What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

[Stripe]

I was right. :troll:

 

[Yorzhik]

User Name used to have just enough sense that what he posted was at least worth taking the time to check if something said was worth reading. But for a long time now, the energy to scroll past User Name's posts greatly outweighs the contribution in them. And by greatly, I mean by AT LEAST 2 magnitudes.

What happened to Alate_One and Barbarian? They were just here!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wouldn't life be easier just modelling what appears to have happened in natural history

Do you assert that the Hydroplate Theory does not make a valid attempt at doing what you claim should be done?

Not only have I asserted it, I have given you evidence to that effect.

Ok, so you answered a question I did not ask.

You answered the following question:
"Does the Hydroplate Theory present an accurate description of 'what appears to have happened in natural history'?"

The question I asked necessarily precedes that question. Allow me to rephrase it slightly:
"Does the Hydroplate theory make a valid attempt to 'model what appears to have happened in natural history'?"

Could you answer the second question please, and not the first?

Widmanstatten patterns in meteorites completely disprove it. Ice core evidence from Greenland and from Antarctica completely disproves it. Correlated dendrochronological patterns in living and preserved bristlecone pine trees completely disprove it. The absence of any evidence for recent genetic bottlenecks widespread across species completely disproves it.

Again, I did not ask if the HPT accurately describes reality, I asked if it makes a valid attempt to do so.

I'll stop listing there, but you know the list is long. It's not the hydroplate theory, it's the disproved hydroplate hypothesis.

This is why I asked if the HPT makes a valid attempt at describing reality, because you seem to have an a-priori commitment to naturalistic origins, shown by your above sentence.

Do you have any ways to account for these items of physical evidence that don't involve the usual rambling conspiracy theories provided by creationists?

Your a-priori beliefs are showing again.

without filtering it through Bronze Age

Is there something wrong with looking at history through the eyes of those who recorded it?

History is written by the victors, and revised by the descendants of the vanquished, so yes there is plenty wrong with it.

Israel is hardly the victor throughout most of the Bible.

So your claim doesn't really have much of a point.

Eyewitness accounts give evidence but in themselves are about the worst way of establishing what happened in history. But I'm not sure what this has to do with natural history.

Typical atheist, forgetting the point he tried to make just a few posts previously. You said, Stuart:

without filtering it through Bronze Age mythology

By which you clearly meant (and I gave you an opportunity to define what you meant, but you apparently thought it was bait) the Bible.

In other words, you're the one who brought up the Bible, and now you're asking what it has to do with natural history?

When it comes to understanding the natural history of the planet do you appreciate the significance of the Royal Society's motto Nulluis In Verba, take no-one's word?

I do agree with it, to the extent that it agrees with what God in the Bible says about establishing a matter, using two or three witnesses.

mythology?

What, exactly, are you claiming is "mythology"?

I will respectfully decline your bait.

Stuart

It wasn't bait. I was trying to get you to clarify, since "mythology" is quite a broad topic to mention, even limiting it to "bronze age" mythology.

But of course, your a priori commitment to your paradigm of beliefs makes your paranoid of such questions.

 

[7djengo7]

The reason is embodied in the motto of the Royal Society "Nullius In Verba".

Wait....so, they won't ask you, because they "take nobody's word for it", and they take you for nobody? You, of course, take their word for it that they are somebody--that they are authority.

But, the question remains: Why do they ask (or pretend to ask) each other--that is, why do they ask those whom they call their "peers"? What a glaring piece of hypocrisy, on their part, to adopt such a motto if, as you say, "Nullius In Verba" means that they ask nobody.

​

Et tu, 7djendo7? In matters of fact, do you take no word but the "facts from experiments"?

Stuart

If, by "take", you mean "believe", why then, in matters of fact, I take no word but the facts. Why would I, or should I, believe anything other than facts?

Oh, and what matter would you say is not a matter of fact?

I do not take your phrase, "facts from experiments", to be meaningful.

 

[7djengo7]

not actually supported by any unambiguous evidence at all.

You've never given even the slightest account of your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence". I've repeatedly prodded you with questioning about it, and got nothing from you but the sound of crickets in response to my questioning. Yet, here you are, once again, parroting your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".

• You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
  evidence
• You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
  unambiguous

So, of course you have found, and will continue to find it impossible to account for your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".

Your saying, "...not actually supported by any unambiguous evidence at all", is wholly an emotive use of words by you. In saying it, you're not saying anything that is cognitively meaningful.

 

[Stripe]

You've never given even the slightest account of your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence". I've repeatedly prodded you with questioning about it, and got nothing from you but the sound of crickets in response to my questioning. Yet, here you are, once again, parroting your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".

• You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
  evidence
• You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
  unambiguous

So, of course you have found, and will continue to find it impossible to account for your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".

Your saying, "...not actually supported by any unambiguous evidence at all", is wholly an emotive use of words by you. In saying it, you're not saying anything that is cognitively meaningful.

I think by "unambiguous evidence" he means "something I assent to because it is suitable for my fragile worldview."

For someone who actually cares about what words mean, it would be the equivalent of "proof," which has a specific and very limited application, and not one that would be sensible to demand in this situation.

Basically, he's happy when the conversation is over what words mean. When it comes to evidence, Darwinists run for the hills.

 

[Right Divider]

I think I did answer your original question by describing the hydroplate hypothesis as an hypothesis, so characterising the nature of the model more accurately: it isn’t really a model, it’s a wrong guess motivated not by curiosity about the facts of history but by an obsessive need to develop the alt facts for the needs of the fundamentalist christian lifestyle. The disproved hydroplate hypothesis is not a serious attempt to model natural history because that’s not really it’s actual aim.

Your bias is hardly showing at all. :rotfl: