# How To Define "Evolution"?



## PoliticalChic

1. Many who are not fully cognizant of the subject mistake* the term 'evolution' *for anything from anything from the cyclical change within a gene pool, i.e., the moth population in England darkened, and then lightened due to pollution of the Industrial Revolution,...
... to the creation of entirely new genetic information, and structure, due to *natural selection influencing random mutations.*


a. "Natural selection influencing random mutations" sure sounds like what you learned in high school.....but, it is a compete misunderstanding of the concept....if one tries to call, say, the sudden growth of an eye where there was none before, "evolution."

Yup....just the way many use the term 'evolution'... wrong.

 The point is, small-scale, or "micro-evolutionary" change, cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale, or "maco-revolutionary" innovation. 
So, *changes in color or shape, simply use or express existing genetic information.*
That would be Darwinian evolution. 
Or the shape of a beak in Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches).


b. Macro, e.g., new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information. 







2. Yet *the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."* This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which* biologists described significant problems with the theory.*
 Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."

b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of *indoctrination* that critics of the Left have been railing about.






3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution. 
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the *"Cambrian Explosion*."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were *simple, composed of individual cells* occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today." 
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just  the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the *missing evidence of progressive changes* leading to this complexity. 
It was the *missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. *

Get it? *There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!*



*Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.*



5. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

 a. universal *common ancestry* of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

 b.* natural selection,* the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring. 
A small change....lots of organisms incorporating the change...which, if adaptive,....is passed on to progeny.
If the change is not adaptive, increasing viability, well...guess what: the changed organisms die out.




6. Now, before you come to conclude that the above idea by Darwin was sheer genius.....be aware of the fact that he was inspired by what farmers and breeders had done for time immemorial, known as* 'artificial selection,' or 'selective breeding,' in which breeders would alter the features of domestic animals *by only allowing animals with certain traits to breed. 



So...*Darwin was basing his theory on the intelligent selection by human breeders.* 

*Darwin's theory imbued nature with a mechanism that involved intelligence...*.but he, and his acolytes, simply denied that there was any intelligence behind what nature did.

If Darwin had concluded, as was by scientists before him, that nature had relied on some source of intelligence to perform 'evoluiton,' it would be called.....

....wait for it....





....Intelligent Design.


----------



## orogenicman

Well, none of that is correct.  Who taught you how to write, by the way?  I only ask because, damn!

First of all, you don't get to re-define terms.  Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution.  And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous).  Moreover, Stephen Meyer?  Really?  O-M-G.  EPIC FAIL.

Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits.  In the first case, man is the agent producing change.  In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change.  A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection.  In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion.  But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.  But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent.  How weird is that!


----------



## orogenicman

I almost forgot this one:

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a review published by The Skeptics Society titled _Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies_,[40] paleontologist Donald Prothero points out the number of errors, cherry-picking, misinterpretation and misinformation in Meyer's book. The center of Meyer's argument for intelligent design, Cambrian Explosion, has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery. 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million year time frame where the fossil record show the gradual and stepwise emergence of more and more complicated animal life, just as predicted in Darwin's evolution. Prothero explains that the early Cambrian period is divided into three stages: Nemakit-Daldynian, Tommotian and Atdabanian. Meyer ignores the first two stages and the fossil discoveries from these two periods, instead he focuses on the later Atbadbanian stage to present the impression that all Cambrian live forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. To further counter Meyer's argument that the Atdabanian period is too short for evolution process to take place, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' are typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.

In his article Doubting "Darwin's Doubt" published in The New Yorker,[41] Gareth Cook discusses that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement, another go-around in masquerading religious belief as science. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of life which was not available to Darwin (hence his 'doubt' in Meyer's words). The contemporary scientific consensus is that there is no 'explosion'. Cook cites Nick Matzke's analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field's key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[42] Cook references scientific literature [43] to refute Meyer's argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the 'intelligent designer'. Like Prothero, Cook also points out the absurdity of Meyer's stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience', Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.


----------



## orogenicman

I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.


----------



## Mad Scientist

orogenicman said:


> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.


I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:

The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly)* together* otherwise the cell dies.

If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.

Explain please.


----------



## orogenicman

American Communist said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:
> 
> The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly)* together* otherwise the cell dies.
> 
> If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.
> 
> Explain please.
Click to expand...


This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity.  The argument from IC to ID is simply: 

1. IC things cannot evolve 
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed 

Here is your answer.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified


----------



## Mad Scientist

While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, *in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand*, *HOW* a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.

Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" (22 pages worth) isn't gonna' work. 

Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.






This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.

Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?


The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.



a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." 
G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.


c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
 David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*" 
Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.



Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.

Go in peace, brother.


----------



## orogenicman

American Communist said:


> While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, *in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand*, *HOW* a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.
> 
> Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" isn't gonna' work.
> 
> Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?



I'm not your average person.  And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either.  You either learn or you don't.  Who do you want to be?  A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology.  I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings.  If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question.  Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer.  It's up to you to give an enlightened response.  I've given you my answer.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
Click to expand...


Typical creationist obfuscation.  Congratulations.



			
				PC said:
			
		

> Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?



I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.




> The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
> Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.



When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know.  As that WOULD refute evolution.  Good luck with that.  Darwin lived 150 years ago.  We've got more and better fossils today.




> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.



Who are you plagiarizing this crap from?  You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.
> 
> 
> 
> I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:
> 
> The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly)* together* otherwise the cell dies.
> 
> If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.
> 
> Explain please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity.  The argument from IC to ID is simply:
> 
> 1. IC things cannot evolve
> 2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> Irreducible Complexity Demystified
Click to expand...




Of course, that explanation is nonsense.


"If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts."
From your link, brother.



1. A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.
The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).
Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech


2. Richard Dawkins admits: [T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.2 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986


3. Darwin: small changes, passed on via reproduction, to progeny.
But reproduction requires DNA to make identical copies....
Based on the enormous size of the molecule such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all. . This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

But, of course, a religious fanatic such as yourself requires neither proof nor logic.



If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....

Can I get an 'amen'?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, *in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand*, *HOW* a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.
> 
> Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" isn't gonna' work.
> 
> Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your average person.  And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either.  You either learn or you don't.  Who do you want to be?  A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology.  I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings.  If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question.  Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer.  It's up to you to give an enlightened response.  I've given you my answer.
Click to expand...




Please don't apologize for being less than average.

The board accepts all levels of posters.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical creationist obfuscation.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
> Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know.  As that WOULD refute evolution.  Good luck with that.  Darwin lived 150 years ago.  We've got more and better fossils today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from?  You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?
Click to expand...




There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?


Well...OK...

Here is your tutorial:
pla·gia·rize  
/&#712;pl&#257;j&#601;&#716;r&#299;z/
Verb
Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own


So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'


More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.


You're welcome.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a Science question for ya' Orogenicman:
> 
> The Human cell has about 13 different structures that are "interdependent" on each other, meaning that all those things have to function (and function properly)* together* otherwise the cell dies.
> 
> If the "Theory" of Evolution is correct then how is it possible that the Human Cell "evolved" at all? If ONE PART of the Human Cell "evolves" (changes) the cell will die. That's a fact.
> 
> Explain please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity.  The argument from IC to ID is simply:
> 
> 1. IC things cannot evolve
> 2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> Irreducible Complexity Demystified
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that explanation is nonsense.
Click to expand...


This is your "educated" response?  Hmm.  Not so educated, from the looks of it.




> "If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts."



So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff.  I agree.



> From your link, brother.



Erm, I'm not your brother.  None of my brothers are creationists.



> 1. A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvards Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data  around 700 terabytes  in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.
> The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).
> Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech
> 
> 
> 2. Richard Dawkins admits: [T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.2 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, p. 115, 1986
> 
> 
> 3. Darwin: small changes, passed on via reproduction, to progeny.
> But reproduction requires DNA to make identical copies....
> Based on the enormous size of the molecule such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all. . This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.



This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong).  Not all DNA is alike.  Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA.  And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.



> But, of course, a religious fanatic such as yourself requires neither proof nor logic.



Gee, more obfuscation.  How typical.



> If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....
> 
> Can I get an 'amen'?



So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll.  Nothing better to do?


----------



## Mad Scientist

orogenicman said:


> I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.


Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an &#8220;Above Average&#8221; person such as yourself?:
 In response to PoliticalChic:


orogenicman said:


> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?


----------



## Mad Scientist

Jeez, I even asked *politely* which is a rarity for me.

Perhaps from now on when answering a question I should just give a link to the online Encyclopedia Britannica eh? "The answer is in there, it's not my fault you are intellectually lazy".

Translation: "I can't really explain it myself either".


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a classic argument from irreducible complexity.  The argument from IC to ID is simply:
> 
> 1. IC things cannot evolve
> 2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed
> 
> Here is your answer.
> 
> Irreducible Complexity Demystified
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that explanation is nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your "educated" response?  Hmm.  Not so educated, from the looks of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff.  I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, I'm not your brother.  None of my brothers are creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong).  Not all DNA is alike.  Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA.  And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, of course, a religious fanatic such as yourself requires neither proof nor logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, more obfuscation.  How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....
> 
> Can I get an 'amen'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll.  Nothing better to do?
Click to expand...




1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.


2. I hate to embarrass you (just kiddin'...I love it) but why are you running away from the problem of the missing pre-Cambrian fossils?

Isn't proof a regularly anticipated aspect of science?

Oh....wait.....the theory isn't science.


3. And, actually, my view is that the theory of evolution is far more politics than science.
That's why you guys get as incensed when your religion...er, theory is disputed as Stalin did when Trotsky didn't agree.


So sorry, brother....I'm just not the totalitarian you are.


And, as you have no proof of the theory, I can save you a great deal of time in your posts.whatever anyone posts, just type Oh, yeahThats what you think! 



4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.


----------



## orogenicman

American Communist said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an Above Average person such as yourself?:
> In response to PoliticalChic:
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?


----------



## Mad Scientist

orogenicman said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an &#8220;Above Average&#8221; person such as yourself?:
> In response to PoliticalChic:
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?
Click to expand...

*Where* are the the Logical Fallacies and Plagiarisms of which you speak?

Point them out *one at a time*. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies and/or Plagiarism.


----------



## orogenicman

American Communist said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an Above Average person such as yourself?:
> In response to PoliticalChic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where* is the Logical Fallacy of which you speak?
> 
> Point them out *one at a time*. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies.
Click to expand...


She was quote mining  - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades.  It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make.  It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least.  Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything.  It only makes the user appear desperate.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an Above Average person such as yourself?:
> In response to PoliticalChic:
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?
Click to expand...



Try not to use words you don't understand, such as 'plagiarize.'


And, especially, don't use them to try to hide the fact that you were nailed in the argument.


Poor form.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, that explanation is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "educated" response?  Hmm.  Not so educated, from the looks of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff.  I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, I'm not your brother.  None of my brothers are creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong).  Not all DNA is alike.  Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA.  And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, more obfuscation.  How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....
> 
> Can I get an 'amen'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll.  Nothing better to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response.  I should have seen.  My bad.




> 2. I hate to embarrass you (just kiddin'...I love it) but why are you running away from the problem of the missing pre-Cambrian fossils?



Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



> 3. And, actually, my view is that the theory of evolution is far more politics than science.
> That's why you guys get as incensed when your religion...er, theory is disputed as Stalin did when Trotsky didn't agree.



Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it.  You creationists folks are doing that.  We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system.  And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen.  Sorry if this upsets you.  Tough titties.




> So sorry, brother....I'm just not the totalitarian you are.



Gee, more ad hominem.  Getting desperate, eh?



> And, as you have no proof of the theory, I can save you a great deal of time in your posts&#8230;.whatever anyone posts, just type &#8220;Oh, yeah&#8230;That&#8217;s what you think!&#8221;



Science is not about proof.  It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".



> 4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
> Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.



That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining.  Congratulations.  When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an Above Average person such as yourself?:
> In response to PoliticalChic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to use words you don't understand, such as 'plagiarize.'
> 
> 
> And, especially, don't use them to try to hide the fact that you were nailed in the argument.
> 
> 
> Poor form.
Click to expand...


Do you want me to demonstrate that you were plagiarizing (which is easily done), or will you simply admit that you made a mistake in not citing your source, and promise not to do it again?  (this should be interesting)


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> *Where* is the Logical Fallacy of which you speak?
> 
> Point them out *one at a time*. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was quote mining  - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades.  It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make.  It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least.  Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything.  It only makes the user appear desperate.
Click to expand...




Now, now....poor fella....

First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....

...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'




Back on track?

