I see you know as much about geology as you do paleontology and evolutionary biology in general. 
How did the trilobite fossil get so deformed?
1 Like
Except a Flood can’t produce the physical forces necessary to lay down strata and shape it that way. Simple and elegant is pretty worthless when it’s so easily proven wrong.
BTW I can post pictures all day of geologic formations impossible to form in a one year, one time Flood. Should we start a thread and discuss the geology you can’t explain? 
How do you intend to support your claim that a global cataclysmic flood would be unable to produce sufficient physical force to lay down strata such as we see? It’s hard for me to imagine a way to test that claim in any meaningful way. Sounds like you’re blowing smoke.
The theory of evolution is entirely scientific because it deals with observational and empirical science. We can observe fossils, the distribution of characteristics in living species, and DNA. These observations can be used to test hypotheses. It is entirely scientific.
Wrong. This is a major failure to understand basic philosophy of science. I would suggest you read my article dealing with this, but it’s currently not available for free online unless you have a JoC subscription. I guess keep an eye out for it in the future. We can observe fossils, yes, but those are squarely located in the present. When you make up stories about what you think happened in the past, you are stepping outside the scientific method. You cannot test or repeat past events. The scientific method is designed to show us how the world works vis-a-vis ongoing natural processes, laws, etc. It cannot directly tell us what happened in the past.
Huh?
Why can’t solid rock bend and contort?
Sometimes the complicated history is the true one. If you are only rejecting geologic history because its complicated then you are pushing a pseudoscience.
Go outside and do some experiments. Try to bend a rock at atmospheric temperatures. Report back here with photos of what happened.
If you are only rejecting geologic history because its complicated then you are pushing a pseudoscience.
I am not rejecting ‘geologic history’, I am rejecting the old-earth interpretation of geology. And I am also not rejecting it because it’s complicated. I’m applying the test of Ockham’s Razor.
Please explain.
We aren’t making up stories. We are testing hypotheses in accordance with the scientific method. For example, if common descent and evolution are true then fossils should produce very similar phylogenies to those constructed based on living species. That is a testable hypothesis. To be more specific, if evolution is true then we there should have been species with a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features in the past. We should NOT find fossils with a mixture of derived bird and mammal features. We can use fossils to test this hypothesis.
What happened in the past is the hypothesis. You don’t observe or repeat the hypothesis. That’s not how the scientific method works. The observations need to be verifiable and repeatable, and that is exactly what fossils are.
We can use evidence in the present to test hypotheses of what happened in the past. Ever heard of forensic science?
1 Like
Nature has already done the experiment for us.
You are rejecting that history because it is complicated. That’s pseudoscience.
No, you aren’t. Ockham’s razor prefers the explanation with the fewest assumptions, not the simplest. A complicated explanation with fewer assumptions is preferred over a simple explanations with more assumptions. People often get that part wrong.
1 Like
You’re the one claiming the Flood did it. Your job to show the physical mechanisms involved. I already described the mechanisms know to Geology.
How did the Flood bend that trilobite?
How did the Flood produce this formation?
How did the water manage to run uphill and in a zig-zag pattern with still depositing all those many layers so precisely?
2 Likes
Why don’t you do an experiment? Try to bend a trilobite fossil like the deformed one I showed you at atmospheric temperatures. Report back here with photos of what happened.
Actually yes, that is exactly what is being done. A piece of evidence in the present is discovered, and then somebody makes up a story (explanation) of how they think it got there.
We are testing hypotheses in accordance with the scientific method. For example, if common descent and evolution are true then fossils should produce very similar phylogenies to those constructed based on living species. That is a testable hypothesis.
Is it the case that such a prediction would not be expected if the Bible were true? Why?
We should NOT find fossils with a mixture of derived bird and mammal features. We can use fossils to test this hypothesis.
I don’t see how that helps to differentiate from Biblical history. If Noah’s Flood produced the geological record, rather than gradualistic processes, I still don’t know why I would expect to find a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features (wait, but we do have platypuses, don’t we?) Do platypuses falsify your theory then?
We can use evidence in the present to test hypotheses of what happened in the past. Ever heard of forensic science?
Forensic science does not test the past. It is an exercise in making up a story that is said to fit the evidence we have. Yet for any given piece of evidence, you can always come up with more than one possible story. Dr Carol Cleland, philosopher of science, said “…the evidential position of the historian is fundamentally different from that of the experimentalist.” (Reply to Kevin Kilty, Geology 30:953-954)
Oh, I see, it’s as I expected. You have no intention of supporting your claim at all.
No, that’s actually not what it is about at all. Ockham’s Razor is “do not multiply your explanations beyond what is needed to account for what you see”. So if we can account for bent strata by saying they were soft when they were laid down, then we don’t need to postulate that they were originally hard, then they got soft, then they got hard again. If you see a crater than can be explained by one bomb going off, then there’s no need to suggest that two bombs went off.
The catch is in science for an explanation to be considered valid the explanation has to fit in with all the other evidence. Creationist pseudoscience will make up a different story for every piece of evidence separately, not knowing or caring they usually directly contradict themselves. You yourself did that with the Alaskan hadrosaur fossils.
Yet another reason why Creationism is pseudoscience.
1 Like
The problem is your explanation doesn’t work given what we know about the physics and dynamics of floods. Simple and wrong is still wrong.
Now how did that trilobite fossil get so deformed? You seem to be studiously avoiding it.
Yes please! I liked the last one.
Hypotheses aren’t made up stories. You need to read up on how the scientific method works.
Do you agree that what I described is a testable hypothesis?
Platypuses don’t have any bird features. A quick google search for duck and platypus skulls will quickly demonstrate how different those are. You may also be forgetting that reptiles lay eggs, so egg laying is not a feature found in just the bird group (i.e. it is not a shared derived feature of birds). A platypus has a mixture of reptile and mammal features.
Also, Darwinian processes don’t exist in geology. Darwinian processes are only found in biology. The question you need to answer is what features a geologic formation would need in order to falsify a recent global flood. Until you answer that question all you have is pseudoscience because one of the classic features of pseudoscience is that it isn’t falsifiable.
It most certainly is. Evidence in the present can be used to test hypotheses about the past. Entirely scientific.
I provided a mechanism empirically known from Geology. You waved your hands.
Are you really so afraid of that deformed trilobite you won’t offer even a hand wave? Wow.
How about it PDPrice? Are you willing to defend your young earth Flood claims in a thread about geology?