars containing at one point a cross, and that is where the pearly gates must be situated.
Just because he went through pains to get that far south, does that make him right?
Of course not!
I happen to think he is right anyway - and the palaeontologists are wrong.
Not in defining one fauna as cretaceous and one as permian, to take two clearly distinct examples, neither of which by the way uses any time reference as such in its name, but in considering Permian and Cretaceous as eras. What if they are instead local biotopes of the pre-Flood world?
- The Living Past
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
I neither said nor implied that I believe the reason why the scientific interpretation is so well supported is because they have to travel through a lot of hardship to acquire them.
I go through a series of reasonably chronological advancements in our understanding to lay a ground work for an understanding of the material and you come at me with this?
Now that's not very honest of you is it?
No sense throwing around "what ifs" if you don't have solid reasoning friend.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "I neither said nor implied that I believe the reason why the scientific interpretation is so well supported is because they have to travel through a lot of hardship to acquire them."
Didn't say? OK.
Didn't imply? Listen onto your tone again.
"I go through a series of reasonably chronological advancements in our understanding to lay a ground work for an understanding of the material and you come at me with this?"
Sorry, but you do a lot of emotional pleading. And on this one you were doing so.
I gave some solid reasoning against your take by exposing your lack of such. See other thread.
"No sense throwing around "what ifs" if you don't have solid reasoning friend."
There is if the "what ifs" add up to other side not having solid reasoning either.
Furthermore, I DO have solid reasoning.
Assuming your scenario, it's an accident in any place that this particular fossil is preserved, like the T Rex or similar in Kayenta formation. In that case some accidental coincidence would mean some place would have preserved first a layer of Permian and then a layer of Cretaceous fossils.
Or any similarly dissimilar pair or triplet of layers.
So far I have found none (except marine invertebrates Grand Canyon).
Search fossil finds on this and refute me if you can:
Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
[No replies from Sunday evening Paris time to Tuesday afternoon, but an example might prove a bit hard to find, let's not rush him!]