From the OP:

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution. 
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today." 
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. 
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. 

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.



The theory was shown to be bogus back in the 1860's....yet ignorant acolytes such as yourself are tricked into accepting it now.

Sad.

Did you ever go to college?

I mean a real one, not one of those pay-to-get-a-sheepskin mills.

(Don't answer if it's really embarrassing.)



If you ask nicely, I'll post an OP about the Cambrian Explosion....


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to use words you don't understand, such as 'plagiarize.'
> 
> 
> And, especially, don't use them to try to hide the fact that you were nailed in the argument.
> 
> 
> Poor form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want me to demonstrate that you were plagiarizing (which is easily done), or will you simply admit that you made a mistake in not citing your source, and promise not to do it again?  (this should be interesting)
Click to expand...




Is each of the quotes cited as to source?


Yes, or no?


----------



## rdean

Evolution:  The opposite of what has happened with the Republican Party.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "educated" response?  Hmm.  Not so educated, from the looks of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff.  I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, I'm not your brother.  None of my brothers are creationists.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong).  Not all DNA is alike.  Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA.  And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, more obfuscation.  How typical.
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll.  Nothing better to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response.  I should have seen.  My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it.  You creationists folks are doing that.  We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system.  And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen.  Sorry if this upsets you.  Tough titties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, more ad hominem.  Getting desperate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as you have no proof of the theory, I can save you a great deal of time in your posts.whatever anyone posts, just type Oh, yeahThats what you think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not about proof.  It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
> Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining.  Congratulations.  When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.
Click to expand...





Are you fibbing?

You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.

But, sadly....I won't be waiting.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Where* is the Logical Fallacy of which you speak?
> 
> Point them out *one at a time*. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was quote mining  - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades.  It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make.  It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least.  Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything.  It only makes the user appear desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now....poor fella....
> 
> First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....
> 
> ...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'
Click to expand...


That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic.  Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them).  I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.



> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."



Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today.  Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.

And yes, I did go to college.  I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology.  You?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was quote mining  - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades.  It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make.  It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least.  Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything.  It only makes the user appear desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now....poor fella....
> 
> First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....
> 
> ...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic.  Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them).  I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today.  Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.
> 
> And yes, I did go to college.  I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology.  You?
Click to expand...



"That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."

Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
That makes you a liar.


"I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."

Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.



So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?

"you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."

So....why haven't you documented same?


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response.  I should have seen.  My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it.  You creationists folks are doing that.  We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system.  And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen.  Sorry if this upsets you.  Tough titties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, more ad hominem.  Getting desperate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not about proof.  It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
> Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining.  Congratulations.  When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fibbing?
> 
> You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.
> 
> But, sadly....I won't be waiting.
Click to expand...


So you will be using the god of the gaps argument, will you?  Poor dear.

There are a few Precambrian sites that contain primitive arthropods, and even a few that contain what appear to be trilobite tracks.  PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Trilobites likely came from Precambrian bilaterians, of which there are several fossil examples.

As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty.  But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist.  Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable.  It certainly doesn't give you an excuse to proclaim (god did it), particularly when you have cited no evidence to support such a claim.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, *in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand*, *HOW* a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.
> 
> Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" isn't gonna' work.
> 
> Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your average person.  And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either.  You either learn or you don't.  Who do you want to be?  A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology.  I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings.  If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question.  Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer.  It's up to you to give an enlightened response.  I've given you my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't apologize for being less than average.
> 
> The board accepts all levels of posters.
Click to expand...

So far, he's kicking _your _ass.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now....poor fella....
> 
> First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....
> 
> ...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic.  Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them).  I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today.  Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.
> 
> And yes, I did go to college.  I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology.  You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."
> 
> Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
> That makes you a liar.
> 
> 
> "I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."
> 
> Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?
> 
> "you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."
> 
> So....why haven't you documented same?
Click to expand...


Two points, Miss PC.  I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price -  ).  Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution.  Evolution is already a well established science.  If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals.  Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results?  Here is one such resource:

Journal of Paleontology Home

Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers.  Alas, there is no free lunch.  Welcome to the real world.

Here is one of my papers.  Cheers,

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## Stashman

*The definition of evolution in a nutshell is: 
Man making a monkey out of himself.​*


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response.  I should have seen.  My bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it.  You creationists folks are doing that.  We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system.  And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen.  Sorry if this upsets you.  Tough titties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, more ad hominem.  Getting desperate, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not about proof.  It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining.  Congratulations.  When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fibbing?
> 
> You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.
> 
> But, sadly....I won't be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you will be using the god of the gaps argument, will you?  Poor dear.
> 
> There are a few Precambrian sites that contain primitive arthropods, and even a few that contain what appear to be trilobite tracks.  PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Trilobites likely came from Precambrian bilaterians, of which there are several fossil examples.
> 
> As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty.  But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist.  Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable.  It certainly doesn't give you an excuse to proclaim (god did it), particularly when you have cited no evidence to support such a claim.
Click to expand...





" just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist.  Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable."

Absolutely true.


My purpose is to point out that much of science is accepted on the same basis as much of religion.

Faith.

"Our atheistic scientist friends, Harris or Hitchens,  observe that many do not appear to be true in terms of contemporary science, i.e., Muhammad flying to Jerusalem on a horse named Borak.  Hitchens alertly notes that horses do not and cannot fly. And many of us in the faith community concur, and, in fact, reserve the right to decide which aspects of tradition are eternal truths and which are assigned to the allegory category. Ormust we be responsible to endorse every line as absolute and literal truth?

a.	*Should not the same requirement be assigned to the atheist scientists? Especially, as so many aspects of science, like everything else in life,  one must accept on faith.*

b.	*By what standard might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? *It may well be that "religious faith," as the philosopher Robert Todd Carroll has written, "is contrary to the sum of evidence," but if religious faith is found wanting, it is reasonable to ask for a restatement of the rule by which "the sum of evidence" is computed. 
By what standards might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? - Yahoo! Answers 
It seems that for our atheistic-scientists, there is only one rule: My way or the highway.   Sure doesnt sound like science.

See chapter three of Dr. David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion."


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical creationist obfuscation.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know.  As that WOULD refute evolution.  Good luck with that.  Darwin lived 150 years ago.  We've got more and better fossils today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from?  You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?
> 
> 
> Well...OK...
> 
> Here is your tutorial:
> pla·gia·rize
> /&#712;pl&#257;j&#601;&#716;r&#299;z/
> Verb
> Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own
> 
> 
> So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'
> 
> 
> More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Correct.  PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster.  Not an original thought in her head.  Which is why she identifies with Supergirl.  When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?


PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.

Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fibbing?
> 
> You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.
> 
> But, sadly....I won't be waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you will be using the god of the gaps argument, will you?  Poor dear.
> 
> There are a few Precambrian sites that contain primitive arthropods, and even a few that contain what appear to be trilobite tracks.  PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Trilobites likely came from Precambrian bilaterians, of which there are several fossil examples.
> 
> As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty.  But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist.  Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable.  It certainly doesn't give you an excuse to proclaim (god did it), particularly when you have cited no evidence to support such a claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist.  Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable."
> 
> Absolutely true.
> 
> 
> My purpose is to point out that much of science is accepted on the same basis as much of religion.
> 
> Faith.
Click to expand...


"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

-Thomas Paine.

In other words, repeatedly proclaiming claiming science to be akin to a religion is merely willful ignorance, and an admission that you've run out of arguments.  Congratulations.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic.  Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them).  I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today.  Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.
> 
> And yes, I did go to college.  I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology.  You?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."
> 
> Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
> That makes you a liar.
> 
> 
> "I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."
> 
> Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?
> 
> "you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."
> 
> So....why haven't you documented same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two points, Miss PC.  I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price -  ).  Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution.  Evolution is already a well established science.  If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals.  Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results?  Here is one such resource:
> 
> Journal of Paleontology Home
> 
> Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers.  Alas, there is no free lunch.  Welcome to the real world.
> 
> Here is one of my papers.  Cheers,
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...




1. " I am not your geology instructor...'
But...from the thread, it appears I am yours.

I've taught you both vocabulary and logic.

And, although it should embarrass you, honesty.




2. " it is not my place to defend evolution."

You're fibbing....again.

It was your purpose in joining the thread.



3. "If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals."

No there aren't.


And your post is diaphanous.....it is of one beating a hasty retreat, pretending it is not a defeat.




To review.

Darwin's theory required there to be pre-Cambrian fossils of trilobites and brachiopods that would document an assortment of small changes, some of which were adaptive, and passed on to progeny.

They don't exist.
The organisms that populated the Cambrian did so largely spontaneously. That is why it is known as the Cambrian Explosion.

In claiming that said documentation do exist, you are either lying or accepting pretend examples that others claim are 'almost' or 'close to' or 'could be.'



Your need to support what is clearly unproven is based on the following:

 Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the worlds leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:
 We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
 Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities:
 we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. 



It, and you, are as simple as that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical creationist obfuscation.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know.  As that WOULD refute evolution.  Good luck with that.  Darwin lived 150 years ago.  We've got more and better fossils today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you plagiarizing this crap from?  You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?
> 
> 
> Well...OK...
> 
> Here is your tutorial:
> pla·gia·rize
> /&#712;pl&#257;j&#601;&#716;r&#299;z/
> Verb
> Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own
> 
> 
> So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'
> 
> 
> More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster.  Not an original thought in her head.  Which is why she identifies with Supergirl.  When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.
> 
> Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?
Click to expand...




I note that you haven't confronted the OP...

No free time from your high stress job at Dairy Queen?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your average person.  And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either.  You either learn or you don't.  Who do you want to be?  A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology.  I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings.  If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question.  Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer.  It's up to you to give an enlightened response.  I've given you my answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't apologize for being less than average.
> 
> The board accepts all levels of posters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far, he's kicking _your _ass.
Click to expand...




I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad.  That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."
> 
> Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
> That makes you a liar.
> 
> 
> "I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."
> 
> Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.
> 
> 
> 
> So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?
> 
> "you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."
> 
> So....why haven't you documented same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two points, Miss PC.  I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price -  ).  Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution.  Evolution is already a well established science.  If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals.  Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results?  Here is one such resource:
> 
> Journal of Paleontology Home
> 
> Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers.  Alas, there is no free lunch.  Welcome to the real world.
> 
> Here is one of my papers.  Cheers,
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. " I am not your geology instructor...'
> But...from the thread, it appears I am yours.
Click to expand...


Dear, I doubt that you could pass a "rocks for jocks" class., much less anything at the graduate level.



> I've taught you both vocabulary and logic.
> 
> And, although it should embarrass you, honesty.



Okay, let's settle this, honestly.  I am offering you an honest challenge.  You should meet up with me (bring as many of your friends as you like and I will do so as well, for safety's sake).  We pick a place that we can agree on.  And then we go on a geologic field trip.  You can explain your knowledge of geology IN THE FEILD, and I can do the same.  Are you game for this?



> 2. " it is not my place to defend evolution."
> 
> You're fibbing....again.



How is what I said in any way a lie?



> It was your purpose in joining the thread.



My purpose was to expose your diatribe for the religious nonsense that it is.  It was mostly a wasted effort, as you did my job so aptly for me.  




> 3. "If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals."
> 
> No there aren't.



Erm, what planet did you say you are from?




> And your post is diaphanous.....it is of one beating a hasty retreat, pretending it is not a defeat.



I'm still here.  Where are you?



> To review.
> 
> Darwin's theory required there to be pre-Cambrian fossils of trilobites and brachiopods that would document an assortment of small changes, some of which were adaptive, and passed on to progeny.
> 
> They don't exist.



Now you are making shit up.  We don't need pre-Cambrian fossils to demonstrate the evolution of trilobites.  And while it is true that we likely have not found the species from which trilobites originated, trilobite evolution extends from at least the Cambrian to the Permian.  In that time interval, there arose and fell many species of trilobites, all indicating the transitions you seek.  But if you want to  discuss transitional species, you do realize, of course, that the notion of transitional species is a misnomer, right?  ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.  




> The organisms that populated the Cambrian did so largely spontaneously. That is why it is known as the Cambrian Explosion.



Again, you willfully ignore that science advances as knowledge is attained.  There was no Cambrian explosion, as the paper I posted previously pointed out.



> In claiming that said documentation do exist, you are either lying or accepting pretend examples that others claim are 'almost' or 'close to' or 'could be.'



In denying the mountains of data on these issues, you are telling the world that you've apparently "fallen and can't get up", that you've been stuck in your house all your life and have never seen the inside of a public library, much less picked up a science journal.  Truly, you have my deepest sympathy.



