The foundation of EIAF’s thinking is that only EIAF’s thinking is valid. This inertia puts not only all dissenting thought to quick dismissal, but also all dissenting data. Inability to see the facts can be demonstrated. We bring this thinking to light here, and also its particular misplaced claims.
He claims being “misquoted” with:
“EIAF says our coccyx is a useless ‘tail’ vestige.”
But he believes it. He says:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx.”
Evolution-thinking requires a crippling limit on the use of logic. It must say “we don’t need” a bone that anchors the muscles of childbirth, rectum control, lower back and rear abdomen. It must say “we don’t need” to sit down.
EIAF must deny medical fact and common knowledge, to keep EIAF thinking purely evolution based. There is no other analysis for his above statements.
EIAF tries to explain polystrate fossils with:
“There are several causes for cross-cutting. Swamp muck is soft for thousands of years. Trees usually fall flat, but they occasionally can be deposited vertically into the muck.”
What pushes trees vertically into the muck under a swamp, he cannot describe, since swamps do not explain polystrates.
He accepts a global flood on Mars. He denies a global Flood on Earth. His next descriptions of vertical deposition cannot fit a swamp – they can only fit a flood.
“Rapid sedimentation can be caused by a number of geological occurrences, including floods and landslides. Such rapid sedimentation also has the ability to bury trees in such quick fashion and hence, we find ‘polystrate trees’ from time to time.”
He offers no rationale other than the above, for vertical deposition.
“there is the simple principal of Cross-Cutting; an object which cuts through sediment must be younger than the sediment its cuts through.”
He does not see that a tree buried by “rapid sedimentation” is not younger than the sediments. He cannot see that he makes no case for his claim of how swamp polystrates form, but instead makes only the case for how Flood polystrates form. Swamps do not provide “rapid sedimentation.” Floods do. This style of thinking characterizes the EIAF perception in each setting of the debate.
“you have already argued that the Ambulocetus is disqualified and you now use Ambulotcetus’ length as a reference point for refuting whale evolution.”
This sentence (like many he writes) may sound meaningful. But what point does he make? Read before and after it, in context. When statements make a run of meaningful-sounding ideas, but never bring them to any point … that is rhetoric. Count the EIAF statements that drop the run, short of arriving at any logical point
“there is no reason to believe that sedimentation nor erosion, should happen uniformly among different parts of the world.”
He then blind-sides himself by saying:
“Turbidity currents can in no way explain evenly layered beds of fossils running thousands of miles along the Rockies, and underlying all of the oil-producing states.”
“Thousands of miles” of “evenly layered beds” indeed is a reason to believe sedimentation happened uniformly – isn’t it? This is particularly true, if the turbidity currents are on the scale of the Earth Flood. There is no other explanation. But EIAF logic (“Evolution is a Fact” logic) is self-limiting to the exclusion of an Earth Flood.
“the pattern displayed in the record, seamlessly leads up to modern day fauna.”
If it is seamless, why does National Geographic (7/98, page 91) admit that the bird evolution sequence EIAF defends “is not a chronological progression”? The order of the “seamless” steps goes against their own dates for the fossils. A “120 million year-old” fossil comes first in the “seamless” order, then an 80Mya, then an 90Mya, then 120, then 120, then 150, and then 115. The sequence has now been put into all the textbooks, without any mention of the evo-dates for the fossils. Evo-thinking willingly assimilates all these contradictions … seamlessly.
Is this not a “theoretical finding that would indeed falsify faunal succession”? No logic can say it is otherwise.
“Paleontologist have no way of knowing which species evolved into the next, nor do they need to.”
He says there is “no way of knowing” any evo-sequence.
If he is right, then logic dictates that the statement “geology shows faunal succession” must always remain … an opinion only. That is inescapable to the honest mind. Our next round of question-answer and open discussion, will only further demonstrate the broken and non-seamless nature of this thinking.