Jump to content


Photo

Ad Hoc Storifying


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#41 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:42 PM

 

The origin of phyla in the Cambrian may be problematic due to lack of fossil evidence but you do understand there are many transitionals within Phyla, don't you ? (and Koonin no doubt agrees)

instead of arguing this away, or waving your hand and saying "poof, there it is", how about an explanation?

Yes but do you know what a Phylum is ? I didn't ask whether Koonin knows.

i love this line of questioning, because it's completely irrelevant.
it isn't what i think a phylum is, it's what koonin thinks it is.
he uses the term interchangeably with body plans.

 


Its not actually possible to get a straight answer out of you is it ?
 

epigenetics activated a transposon catalyst.
maybe?


word salad
 



#42 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 August 2017 - 08:17 PM

 

 

There are about 250,000 fossil species. That’s less than 5% of the number of living species. As its very unlikely that we have discovered more than a tiny proportion of the number of species that have ever existed during the history of the Earth then the number of fossil species described will be only be a minuscule fraction of the true figure.

 
"There are about 250,000 fossil species."
 
But that's not what I was asking. The number I am looking for is the number of actual specimens that have been unearthed by all the fossil hunters everywhere throughout time.

 


Don't know, I doubt if anyone has bothered estimating a number. Almost all fossils observed are left in situ in the rock because the vast majority are shelly invertebrates in marine sedimentary layers (as you would expect with a secular view but not with a global flood drowning all the continents.)
 

So if, as one might assume, there would be many, many iterations of transitional species between settled species, why wouldn't the ratio of "found" fossils favor the transitionals?


Because individual geological strata tend to represent a few million years of relatively stable environmental conditions where species tend to remain in stasis. Therefore the vast majority of fossils found will be deposited during these periods. Sudden changes in species composition in an overlying stratum will represent an inward migration of species not an in situ rapid evolution of the main population. This probably occurs relatively rapidly in peripheral, small populations which, by its nature, is unlikely to be recorded in the fossil record, especially considering variable sedimentation rates. But don't forget there are examples of incremental species transitions in the fossil record where sedimentation was likely to be fairly constant ( I have mentioned the Micraster sea urchin lineage in Cretaceous chalk several times on this forum and it has always been ignored)

 

 

"Because individual geological strata tend to represent a few million years of relatively stable environmental conditions where species tend to remain in stasis."  :burp: 

 

So they "Tend to" do that do they? Hmm... What was the make and model of your time machine? Or are you just asserting stuff again based on what you HOPE....  :think: 

 

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)



#43 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 August 2017 - 09:50 PM

Its not actually possible to get a straight answer out of you is it ?

certainly there is, i simply leave you nothing to hang me with.

#44 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 August 2017 - 10:27 PM

 

Its not actually possible to get a straight answer out of you is it ?

certainly there is, i simply leave you nothing to hang me with.

 

 

He doesn't live by his own rules does he... How many times have I asked him this question

and he REFUSES to  answer it and continues to ignore me..

 

MY PROPOSAL HERE PUTS THE KNIFE INTO THE HEART OF THE DYING DOG OF DARWIN..


 

 

I have a REASONABLE question that I would like answered if you wish ANYONE to take Evolution seriously..

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

 Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible. For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys? Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution.

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart? You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. Because ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case. IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE Pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 THEREFORE

If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, Our "Ancestor(s)" would, at some point, have 9 Interdependent vital organs, then 8, then 7, then 6 5 4 3 2...

THE MATH IS NOT HARD HERE!.

Allow me to give you a BIG head start.. I will allow you to start out with Abiogenesis (Quite generous don't you think?) AND a bag of skin.... Now you have 1 billion years to turn it into a Man... What are the next "Steps" in the Evolutionary ladder? Come on.. Just give me something!!! Let us analyze it together using logic and critical thinking.... You guys are starting to make me think this really isn't about "Science" Anymore, Rather a Religious belief in godless Metaphysical Naturalism,..