> Your need to support what is clearly unproven is based on the following:
> 
> Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the worlds leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:
> We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
> Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities:
> we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
> 
> It, and you, are as simple as that.



So what you are telling me is that your opposition to the theory of evolution is because you perceive this one geneticist to be a Marxist (and of course, you hate all Marxists, right)?  Yeah, there's no political agenda going on there, is there?  And no quote mining, either.  Oh wait...


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't apologize for being less than average.
> 
> The board accepts all levels of posters.
> 
> 
> 
> So far, he's kicking _your _ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.
Click to expand...


Says the Ann Coulter wannabe.  You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two points, Miss PC.  I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price -  ).  Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution.  Evolution is already a well established science.  If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals.  Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results?  Here is one such resource:
> 
> Journal of Paleontology Home
> 
> Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers.  Alas, there is no free lunch.  Welcome to the real world.
> 
> Here is one of my papers.  Cheers,
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. " I am not your geology instructor...'
> But...from the thread, it appears I am yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, I doubt that you could pass a "rocks for jocks" class., much less anything at the graduate level.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's settle this, honestly.  I am offering you an honest challenge.  You should meet up with me (bring as many of your friends as you like and I will do so as well, for safety's sake).  We pick a place that we can agree on.  And then we go on a geologic field trip.  You can explain your knowledge of geology IN THE FEILD, and I can do the same.  Are you game for this?
> 
> 
> 
> How is what I said in any way a lie?
> 
> 
> 
> My purpose was to expose your diatribe for the religious nonsense that it is.  It was mostly a wasted effort, as you did my job so aptly for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what planet did you say you are from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still here.  Where are you?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making shit up.  We don't need pre-Cambrian fossils to demonstrate the evolution of trilobites.  And while it is true that we likely have not found the species from which trilobites originated, trilobite evolution extends from at least the Cambrian to the Permian.  In that time interval, there arose and fell many species of trilobites, all indicating the transitions you seek.  But if you want to  discuss transitional species, you do realize, of course, that the notion of transitional species is a misnomer, right?  ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you willfully ignore that science advances as knowledge is attained.  There was no Cambrian explosion, as the paper I posted previously pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In claiming that said documentation do exist, you are either lying or accepting pretend examples that others claim are 'almost' or 'close to' or 'could be.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In denying the mountains of data on these issues, you are telling the world that you've apparently "fallen and can't get up", that you've been stuck in your house all your life and have never seen the inside of a public library, much less picked up a science journal.  Truly, you have my deepest sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to support what is clearly unproven is based on the following:
> 
> Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the worlds leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:
> We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
> Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities:
> we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
> 
> It, and you, are as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are telling me is that your opposition to the theory of evolution is because you perceive this one geneticist to be a Marxist (and of course, you hate all Marxists, right)?  Yeah, there's no political agenda going on there, is there?  And no quote mining, either.  Oh wait...
Click to expand...





1. "Dear, I doubt that you could pass a "rocks for jocks" class., much less anything at the graduate level."
Your major must have been obfuscation. That means hiding the subject.


2. " You should meet up with me"
Yeah, that'll happen.
Try cocoa butter for the marks from those 10-foot poles.


3." How is what I said in any way a lie?"
You claimed you didn't come here to defend evolution.
Clearly you did.


4. "My purpose was to expose your diatribe for the religious nonsense that it is."
You exposed nothing. 
But you did reveal ignorance and dishonesty.


5. "We don't need pre-Cambrian fossils to demonstrate the evolution of trilobites.  And while it is true that we likely *have not found the species from which trilobites originated,*...
Bogus. Of course you need 'em....or Darwin's theory is dead.


a. " all indicating the transitions you seek."
Nonsense.
They don't exist...as you admit....how stupid must you be to now claim that they 'indicate.'


6. "But if you want to  discuss transitional species,"
Discuss???

I beat you like a rented mule.

I stated my premise in an OP....you tried to dismiss it....and failed miserably, as you have everything else you've ever tried.
Advice: skip sky diving.



7. "In denying the mountains of data on these issues,..."
This isn't public school; you don't have to look to regurgitate what the prof told you.
I denied one thing.
You are unable to counter that denial.
QED, my point is in ascendance.


8. " There was no Cambrian explosion,..."
"Around 530 million years ago, a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene in an event known as the Cambrian explosion."
Evolution 101: The Big Issues

You're an idiot.


a. "In denying the *mountains of data* on these issues,..."

"... the *sparseness* of the pre-Cambrian fossil record..."
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

See if someone who speaks English can explain how 'mountains of data' is squashed by the word 'sparseness.'





Explaining this complex situation to you is like putting an elevator in an out-house.

But...Im proud of you! 
Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!


Drop by anytime you require a smack-down.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, he's kicking _your _ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the Ann Coulter wannabe.  You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.
Click to expand...




Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.

Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....


----------



## orogenicman

OMG, this is like trying to converse with an idiotbot.  The more you converse with it, the more idiotic it becomes!

When you decide to have a conversation in the land of the living, let me know.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Ann Coulter wannabe.  You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.
> 
> Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....
Click to expand...


Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches?  Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the Ann Coulter wannabe.  You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YzbODb9To
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.
> 
> Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches?  Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?
Click to expand...




Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!

You were the first in your family born without a tail!


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.
> 
> Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches?  Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!
> 
> You were the first in your family born without a tail!
Click to expand...


What?  You still have one?  Wow.  That's amazing.  Do you charge $5.00 per show?  Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50.  Anyone have any change I can borrow.  You don't have a boney butt, do you?  I can abide a boney butt.


----------



## Mad Scientist

orogenicman said:


> Says the Ann Coulter wannabe.  You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YzbODb9To


Well if I had to choose between Ann Coulter and say, Joyless Behar...

Plus, Conservatives don't have a Fetish for fat, man hating feminists who smell like old, sweaty, luncheon meat.

You find any of that "enlightening"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches?  Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!
> 
> You were the first in your family born without a tail!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  You still have one?  Wow.  That's amazing.  Do you charge $5.00 per show?  Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50.  Anyone have any change I can borrow.  You don't have a boney butt, do you?  I can abide a boney butt.
Click to expand...




Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?


----------



## orogenicman

Yeah, well, some think that conservative women are more attractive, that is, until they open their mouths.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!
> 
> You were the first in your family born without a tail!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  You still have one?  Wow.  That's amazing.  Do you charge $5.00 per show?  Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50.  Anyone have any change I can borrow.  You don't have a boney butt, do you?  I can abide a boney butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?
Click to expand...



My challenge still stands.  I have made the same challenge to dozens of cretinists, and none of them have taken me up on the challenge.  I guess they are to chicken shit, eh?  Put your money where your mouth is.  You say you are better at geology than I am.  Prove it.  Let's go into the field and see who's the better geologist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> Yeah, well, some think that conservative women are more attractive, that is, until they open their mouths.



Meaning until they destroy you in an argument.

Yup, small men are that way.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, some think that conservative women are more attractive, that is, until they open their mouths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning until they destroy you in an argument.
> 
> Yup, small men are that way.
Click to expand...


You couldn't destroy a liberal with a fart - well, okay.   I'll give you that one.

My challenge still stands. I have made the same challenge to dozens of cretinists, and none of them have taken me up on the challenge. I guess they are to chicken shit, eh? Put your money where your mouth is. You say you are better at geology than I am. Prove it. Let's go into the field and see who's the better geologist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  You still have one?  Wow.  That's amazing.  Do you charge $5.00 per show?  Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50.  Anyone have any change I can borrow.  You don't have a boney butt, do you?  I can abide a boney butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My challenge still stands.  I have made the same challenge to dozens of cretinists, and none of them have taken me up on the challenge.  I guess they are to chicken shit, eh?  Put your money where your mouth is.  You say you are better at geology than I am.  Prove it.  Let's go into the field and see who's the better geologist.
Click to expand...





Moron, you can run but you can't hide.

The dispute in which you were just mightily thrashed was clearly delineated in the OP.

It speaks to the Darwinian theory of evolution.



Now...you may attempt to change the subject, or, what appears, either to save face or to find some similar misanthrope willing to hang out with you.....
...clearly you've been unsuccessful at that endeavor in the past, for obvious reasons....

...but in any case, your attempt to pretend that the discussion was other than it was is transparent.



David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation has.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Well, none of that is correct.  Who taught you how to write, by the way?  I only ask because, damn!
> 
> First of all, you don't get to re-define terms.  Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution.  And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous).  Moreover, Stephen Meyer?  Really?  O-M-G.  EPIC FAIL.
> 
> Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits.  In the first case, man is the agent producing change.  In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change.  A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection.  In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion.  But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.  But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent.  How weird is that!



Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.

Unfortunately, you are not that person.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, none of that is correct.  Who taught you how to write, by the way?  I only ask because, damn!
> 
> First of all, you don't get to re-define terms.  Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution.  And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous).  Moreover, Stephen Meyer?  Really?  O-M-G.  EPIC FAIL.
> 
> Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits.  In the first case, man is the agent producing change.  In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change.  A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection.  In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion.  But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.  But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent.  How weird is that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are not that person.
Click to expand...


Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.



Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.

Faith 

1_ a_ *:* allegiance to duty or a person *:* loyalty   
_   b _ _(1)_ *:* fidelity to one's promises  _(2)_ *:* sincerity of intentions 

2_ a _ _(1)_ *:* belief and trust in and loyalty to God  _(2)_ *:* belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion   
_   b _ _(1)_ *:* firm belief in something for which there is no proof  _(2)_ *:* complete trust 

3*:* something that is believed especially with strong conviction; _especially_ *:* a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant _faith_>

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the closest you can get to your definition is belief in something without proof. Fore example, there is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists. It has never been detected, and may never be because, if it exists, it does not interact with normal matter. That does not mean that there is no evidence it exist, for one thing, the universe could not exist if something wasn't holding it together, and dark matter seems to make more sense as an explanation that unicorn farts. 

Faith is belief in something because the evidence you have allows you to believe in it, even if you do not proof. Intelligence is understanding the difference between faith and delusion.

Come back when you grow a brain.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.
> 
> Faith
> 
> 1_ a_ *:* allegiance to duty or a person *:* loyalty
> _   b _ _(1)_ *:* fidelity to one's promises  _(2)_ *:* sincerity of intentions
> 
> 2_ a _ _(1)_ *:* belief and trust in and loyalty to God  _(2)_ *:* belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
> _   b _ _(1)_ *:* firm belief in something for which there is no proof  _(2)_ *:* complete trust
> 
> 3*:* something that is believed especially with strong conviction; _especially_ *:* a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant _faith_>
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


I suppose you glossed over 2b, eh?  



> the closest you can get to your definition is belief in something without proof.



Duh.



> Fore example, there is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists.



This is true.  There is no proof that dark matter exists.  That's because science is not about proofs.  Proofs fall to the realm of mathematics and philosophy.  Science is evidence-based.  And if it is evidence you want, there certainly is evidence for dark energy, albeit, indirect evidence.  But don't just argue from the god of the gaps.  Physics is heavily concentrated on trying to understand exactly what dark matter is, so stay tuned.



> It has never been detected, and may never be because, if it exists, it does not interact with normal matter. That does not mean that there is no evidence it exist, for one thing, the universe could not exist if something wasn't holding it together, and dark matter seems to make more sense as an explanation that unicorn farts.



I would tend to agree.  Dark matter makes more sense than unicorn farts.



> Faith is belief in something because the evidence you have allows you to believe in it, even if you do not proof. Intelligence is understanding the difference between faith and delusion.



2b - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  I hate to break it to you, but I have no idea what you thought you were trying to explain, but it seems to me that you walked yourself into a corner here.  I say that because as you explain it, faith certainly does appear to have remarkable similarity to delusion.  



> Come back when you grow a brain.



And we are back to the issue that prevents you from having a conversation with - well, pretty much anyone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, none of that is correct.  Who taught you how to write, by the way?  I only ask because, damn!
> 
> First of all, you don't get to re-define terms.  Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution.  And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous).  Moreover, Stephen Meyer?  Really?  O-M-G.  EPIC FAIL.
> 
> Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits.  In the first case, man is the agent producing change.  In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change.  A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection.  In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion.  But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.  But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent.  How weird is that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are not that person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.
Click to expand...


Did my honest assessment of your level of education on a very difficult subject offend you? 

I suggest you start educating by yourself by learning that natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is the end result of evolution.

