tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post2924596745847370995..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Luis, he of assumptions and fallacies!Rhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-50829286029880038362010-08-27T11:39:55.933-05:002010-08-27T11:39:55.933-05:00David,
See the next post, please.David,<br />See the next post, please.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-32872072943301489712010-08-27T10:55:37.018-05:002010-08-27T10:55:37.018-05:00What is the fossil record good for? It's real...What is the fossil record good for? It's really good for testing hypotheses. It's really good for testing hypotheses about evolution and YEC. And when you use the fossil record to test hypotheses, evolution is supported and YEC is destroyed.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-71151573578014808882010-08-27T10:36:57.817-05:002010-08-27T10:36:57.817-05:00"Relative dating...is easily accounted for in..."Relative dating...is easily accounted for in YEC as it is under old-Earth scenarios. Why then are we having this part of the discussion?"<br /><br />We're having this discussion so that I can establish that we can use relative dating to determine what happened first, second, third, etc. Can we agree that we can use relative dating in this manner?<br /><br /><br />DAVID: Even a YEC geologist wouldn’t argue the way in which you are arguing. <br /><br />RHO: OK, but that doesn't concern me very much. <br /><br />Well, it ought to. 'Cause if even a YEC geologist wouldn't argue in this way, you know that we must be talking about a really bad argument here. Trust me, if those guys thought that this sort of argument had the slightest mertit, they'd use it. <br /><br /><br />"I'm here and I wasn't produced ex nihilo."<br /><br />How do you know this? Don't assume. Prove that you weren't produced ex nihilo. Ya see? Anyone can play this game, and it gets us precisely nowhere. <br /><br />"I can't prove it but it's a reasonable presumption."<br /><br />DING! Ding, ding, ding! YES! That's what we're doing here with fossil species. Making reasonable presumptions. Now please stop wasting people's time with pointless arguments.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33634190580756798632010-08-27T10:35:54.760-05:002010-08-27T10:35:54.760-05:00"Not greatly but I know a bit about it.
Good..."Not greatly but I know a bit about it.<br /><br />Good. Then you'll understand this. <br /><br />http://biologos.org/blog/biblical-and-scientific-short-comings-of-flood-geology-part-4/<br /><br /><br />"Please give your argument for how we can know how much change is acceptable before a layer becomes too inconsistent with the original layer before it's too different to be useful. ... All that tells you is what you found in each hole. How do you tie them together?"<br /><br />Ok, fine, I'll dig a trench connecting them. The point is, if you have any doubts about the relationship of the layers, you can put them rest by testing. All of the assumptions can be tested. <br /><br />Look, you're not an idiot. I know you understand what I'm saying and I know that you know that we can relate the layer in one locality to the layers in another locality. So, let's stop wasting time here. <br /><br /><br />"I can think of a way that a layer might be deposited and then dragged up, messed around by surging water movement, and then mixed with other stuff, then redeposited."<br /><br />I'd love to here you expand on this thought. Could we have some details, please?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-75924324559166250522010-08-27T09:46:14.966-05:002010-08-27T09:46:14.966-05:00Hi David,
You are familiar with dendrochronology?...Hi David,<br /><br /><i>You are familiar with dendrochronology? </i><br /><br />Not greatly but I know a bit about it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>things will change a little, but if you drill enough holes, it’s not hard to see that a given layer is the same layer. </i><br /><br />Hold on a sec. Please give your argument for how we can know how much change is acceptable before a layer becomes too inconsistent with the original layer before it's too different to be useful. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>you can do a variety of chemical and physical analyses to back this up</i><br /><br />Subject to the same difficulty as above. Needs an argument. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>There are no naked assumptions here, just lots of data gathering.</i><br /><br />W/o an argument to tie it together, the data means nothing. You need a good interpretation and a good reason to substantiate the interp. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>The good argument is that I drilled the second hole next to the first hole and the third hole next to the second hole and so on. If you have any doubts, you can just drill more holes. </i><br /><br />All that tells you is what you found in each hole. How do you tie them together? <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You think that sediments behaved in some magical way during the big flood? </i><br /><br />No, but I am saying that we have no way to test how the sediments and other materials present at the given site X would behave under ocean-depth water. Unless I'm unaware of some way to know, and I'd be happy to be corrected if you do know.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>In a column of deposits that is five miles deep, can you think of any possible, conceivable mechanism that would allow the topmost layer to be deposited first?</i><br /><br />I can think of a way that a layer might be deposited and then dragged up, messed around by surging water movement, and then mixed with other stuff, then redeposited. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>even a YEC geologist wouldn’t argue the way in which you are arguing. </i><br /><br />OK, but that doesn't concern me very much. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Relative dating.</i><br /><br />Which is just as easily accounted for in YEC as it is under old-Earth scenarios. Why then are we having this part of the discussion? <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Prove that your great, great, etc., grandfather had children.</i><br /><br />? You're making a category error. I'm here and I wasn't produced ex nihilo. I can't <b>prove</b> it but it's a reasonable presumption. Neither I nor my family make any claims than that we were produced by normal sexual reproduction.<br />More importantly, I'm not asking you to prove that these fossilised organisms had PARENTS. I'm asking you to prove they had CHILDREN. Totally different. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You know that we are not talking about whether or not a given individual organism reproduced or not. </i><br /><br />Oh, so what you're saying is that the fossil record actually has no bearing on what actually happened, no? <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Do you really think that individuals within a population represented by a given fossil couldn’t reproduce?</i><br /><br />Another mistake. Not COULDN'T (although that's certainly within the realm of possibility - plenty of sterile organisms exist even today), but DIDN'T.<br />Prove it's absurd. So far, you're just showing me more assumptions. <br /><br />Let me illustrate by asking you a question - what is the fossil record good for? <br /><br /><br />NAL said:<br /><i>Please consult a cladogram.</i><br /><br />Suffers from the exact same problematic assumptions, which I"m asking you to substantiate. What should it mean to the seeker of truth that, after all these chances, you can't produce that substantiation?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-52345021706561501062010-08-26T20:44:49.350-05:002010-08-26T20:44:49.350-05:00Rho:
Please start by answering my initial questi...Rho: <br /><br /><b>Please start by answering my initial question about fossilised organisms' children.</b> <br /><br />It was answered. It was pointed out that your question was a strawman and completely irrelevant to the claims of evolution. Maybe not the answer you were looking for. <br /><br />The branching between species probably occurred long before the individual, represented by the fossil, was alive. Please consult a cladogram. The fossil probably comes from a branch of a cladogram, not the main trunk. <br /><br />Evolution does not claim that a species represented by a fossil is a direct ancestor of some other species. So your question about children is a joke.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-31957969903249088922010-08-26T15:40:11.854-05:002010-08-26T15:40:11.854-05:00“OK, let's go with 4000 or so BC. I'm not ...“OK, let's go with 4000 or so BC. I'm not sure of it at all, but for the sake of argument that'll work I suppose. I meant question-begging assumptions like what I identified in the post: assuming the Earth is old, assuming you know how much decay was present at the beginning, etc.”<br /><br />Alright, we have a benchmark. You are familiar with dendrochronology? <br /><br />“But go very far and the composition of the layers changes somewhat. W/o a good argument for how you judge the consistency of what you want to call "the same layer" at any other given location, we're back to the old-Earther's naked assumptions again.”