What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

[Jonahdog]

Unfortunately, the average Darwin-lover is not interested in understanding physics, geology ... heck, even simple logic. Otherwise they would open their eyes and see.

So, rather than accept the explanations of 99% of those who do understand physics and geology (oh, lets be accurate and just say "99% of those who understand science") we should take the analysis of some random guy on the internets who claims to know more than the experts. Let me get my tin hat to keep those alien rays from infecting me, or is it aluminum?

 

[Jonahdog]

Nope. As you willingly ignore, three things are needed to make a rock. You've only got one.

Stripe, we wait, we wait and we wait. What are the 3 things?
On 2nd thought, you are wrong, no matter what you say. I'm going fishing.

 

[Stripe]

So, rather than accept the explanations of 99%...

Not at all. I insist that you keep believing things because the majority do.

 

[7djengo7]

So, rather than accept the explanations of 99% of those who do understand physics and geology (oh, lets be accurate and just say "99% of those who understand science") we should take the analysis of some random guy on the internets who claims to know more than the experts. Let me get my tin hat to keep those alien rays from infecting me, or is it aluminum?

We should take the "analysis" of you (who proudly despises epistemology!) who claims to know that the "explanations" of the Darwin cheerleaders you revere as "99% of those who understand science" are "science"?

You can't deal with epistemology, and so everything you say on behalf of whatever you are pleased to call "science" amounts to no more than a parrot noise, or a loud fart.

 

[Jonahdog]

Not at all. I insist that you keep believing things because the majority do.

Nope, I believe what I do for the same reason when my car is broken I bring it to a mechanic not a dentist.
And we all still wait for the 3 things needed to make rock

 

[Jonahdog]

We should take the "analysis" of you (who proudly despises epistemology!) who claims to know that the "explanations" of the Darwin cheerleaders you revere as "99% of those who understand science" are "science"?

You can't deal with epistemology, and so everything you say on behalf of whatever you are pleased to call "science" amounts to no more than a parrot noise, or a loud fart.

Ah, can't post without a 5th grade comment can you. In an epistemology battle, you lose since you based your knowledge on a "belief" rather than facts. But since you are still in elementary school, based on your posts, there is still hope.

 

[Right Divider]

Ah, can't post without a 5th grade comment can you. In an epistemology battle, you lose since you based your knowledge on a "belief" rather than facts. But since you are still in elementary school, based on your posts, there is still hope.

This is rather humorous coming from one that believes things because he thinks that lots of other people believe it.

 

[Jonahdog]

This is rather humorous coming from one that believes things because he thinks that lots of other people believe it.

Well, no, I think what I have suggested is that I believe the experts, the ones who have the knowledge.Are they always correct, no. But the universe is not just a few 1000 years old. You believe that because you must or risk hell fire. Since I have seen no evidence of hell fire, not an issue with me.

 

[Yorzhik]

So that's a "no". Keep us updated if you find anything.

Actually, that's a "yes." We see a lot of such polystrate fossils of trees:

Most trees that protrude through various strata have certain things in common.

• They have a root system in clay. This was once river sediment and was the ground when the trees were growing. Later the trees either were immersed in water by the river and slowly covered with river sediment, or they were rapidly buried in a river flood or mudslide.
• The layer above the clay, the hardened river sediment, is usually a coal seam, formed by the plant life that grew there with the trees.
• Above that is more hardened sediment, where part of the trunks of trees and a lot of foliage was buried by a river flood.

https://www.proof-of-evolution.com/polystrate-fossils.html

:darwinsm:

When asked if Barbie could show us polystrate fossils forming today, he first said "no". And then when that showed that his argument was weak, he said "yes" and continued to not show us!

Let us know when you find something. :darwinsm:

 

[Right Divider]

Well, no, I think what I have suggested is that I believe the experts, the ones who have the knowledge.Are they always correct, no. But the universe is not just a few 1000 years old. You believe that because you must or risk hell fire. Since I have seen no evidence of hell fire, not an issue with me.

You keep pushing your incorrect theories of my beliefs instead of discussing the facts. You seem to hate facts.

 

[Jonahdog]

You keep pushing your incorrect theories of my beliefs instead of discussing the facts. You seem to hate facts.

Face it, you know what the facts are, what the evidence is. the universe is billions of years old. The only reason you think otherwise is based on your theology. You are simply unable to accept the science because you are afraid of your deity. This is not a debate.

 

[The Barbarian]

:darwinsm:

When asked if Barbie could show us polystrate fossils forming today, he first said "no".

It's not smart to lie about posts still up on the board. You know better, and I corrected you, when you mischaracterized what I told you, so you have no excuse. Shame on you.