Natural selection


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take anything on faith.  Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence.  As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.
> 
> Faith
> 
> 1_ a_ *:* allegiance to duty or a person *:* loyalty
> _   b _ _(1)_ *:* fidelity to one's promises  _(2)_ *:* sincerity of intentions
> 
> 2_ a _ _(1)_ *:* belief and trust in and loyalty to God  _(2)_ *:* belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
> _   b _ _(1)_ *:* firm belief in something for which there is no proof  _(2)_ *:* complete trust
> 
> 3*:* something that is believed especially with strong conviction; _especially_ *:* a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant _faith_>
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you glossed over 2b, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  There is no proof that dark matter exists.  That's because science is not about proofs.  Proofs fall to the realm of mathematics and philosophy.  Science is evidence-based.  And if it is evidence you want, there certainly is evidence for dark energy, albeit, indirect evidence.  But don't just argue from the god of the gaps.  Physics is heavily concentrated on trying to understand exactly what dark matter is, so stay tuned.
> 
> 
> 
> I would tend to agree.  Dark matter makes more sense than unicorn farts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is belief in something because the evidence you have allows you to believe in it, even if you do not proof. Intelligence is understanding the difference between faith and delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2b - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  I hate to break it to you, but I have no idea what you thought you were trying to explain, but it seems to me that you walked yourself into a corner here.  I say that because as you explain it, faith certainly does appear to have remarkable similarity to delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come back when you grow a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we are back to the issue that prevents you from having a conversation with - well, pretty much anyone.
Click to expand...


I skipped over 2b? Would it help next time if I point to the specific thing I am discussing in order facilitate your non average intelligence to follow my train of though?

Next lesson, the difference between evidence and proof.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.
> 
> Unfortunately, you are not that person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did my honest assessment of your level of education on a very difficult subject offend you?
Click to expand...


Well, if your assessment contained a modicum of honesty or was even remotely accurate, you might have a point.



> I suggest you start educating by yourself by learning that natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is the end result of evolution.
> 
> Natural selection





Erm, you actually thought that that web site supports your thesis that "natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is an end result of evolution"?  Oh my.  Since you are obviously so much smarter than I am (cough, cough), you'll have to explain how that works.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.
> 
> Faith
> 
> 1_ a_ *:* allegiance to duty or a person *:* loyalty
> _   b _ _(1)_ *:* fidelity to one's promises  _(2)_ *:* sincerity of intentions
> 
> 2_ a _ _(1)_ *:* belief and trust in and loyalty to God  _(2)_ *:* belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
> _   b _ _(1)_ *:* firm belief in something for which there is no proof  _(2)_ *:* complete trust
> 
> 3*:* something that is believed especially with strong conviction; _especially_ *:* a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant _faith_>
> 
> Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you glossed over 2b, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true.  There is no proof that dark matter exists.  That's because science is not about proofs.  Proofs fall to the realm of mathematics and philosophy.  Science is evidence-based.  And if it is evidence you want, there certainly is evidence for dark energy, albeit, indirect evidence.  But don't just argue from the god of the gaps.  Physics is heavily concentrated on trying to understand exactly what dark matter is, so stay tuned.
> 
> 
> 
> I would tend to agree.  Dark matter makes more sense than unicorn farts.
> 
> 2b - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".  I hate to break it to you, but I have no idea what you thought you were trying to explain, but it seems to me that you walked yourself into a corner here.  I say that because as you explain it, faith certainly does appear to have remarkable similarity to delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come back when you grow a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we are back to the issue that prevents you from having a conversation with - well, pretty much anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I skipped over 2b? Would it help next time if I point to the specific thing I am discussing in order facilitate your non average intelligence to follow my train of though?
> 
> Next lesson, the difference between evidence and proof.
Click to expand...


Not necessary.  Here's how it works.  I place a pencil in my hand.  I drop the pencil.  The pencil lands on the floor.  That is evidence for gravity.  There is no faith involved in believing that in a gravity field, if I release an object I am holding in my hand, it will follow the path designated for it by the gravity well in which it resides.  It is evidence-based.  It is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable.  On the other hand, "God did it" is not evidence based.  It is faith-based, revelation-based.  There is no experiment one can conduct that could ever satisfy the statement.  It is not predictable, repeatable, or falsifiable.  And as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out:



> It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication  after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.



Personal revelation is the purview of religion, not science.  The purview of science is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?
> 
> 
> Well...OK...
> 
> Here is your tutorial:
> pla·gia·rize
> /&#712;pl&#257;j&#601;&#716;r&#299;z/
> Verb
> Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own
> 
> 
> So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'
> 
> 
> More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster.  Not an original thought in her head.  Which is why she identifies with Supergirl.  When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.
> 
> Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you haven't confronted the OP...
> 
> No free time from your high stress job at Dairy Queen?
Click to expand...



Those _*Blizzards*_® ain't gonna make themselves!


----------



## ScienceRocks

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster.  Not an original thought in her head.  Which is why she identifies with Supergirl.  When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.
> 
> Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you haven't confronted the OP...
> 
> No free time from your high stress job at Dairy Queen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those _*Blizzards*_® ain't gonna make themselves!
Click to expand...


Pretty soon there will be a robot that makes them. You just put the money in as you do the pop machine.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did my honest assessment of your level of education on a very difficult subject offend you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if your assessment contained a modicum of honesty or was even remotely accurate, you might have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you start educating by yourself by learning that natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is the end result of evolution.
> 
> Natural selection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, you actually thought that that web site supports your thesis that "natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is an end result of evolution"?  Oh my.  Since you are obviously so much smarter than I am (cough, cough), you'll have to explain how that works.
Click to expand...


I am sorry, I forgot who I was talking to, reading 215 words is apparently to much of a challenge.



> If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will  have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as  that.



It isn't your fault your teachers lied, they were never taught how it works either.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Not necessary.  Here's how it works.  I place a pencil in my hand.  I drop the pencil.  The pencil lands on the floor.  That is evidence for gravity.



Actually, if you understood anything about the way the universe works,  you would know that all dropping a pencil proves is that you are under  acceleration. But I do appreciate your efforts.

By the way, if you believe that, I have a brand new bridge to sell you, it isn't even open yet.



orogenicman said:


> There is no faith involved in believing that in a gravity field, if I release an object I am holding in my hand, it will follow the path designated for it by the gravity well in which it resides.



Why are you using words when you just clearly demonstrated that you don't understand them? Is it an effort to appear intelligent?

It isn't working.



orogenicman said:


> It is evidence-based.  It is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable.



What you just described is exactly what evolution is not. 



orogenicman said:


> On the other hand, "God did it" is not evidence based.  It is faith-based, revelation-based.  There is no experiment one can conduct that could ever satisfy the statement.



First, I never said God did anything. All I did was point out that you do not understand evolution.

Come to think of it, you don't understand gravity either, which is a lot easier to grasp then evolution.



orogenicman said:


> It is not predictable, repeatable, or falsifiable.  And as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication  after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
> 
> 
> 
> Personal revelation is the purview of religion, not science.  The purview of science is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.
Click to expand...


Sounds a lot like your attempt to defend evolution. You did not obtain the knowledge yourself, you relied on reading something one person said about what another person did. I suggest you read Darwin's "_*On the Origin of Species*_," at least then you will be getting your knowledge from the person who had the revelation.

By the way, if you think science has nothing to do with revealing knowledge, how do you explain the entire field of nuclear physics? How about quantum mechanics? And if science ever nails down gravity and ties it in with everything else that will reveal quite a few things about the structure of the universe.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary.  Here's how it works.  I place a pencil in my hand.  I drop the pencil.  The pencil lands on the floor.  That is evidence for gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you understood anything about the way the universe works,  you would know that all dropping a pencil proves is that you are under  acceleration. But I do appreciate your efforts.
Click to expand...


Being a geologist and an amateur astronomer, I'd say that I do understand gravity quite well.  I find it interesting that in your response you left out the fact that that the acceleration is "due to gravity"!

This is the gravity due to the Earth to the object with mass m
 r is the distance from the center of the mass m and the center of the earth 
 F is the gravitational force
 G is gravitational constant:

 F = G m/ r^2

 If we say only the gravity force, So net force = ma
 F = G m / r^2 = m a
 a = *G* / r^2

 where a is the acceleration *due to gravity*.  Next.



			
				Windbag dude said:
			
		

> By the way, if you believe that, I have a brand new bridge to sell you, it isn't even open yet.



Gee, I hope it isn't one you built, because with your poor understanding of gravity, damn.



orogenicman said:


> There is no faith involved in believing that in a gravity field, if I release an object I am holding in my hand, it will follow the path designated for it by the gravity well in which it resides.





			
				Windbag dude said:
			
		

> Why are you using words when you just clearly demonstrated that you don't understand them? Is it an effort to appear intelligent?
> 
> It isn't working.



Obviously you don't get it.  Do I need to repeat myself?



			
				Windbag dude said:
			
		

> What you just described is exactly what evolution is not.



Excuse me while I laugh out loud.  lol.  There.  I feel much better now.



			
				Windbag dude said:
			
		

> First, I never said God did anything. All I did was point out that you do not understand evolution.
> 
> Come to think of it, you don't understand gravity either, which is a lot easier to grasp then evolution.



Right, that's why I am published in the journal of invertebrate Paleontology, and you are not:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



orogenicman said:


> It is not predictable, repeatable, or falsifiable.  And as Thomas Paine aptly pointed out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication  after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
> 
> 
> 
> Personal revelation is the purview of religion, not science.  The purview of science is predictable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence.
Click to expand...




			
				Windbag dude said:
			
		

> Sounds a lot like your attempt to defend evolution. You did not obtain the knowledge yourself, you relied on reading something one person said about what another person did. I suggest you read Darwin's "_*On the Origin of Species*_," at least then you will be getting your knowledge from the person who had the revelation.



Darwin was the first word on evolution (actually, he wasn't even the first), not the last.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



			
				Windbag dude said:
			
		

> By the way, if you think science has nothing to do with revealing knowledge, how do you explain the entire field of nuclear physics? How about quantum mechanics? And if science ever nails down gravity and ties it in with everything else that will reveal quite a few things about the structure of the universe.



The difference between religion and science is that unlike religion, the knowledge that science reveals is NOT first person in nature.  You don't have to take my word for it.  You can conduct an experiment and refute or verify my claim or do the same for anyone else's, including your own.  Got anything like that?


----------



## CookedOnChronic

orogenicman said:


> Well, none of that is correct.  Who taught you how to write, by the way?  I only ask because, damn!
> 
> First of all, you don't get to re-define terms.  Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution.  And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous).  Moreover, Stephen Meyer?  Really?  O-M-G.  EPIC FAIL.
> 
> Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits.  In the first case, man is the agent producing change.  In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change.  A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection.  In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion.  But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result.  But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent.  How weird is that!



As you said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Being a geologist and an amateur astronomer, I'd say that I do understand gravity quite well.  I find it interesting that in your response you left out the fact that that the acceleration is "due to gravity"!



You study dirt, and you think that proves you understand relativity?

You claimed that dropping a pencil is evidence of gravity, it isn't. It is entirely possible that you are in a closed system that is accelerating in the direction directly opposite to the one in which the pencil falls. A good example of this is if you dropped that same pencil aboard the old shuttle when it was accelerating into orbit. It would fall toward the rear of the shuttle, even if you did it when the shuttle appeared to be upside down to someone standing on the surface of the Earth. That is because, despite your massive ignorance, it actually takes less energy to launch something straight up 230 miles than to put it into orbit with the International Space Station. 

It is also why when you drop that pencil on the ISS it doesn't fall toward the center of the Earth, despite the fact that there is plenty of gravity up there.



orogenicman said:


> This is the gravity due to the Earth to the object with mass m
> r is the distance from the center of the mass m and the center of the earth
> F is the gravitational force
> G is gravitational constant:
> 
> F = G m/ r^2
> 
> If we say only the gravity force, So net force = ma
> F = G m / r^2 = m a
> a = *G* / r^2
> 
> where a is the acceleration *due to gravity*.  Next.



Wow, if I had read this before I posted the first part of my reply I could have saved myself all that typing. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the joy of bitch slapping you for your ignorance twice in one post.

The equation you want here is F=mMG/R^2

F=Force due to the gravity between the two objects.
m=Mass of the first object.
M=Mass of the second object.
G=Gravitational constant of 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
R is the distance between the two objects.

Want to try and teach me again? 

Please?



orogenicman said:


> Gee, I hope it isn't one you built, because with your poor understanding of gravity, damn.



As opposed to yours, which totally ignores the fact that it takes two different masses before gravity even exists?



orogenicman said:


> Obviously you don't get it.  Do I need to repeat myself?



This from the guy that is using an equation that will come up with the wrong answer every single time because he left out one of the variables.

Then again, you are one of the dirt people.




orogenicman said:


> Excuse me while I laugh out loud.  lol.  There.  I feel much better now.



