... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

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.

I

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"

Has it?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35"
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/01/in-time-when-most-people-died-at.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What others have to say about Life Expectancy through history - and my take on that
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-others-have-to-say-about-life.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Longevity in Selected Ancestry and Inlaws of Eleanor of Montfort
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/01/longevity-in-selected-ancestry-and.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Tudor Times Demographical Stats
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/03/tudor-times-demographical-stats.html

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.

3:15

"Linzer Sanden Formation, Upper Oligocene (Chattian)
Cetotheriopsis lintianus (Mammalia Cetacea Mysticeti Cetotheriopsidae)"

On my page over Austria:

Palaeocritti Blog : Austria
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/12/austria.html

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
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/eutheria/cetacea/mysticeti/cetotheriopsis

3:15
"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.

II

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
http://www.palaeocritti.com/home

[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!]

... on How Fossils Matter

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

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

I e not exactly as thought by the author of this video:

Why Fossils Matter
The Living Past
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnypOGs4Evg

0:45 "for simpler people, with no way of really knowing any different"

Eagerly awaiting how you will explain that we now have a way of "knowing any different" ...

1:48 "and dedicate himself to the suppression of the growing Protestant reformation"

He made himself a living martyr for the last years of his life to give Catholic Pastoral to Catholics remaining stranded in Protestant countries.

Your take on history is nowhere near having a good grasp.

He was furthermore a convert from Protestantism himself.

This inspires no confidence either in your affirmation that the experimental method had been born a few years before prodromus by the works of Galileo, either.

2:09 "could now begin to be understood"

That yes.

3:09

Cuvier had not reckoned on Amerindians recognising Pterodactyls as Thunderbirds ... (thank you for this one, Kent Hovind!)

3:15 "totally incompatible with what exists in the modern world"

Would depend on where wouldn't it?

In Austria some fossils are of seals and whales - incompatible with modern geography of that area, sure, but not with modern fauna.

3:43 "that it has changed dramatically over its history, rather than being a single unchanging reality"

Well, Bible could have told you so in chapters 6 - 11, right, of the book Genesis, right?

3:50 sth to 4:21 "we had a new way to understand the planet"

Certainly, but what if the older one was correct?

Lyell, Cuvier and the rest had not actually discovered anything which Steno could not have accounted for with Flood Geology, precisely as Steno admiring Geologian Tas Walker (originally educated as a conventional Long Age Geologist) is doing right now.

4:21 "we had a new way to understand the planet"

0:05 - 0:18 "for most of the time of our history" ... "anybody's guess" ... "and that's what we did"

OK, on your view, JUST because our new way of understanding the planet is based on "natural only", it is not any longer guess work?

And that makes us previous few late comers somehow superior to our ancestors for most of our history?

What stupidity in selection of criteria is that? Who pulled you into that?

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?

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.

6:55 resuming : fossils build a library that serves to reconstruct "a living past", we have "traced the ancestry" through millions of years (and what if Permian beasts were strictly contemporary to Mammals making it to Noah's ark rather than millions of years older?)

Here is how Fr George Leo Haydock considers we have access to a living past, I consider that more realistic than recosntructions from fossils:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Haydock Comment on Genesis chapter 3
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html

6:57 "there are still those who wish to drag us back"

Well, the right direction for someone heading at a precipice, intellectual or physic, is back. Not on. And I do believe, not the fossils, but your interpretation of them is an intellectual precipice.

7:17 If you are so proud of the palaeontology there is, I suggest you make a few supporting donations to palaeocritti! [The original site, not my back up blog which I link to here:]

Palaeocritti Blog : I Hope This Blog will Get More Writers - it is a Salvage Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.fr/2013/11/i-hope-this-blog-will-get-more-writers.html

7:27

• 1) I support open access movement, and I want the articles I write on Internet to remain free in that form;
  
  
• 2) nevertheless, I am also into getting paid for same articles if republished in book form, which I highly recommend:
  
  http://ppt.li/5h
  
  
• 3) and what is relevant here is this: the original site of palaeocritti is getting too few views to in their viewpoint justify paying next 100 dollars for another five years.

This is very regrettable, since the site is giving very unique information on where fossils have been found, and to me as a YEC and Flood Geology believer (like Steno and Tas Walker, remember), I find support in this information for this observation I made: there is no place on earth where five feet down you find smilodons, fifty feet down you find triceratopes (plural of triceratops, if you know greek) and hundred feet down you find trilobites. There are plenty of places where you find one of the labels like cretaceous or cambrian in distinctive fossils. But none where you find two clearly different ones or three clearly different ones on top of each other.

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

[link was for some reason reduced to @2013 when I tried to add it, probably either new policy of linking in youtube OR malfeasance of librarians in Georges Pompidou, so I added a short link to it, after faulty reduction:]

@2013 http://ppt.li/fc

[One somewhat possible indication it could be the librarians here, or the computer responsibles here is that the librarian who gave me next ticket for 40 minutes asked me if I was well. "Vous allez bien?" - A little bit as if having been told by some crooked shrink what I am doing is some kind of folly and done under some kind of excitation. And of course I do get "excited" by anger when such things happen one what should be a normal internet session.]

[Update next day, checked :]

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

Ha, full URL postable from Nanterre University Library today, while yesterday at Bpi Georges Pompidou it was reduced to "@2013"!

[End of update]

Before 7:45, you admitted you "feel privileged" and that to "live in the tiny sliver of time" when "finally" life has started to become understood.

Would that exhilarating feeling be of a nature to deflect you from taking arguments from creationists seriously, perhaps?

At 7:45 "but there is still much work to do"

And checking logical value of creationist arguments is not among that work?

I mean, there is such a thing as rushing people into agreement by proposing work to do before they have time to doubt. Certain sects would for instance be using that technique.

8:22 "the magic of how life on earth evolves"

You said it. Evolution is a fairy tale.

How about putting two fairy tales, if you like, fairly and squarely side by side, and then check which one of them has a clearer relation of logical procedures of inferring knowledge to undisputed facts, such as fossils or such as existence of Flood stories well before fossils were being widely discovered these last centuries?

Would such a kind of reality check still be possible for you, even if you are enchanted with Evolution as a great story?

Thank you at least for admitting our ancestors saw beauty.

9:03 "every living thing" ... "is one, and no amount of wars and borders will ever change that"

And in that case, that very theoretic oneness is not changing wars and borders either.

If fact [supposed] of smilodon and eohippus being "one" did not change the fact that a smilodon and an eohippus if meeting would either end in one eating the other or in the other running away from the one, neither is it changing wars on earth.

Indeed, an undue hope this "realisation" may change those wars may one day make certain parts of the West a worse threat to Christian community and a worse threat to peace in the world than even ISIS.

9:22

If you want, you are very welcome as a second writer on my palaeocritti blog!

What needs to be done is copying the palaeocritti site before it shuts down next year. If I complete countries I have taken, you chose your countries, and complete the ones you start and when each completes a country, he starts a new one. We just might make it before 2016 shuts the site down, and the original writers of it would certainly appreciate me having a non-creationist co-writer on that blog!

http://www.palaeocritti.com/

Oh, one more thing: Trento - Philaret strictly non-profit material not my own, only posting two catechisms side by side. Incomplete so far. Same goes for the Palaeocritti back up blog.

[This is noted on my list of blogs where linking to these two blogs. Note that the article on "Three Meanings" is my own along with its connected articles and thus does fall under the conditions given in link above. http://ppt.li/5h]