YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@Subduction Zone OK, please give your definition of what sediment is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life From Dirt?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is because it fails other key qualifications.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have done so at least twice. Do you not see how people can get frustrated with a person that has to ask the same questions again and again. I used the definition from Wikipedia but then quoted other sources that use an almost identical definition:
"Sediment is a naturally occurring material that is broken down by processes of weathering and erosion, and is subsequently transported by the action of wind, water, or ice or by the force of gravity acting on the particles. For example, sand and silt can be carried in suspension in river water and on reaching the sea bed deposited by sedimentation; if buried, they may eventually become sandstone and siltstone (sedimentary rocks) through lithification."
Sediment - Wikipedia
If it is not "broken down by he processes of weathering and erosion" it is not sediment.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You were just given evidence in the post you were responding to.
And look at what your response to that is ... the above. "There is no evidence" ...
Please explain to the rest of us how we are supposed to converse with a person that denies evidence that is placed right in front of their face, as if it wasn't even placed there at all.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
And again.
Your error was just explained to you, and what is your response? "Nuh uh, I'm sticking with my inaccurate understanding of cladistics."
Please tell us how anyone is supposed to be able to converse with anyone that provides these type of non-responses.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
If I order a steak in a restaurant, and then a little while later the waiter brings me a steak, has a prophecy just been fulfilled?The prophesies about the restoration of Israel.
“Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store" (Weekly Standard, 5/11/1998).
Against all odds, the Jewish people have once again returned to the “land of milk and honey” promised by God in Exodus and as exclaimed by prophets throughout the Old Testament.”
The Biblical Prophecies of Israel: Predicted End Times Events in 2024?
Where does the nation of Israel fit into God’s plan for the End Times? What does God have in store for Israel and the gift of eternal life at the end of the world?www.christianity.com
What if it took the waiter a thousand years to bring my steak?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So I'm not really demonstrably related to my mom and my sister and my great-great-great-grandmother? It only appears that way because God designed us all? Think about what you're saying here.
The Cambrian explosion doesn't show what you think it does. Not even close. Why you keep bringing up that decades-old PRATT is beyond me.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
See #1,795. That is just misrepresentation of the actual evidence.
A creator reusing a blueprint wouldn't look anything remotely like what we see in organisms' genomes. A creator would have to go out of its way to lie and make it look exactly like the the changes had happened by random mutations, make sure to litter all the genomes with broken versions of previous species' genes, make sure all those false clues gave a self-consistent family tree of species, and so on.
It's beyond laughable to think that a sane designer who didn't want to deliberately deceive, would produce what we actually see.
I said nothing like that! You can’t lack that much comprehension!
Amazing you’d even post that, it makes your reasoning look inept.
Regarding the CE..
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
The diversification of life occurred rapidly during the early Cambrian.
If you’re honest with yourself, you might learn something.
Last edited:
You apparently don’t comprehend my replies, either.
Or deliberately misrepresent them.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Considering what you just posted, that's quite comical. Anyway, it's very easy to say that I don't understand your posts, in what way do you think I misunderstood?
You suggested that genetic evidence could be explained because different organisms were "designed by one Creator, using the same genetic DNA blueprint". I pointed out several ways in which that doesn't make sense. Where is the misunderstanding? How do you explain, for example, all the broken genes (apparently) left over from ancestor species (like the gene for egg yoke, humans still have, for example) and why they are arranged so as to give a consistent picture of our evolutionary family tree?
In what way do you think that article helps your case?Regarding the CE..
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
The diversification of life occurred rapidly during the early Cambrian.www.nhm.ac.uk
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That's the implication from your claim about god designing via nested hierarchies. I know, I thought your claim was strange as well.
Doesn't change a thing about your faulty argument, or the problems with it.Regarding the CE..
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
The diversification of life occurred rapidly during the early Cambrian.
If you’re honest with yourself, you might learn something.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In the second case I would definitely be stiffing that waiter. It would probably be overdone by that time.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That article does not help you at all, and it is a bit inaccurate. Please note that they only worked with trilobite evolution. And we can even see that sort of rapid evolution today. When one new species is introduced to a new environment where there is no competition evolution can be very rapid.I said nothing like that! You can’t lack that much comprehension!
Amazing you’d even post that, it makes your reasoning look inept.
Regarding the CE..
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
The diversification of life occurred rapidly during the early Cambrian.
If you’re honest with yourself, you might learn something.
The Extraordinary Evolution of Cichlid Fishes
Cichlid fishes have undergone a mind-boggling degree of speciation. New research is revealing features of their genomes that primed them to diversify so spectacularly
" But the Lake Victoria cichlids far surpass Darwin's finches in the astonishing speed with which they diversified: the more than 500 species that live there and only there today all evolved within the past 15,000 to 10,000 years—an eyeblink in geologic terms—compared with the 14 finch species that evolved over several million years."