A Microbe has ZERO interdependent interlocked VITAL Organs and their support systems. A Microbiologist has TEN interdependent. interlocked. VITAL Organs and their support systems.

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE MATH IS SIMPLE HERE.

On the billion year journey from Organless Microbes to Organ Dependent (10!) Microbiologists there had to be an ORDER (Unless you believe that ALL TEN "Evolved" at the EXACT SAME MOMENT) AKA Creationism.. STOMACH- SKIN- HEART- LUNGS- BRAIN- UPPER / LOWER INTESTINE LIVER PANCREAS - KIDNEYS

The inability to answer this simple question is what reduces the Microbes to Microbiologists fairytale to the joke that it is... TRY AGAIN?



THE PROBLEM IS.. All of the Observable Creatures that we see are fully formed, complete, and complex that merely Vary or Adapt.... For example.. there are 5000 "Species" of Ladybugs. 2000 "Species" of Chiclids" 9000 "Species" of Birds, 6000 "Species" of Lizards..Where is the Evolution? Nowhere...(I could go on all day) But here is the catch... By going back into the Nebulousphere of "Long ago and far away" they are trying to use slow minute changes to account for a Microbe turning into a Microbiologist.. What good is a barely or partially formed VITAL organ?? My thesis here puts everything in perspective... As of now.. NO ONE has even TRIED to answer it.. Like to try?


#45 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 August 2017 - 11:20 AM

Me: How many iterations of every evolved species (in terms of macro evolution) would you expect to have occurred in order for a four-legged mammal to become a bat, for example?

if this four legged mammal and the bat is of the same phyla, then this isn't macroevolution.
phyla are the durable units of evolution, not species.

my question is, what would cause phyla to arrive here radially from an apparently homogenized group of cells.

one thing is certain, there are no detectable intermediates (transitionals) between animal phyla.

#46 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 August 2017 - 02:36 PM

if this four legged mammal and the bat is of the same phyla, then this isn't macroevolution.


Can you explain what you mean by this please



#47 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:00 PM

if this four legged mammal and the bat is of the same phyla, then this isn't macroevolution.


Can you explain what you mean by this please

stands to reason doesn't it?
if all phyla arrived here radially then the arrival or creation of new phyla would represent macroevolution.
the kernal of phyla is where we get a good deal of common descent data.

IOW, turning one body plan into another different body plan is macroevolution.

#48 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:46 PM

if this four legged mammal and the bat is of the same phyla, then this isn't macroevolution.

 

So going from something like this:

 

0dfdbeeda587e26bab8fcaa078f39fef--freshw

 

 

To something like this:

 

 

customer-portrait-human-api.png

 

 

 

 

IS NOT considered macroevolution according to you? Keep in mind that both pictures show animals in the same phylum.



#49 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:49 PM

if this four legged mammal and the bat is of the same phyla, then this isn't macroevolution.

 
So going from something like this:
 
0dfdbeeda587e26bab8fcaa078f39fef--freshw
 
 
To something like this:
 
 
customer-portrait-human-api.png
 
 
 
 
IS NOT considered macroevolution according to you? Keep in mind that both pictures show animals in the same phylum.

it would appear that way, yes.
keep in mind i'm basing my assumption on phyla arriving radially

there is a subtler point about koonins quote:
koonin says they were "ready made".
the only reason he would say such a thing is because they resembled quite closely what is alive today.

there also seems to be a disconnect between "what an animal looks like" and the genetic code.
there is little doubt in my mind that this is due to epigenetics/transposons.

#50 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:29 PM

if this four legged mammal and the bat is of the same phyla, then this isn't macroevolution.

 
So going from something like this:
 
0dfdbeeda587e26bab8fcaa078f39fef--freshw
 
 
To something like this:
 
 
customer-portrait-human-api.png
 
 
 
 
IS NOT considered macroevolution according to you? Keep in mind that both pictures show animals in the same phylum.