Not nearly as good as I do, but keep laughing.



orogenicman said:


> Right, that's why I am published in the journal of invertebrate Paleontology, and you are not:
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



Even if that link actually worked, and is actually a link to something you wrote, all it proves is that you paid to have you article published.



> [FONT=&quot]*Articles*[/FONT][FONT=&quot]* are *[/FONT][FONT=&quot]up to *40 printed pages*.               Authors are asked to pay as much of the page charges as               they can for articles               of all lengths. Paying *extra page                 charges is mandatory *for articles that run *2640 pages. Check with editorial staff for the                 current page rate char*ged               by Allen Press.[/FONT]



Journal of Paleontology Instructions for Authors

Damn, I actually know how scientific journals work, and know how to find their submission guidelines. Could it be that I am actually a writer?

The difference between us is I don't pay to get my work published, and real people read it.



orogenicman said:


> Darwin was the first word on evolution (actually, he wasn't even the first), not the last.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



I didn't know about all the people from Anaximander to Lamarck? Where the fuck do you think Darwin got the stupid idea to call it natural selection? Why do you think I suggested you read his book?



orogenicman said:


> The difference between religion and science is that unlike religion, the knowledge that science reveals is NOT first person in nature.  You don't have to take my word for it.  You can conduct an experiment and refute or verify my claim or do the same for anyone else's, including your own.  Got anything like that?



I hate to burst your bubble, but you cannot use philosophy to argue that science is better than religion. It becomes even more difficult when you don't properly use the terms.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a geologist and an amateur astronomer, I'd say that I do understand gravity quite well.  I find it interesting that in your response you left out the fact that that the acceleration is "due to gravity"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You study dirt, and you think that proves you understand relativity?
Click to expand...


OMG, really?  Because we are talking about dropping friggin pencils in Earth's gravity field, not refracting the light of galaxies around other galaxies.  We aren't talking about relativity here, pal (we are talking about Newtonian physics), but thanks for squirming so loudly at my answer that you woke up my neighbors even though you are somewhere else on the planet.  



> You claimed that dropping a pencil is evidence of gravity, it isn't. It is entirely possible that you are in a closed system that is accelerating in the direction directly opposite to the one in which the pencil falls. A good example of this is if you dropped that same pencil aboard the old shuttle when it was accelerating into orbit. It would fall toward the rear of the shuttle, even if you did it when the shuttle appeared to be upside down to someone standing on the surface of the Earth. That is because, despite your massive ignorance, it actually takes less energy to launch something straight up 230 miles than to put it into orbit with the International Space Station.



Except that I am NOT on the space shuttle, or the ISS, or in orbit around your mother's vagina.  I am sitting here on the surface of the Earth, a large rocky world with lots of mass that has an acceleration due to gravity of 9.776 m/s2 near the equator or at high elevation to 9.832 m/s2 at the poles.  There is nothing unambiguous or make believe about these numbers.  And here where I am sitting, due to the gravity that exists on THIS EARTH, the pencil falls towards and strikes the ground.  Now, it may strike somewhere else in your make believe world, or whatever planet on which you live, but here on this planet, that's what it does.



> It is also why when you drop that pencil on the ISS it doesn't fall toward the center of the Earth, despite the fact that there is plenty of gravity up there.



Well, it is apparent from your lame attempt at obfuscation that you are 5 cans shy of a six pack.  You have my sympathy.



orogenicman said:


> This is the gravity due to the Earth to the object with mass m
> r is the distance from the center of the mass m and the center of the earth
> F is the gravitational force
> G is gravitational constant:
> 
> F = G m/ r^2
> 
> If we say only the gravity force, So net force = ma
> F = G m / r^2 = m a
> a = *G* / r^2
> 
> where a is the acceleration *due to gravity*.  Next.





> Wow, if I had read this before I posted the first part of my reply I could have saved myself all that typing. On the other hand, I wouldn't have had the joy of bitch slapping you for your ignorance twice in one post.
> 
> The equation you want here is F=mMG/R^2
> 
> F=Force due to the gravity between the two objects.
> m=Mass of the first object.
> M=Mass of the second object.
> G=Gravitational constant of 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg^-1 s^-2
> R is the distance between the two objects.
> 
> Want to try and teach me again?
> 
> Please?



Yes, you are correct, the first  equation should have included a large M for the mass of the Earth.  The entire point of this exercise, which you are intentionally skirting,  being that faith doesn't enter into it.  Not even remotely.  It is testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable.  You can use it to build bridges, sky scrapers, and launch rockets to Saturn if you want to.  Has anyone ever done that by simply saying "god did it"?  Of course not.



> Even if that link actually worked, and is actually a link to something you wrote, all it proves is that you paid to have you article published.



Try it.  The link works.  The research was paid for by a grant from the National Science Foundation.  And yes, I was one of the co-authors.  I may be many things, but I am not known to be a liar.

http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.o...act?related-urls=yes&legid=gsjpaleo;74/6/1072 



orogenicman said:


> Darwin was the first word on evolution (actually, he wasn't even the first), not the last.  You didn't know this?  Huh.





> I didn't know about all the people from Anaximander to Lamarck? Where the fuck do you think Darwin got the stupid idea to call it natural selection? Why do you think I suggested you read his book?



Because you don't have any imagination?  The point is that 150 years+ have elapsed since Darwin wrote his book.  We know a lot of things that Darwin didn't know.  We have mountains more data than he did.  And yet, much of what he wrote (but not all) Is still valid today.  Still, the theory has been much refined from those early days.  Obfuscate all you care to, you are not going to squirm your way out of the fact that evolution is a valid scientific theory.



orogenicman said:


> The difference between religion and science is that unlike religion, the knowledge that science reveals is NOT first person in nature.  You don't have to take my word for it.  You can conduct an experiment and refute or verify my claim or do the same for anyone else's, including your own.  Got anything like that?





> I hate to burst your bubble, but you cannot use philosophy to argue that science is better than religion. It becomes even more difficult when you don't properly use the terms.



I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't say that science is better than religion.  I said that they were intrinsically different.  But since you brought it up, when it comes to conducting empirical investigations, science trumps religion EVERY SINGLE TIME.  And that is not a philosophical argument.  It is a fact.  Refute that, and you may have a convert (clue - don't hold your breath).


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it. 

Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.


----------



## orogenicman

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.
> 
> Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.



Indeed.  Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.


----------



## orogenicman

.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.
> 
> Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.
Click to expand...






You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.



Wise up:
You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.
> 
> Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise up:
> You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......
Click to expand...


In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -


----------



## editec

Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?

Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?

Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise up:
> You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -
Click to expand...




The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.


Lies mean that your position is indefensible.

Isn't that true?


----------



## PoliticalChic

editec said:


> Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?
> 
> Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?
> 
> Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?







3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution. 
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today." 
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. 
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. 

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise up:
> You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.
Click to expand...


Putting words in my mouth is not going to help your case.  I didn't say that those fossils don't exist.  I said they hadn't been found yet.  And what I may or may not say (I didn't) in another post is irrelevant to the fact of - oh look, fossil:






No comment on the image, above?



> Lies mean that your position is indefensible.
> 
> Isn't that true?



What lie, where?  Oh the one you just said about me?  So you will be lying for Jesus now?  I wonder if that is what Jesus would do?


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?
> 
> Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?
> 
> Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
> Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
> It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
> 
> Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
Click to expand...


Fossils that miss creation princess here doesn't believe exist:

The Precambrian Fossil Record


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?
> 
> Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?
> 
> Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
> Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
> It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
> 
> Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossils that miss creation princess here doesn't believe exist:
> 
> The Precambrian Fossil Record
Click to expand...




Another lie, you disgusting little worm.

Trilobites 

Brachiopods.



You try to obfuscate with other than the above.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> OMG, really?  Because we are talking about dropping friggin pencils in Earth's gravity field, not refracting the light of galaxies around other galaxies.  We aren't talking about relativity here, pal (we are talking about Newtonian physics), but thanks for squirming so loudly at my answer that you woke up my neighbors even though you are somewhere else on the planet.



When the hell were we talking about dropping pencils in Earths gravity field? All you said is that dropping a pencil is evidence of gravity, I countered with the point that all it really provides is evidence of acceleration. For some reason this truth offended you, and you tried to use the wrong formula to prove that you know what you are talking about.

FYI, even if all we are talking about is dropping a pencil from 3 feet above the surface of the Earth while not moving relative to the surface of the Earth we are talking about relativity. Real scientists know that, which is why you play in the dirt.



orogenicman said:


> Except that I am NOT on the space shuttle, or the ISS, or in orbit around your mother's vagina.  I am sitting here on the surface of the Earth, a large rocky world with lots of mass that has an acceleration due to gravity of 9.776 m/s2 near the equator or at high elevation to 9.832 m/s2 at the poles.  There is nothing unambiguous or make believe about these numbers.  And here where I am sitting, due to the gravity that exists on THIS EARTH, the pencil falls towards and strikes the ground.  Now, it may strike somewhere else in your make believe world, or whatever planet on which you live, but here on this planet, that's what it does.



You found a reference that gave you the right numbers, good for you. 

FYI, you can now use the formula F=mg. The difference between this formula, and the one you were trying to use, F=mG, is that g is the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth and G is the universal gravitational constant. You are making progress, and, hopefully, learned something.



orogenicman said:


> Well, it is apparent from your lame attempt at obfuscation that you are 5 cans shy of a six pack.  You have my sympathy.



Did I confuse you?



orogenicman said:


> Yes, you are correct, the first  equation should have included a large M for the mass of the Earth.  The entire point of this exercise, which you are intentionally skirting,  being that faith doesn't enter into it.  Not even remotely.  It is testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable.  You can use it to build bridges, sky scrapers, and launch rockets to Saturn if you want to.  Has anyone ever done that by simply saying "god did it"?  Of course not.



You don't have faith that plugging the same numbers into the equation will end up with the same result? 

Faith enters into everything, you just don't want to use the word because you don't like it. That is not my problem.



orogenicman said:


> Try it.  The link works.  The research was paid for by a grant from the National Science Foundation.  And yes, I was one of the co-authors.  I may be many things, but I am not known to be a liar.
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)



Everyone is known to be a liar because everyone lies. Not liking that does not make it less true.



orogenicman said:


> Because you don't have any imagination?  The point is that 150 years+ have elapsed since Darwin wrote his book.  We know a lot of things that Darwin didn't know.  We have mountains more data than he did.  And yet, much of what he wrote (but not all) Is still valid today.  Still, the theory has been much refined from those early days.  Obfuscate all you care to, you are not going to squirm your way out of the fact that evolution is a valid scientific theory.



Yes, we know like that natural selection is a random process, and, as such, does not guide anything.



orogenicman said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but I didn't say that science is better than religion.  I said that they were intrinsically different.  But since you brought it up, when it comes to conducting empirical investigations, science trumps religion EVERY SINGLE TIME.  And that is not a philosophical argument.  It is a fact.  Refute that, and you may have a convert (clue - don't hold your breath).



You didn't try to tell me that third person knowledge is fundamentally different than first person knowledge, and that first person revelation is inherently flawed because it becomes hearsay after the first person is dead?

Can you describe the flaws in the Catholic's church process when they verify a miracle? How does their insistence that there be medical proof that a person had a disease, and now doesn't, trump the scientific process when it investigates the same thing and finds that the person both was sick, and now isn't? 

Your ignorance on how things works is not evidence that science is better than religion, it is just evidence of your ignorance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Argueing with creationists is a waste of time. No matter what evidence is presented, they believe that their religious beliefs are refutation of it.
> 
> Science and progress will move on, in spite of the ignorance of people like PC and Quantum.



Another dirt digger who thinks he understands real science.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Though I do enjoy practicing my egg throwing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise up:
> You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -
Click to expand...


Very good.

Want to tell me how the existence of that fossil proves you understand evolution? Or anything else?

Before you get up on a high horse, go back through the thread to find one single post where I got the science, or the math, wrong. Keep in mind that the fact that you think a randmo process is a guide that is akin to artificial selection is not me being wrong about science.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> Where did all those fossils of species of plants and animals that no longer exist come from?
> 
> Why are there no remains of modern animals and plants found trapped in the same geological places as these fossils of extinct animals and plants?
> 
> Why did GOD intelligently design these fossil records?



Dead animals and plants. The OP does not make the claim that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, it just tries to make the point that evolution has some serious flaws. I wouldn't use the same arguments she did, but I am more of a numbers person than she is. You just assumed that the only people that believe that Darwinian evolution is not the be all and end all of the subject are religious nuts that think God created the fossils to confuse idiots.