As you learned, there are such fossils forming just a short distance from my house. Why would you lie about something so obvious?

 

[Right Divider]

Face it, you know what the facts are, what the evidence is. the universe is billions of years old.

Face it... that's NOT a fact... it's a theory based on lots of false beliefs about the origin of the universe.

The only reason you think otherwise is based on your theology.

Funny that you cannot see that your belief of the "old" universe is based on your "theology".

You are simply unable to accept the science because you are afraid of your deity. This is not a debate.

Baloney.

 

[Jonahdog]

Face it... that's NOT a fact... it's a theory based on lots of false beliefs about the origin of the universe.


Funny that you cannot see that your belief of the "old" universe is based on your "theology".


Baloney.

No, i dont think the age of the universe is a theory. And if it is, it is also a fact. My belief in the old universe is based on an acceptance of the evidence. No, I am neither a cosmologist nor an astronomer but those who are accept the evidence of an old universe.
Those here, and elsewhere, who believe in a young universe, a world wide flood several thousand years ago, special creation etc. do so because they base their belief on religious texts. I am not aware of any scientist who would sign on to a young universe based solely on the evidence, no one buys the young universe suggestion without first needing to attach their theology to the science.

 

[Right Divider]

No, i dont think the age of the universe is a theory.

I didn't say that you think the age of the universe is a theory. I'm telling you that the "old age" idea of the universe is based on theories of its origin. Those theories have MANY scientific problems.

It's sad that you cannot understand much of anything.

And if it is, it is also a fact.

So if something is a fact... it's a fact.... Thanks for that valuable insight.

My belief in the old universe is based on an acceptance of the evidence.

And what "evidence" might that be?

No, I am neither a cosmologist nor an astronomer but those who are accept the evidence of an old universe.

Continuing to use the fallacious appeals to authority or popularity are not proving anything.

Those here, and elsewhere, who believe in a young universe, a world wide flood several thousand years ago, special creation etc. do so because they base their belief on religious texts. I am not aware of any scientist who would sign on to a young universe based solely on the evidence, no one buys the young universe suggestion without first needing to attach their theology to the science.

:juggle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, i dont think the age of the universe is a theory. And if it is, it is also a fact. My belief in the old universe is based on an acceptance of the evidence.

On the contrary, your belief is based on an [willing] acceptance of lies, and the rejection of the evidence.

No, I am neither a cosmologist nor an astronomer but those who are accept the evidence of an old universe.

Oh, so you mean all of these people aren't cosmologists or astronomers?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140401...statement.org/

Those here, and elsewhere, who believe in a young universe, a world wide flood several thousand years ago, special creation etc. do so because they base their belief on religious texts.

What "religious texts" might you be talking about?

I am not aware of any scientist who would sign on to a young universe based solely on the evidence, no one buys the young universe suggestion without first needing to attach their theology to the science.

This is called an appeal to incredulity.

It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

Just because you are not aware of or cannot comprehend something doesn't make it true or false.

 

[Jonahdog]

Continuing to use the fallacious appeals to authority or popularity are not proving anything.

Makes me smile when Christians complain about appeals to authority.

And when your car is broken do you take it to an authority on mechanics or an authority on dental work?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Makes me smile when Christians complain about appeals to authority.

And when your car is broken do you take it to an authority on mechanics or an authority on dental work?

Straw man.

​​​​​​You apparently don't understand what an appeal to authority is, nor why it's a fallacy.

An appeal to authority is when you make the claim that "because this person who's an expert on the matter said it, therefore it's true." It's a fallacy because there is the possibility that what that person said was incorrect.

Also, when you say, "yeah but he's not alone in saying that, so then it must be true," you commit the fallacy of appealing to popularity, which is a fallacy because popularity doesn't determine truth.

Also, I showed you above that there are plenty of actual scientists who disagree with the position that the universe is old.

 

[Jonahdog]

Also, I showed you above that there are plenty of actual scientists who disagree with the position that the universe is old.

Ah, the appeal to the minority, and what % of those scientists actually study the age issue and what % are Biblical literalists.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ah, the appeal to the minority,

Sorry, but first of all, no appeal was made as to the accuracy of what those scientists say, which would make it an appeal to popularity, and second, you apparently don't know what an appeal to minority is either (hint: it's when something is asserted to be true because most people don't believe it).

I only stated, in opposition to your broad-brush claim that "those who are [cosmologists and astronomers] accept the evidence of an old universe," (which evidence doesn't exist by the way, there is only evidence, and such evidence is interpreted in such a way as to support an old universe) that there are such scientists who reject an old universe, and because such scientists do exist, your claim is falsified.

and what % of those scientists actually study the age issue and what % are Biblical literalists.

Here's the link again:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140401...statement.org/