Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe she's talking about the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal.
The Brunhes-Matuyama reversal was a geologic event, approximately 780,000 years ago, when the Earth's magnetic field last underwent reversal. The reversal occurred over several thousand years. Many scientists predict that we're due again.
Can't be talking about that. According to her the earth is only 6000 years old.
Well Fred, if you look around, you might see it's about ten to one here, so there is a very good chance one might not be able to respond to every post. Yet, do you have a question that I might be able to respond to?
Yes. Why do you respond to none of the questions? You ignore anything that you choose and go off on your imaginary "fact" quests. "Facts" only to you.
Can't be talking about that. According to her the earth is only 6000 years old.
BTW, I too have her in the dustbin.
According to God's Word, the earth is only about 6,000 years old.
I believe God, not fallible men who weren't there and whose dates and theories are always changing, blown about by the winds of lies.
Well you see sanspeur. For years people have been led to believe that evolution is a done deal. They were taught that evidence confirms the theory. Yet this is simply not the case. So unless we show them what many scientist believe. How will they ever come to the knowledge of the truth? Of course one has to search for such material, because this material is never spoken of in the classroom. Those who push the theory of evolution, would be happy if their statements never saw the light of day. Call it quote mining if you will. Yet sometimes we must do the mining, and the digging. Especially, if we are seeking the truth.
When you begin to seek the truth be sure to let us know. So far you have only tried to spread fertilizer.
"How much did you pay for the tickets to this debacle, honey? We could'a gone to see a movie instead!"
In a true, real, open debate with judges preventing such slithering away, C34, YSM and kd would all be evicted, tails between their primate legs. Why do I say this so confidently?
1. The mechanisms of Evolution would be dealt with in short order. The Scientists (Side A; white hats) would ask a simple series of questions that the Dark Side of Knoowledge (Side B; black hats) HAD to answer.
Examples, all asked in front of knowledgeable but scientifically unbiased judges, including a few honest Christians:
C34, can you explain the basics of how DNA is replaced during cellular replication? (probable answer [PA]: no)
kd, can you give us a quick overview of why cells replicate, and what the key purpose of that replication is? (PA: no)
YSM, can you provide us with a brief summary of the basics of a scientific examination? (PA: no; or, in her case, she'd incriminate herself instantly by yelling that "all scientists are fraudulent, lying scam-artists!")
"Ma'am, would you gather your things and leave this debate please? We are trying to engage in a peaceful, intellectual debate in order to come to a rational conclusion about the topic. you, however, are not."
2. All the various genetic and cellular mechanisms that support the process of adaptation of an organism to either a slowly changing ecosystem or to an unoccupied niche (terms which our Side B team are completely illiterate on) have been well illucidated, proven, demonstrable in any lab, and logically obvious.
3. None of them could present an impartial overview of the simple, honest process of Q & A that is the scientific method. They could not define "peer-reviewed", it's implications and value, nor the value of publication in a journal. They could not discuss how knowledge in a given area is improved or "Evolved" over time. In short, they know nothing about science, and hence nothing about the workings of the real world around them.
The Side B team cannot begin to explain the obvious rationale, the evolved logic of how it all works, and the various predictable proofs that the general "theory" provides.
They could only insult, blurt and stumble, and it would be obvious to all who attended.
Their amazing, total and incomprehensible illiteracy in this subject area would be immediately obvious to all observers of our little open debate.
Even intellectually honest Christians in the audience would be wincing, squirming and whispering to their friends seated next to them:
"Who picked these horses-asses to represent our side? They're getting wiped out up there!"
But, sadly, we do not have the luxury of an open, adjudicated debate here. This format is excrutiatingly far removed from that fair process.
Hence, we are flooded with an endless stream of nonsense answers, blurted-out posthumous (and hence truly outlandish, cowardly and insulting) statements that Darwin was a lying fraudulent hoax, and that all scientists, geologists and engineers who dealve into earth or biosciences are lying, fraudulent and biased. Oddly, they are to be believed when they design cars, your broken left arm, garage-door openers, antibiotics, Boeing 767s, hydrogen bombs and spacecraft.
We're treated to deflections from honest questions, and relentless regurgitations plucked from proven-dishonest Christian websites, who carry absolutely no credibility with honest folk. Why? simple: demonstrably, because they lie. Fervently, vigorously and relentlessly. And most importantly, to themselves as well as to us.
So, bleet on, oh gracious Christian acolytes. You're only sealing your own reputations (of which, I also note, you're not garnering too many from the honest audience here...)
Their beliefs our obvious, and your attempt to suggest their comments were only taken out of context is lacking.
Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100
That statement reminds me of your last post sanspeur.
I've provided two reviews of your last two links, Campbell34. You remember; the ones where you prematurely offered up the Montana "dino" as proof of scales (to which I noted: so what? Job was not providing a scientific description, but rather a he was simply having a "what if?" discussion with God. You take it all out of context, but nothing new about that...), but where you ignored the same study team's accurate determination that the fossil was 77 million years old?