----------



## Mad Scientist

You guise gettin this all sorted out?

Question for OldRocks' brother Orogenicman:

"You got any *proof* on how the *first* cell came into being"?

Or is all just "theory" and "faith"?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

American Communist said:


> You guise gettin this all sorted out?
> 
> Question for OldRocks' brother Orogenicman:
> 
> "You got any *proof* on how the *first* cell came into being"?
> 
> Or is all just "theory" and "faith"?



He doesn't even have proof of the fundamental article of faith of evolution, that all life on Earth evolved from a single progenitor. But he still think this is more scientific than believing in another theory.


----------



## midcan5

Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged. When religion and politics enter the picture you leave science for speculation. Why some find it necessary to argue against fact is interesting. Today even religions acknowledge evolution, the Catholic church for instance. Billions of years of life is a hard concept for any of us to grasp, but since we all share in the same chemistries of life and are so closely related to all forms of life why the questions. Orogenicman has answered the skeptics but like all things people only see what fits into their worldview. Once people thought...believed...argued...

For the interested, George C. Williams is worth a read. "The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' and 'Adaptation and Natural Selection' 

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God&#8217;s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged. When religion and politics enter the picture you leave science for speculation. Why some find it necessary to argue against fact is interesting. Today even religions acknowledge evolution, the Catholic church for instance. Billions of years of life is a hard concept for any of us to grasp, but since we all share in the same chemistries of life and are so closely related to all forms of life why the questions. Orogenicman has answered the skeptics but like all things people only see what fits into their worldview. Once people thought...believed...argued...
> 
> For the interested, George C. Williams is worth a read. "The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' and 'Adaptation and Natural Selection'
> 
> "Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in Gods eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka






1. "Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged."

Just when I believe that you've posted the most erroneous, uninformed post possible.....you top it with nonsense like this.


Untold numbers of scientists have challenged the Darwinian brand.


2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.



3. "In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. Important issues about selection, he remarked with some understatement, remain unresolved. 




4. Of these important issues, I would mention prominently the question of whether natural selection exists at all. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline Computer Life Form Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.

So, this is natural selection at work? Blakeslee observes, with solemn incomprehension, the creatures mutated but showed only modest increases in complexity. Which is to say, they showed nothing of interest at all. This is natural selection at work, but it is hardly work that has worked to intended effect.

What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
 There is a sucker born every minute."

The above from Berlinski's "Devil's Delusion," p. 189-190


----------



## midcan5

PC,  people believe what they want regardless of fact, argument is wasted, believe whatever suits you. But stay away from mirrors nude, you may notice similarities that will surprise you. 

Another insightful article, Leakey is interesting and recent finds in China confirm some of these issues. 

Richard Leakey: Evolution Debate Soon Will Be History

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American

Lots more stuff below. 

Evolutionary Theory
Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Natural-Selection-Christopher-Williams/dp/0691026157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
The Third Culture - Chapter 1
'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time'  Jonathan Weiner
Do you know a chimp who's feeling doleful? Mid-life crisis, probably ? The Register

_


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged. When religion and politics enter the picture you leave science for speculation. Why some find it necessary to argue against fact is interesting. Today even religions acknowledge evolution, the Catholic church for instance. Billions of years of life is a hard concept for any of us to grasp, but since we all share in the same chemistries of life and are so closely related to all forms of life why the questions. Orogenicman has answered the skeptics but like all things people only see what fits into their worldview. Once people thought...believed...argued...
> 
> For the interested, George C. Williams is worth a read. "The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' and 'Adaptation and Natural Selection'
> 
> "Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in Gods eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka



What, exactly, is a scientific fact? Are they different from non scientific facts like the fact that cows eat grass? What makes you think that no one has ever challenged it using science?


----------



## Old Rocks

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged. When religion and politics enter the picture you leave science for speculation. Why some find it necessary to argue against fact is interesting. Today even religions acknowledge evolution, the Catholic church for instance. Billions of years of life is a hard concept for any of us to grasp, but since we all share in the same chemistries of life and are so closely related to all forms of life why the questions. Orogenicman has answered the skeptics but like all things people only see what fits into their worldview. Once people thought...believed...argued...
> 
> For the interested, George C. Williams is worth a read. "The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' and 'Adaptation and Natural Selection'
> 
> "Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in Gods eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is a scientific fact? Are they different from non scientific facts like the fact that cows eat grass? What makes you think that no one has ever challenged it using science?
Click to expand...


No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise up:
> You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.
> 
> 
> Lies mean that your position is indefensible.
> 
> Isn't that true?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQtbXu78Ea4]Why the Ediacaran fossils are significant - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZcvbxlf9yk]Ediacaran Fauna Overview - YouTube[/ame]

Bilateral symmetry, kind of blows you flap yap out of the water, PC.


----------



## orogenicman

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged. When religion and politics enter the picture you leave science for speculation. Why some find it necessary to argue against fact is interesting. Today even religions acknowledge evolution, the Catholic church for instance. Billions of years of life is a hard concept for any of us to grasp, but since we all share in the same chemistries of life and are so closely related to all forms of life why the questions. Orogenicman has answered the skeptics but like all things people only see what fits into their worldview. Once people thought...believed...argued...
> 
> For the interested, George C. Williams is worth a read. "The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' and 'Adaptation and Natural Selection'
> 
> "Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in Gods eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is a scientific fact? Are they different from non scientific facts like the fact that cows eat grass? What makes you think that no one has ever challenged it using science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?
Click to expand...


Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.


----------



## orogenicman

Hey PC, have you found that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian yet?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is scientific fact, it has never been scientifically challenged. When religion and politics enter the picture you leave science for speculation. Why some find it necessary to argue against fact is interesting. Today even religions acknowledge evolution, the Catholic church for instance. Billions of years of life is a hard concept for any of us to grasp, but since we all share in the same chemistries of life and are so closely related to all forms of life why the questions. Orogenicman has answered the skeptics but like all things people only see what fits into their worldview. Once people thought...believed...argued...
> 
> For the interested, George C. Williams is worth a read. "The Pony Fish's Glow: And Other Clues To Plan And Purpose In Nature' and 'Adaptation and Natural Selection'
> 
> "Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God&#8217;s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you."  Mark Slouka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is a scientific fact? Are they different from non scientific facts like the fact that cows eat grass? What makes you think that no one has ever challenged it using science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?
Click to expand...


Does that make it a scientific fact? I have seen cows eat molasses fortified with vitamins, does that prove that science is wrong?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> Hey PC, have you found that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian yet?



I found a lying sack of offal.....that would be you.



A more honest appraisal follows.

Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.

From "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism" 
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey PC, have you found that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found a lying sack of offal.....that would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> A more honest appraisal follows.
> 
> Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.
> 
> From "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"
> Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip
Click to expand...


This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for. 

Critiques of Phillip Johnson


Yep. Another Disco'tute crank 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have thrown it straight up, 'cause it's all over your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Wise up:
> You were beaten to a pulp in this thread......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that *the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.*
> 
> 
> Lies mean that your position is indefensible.
> 
> Isn't that true?
Click to expand...



Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.

Precambrian Fossils

The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model. 

Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams, princess.  Oh look, fossil -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that *the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.*
> 
> 
> Lies mean that your position is indefensible.
> 
> Isn't that true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.
> 
> Precambrian Fossils
> 
> The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.
> 
> Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.
Click to expand...




Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????

Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???



I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.

Read again, more carefully:
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution. 
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today." 
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. 
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. 

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!



Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.


The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....

..*..do not exist.*

It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
(Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)

Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
"Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."

Not.


Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey PC, have you found that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found a lying sack of offal.....that would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> A more honest appraisal follows.
> 
> Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.
> 
> From "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"
> Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for.
> 
> Critiques of Phillip Johnson
> 
> 
> Yep. Another Disco'tute crank
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson
Click to expand...




You're a dope.

None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.


But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.

Go and sin no more.


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The post is another of your lies...as you admitted earlier that *the precursor fossils of Cambrian organisms don't exist.*
> 
> 
> Lies mean that your position is indefensible.
> 
> Isn't that true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.
> 
> Precambrian Fossils
> 
> The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.
> 
> Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????
> 
> Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???
> 
> 
> 
> I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.
> 
> Read again, more carefully:
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
> Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
> It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
> 
> Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
> 
> 
> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ..*..do not exist.*
> 
> It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
> (Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)
> 
> *Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
> "Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."
> 
> Not.
> *
> 
> Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
> Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....
Click to expand...


Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.

Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?


----------



## orogenicman

> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ....do not exist.



You do not know that they don't exist.  So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie.  By definition, they must exist.  That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist.  It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet.  You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is a scientific fact? Are they different from non scientific facts like the fact that cows eat grass? What makes you think that no one has ever challenged it using science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.
Click to expand...


Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do? 

I was beginning to think you were a complete moron, at least you know your limits.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.
> 
> Precambrian Fossils
> 
> The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.
> 
> Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????
> 
> Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???
> 
> 
> 
> I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.
> 
> Read again, more carefully:
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
> Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
> It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
> 
> Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
> 
> 
> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ..*..do not exist.*
> 
> It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
> (Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)
> 
> *Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
> "Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."
> 
> Not.
> *
> 
> Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
> Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.
> 
> Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?
Click to expand...


I expect someone who claims that evolution is guided to not understand what precursor means, what's your excuse?


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever challenged that cows eat grass? I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?
Click to expand...



I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator.  It's pointless, and I have better things to do.

Oh, by the way - 











More fossils


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ....do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that they don't exist.  So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie.  By definition, they must exist.  That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist.  It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet.  You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.
Click to expand...


There is nothing that tells me they must exist. Fossils are actually relatively rare, and there is no definition anywhere that requires fossils for everything that ever lived to exist. I find it extremely strange that a person who has claimed to be the author of a paper about fossils not to know that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator.  It's pointless, and I have better things to do.
> 
> Oh, by the way -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fossils
Click to expand...


Good for you. If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ....do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that they don't exist.  So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie.  By definition, they must exist.  That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist.  It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet.  You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that tells me they must exist. Fossils are actually relatively rare, and there is no definition anywhere that requires fossils for everything that ever lived to exist. I find it extremely strange that a person who has claimed to be the author of a paper about fossils not to know that.
Click to expand...


No, there is no law or principle of physics that requires that the ancestors of trilobites were ever fossilized. They could well have been soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize.  That is not the issue here.  The issue is whether or not these ancestral forms ever existed at all.  Considering that the notion that Cambrian trilobites simply poofed into existence is not an option,  it is fair and reasonable to assume that Cambrian trilobites had ancestors.  Unless one wants to pretend that they were the only species out of all the species found to date that didn't, in which case - damn.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator.  It's pointless, and I have better things to do.
> 
> Oh, by the way -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fossils
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that fossils don't exist, that it is all a big paleontological conspiracy conjured up by the devil?  Because, if that is your argument, damn, dude.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found a lying sack of offal.....that would be you.
> 
> 
> 
> A more honest appraisal follows.
> 
> Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.
> 
> From "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism"
> Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for.
> 
> Critiques of Phillip Johnson
> 
> 
> Yep. Another Disco'tute crank
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dope.
> 
> None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.
> 
> 
> But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.
> 
> Go and sin no more.
Click to expand...


I note that with consistency,  the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts. 

Your usual response is to stutter and mumble some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.
> 
> Precambrian Fossils
> 
> The problem is that while there was abundant sea life it was largely soft bodied which does not fossilize as readily as hard substances like bones. The need to for hard bones was an evolutionary development that occurred because the Cambrian environment was better suited to creatures that evolved boney structures than it was to those that remained soft bodied. This is fully within the guidelines of Darwin's Evolutionary model.
> 
> Attempting to claim that evolution is wrong simply because we weren't around to document every single step of the process is foolish. You are wasting your time trying to disprove evolution. You are better off sticking to myths and fables and questioning the origin of life since that it is still not fully resolved scientifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????
> 
> Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???
> 
> 
> 
> I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.
> 
> Read again, more carefully:
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
> Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
> It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
> 
> Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
> 
> 
> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ..*..do not exist.*
> 
> It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
> (Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)
> 
> *Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
> "Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."
> 
> Not.
> *
> 
> Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
> Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.
> 
> Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?
Click to expand...




Fine.

Show the fossils in question.

Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.


BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'


Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
You'd accept that?


Didn't think so.


Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists would if the Bible told them otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gave up on trying to prove you know more science than I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator.  It's pointless, and I have better things to do.
> 
> Oh, by the way -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fossils
Click to expand...




But not the ones in question...

...So why would you provide 'em?