No, It is not considered macroevolution.. It is considered a FAIRYTALE and you happen to be on the PERFECT website for curing that trance of EvilDelusion that you are under..

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells)

#51 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 August 2017 - 10:47 PM

Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.

How much coverage does the CCTV provide?
...

.
Of course, your question identifies the most basic omission of "mike the w"'s OP story and putative analogy; and that it is fatal to the putative analogy when the camera coverage is inadequate-enough to allow a person with highly-skilled physical machinations to avoid being captured on the footage. His response is an insult--that you failed to ignore what basic reading comprehension skills told you was probably the most basic error in the scenario.

I learned well before I stopped posting here the first time that "mike the ..." will not acknowledge when his analogy is faulty. The only thing I can report is that I haven't read any content of his that wields the M-the-W 2+2 Fallacy since I identified the inadequacy of wielding that error, though I haven't read all his content written during my vacation from this site.
.

Popoi, I've tried to teach you about the relevance of an analogy but I've failed, ...

The only point of the CCTV analogy, is to show how absurd it would be for the police to take such a story seriously.
...



#52 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 August 2017 - 11:48 PM

 

 

Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.

How much coverage does the CCTV provide?
...

 

.
Of course, your question identifies the most basic omission of "mike the w"'s OP story and putative analogy; and that it is fatal to the putative analogy when the camera coverage is inadequate-enough to allow a person with highly-skilled physical machinations to avoid being captured on the footage. His response is an insult--that you failed to ignore what basic reading comprehension skills told you was probably the most basic error in the scenario.

I learned well before I stopped posting here the first time that "mike the ..." will not acknowledge when his analogy is faulty. The only thing I can report is that I haven't read any content of his that wields the M-the-W 2+2 Fallacy since I identified the inadequacy of wielding that error, though I haven't read all his content written during my vacation from this site.
.

Popoi, I've tried to teach you about the relevance of an analogy but I've failed, ...

The only point of the CCTV analogy, is to show how absurd it would be for the police to take such a story seriously.
...

 

 

I see that you are Still straining at a Gnat (This response to Mike about MEANINGLESS MINUTIAE) Yet Swallowing a Camel (MY DEVASTATING UNANSWERABLE QUESTION Here that will REMAIN unanswered and closes the book on the Darwinian Myth forever)  Come to think of it.. It makes sense why you would do so..... What was I thinking... LOL   :kaffeetrinker: 

 

http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists

 

 

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)



#53 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 07 August 2017 - 01:32 AM

it would appear that way, yes.

keep in mind i'm basing my assumption on phyla arriving radially

there is a subtler point about koonins quote:
koonin says they were "ready made".
the only reason he would say such a thing is because they resembled quite closely what is alive today.

there also seems to be a disconnect between "what an animal looks like" and the genetic code.
there is little doubt in my mind that this is due to epigenetics/transposons.

 

What does phyla arriving radially have to do with whether or not the evolutionary change is micro or macro? Species undergo adaptive radiation all the time at taxonomic levels lower than phylum, yet you would not consider that macroevolution based on your previous responses.

 

Where are you getting this idea that macroevolution requires new phyla? You seemed to have just made it up.

 

The phrase "ready made" is a comment about the lack of known transitionals preceding the Cambrian explosion, IIRC.



#54 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 August 2017 - 06:27 AM

Where are you getting this idea that macroevolution requires new phyla? You seemed to have just made it up.

yes, it's my opinion that the "creation" of a novel body plan is macroevolution.

there are a few reasons i say that, and all are in the literature.
first, species aren't the durable units of evolution.
second, it's the kernal of phyla that a large part of common descent data comes from.
third, there doesn't seem to be any higher classifications of animals, koonin certainly doesn't mention them.
apparently we went from super groups of cells to phyla.

it's easy to see from the above, phyla are the durable units of evolution.
i have no idea where these higher classifications of animals come from, koonin certainly doesn't mention them.