<br /><br />Well, yes, things will change a little, but if you drill enough holes, it’s not hard to see that a given layer is the same layer. Plus, you can do a variety of chemical and physical analyses to back this up. There are no naked assumptions here, just lots of data gathering. The good argument is that I drilled the second hole next to the first hole and the third hole next to the second hole and so on. If you have any doubts, you can just drill more holes. <br /><br /><br /><br />“As I mentioned, we don't know what a massive 1000s of feet deep flood would or could do, and I just can't think of a way to know it. The inherent difficulties should signal to anyone the necessity of trusting in God to tell us how it went down; despite our best efforts, there's no way to know.” <br /><br />Really? You can’t think of any way of knowing anything about a flood, no matter how big it is? You think that sediments behaved in some magical way during the big flood? In a column of deposits that is five miles deep, can you think of any possible, conceivable mechanism that would allow the topmost layer to be deposited first? Do think that thousands of square miles of layers of deposited material are magically floating up and down and changing places after they are deposited? Honestly, even a YEC geologist wouldn’t argue the way in which you are arguing. <br /><br /><br />“Relative to each other, sure.” <br /><br />And at the moment, that’s all I’m going for. Relative dating. That’s it. If we can agree that relatively dating is possible, even if the rocks are not labeled with dates, then we can proceed. <br /><br /><br />“Please start by answering my initial question about fossilised organisms' children. “<br /><br />I’ll do this when you can prove, not assume, prove that you had a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. Prove it. Don’t assume it. Prove it. Prove that your great, great, etc., grandfather had children. Prove it. <br /><br /><br />“Um, you may not be aware of this, but let me be the 1st to inform you that many, many organisms die all the time w/o producing offspring. Darwinism, you know, sorta depends on that. Your assumption in action.”<br /><br />Sigh. You know that we are not talking about whether or not a given individual organism reproduced or not. It doesn’t matter if a given, specific individual that later ended up as a fossil to be found by a human reproduced or not. Do you really think that individuals within a population represented by a given fossil couldn’t reproduce? Do you really want to make such absurd arguments?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30908391383385639972010-08-26T15:13:19.997-05:002010-08-26T15:13:19.997-05:00Hi David,
OK, let's go with 4000 or so BC. I...Hi David,<br /><br />OK, let's go with 4000 or so BC. I'm not sure of it at all, but for the sake of argument that'll work I suppose.<br /><br />I meant question-begging assumptions like what I identified in the post: assuming the Earth is old, assuming you know how much decay was present at the beginning, etc.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>We find essentially the same layers, so now we know the order in which the layers were laid down at this next locations</i><br /><br />But go very far and the composition of the layers changes somewhat. W/o a good argument for how you judge the consistency of what you want to call "the same layer" at any other given location, we're back to the old-Earther's naked assumptions again.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Is there any reason to believe that the events that produced this uppermost, not-found-at-the-canyon layer occurred BEFORE any of the events that formed the layers in the canyon?</i><br /><br />As I mentioned, we don't know what a massive 1000s of feet deep flood would or could do, and I just can't think of a way to know it. The inherent difficulties should signal to anyone the necessity of trusting in God to tell us how it went down; despite our best efforts, there's no way to know. <br /><br /><br /><i>But when we say that A happened before B, then we ARE dating the layers. </i><br /><br />Relative to each other, sure. But not in terms of the age of said layers, ie how many years ago from today they were deposited and how.<br /><br /><br /><i>"I'm not making a claim."