Oh...right...'cause you're a liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another case of creationist charlatans who critique science matters they are wholly unprepared for.
> 
> Critiques of Phillip Johnson
> 
> 
> Yep. Another Disco'tute crank
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: 194: Phillip Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dope.
> 
> None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.
> 
> 
> But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.
> 
> Go and sin no more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note that with consistency,  the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts.
> 
> Your usual response is to *stutter and mumble* some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.
Click to expand...




So.....no fossils of the major species of the Cambrian Explosion?


Just obfuscation? Just one of your usual *'stutter and mumble's*'?


But....since you said *"stutter and mumble'*.....remember this:
This was your post: "But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."and I posted:

a.	 The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them. 

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died. 
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

.*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*

Talk about* 'stutter and mumble'!*!!


I so look forward to your appearance.
If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.


Any truth to the story that P.T Barnum sent a congratulatory note when you were born?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dope.
> 
> None of you has been able to indicate that precursors needed as proof, exist.
> 
> 
> But...what the heck.....far it be from I to condemn someone for believing in faith.
> 
> Go and sin no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note that with consistency,  the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts.
> 
> Your usual response is to *stutter and mumble* some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....no fossils of the major species of the Cambrian Explosion?
> 
> 
> Just obfuscation? Just one of your usual *'stutter and mumble's*'?
> 
> 
> But....since you said *"stutter and mumble'*.....remember this:
> This was your post: "But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."and I posted:
> 
> a.	 The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> .*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*
> 
> Talk about* 'stutter and mumble'!*!!
> 
> 
> I so look forward to your appearance.
> If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.
> 
> 
> Any truth to the story that P.T Barnum sent a congratulatory note when you were born?
Click to expand...

That was quite an effort to side step your inability to address the salient points.

Why do you think Philip Johnson, a non-scientist with no academic credentials in the biological sciences, is qualified to provide any authoritative data on evolutionary biology?


----------



## orogenicman

PC, I will tell you exactly what I told quantum brain fart:

"No, there is no law or principle of physics that requires that the ancestors of trilobites were ever fossilized. They could well have been soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize (or the conditions for fossilization was not right). It could also be that they were fossilized, but we just haven't found the right fossil beds yet.  That is a common occurrence in paleontology.  But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not these ancestral forms ever existed at all. Considering that the notion that Cambrian trilobites simply poofed into existence is not an viable option, it is fair and reasonable to assume that Cambrian trilobites had ancestors. Unless one wants to pretend that they were the only species out of all the species found to date that didn't, in which case - damn."


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must so very many of you be helped with reading and/or comprehension of what you read????
> 
> Wasn't the title of the thread a hint, at the very least???
> 
> 
> 
> I try to be precise in my language, and this invests the meaning.
> 
> Read again, more carefully:
> 3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
> Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
> 
> a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
> Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
> It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
> 
> Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
> 
> 
> The fossils necessary to document the major organisms of the Cambrian Explosion, e.g., trilobites and brachiopods.....
> 
> ..*..do not exist.*
> 
> It is as though, like Topsy, these organism simply came to be, fully formed.
> (Hey...are you literate enough to get the Topsy reference?)
> 
> *Now....if you understand the meaning this time, you would probably like to change this:
> "Pre cambrian fossils do exist, dearest PC.."
> 
> Not.
> *
> 
> Once you and the coterie come to admit that....we can proceed to explaining same.
> Although...the Johnson post, #97, might help....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.
> 
> Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> Show the fossils in question.
> 
> Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.
> 
> 
> BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'
> 
> 
> Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
> You'd accept that?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
> Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.
Click to expand...


Stromatolites are about 3+ billion years old.






Without their terraforming the planet you would not be here to make your adorable little posts. 

Then there are the cyanobacteria fossils that date back about 3.5 billion years.






Perhaps your day job in a call center is making you cranky. Have you considered a career change to something with more prospects like fast food?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know that they don't exist.  So to say that they don't is merely promoting a lie.  By definition, they must exist.  That they have yet to be identified is not evidence that they don't exist.  It is only evidence that they haven't been identified yet.  You are grasping at straws, Miss princess/chic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that tells me they must exist. Fossils are actually relatively rare, and there is no definition anywhere that requires fossils for everything that ever lived to exist. I find it extremely strange that a person who has claimed to be the author of a paper about fossils not to know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no law or principle of physics that requires that the ancestors of trilobites were ever fossilized. They could well have been soft bodied animals that didn't fossilize.  That is not the issue here.  The issue is whether or not these ancestral forms ever existed at all.  Considering that the notion that Cambrian trilobites simply poofed into existence is not an option,  it is fair and reasonable to assume that Cambrian trilobites had ancestors.  Unless one wants to pretend that they were the only species out of all the species found to date that didn't, in which case - damn.
Click to expand...


Then why did you say that, by definition, the fossils have to exist?

As far as I know no one in this thread has said that they just poofed into existence. The major problem with the pre Cambrian explosion vis a vis Darwinian evolution is it doesn't fit in with the cone of increasing diversity one would expect if all life on Earth evolved from a single progenitor.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave up on trying to explain anything to a pathologic obfuscator.  It's pointless, and I have better things to do.
> 
> Oh, by the way -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fossils
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to convince yourself they exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that fossils don't exist, that it is all a big paleontological conspiracy conjured up by the devil?  Because, if that is your argument, damn, dude.
Click to expand...


Did you read my post?

If you find enough pictures of fossils you might be able to *convince yourself* they exist.

You are not Sheldon, stop pretending you don't know what sarcasm is.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you look at the link showing preCambrian fossils? They do exist and no amount of denial is going to make them disappear.
> 
> Do you understand how changing environments (from sea to land) result in evolutionary adaptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> Show the fossils in question.
> 
> Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.
> 
> 
> BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'
> 
> 
> Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
> You'd accept that?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
> Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stromatolites are about 3+ billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without their terraforming the planet you would not be here to make your adorable little posts.
> 
> Then there are the cyanobacteria fossils that date back about 3.5 billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your day job in a call center is making you cranky. Have you considered a career change to something with more prospects like fast food?
Click to expand...



Those self-improvement CDs youve been listening to? .not workin

This is like arguing with a three year old.


What you need to produce is the transitional fossils leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.


Not organisms related to bacteria.


Whew...


----------



## Old Rocks

If one looks at Spriggina, towards the end of this video, you will see something that very well could have been the precursor to trilobites.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZcvbxlf9yk]Ediacaran Fauna Overview - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.
> 
> Show the fossils in question.
> 
> Go ahead......after than you can spin straw into gold, Rumpelstiltskin.
> 
> 
> BTW....look at the dope who posted after you.....he admits that none have been found...but says 'you don't know they don't exist.'
> 
> 
> Imagine religious folk using that argument for the existence of God.
> You'd accept that?
> 
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Seems neither science nor logic are your strong points....
> Stick to your first job, modeling socks on the radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stromatolites are about 3+ billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without their terraforming the planet you would not be here to make your adorable little posts.
> 
> Then there are the cyanobacteria fossils that date back about 3.5 billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your day job in a call center is making you cranky. Have you considered a career change to something with more prospects like fast food?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those self-improvement CDs youve been listening to? .not workin
> 
> This is like arguing with a three year old.
> 
> 
> What you need to produce is the transitional fossils leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
> 
> 
> Not organisms related to bacteria.
> 
> 
> Whew...
Click to expand...


You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. Having shipped your order you now want something else instead. Unfortunately the variety of fossils you prefer are not available from Amazon. The specific fossils that you want are on "back order". We suggest that you check back on a regular basis. Alternatively you could try looking for them yourself by enrolling in college and learning something useful.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> If one looks at Spriggina, towards the end of this video, you will see something that very well could have been the precursor to trilobites.
> 
> Ediacaran Fauna Overview - YouTube



"....could have been..."



Wait! Wait!

I have a '...could have been..." too!


" An image of Jesus: All that in a bag of chips

A St. Petersburg woman finds what she considers a holy image. Will she keep the chip or sell it? She's not sure yet."
Neighborhoodtimes: An image of Jesus: All that in a bag of chips



I sure love the science lessons you bring to the table, Rocks!

Keep up the good work!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stromatolites are about 3+ billion years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without their terraforming the planet you would not be here to make your adorable little posts.
> 
> Then there are the cyanobacteria fossils that date back about 3.5 billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your day job in a call center is making you cranky. Have you considered a career change to something with more prospects like fast food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those self-improvement CD&#8217;s you&#8217;ve been listening to? &#8230;.not workin&#8217;
> 
> This is like arguing with a three year old.
> 
> 
> What you need to produce is the transitional fossils leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
> 
> 
> Not organisms related to bacteria.
> 
> 
> Whew...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. Having shipped your order you now want something else instead. Unfortunately the variety of fossils you prefer are not available from Amazon. The specific fossils that you want are on "back order". We suggest that you check back on a regular basis. Alternatively you could try looking for them yourself by enrolling in college and learning something useful.
Click to expand...




"You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. "

No I didn't, you idiot!!!

What do you do, read alternate words????


Fossils-of-transitional-forms- leading-to-the-biological-assays-of-the-Cambrian-Explosion!!!

How many times have trilobites and brachiopods been mentioned in this thread?????


No wonder you still have a job that requires a name tag.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that with consistency,  the most effective way to confront your ignorance is to present you with the facts.
> 
> Your usual response is to *stutter and mumble* some supposed insult but honestly, your sweaty, chest-heaving tirades are comedy gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....no fossils of the major species of the Cambrian Explosion?
> 
> 
> Just obfuscation? Just one of your usual *'stutter and mumble's*'?
> 
> 
> But....since you said *"stutter and mumble'*.....remember this:
> This was your post: "But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."and I posted:
> 
> a.	 The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> .*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*
> 
> Talk about* 'stutter and mumble'!*!!
> 
> 
> I so look forward to your appearance.
> If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.
> 
> 
> Any truth to the story that P.T Barnum sent a congratulatory note when you were born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was quite an effort to side step your inability to address the salient points.
> 
> Why do you think Philip Johnson, a non-scientist with no academic credentials in the biological sciences, is qualified to provide any authoritative data on evolutionary biology?
Click to expand...




Because, unlike you, he has a brain, the ability to consider and analyze....

But...really get back to that '.*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*'


I'm still chuckling over how you set yourself up for the ol' one-two punch!!



Please....don't mistake dealing with you ever....ever....requiring any effort.
You are the proverbial 'fish in a barrel.'


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those self-improvement CDs youve been listening to? .not workin
> 
> This is like arguing with a three year old.
> 
> 
> What you need to produce is the transitional fossils leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
> 
> 
> Not organisms related to bacteria.
> 
> 
> Whew...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. Having shipped your order you now want something else instead. Unfortunately the variety of fossils you prefer are not available from Amazon. The specific fossils that you want are on "back order". We suggest that you check back on a regular basis. Alternatively you could try looking for them yourself by enrolling in college and learning something useful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. "
> 
> No I didn't, you idiot!!!
> 
> What do you do, read alternate words????
> 
> 
> Fossils-of-transitional-forms- leading-to-the-biological-assays-of-the-Cambrian-Explosion!!!
> 
> How many times have trilobites and brachiopods been mentioned in this thread?????
> 
> 
> No wonder you still have a job that requires a name tag.
Click to expand...


Calm down, sweetums. Your blood pressure will thank you.  I was just busting your "virtual balls". Now take 10 deep breaths and go for a little walk.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.....no fossils of the major species of the Cambrian Explosion?
> 
> 
> Just obfuscation? Just one of your usual *'stutter and mumble's*'?
> 
> 
> But....since you said *"stutter and mumble'*.....remember this:
> This was your post: "But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."and I posted:
> 
> a.	 The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
> 
> When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . . Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
> Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7
> 
> .*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*
> 
> Talk about* 'stutter and mumble'!*!!
> 
> 
> I so look forward to your appearance.
> If you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.
> 
> 
> Any truth to the story that P.T Barnum sent a congratulatory note when you were born?
> 
> 
> 
> That was quite an effort to side step your inability to address the salient points.
> 
> Why do you think Philip Johnson, a non-scientist with no academic credentials in the biological sciences, is qualified to provide any authoritative data on evolutionary biology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, he has a brain, the ability to consider and analyze....
> 
> But...really get back to that '.*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*'
> 
> 
> I'm still chuckling over how you set yourself up for the ol' one-two punch!!
> 
> 
> 
> Please....don't mistake dealing with you ever....ever....requiring any effort.
> You are the proverbial 'fish in a barrel.'
Click to expand...


Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.

Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.  