#55 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 07 August 2017 - 08:21 AM

Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.

How much coverage does the CCTV provide?
...

.
Of course, your question identifies the most basic omission of "mike the w"'s OP story and putative analogy; and that it is fatal to the putative analogy when the camera coverage is inadequate-enough to allow a person with highly-skilled physical machinations to avoid being captured on the footage. His response is an insult--that you failed to ignore what basic reading comprehension skills told you was probably the most basic error in the scenario.

I learned well before I stopped posting here the first time that "mike the ..." will not acknowledge when his analogy is faulty. The only thing I can report is that I haven't read any content of his that wields the M-the-W 2+2 Fallacy since I identified the inadequacy of wielding that error, though I haven't read all his content written during my vacation from this site.
.

Popoi, I've tried to teach you about the relevance of an analogy but I've failed, ...

The only point of the CCTV analogy, is to show how absurd it would be for the police to take such a story seriously.
...

 
I see that you are Still straining at a Gnat (This response to Mike about MEANINGLESS MINUTIAE) Yet Swallowing a Camel (MY DEVASTATING UNANSWERABLE QUESTION Here that will REMAIN unanswered and closes the book on the Darwinian Myth forever)  Come to think of it.. It makes sense why you would do so..... What was I thinking... LOL   :kaffeetrinker: 
 
http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists
 
 
"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)

.
Goodybye King of Blitz -- which means extreme inebriation. Welcome to ignore.

#56 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 August 2017 - 07:30 PM

Imagine if we now saw the person was NOT on the CCTV.

How much coverage does the CCTV provide?...
.Of course, your question identifies the most basic omission of "mike the w"'s OP story and putative analogy; and that it is fatal to the putative analogy when the camera coverage is inadequate-enough to allow a person with highly-skilled physical machinations to avoid being captured on the footage. His response is an insult--that you failed to ignore what basic reading comprehension skills told you was probably the most basic error in the scenario.I learned well before I stopped posting here the first time that "mike the ..." will not acknowledge when his analogy is faulty. The only thing I can report is that I haven't read any content of his that wields the M-the-W 2+2 Fallacy since I identified the inadequacy of wielding that error, though I haven't read all his content written during my vacation from this site..

Popoi, I've tried to teach you about the relevance of an analogy but I've failed, ...The only point of the CCTV analogy, is to show how absurd it would be for the police to take such a story seriously....

I see that you are Still straining at a Gnat (This response to Mike about MEANINGLESS MINUTIAE) Yet Swallowing a Camel (MY DEVASTATING UNANSWERABLE QUESTION Here that will REMAIN unanswered and closes the book on the Darwinian Myth forever) Come to think of it.. It makes sense why you would do so..... What was I thinking... LOL :kaffeetrinker: http://evolutionfair...-accidentalists "It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)
.Goodybye King of Blitz -- which means extreme inebriation. Welcome to ignore.
Actually, Blitz is a German word for Lightning or Fast and being that I am a former USA Rapid Chess Champion, I go by the handle Blitzking (Blitz Chess means FAST Chess FYI) NOTHING TO DO with inebriation BTW....

NEVERTHELESS..

I completely understand why you dont want to hear what I have to say..

If I had the same emotional attachment to Darwin's Myth as you do, I would ignore me as well, because the more you pay attention to my words, and see my indisputable logic, the more you will be forced to recognize the truth that we have been duped into believing a hopeless fairytale for reasons that have ZERO to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with its IMPLICATIONS...

BTW.. Why are you even on this website anyway? Wouldn't you be much happier on one of the Atheist / Pro Evolution websites where they will all tell you just what your ears want to hear just like the Bible predicted 2000 years ago?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" 2 Timothy 4 : 3,4


"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)
  • Mike Summers likes this

#57 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 August 2017 - 02:38 PM

"Because individual geological strata tend to represent a few million years of relatively stable environmental conditions where species tend to remain in stasis."  :burp:
 
So they "Tend to" do that do they? Hmm... What was the make and model of your time machine? Or are you just asserting stuff again based on what you HOPE....  :think:


We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements, but of course you have to be in denial over that else your whole world comes tumbling down. What was the make and model of your time machine that verifies Genesis as a literal account of history rather than the imaginations of men trying to make sense of the world ?
 