<br /><br />Yes, you are. And it's an absurd one. </i><br /><br />Argument, please. Please start by answering my initial question about fossilised organisms' children. <br /><br /><br /><i>There is no reason whatsoever to think that fossil species can't reproduce. </i><br /><br />Um, you may not be aware of this, but let me be the 1st to inform you that many, many organisms die all the time w/o producing offspring. Darwinism, you know, sorta depends on that. Your assumption in action.<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-2126827313318953272010-08-26T13:40:56.967-05:002010-08-26T13:40:56.967-05:00"Maybe it was longer ago than that. I'm n..."Maybe it was longer ago than that. I'm not sure about the timeline. I would've guessed it was more like 6000 years ago, since I thought that Moses was around 5000 yrs ago."<br /><br />Ok, so now you're saying that the Flood occurred around 4000 BC? Is this correct?<br /> <br />"Unless you can give me some solid evidence devoid of question-begging assumptions, which is all I've seen so far in my life..." <br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by question-begging assumptions.<br /><br />"Let me say this. Grand Canyon, yes I'm sure you can probably tell --probably, since you weren't there to observe -- which was deposited first. But that pattern is not necessarily constant over all the Earth or even the region; you don't know how that all went down. You weren't there. You're guessing."<br /><br />Ok, good, we know that in the Grand Canyon, the bottom layers were laid down before the top layers. Now, let's go about a mile from the rim and drill a core about a mile or two down. We find essentially the same layers, so now we know the order in which the layers were laid down at this next locations. Let's go a little farther away until we find a location where we have most of the same layers, but we also have an uppermost layer that is not found at the Canyon. To be clear, this layer is on top of all of the layers that this site shares with the canyon. Is there any reason to believe that the events that produced this uppermost, not-found-at-the-canyon layer occurred BEFORE any of the events that formed the layers in the canyon? Isn't it very, very, very, likely that the events that formed this uppermost layer occurred after all of the events involved in forming all of the canyon layers? <br /><br />Now, keep going, keep applying this same principle to the next site and the next site and next site, and pretty soon we know the order of events for the whole planet. No guessing required. <br /><br />"DATING said layers is another question altogether." <br /><br />But when we say that A happened before B, then we ARE dating the layers. That's the point. <br /><br />"I'm not making a claim."<br /><br />Yes, you are. And it's an absurd one. There is no reason whatsoever to think that fossil species can't reproduce. None. The burden of proof is on you.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-87366836894473141842010-08-26T11:09:08.857-05:002010-08-26T11:09:08.857-05:00David,
RE: Flood vs pyramids
1) Maybe it was long...David,<br /><br />RE: Flood vs pyramids<br />1) Maybe it was longer ago than that. I'm not sure about the timeline. I would've guessed it was more like 6000 years ago, since I thought that Moses was around 5000 yrs ago. <br />2) Unless you can give me some solid evidence devoid of question-begging assumptions, which is all I've seen so far in my life, let me say this. Grand Canyon, yes I'm sure you can probably tell --probably, since you weren't there to observe -- which was deposited first. But <br />a. That pattern is not necessarily constant over all the Earth or even the region; you don't know how that all went down. You weren't there. You're guessing.<br />b. DATING said layers is another question altogether. <br /><br /><br /><br />RE: Species existed procreation<br /><br />I'm not making a claim. I'm asking you to provide evidence that the fossil record can bear the weight of appeal that so many Darwinists place on it.<br />See, look at Paul C for a clear example of that. He can't bear the thought that anyone might poke at his sacred cow, so he resorts to mockery. But he never answers the question.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-31997235454787156082010-08-26T03:32:14.402-05:002010-08-26T03:32:14.402-05:00If you can't prove that any of your fossilised...<i>If you can't prove that any of your fossilised organisms had children, why should I assume the "fossil record" is meaningful?</i><br /><br />In the face of questions like this, I wonder how you guys find the strength to continue discussions with Rhology. Isn't this indication enough that he is arguing in bad faith?Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-40570890598354479312010-08-25T12:14:00.925-05:002010-08-25T12:14:00.925-05:00May I echo NAL's quesiton?