Then, you go on to cite a scientist who you claimed discounted evolution, and yet your hero, Henry Gee is, in fact, an Evolutionary biologist who legally challenged The Discovery Institute for their fraudulent mis-quoting of his ideas and words.
The Discovery Institute: Lying for Jesus! Yeah!
And you hang on, in 2009, to the ancient idea of a "missing link" as some sort of necessity for Evolution. That concept was valid once, but we've found all we need now, especially since we've known for over 50 years that evolution is, of course, an ongoing non-linear multi-branched process, and does not ever intent to provide the Xtian dunces with a half-cat, half-dog. The only science-dummy in the room is you, Tom.
So now, you'll of course ignore your own recorded responses, and charge on, adding cowardly insults to intellectually dishonest mis-quotes, nicely decorated with deflections from well-asked questions..
On the other hand, the side of truth..... LFJ*: Lying for Jesus
I'm a quick reader, and as I've always said, I check up on C34's "psuedo-statements". Of course, unlike me, he's limited to the nonsense of Xtian websites, and shows it brilliantly here.
I checked up on the short quote-mined nonsense he provided under cover of Colin Patterson's credibility:
Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100"
Evidence for what, Tom? did you read Patterson's original paper? Do you know what he was ACTUALLY talking about? No, you do not. He was talking about taxonomy (i.e.: how organisms are named, not how they evolved. Ignorance raises it's ugly head once again. How predictable!)
The truth? (sorry, it's a bit long, but knowledge knows no short-cuts; my key highlights in blue):
________________________________________________
a. Colin Patterson
Most damning of all is the way in which Darwin on Trial represents the views of other individuals. In several cases, Johnson cites the published opinions of scientists on various matters; it is therefore possible to set his book side-by-side with the original statements and see if they match up.
Time and time again, they do not.
Even on a generous reading of the material, and even granting that Johnson may have misunderstood the more technical writing, there is in my judgment absolutely no honest way to read those original sources and represent them as Johnson has. It is hard to know whether Johnson simply neglected to read his sources with any sort of care, or whether he actually chose to misrepresent them; in either case, these misrepresentations say a great deal about the credibility of Darwin on Trial.
Johnson claims at several points in Darwin on Trial that evolutionists, while they keep up a solid public front, are secretly unconvinced by the modern theory of evolution. In his first chapter, Johnson says that scientist Colin Patterson disavowed the theory of evolution in a speech at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. Specifically, Johnson says: "according to Patterson, Darwin's theory of natural selection is under fire and scientists are no longer sure of its general validity." (p.9); "Patterson suggested that both evolution and creation are forms of pseudo-knowledge, concepts which seem to imply information but do not." (p.10); "'Evolution' can mean anything from the uncontroversial statement that bacteria 'evolve' resistance to antibiotics to the grand metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind 'evolved' entirely by purposeless, mechanical forces.
A word that elastic is likely to mislead, by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we do about the small one. That very point was the theme of a remarkable lecture given by Colin Patterson at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981." (p.10); and states that the point of this lecture was that "a fact of evolution is vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory" (p.12). Johnson reluctantly supplied me with a transcript of this speech. (no doubt! True fear of discovery in lying. rflmn)
Upon reading it, I found that the speech was not about the theory of evolution at all. The theory of evolution is barely mentioned in passing.
What the speech was actually about was systematics, the arcane art of giving names to organisms. In the early 1980's, there were two schools of thought which clashed strongly on how to assign such names. Patterson championed one school of thought, called "pattern cladism." Adherents to pattern cladism felt that patterns of shared characters were the only important factors in assigning names to groups.
(snip); a lot of scientific stuff about taxonomy, but the link's below for your reading if you'd like to refute it)
A pattern cladist would note that birds share more features with some reptiles than those reptiles do with other reptiles, and conclude that "birds" should really be a subgroup of the Reptilia.
(snip)
Patterson's speech is not about the folly of evolutionary theory;it is about the folly of evolutionary taxonomy. Patterson has said so publicly: he is on record as saying that the 1981 speech "concerned systematics, nothing else."
Patterson's views on evolution itself can perhaps best be demonstrated from the textbook he wrote (titled, appropriately enough, Evolution). In the introduction he states: "evolution is about what Darwin called 'descent with modification'—it concerns the idea of common or shared ancestry and the belief that all species are related by descent.
Patterson's REAL beliefs: "I think that belief is now confirmed as completely as anything can be in the historical sciences."
(Johnson cites Patterson's book in Darwin on Trial, so it is hard to argue that he is not aware of Patterson's real views.)
(rflmn's ed. note: Oooopppsss. sorry, Tom; yah got it entirely wrong. you and Johnson; aught red-handed, again. LFJ*)
I read Patterson's speech and his book closely. In neither of them is there any statement, express or implied, that Patterson considered the theory of evolution to be "pseudo-knowledge"; there is no discussion whatsoever of evolutionary theory being "vacuous", and the quote from Evolution plainly shows that Patterson soundly affirms the general validity of evolutionary theory.