#58 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 August 2017 - 06:50 PM

"Because individual geological strata tend to represent a few million years of relatively stable environmental conditions where species tend to remain in stasis." :burp:

So they "Tend to" do that do they? Hmm... What was the make and model of your time machine? Or are you just asserting stuff again based on what you HOPE.... :think:

We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements, but of course you have to be in denial over that else your whole world comes tumbling down. What was the make and model of your time machine that verifies Genesis as a literal account of history rather than the imaginations of men trying to make sense of the world ?


"We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements,"

I am curious as to the methodolgy that is utized to calibrate the so called "extremely robust dating methods" LOL

INCIDENTALLY

Is it in any way related to the same "methodolgy" that "Robustly" demonstrates that red blood cells, DNA+ fragments, and collagen that have been Found in Dinosaurs that, coincidentally, ALL HAPPEN TO CONTAIN MEASURABLE CARBON 14 (EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER DATED) EVERY TIME.. Happen to actually be 100 Million Years Old!!! Hmmmmm...

What YOU happen to call "Robust Dating Methods" is in actuality a FRAUD.. I hope that helps your apparent confusion about it..


http://newgeology.us...entation48.html


http://www.smithsoni...cker-115306469/



"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

(Dr. Ronald R. West)

#59 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 09 August 2017 - 02:26 PM

 

We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements, but of course you have to be in denial over that else your whole world comes tumbling down. What was the make and model of your time machine that verifies Genesis as a literal account of history rather than the imaginations of men trying to make sense of the world ?



"We have extremely robust dating methods to enable such statements,"

I am curious as to the methodolgy that is utized to calibrate the so called "extremely robust dating methods"

 


Well we know that radioisotope decay rates cannot and have not been significantly changed, this is experimentally and observationally verified. Independent dating methods on the same sample give convergent results. Read the Hawaiian island thread for undeniable evidence of great age.
 

Is it in any way related to the same "methodolgy" that "Robustly" demonstrates that red blood cells, DNA+ fragments, and collagen that have been Found in Dinosaurs that, coincidentally, ALL HAPPEN TO CONTAIN MEASURABLE CARBON 14 (EVERY SINGLE ONE EVER DATED) EVERY TIME.. Happen to actually be 100 Million Years Old!!! Hmmmmm...


None of those organic remains are dating methods, what is the evidence for your assertion they can't last 100 million years under any circumstance ? As for C14, of course creationists will publicize results that help their cause (i.e. the significantly contaminated ones). How do you know they haven’t withheld results that don’t ?

If C14 pervades all organic remains due to it all in fact being young, how do you explain results that give infinite ages (i.e. below the limits of detection ?). This happens with Paleolithic mammal bones for example.
 

What YOU happen to call "Robust Dating Methods" is in actuality a FRAUD.. I hope that helps your apparent confusion about it..

 

That’s a very big claim there. You have evidence for this mass conspiracy amongst the world’s scientists ?

Creationist attempts to discredit dating methods are where the fraud can be found. You have provided an example in your first link with Hugh Miller knowingly sending preservative contaminated dinosaur bone fragments to be carbon dated ... but you don't care to investigate that do you ?


 

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(Dr. Ronald R. West)


What else explains faunal succession ? The Flood ? Have you ever thought that through ? (you obviously haven’t)



#60 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 August 2017 - 05:18 PM

That’s a very big claim there. You have evidence for this mass conspiracy amongst the world’s scientists ?

you'll notice arrowsmith has not shown up here, and he never will.
he knows he's a cornered rat.

the question is, just how far down the hole does it go?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users