Is it your claim ...May I echo NAL's quesiton? <br /><br />Is it your claim that the species existed but didn't procreate?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49384090478298920312010-08-25T12:12:57.792-05:002010-08-25T12:12:57.792-05:00"I'm sorry; I actually don't have any..."I'm sorry; I actually don't have any idea which way that would all go."<br /><br />Ok, so if I visit the Grand Canyon, and I look into the canyon and I see a layer at the bottom, about a mile down, and I look at a layer at the top...you're saying that I can't tell which layer was deposited first? <br /><br />So, Noah's Flood was about 4500 years ago. So, Noah's Flood was at about the same time that the Egyptians were building the pyramids. Does this make sense?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-28394513458626968972010-08-25T11:43:39.685-05:002010-08-25T11:43:39.685-05:00Sorry David,
Superposition - I'm sorry; I act...Sorry David,<br /><br />Superposition - I'm sorry; I actually don't have any idea which way that would all go. Either it was more or less like that already before the Flood or the Flood changed things significantly... I don't really know how that could be accurately gauged. I am content to call it pretty mysterious and let the creationist geology geeks go crazy on that topic! But I can't say it interests me all that much, sorry.<br />And Noah's Flood was... don't know. Let's see...well, Answers in Genesis <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark" rel="nofollow">says</a>: There is no conclusive evidence of the Ark’s location or survival; after all, it landed on the mountains about 4,500 years ago.<br /><br />I guess that's a good ballpark figure.<br /><br /><br />NAL,<br />Probability - <a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-limits-of-science.html" rel="nofollow">try again</a>.<br /><br /><br /><i>You asked for proof about one individual, not about an entire species. </i><br /><br />If you can't prove that any of your fossilised organisms had children, why should I assume the "fossil record" is meaningful? And that it all went down according to the fancy story you made up? <b>What is your evidence</b>?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-14992389669862040332010-08-25T10:27:44.927-05:002010-08-25T10:27:44.927-05:00Rho:
So unless the organisms had children, how c...Rho: <br /><br /><b>So unless the organisms had children, how can you know anything about how organisms progressed over time?</b> <br /><br />You asked for proof about one individual, not about an entire species. The fact that a fossil is a member of a spcies is compelling evidence that there were generations of individuals. <br /><br />Is it your claim that the species existed but didn't procreate?NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-23549414728894482552010-08-25T09:47:50.875-05:002010-08-25T09:47:50.875-05:00Ah, there you are Rho. So, could you get to my qu...Ah, there you are Rho. So, could you get to my questions next?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-62866793204680283532010-08-25T09:33:37.310-05:002010-08-25T09:33:37.310-05:00evolution doesn't claim that.
So unless the o...<i>evolution doesn't claim that.</i><br /><br />So unless the organisms had children, how can you know anything about how organisms progressed over time?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-88902052877787685682010-08-25T09:23:26.453-05:002010-08-25T09:23:26.453-05:00Rho:
Please prove that ANY organism found in the...Rho: <br /><br /><b>Please prove that ANY organism found in the fossil record had children.</b> <br /><br />Unfortunately, evolution doesn't claim that. But you keep knocking down those strawmen.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-11333789133229002752010-08-24T17:23:58.917-05:002010-08-24T17:23:58.917-05:00Rho:
As a matter of fact, all science under a na...Rho: <br /><br /><b>As a matter of fact, all science under a naturalistic worldview commits a logical fallacy, ...</b> <br /><br />Probability is the logic of science: <br /><br /><a href="http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/prob.html" rel="nofollow">Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science</a> <br /><br />From <a href="http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cc01p.pdf" rel="nofollow">Plausible Reasoning</a> <br /><br />If A is true, then B is true.<br />B is true. <br />Therefore, A becomes more plausible. <br /><br /><i>\The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind."</i> <br /> James Clerk Maxwell.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-23351669221059074142010-08-24T16:53:52.439-05:002010-08-24T16:53:52.439-05:00As it has fleshed itself out in the past 50 years ...As it has fleshed itself out in the past 50 years or so, the naturalistic worldview is really the least based on reason than almost any other (actually I think Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age are probably worse).bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-13214514466907078322010-08-24T15:55:34.489-05:002010-08-24T15:55:34.489-05:00Oh, one other thing. When was Noah's Flood?Oh, one other thing. When was Noah's Flood?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-33138444505784778842010-08-24T15:54:58.379-05:002010-08-24T15:54:58.379-05:00How do you feel about superposition? Does superpos...How do you feel about superposition? Does superposition tell us anything about the order in which events occurred?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.com