Patterson is firm in insisting that names should be assigned to groups of organisms on the basis of shared characters rather than on inferences about their evolutionary history, but this is rather different from saying that evolutionary biology has no content!
_____________________________________________
Well (sigh...) there you have it; the whole, real, non-mis-quoted truth. Quite different than our short-form reader, Tom, provided as "proof".
As a matter of fact, the entire link I provide for you below details the relentless mis-quoting of various scientists by Xtian fundies. Example: To state that Dawkins does not support evolution is to be truly insidious in one's purposeful lying.
Very interesting, for the perspective of how the Xtian Hive-mind continuously works to support their increasingly irrelevant and illogical nonsense. Of course, as they are chased further into the corner, they will, predictably, become ever-more vehement, irrational and irreverent. And dishonest.
This has all been very illustrative of the dismalethicalstandards of so-called Chrisitans, who, apparently, will say and do ANYTHING to support their fairy-tales. It's all right here, in my link. Read it, Tom.
As in the past, reliably, you've been caught, redhanded.
Well you see sanspeur. For years people have been led to believe that evolution is a done deal. They were taught that evidence confirms the theory.
(Yes, that's usually the way it goes, Tom...)
Yet this is simply not the case. So unless we show them what many scientist believe.
(Show them? or mis-quote and purposefully lie? OK; now we've got it right. go on...)
How will they ever come to the knowledge of the truth? Of course one has to search for such material, because this material is never spoken of in the classroom. Those who push the theory of evolution, would be happy if their statements never saw the light of day. Call it quote mining if you will. Yet sometimes we must do the mining, and the digging. Especially, if we are seeking the truth.
Hmmm... "quote-mining, you say, Tom? you mean, like thisfrom your own post a few pages back...)
Tom said: "Please do not put real science and Evolution in the same camp. A Fairy Tale is a story that is base on no evidence. That is pretty much the story of Evolution.
Derek Ager, U. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be siginificant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been "DEBUNKED." Similarly, my own experienced of more than twenty years lookiing for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132"
"young-Earth creationists (YECs) are fond of hijacking Ager's neocatastrophism and attempting to exploit it to support their flood myth. A good example of the misapplication of Ager's ideas may be seen in a recent essay by YEC Tas Walker.
(For further discussions on the invalid geology in Walker's "pipe dream," see the following essay by Gary Hurd.)
Like many YECs, Walker invokes Ager (1993) to prop up his medieval views. However, Ager (1995) did not appreciate YECs distorting his ideas to support "Noah's Flood." Specifically, Ager (1995, p. xi) vents his frustrations with both YECs and the antiquated Lyell Uniformitarian extremists by making the following statements:
"For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable. This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.
On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past,
I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')." [Ager's emphasis]
Reference
Ager, Derek, 1993, 1995 (paperback edition), The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain."
__________________________________________________ ___________
Hmmm... give me ANY so-called accurate anti-evolution quote from any credible evolutionary biologist or geologist and I'll set it right for you. Ain't I a generous human being, Tom? To be so willing to help you with the correction of all of your intentional mis-statements or simple mis-interpretations? You're welcome, old pal!
(You REALLY ought to step away from those mis-leading, Lying-for-Jesus (LFJ) Websites, Tom. Nothing good will EVER come out of them! Every time you post something from them, I find it to be all lies. Do you find that comforting in some oddball way?)
NOTE: For clarity, please see my new thread (today) [Lying For Jesus: Strategies of The Fableists] about the strategies of Chrisitan fundies to mis-quote and mis-direct. It's quite illuminating.
Last edited by rifleman; 08-26-2009 at 10:45 AM..
Reason: typoz
The hole in your post is that the coelacanth is/was a deep-water fish. Very few deep-water fossils ever reach a recoverable depth, so it's impossible to judge the extent of its evolutionary track.
Oh, and the theory is that the coelacanth is 'closely related' to the first four-legged land animals, not that it's an ancestor. It may seem like I'm it-picking here, but there is a distinct difference between something that's 'closely related' to a species and something that's an 'ancestor'.
Well in the case of the coelacanth, it was not impossible to judge its evolutionary track, because we clearly see the coelacanth in the fossil record. And it was because of this, it became obvious even to believers in evolution, that (no evolution) was present or occured in the discovered living coelacanth. With the passage of 50 million years as it was believed, there was no obvious change that could be pointed to. And I believe some fossils date the coelacanth all the way back to 200 million years.
And it was also obvious, that the coelacanth could nolonger be proclaimed as one of our evolutionary four-legged land ancestors. And of course, the coelacanth which was thought of as a true transional had to then be removed from the family tree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"How much did you pay for the tickets to this debacle, honey? We could'a gone to see a movie instead!"
Nonsense untrue answers. As usual.
On the other hand, the side of truth..... LFJ*: Lying for Jesus
from your own post a few pages back...)