So rapid trilobite evolution in no way harms the theory of evolution. In fact it appears to confirm it. When hard body parts first evolved, and that appears to be directly tied to atmospheric oxygen hitting a certain point, new species evolved quickly. But not all at he same time. For example trilobites first appeared about 530 million years ago. Echinoderms first appeared about 9 million years later:
Cambrian Stage 3 - Wikipedia
The Cambrian Explosion was not just one explosion. It was a series of them. Species after species that formed the base of various phyla evolved the ability to make hard body parts at different times. And since they all were going into essentially competition free environments due to their newly evolved trait they each had explosive evolution of the same sort one found with Lake Victorian Cichlids. And there are predecessors, but since we are comparing the hard body parts that are left behind to early soft body casts it i can be difficult to say exactly which species were the forerunners of various different phyla. An inability to say exactly which soft body matched which hard body does no harm to the theory of evolution either.
So was trilobite evolution "explosive"? Yes. Does that help creationists in any way at all? No.
If you really want to help creationism you need to tell your creation "scientists" to follow the scientific method and develop testable hypotheses for creationism. That means finding something different from what the theory of evolution predicts and show that in a testable way that creationism explains that difference. So far all that you have are strawman arguments at best when describing evolution. And those are refuted once the strawman is identified.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Sorry. I don't have the time to read everything so I apologize if I missed it or don't remember. You can get frustrated with me, that's ok, but it's up to you to nicely answer questions. Or not. But anyway, I'll go over your definition of sediment. You say, don't you, that lava is NOT sediment, right? Let me start there. Just to reiterate. Plus you say that if the naturally occurring material is NOT broken down by the processes of weathering and erosion it is not sediment, right? Therefore you conclude from that description that lava is not sediment. Perhaps we might go over what lava is again? If you don't want to, ok, I understand, almost -- but I'll keep in mind that you think that if the naturally occurring material is NOT broken down by weathering and erosion it is not sediment. Maybe I'll have to write down your agreement with that definition so I remember it.I have done so at least twice. Do you not see how people can get frustrated with a person that has to ask the same questions again and again. I used the definition from Wikipedia but then quoted other sources that use an almost identical definition:
"Sediment is a naturally occurring material that is broken down by processes of weathering and erosion, and is subsequently transported by the action of wind, water, or ice or by the force of gravity acting on the particles. For example, sand and silt can be carried in suspension in river water and on reaching the sea bed deposited by sedimentation; if buried, they may eventually become sandstone and siltstone (sedimentary rocks) through lithification."
Sediment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
If it is not "broken down by he processes of weathering and erosion" it is not sediment.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm still trying to figure what some think sediment is, also that at least one person here puts down National Geographic as a source of information because it made a mistake and then corrected it about something. So it seems that either people believe what someone else has to say or does not believe it, as if National Geographic is not a respected source but those interpreting statements may have the final word because -- it supports their point of view, now about sediment, and primarily if lava is not sediment or carrying parts of rock from within a volcano. (amazing... but anyway...)I said nothing like that! You can’t lack that much comprehension!
Amazing you’d even post that, it makes your reasoning look inept.
Regarding the CE..
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
The diversification of life occurred rapidly during the early Cambrian.
If you’re honest with yourself, you might learn something.
And because it is important to understand, I can see the wisdom of the saying that some are not open to any agreement. I can only imagine disagreement is very important to some.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@Subduction Zone let's see if we can settle on this -- would you agree that lava is molten rock emerging as a liquid onto earth's surface.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, if you are rude by not listening to answers that relieves me of the duty to be nice. Be polite. Be honest. And then there will be no "rudeness".Sorry. I don't have the time to read everything so I apologize if I missed it or don't remember. You can get frustrated with me, that's ok, but it's up to you to nicely answer questions. Or not. But anyway, I'll go over your definition of sediment. You say, don't you, that lava is NOT sediment, right? Let me start there. Just to reiterate. Plus you say that if the naturally occurring material is NOT broken down by the processes of weathering and erosion it is not sediment, right? Therefore you conclude from that description that lava is not sediment. Perhaps we might go over what lava is again? If you don't want to, ok, I understand, almost -- but I'll keep in mind that you think that if the naturally occurring material is NOT broken down by weathering and erosion it is not sediment. Maybe I'll have to write down your agreement with that definition so I remember it.
And yes, the number one requirement for something to be considered sediment is that it comes from material that has been weathered and broken down. Otherwise it is merely the original deposit not matter what kind of deposit that it was. Seriously, this should not be that hard to understand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes. do yo have a point?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
LOL, if I didn't read or understand an answer, I guess that entitles you to be rude. LOL! OK.
You say that the number one requirement for something to be considered sediment is that it comes from material that has been weathered and broken down. So can you give an example of this? For instance, as I understand it, and maybe I don't understand correctly, water can carry sediment. So please, what is an example of something that comes from material that has been weathered and broken down.