This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those self-improvement CDs youve been listening to? .not workin
> 
> This is like arguing with a three year old.
> 
> 
> What you need to produce is the transitional fossils leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
> 
> 
> Not organisms related to bacteria.
> 
> 
> Whew...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. Having shipped your order you now want something else instead. Unfortunately the variety of fossils you prefer are not available from Amazon. The specific fossils that you want are on "back order". We suggest that you check back on a regular basis. Alternatively you could try looking for them yourself by enrolling in college and learning something useful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. "
> 
> No I didn't, you idiot!!!
> 
> What do you do, read alternate words????
> 
> 
> Fossils-of-transitional-forms- leading-to-the-biological-assays-of-the-Cambrian-Explosion!!!
> 
> How many times have trilobites and brachiopods been mentioned in this thread?????
> 
> 
> No wonder you still have a job that requires a name tag.
Click to expand...


For the gazillionth time, ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL (except creationists, of course.  They are on a side branch heading for extinction due to failure to adapt).


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was quite an effort to side step your inability to address the salient points.
> 
> Why do you think Philip Johnson, a non-scientist with no academic credentials in the biological sciences, is qualified to provide any authoritative data on evolutionary biology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, he has a brain, the ability to consider and analyze....
> 
> But...really get back to that '.*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*'
> 
> 
> I'm still chuckling over how you set yourself up for the ol' one-two punch!!
> 
> 
> 
> Please....don't mistake dealing with you ever....ever....requiring any effort.
> You are the proverbial 'fish in a barrel.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
Click to expand...





You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.

You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?

Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.


What would you say if he had expertise?




Oh....BTW...

Phillip E. Johnson
Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
Tel: 510-642-5370
Fax: 510-643-2673
Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.

Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.

*He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and religion.

EDUCATION:
A.B., Harvard University (1961)
J.D., University of Chicago (1965)



BUSTED!!!


You're such a jerk.



C'mon....do it one more time: 

 omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. Having shipped your order you now want something else instead. Unfortunately the variety of fossils you prefer are not available from Amazon. The specific fossils that you want are on "back order". We suggest that you check back on a regular basis. Alternatively you could try looking for them yourself by enrolling in college and learning something useful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. "
> 
> No I didn't, you idiot!!!
> 
> What do you do, read alternate words????
> 
> 
> Fossils-of-transitional-forms- leading-to-the-biological-assays-of-the-Cambrian-Explosion!!!
> 
> How many times have trilobites and brachiopods been mentioned in this thread?????
> 
> 
> No wonder you still have a job that requires a name tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the gazillionth time, ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL (except creationists, of course.  They are on a side branch heading for extinction due to failure to adapt).
Click to expand...


 "...ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL..."

Liar.

Why are you trying to change the term fossils to species?

Oh...'cause you've lost, and have been revealed as a fraud and a liar.



Where are the transitional FOSSILs of the species that have been named in this thread?


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, he has a brain, the ability to consider and analyze....
> 
> But...really get back to that '.*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*'
> 
> 
> I'm still chuckling over how you set yourself up for the ol' one-two punch!!
> 
> 
> 
> Please....don't mistake dealing with you ever....ever....requiring any effort.
> You are the proverbial 'fish in a barrel.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and *religion.*
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
Click to expand...


Gentle hint for PC, the topic is evolution. Your source has no academic credentials in any scientific discipline and you just threw him under the creationist bus. Your buddy KG throws a hissyfit whenever anyone who doesn't have a doctorate in divinity dares to discuss the bible. If you want to defend your position you are going to have to find more credible sources. Too bad there aren't any.


----------



## orogenicman

Having a law degree does not qualify him to be called a scientist.  No doubt, you would have your mechanic perform the lobotomy you so desperately need instead of a skilled neurosurgeon.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. "
> 
> No I didn't, you idiot!!!
> 
> What do you do, read alternate words????
> 
> 
> Fossils-of-transitional-forms- leading-to-the-biological-assays-of-the-Cambrian-Explosion!!!
> 
> How many times have trilobites and brachiopods been mentioned in this thread?????
> 
> 
> No wonder you still have a job that requires a name tag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the gazillionth time, ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL (except creationists, of course.  They are on a side branch heading for extinction due to failure to adapt).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL..."
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Why are you trying to change the term fossils to species?
> 
> Oh...'cause you've lost, and have been revealed as a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the transitional FOSSILs of the species that have been named in this thread?
Click to expand...


Calling me a liar without proof is called slander.  Careful.  

ALL species are transitional.  Homo Sapiens is transitional.  Cockroaches are transitional.  There is no life form on Earth that is not transitional, and  never has been.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the gazillionth time, ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL (except creationists, of course.  They are on a side branch heading for extinction due to failure to adapt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL..."
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Why are you trying to change the term fossils to species?
> 
> Oh...'cause you've lost, and have been revealed as a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the transitional FOSSILs of the species that have been named in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a liar without proof is called slander.  Careful.
> 
> ALL species are transitional.  Homo Sapiens is transitional.  Cockroaches are transitional.  There is no life form on Earth that is not transitional, and  never has been.
Click to expand...



Step off, liar.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL..."
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Why are you trying to change the term fossils to species?
> 
> Oh...'cause you've lost, and have been revealed as a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the transitional FOSSILs of the species that have been named in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling me a liar without proof is called slander.  Careful.
> 
> ALL species are transitional.  Homo Sapiens is transitional.  Cockroaches are transitional.  There is no life form on Earth that is not transitional, and  never has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Step off, liar.
Click to expand...


Gee, I finally figured out why you are so clueless.  You're a homeschooler.  That's just sad.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and *religion.*
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gentle hint for PC, the topic is evolution. Your source has no academic credentials in any scientific discipline and you just threw him under the creationist bus. Your buddy KG throws a hissyfit whenever anyone who doesn't have a doctorate in divinity dares to discuss the bible. If you want to defend your position you are going to have to find more credible sources. Too bad there aren't any.
Click to expand...




What ever made you believe that you'd be assigned to decide who has the proper credentials to discuss the subject?

I have defended, and proven my position, a number of times in this thread.


Because you, Betty and Moronica claim 'is not, is not,' doesn't reverse the fact that none of you has been able to provide the proof of Darwin's premise.


I'm perfectly copacetic with the fact that your acceptance is based on faith.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling me a liar without proof is called slander.  Careful.
> 
> ALL species are transitional.  Homo Sapiens is transitional.  Cockroaches are transitional.  There is no life form on Earth that is not transitional, and  never has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Step off, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I finally figured out why you are so clueless.  You're a homeschooler.  That's just sad.
Click to expand...




Whipped by a 'homeschooler.'

Add that to your loser resume.


----------



## flacaltenn

IMHO -- we've gone WAAAY past Darwin in terms of looking at the entire picture of evolution, the fossil record, missing links, survival thru mass extinctions, ect. And it does a dis-service to concentrate SOLELY on Darwin's natural selection as the prime explanation for the tree of life on earth.. 

The Three Big Bangs: Comet Crashes, Exploding Stars, and the Creation of the ... - Philip M. Dauber, Richard Muller - Google Books

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller



> Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.



Their theory is large jumps in evolutionary process can occur in times of extreme stress. 
The authors also the discovery and implications of "jumping genes" in the evolutionary mutation process. From another source on macroevolution::

Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net



> Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.
> 
> Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons &#8212;also known as jumping genes&#8212;have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.
> 
> Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.
> 
> &#8220;You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,&#8221; he says.




There is plenty of science that backs me up when I LEAP to the conclusion that Darwin is so yesterday.

There have been periods of time in history where MASSIVE mutations in SHORT periods of time having NOTHING to do with "natural selection" could have occurred. Replicating all those "10 days to a new species" irradiation experiments that we've already done in the lab.. Don't like radiation?  Plenty of science to suggest that CHRONIC STRESS on an eco-system WILL generate massive rates of mutation.. Like during the bottoms of all those historical extinction events.. 

So ask yourself the question -- is a massive cosmic radiation storm -- "an act of God"??? 
I think State Farm would say it was..


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and *religion.*
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentle hint for PC, the topic is evolution. Your source has no academic credentials in any scientific discipline and you just threw him under the creationist bus. Your buddy KG throws a hissyfit whenever anyone who doesn't have a doctorate in divinity dares to discuss the bible. If you want to defend your position you are going to have to find more credible sources. Too bad there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever made you believe that you'd be assigned to decide who has the proper credentials to discuss the subject?
> 
> I have defended, and proven my position, a number of times in this thread.
> 
> 
> Because you, Betty and Moronica claim 'is not, is not,' doesn't reverse the fact that none of you has been able to provide the proof of Darwin's premise.
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly copacetic with the fact that your acceptance is based on faith.
Click to expand...


Since when does a single "missing link" overturn the all of the corroborating scientific disciplines, dearie? Hint, it can't. Better luck next time.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and *religion.*
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gentle hint for PC, the topic is evolution. Your source has no academic credentials in any scientific discipline and you just threw him under the creationist bus. Your buddy KG throws a hissyfit whenever anyone who doesn't have a doctorate in divinity dares to discuss the bible. If you want to defend your position you are going to have to find more credible sources. Too bad there aren't any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever made you believe that you'd be assigned to decide who has the proper credentials to discuss the subject?
> 
> I have defended, and proven my position, a number of times in this thread.
> 
> 
> Because you, Betty and Moronica claim 'is not, is not,' doesn't reverse the fact that none of you has been able to provide the proof of Darwin's premise.
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly copacetic with the fact that your acceptance is based on faith.
Click to expand...


I can fully appreciate the fact that the only understanding you have is faith-based.  After all, you believe in talking snakes.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, unlike you, he has a brain, the ability to consider and analyze....
> 
> But...really get back to that '.*and you went omminnaoommmminaomminnnal. But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!*'
> 
> 
> I'm still chuckling over how you set yourself up for the ol' one-two punch!!
> 
> 
> 
> Please....don't mistake dealing with you ever....ever....requiring any effort.
> You are the proverbial 'fish in a barrel.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and religion.
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
Click to expand...


Oh my. Princess is angry.

Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.

Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.

Like here, for example:

Suspicious Creationist Credentials


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
> 
> Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?
> 
> 
> The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
> Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> 
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.
Click to expand...



Gee whiz, but princess was on a cut and paste tear across the web.  Ya know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are creationists really so desperately insecure in their belief system that their compelled to scour the internet to find validation of their beliefs by quote mining? How sad!

Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution. 

You know, while the web can be an invaluable source of information / data gathering, it can also be a playground for cut & pasters such as the princess. There are those... "_less than discriminating types_", who scour the web for "quotes" they cut and paste without feeling any need or obligation to confirm the accuracy of their "quotes". 

Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears in virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material. 


Regarding "quote" _a_, we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:

Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit 



"Quote" _b_ is another example of a "quote" being mined from a creationist website. As usual, only a portion of the "quote" is available so we are left to question why is there a need to cut and paste the "quote" without any underlying context.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps 

The particular "quote" was mined from a site titled "Center for Scientific Creationism".

Yeah, I know, I was laughing also. This site seems to be nothing more than a repository for "quotes" that appeal to the "quote- mining" types who cut and paste with abandon... and are suffering from oxygen starvation. 




But more fun. This particular quote can also be found on Harun Yahya with a different citation as to the quot-or

Harun Yahya

Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and chief science advisor for the BBC: 

... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.225


Oh narly. The princess is a Harun Yahya groupie. 




"Quote" _c_ appears here:

Harun Yahya 

If anyone missed it, Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student and previously served time in jail for some less than legal activities involving underage girls.

Lovely!



"Quote" _d_ is another snippet of 1980's origin. And as bogus as the princess is a fraud.

Check out quote 33, here:

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and religion.
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. Princess is angry.
> 
> Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.
> 
> Like here, for example:
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
Click to expand...




Where are the fossils that identify the steps leading to the signature organisms of the Cambrian Explosion?


They don't exist...do they.


So...you accept Darwin's thesis on faith.....it's your religion.

Admit it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out that this thread should properly be placed in the religion forum, not the science forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
> 
> Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?
> 
> 
> The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
> Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> 
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, but princess was on a cut and paste tear across the web.  Ya know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are creationists really so desperately insecure in their belief system that their compelled to scour the internet to find validation of their beliefs by quote mining? How sad!
> 
> Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution.
> 
> You know, while the web can be an invaluable source of information / data gathering, it can also be a playground for cut & pasters such as the princess. There are those... "_less than discriminating types_", who scour the web for "quotes" they cut and paste without feeling any need or obligation to confirm the accuracy of their "quotes".
> 
> Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears in virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.
> 
> 
> Regarding "quote" _a_, we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:
> 
> Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _b_ is another example of a "quote" being mined from a creationist website. As usual, only a portion of the "quote" is available so we are left to question why is there a need to cut and paste the "quote" without any underlying context.
> 
> In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps
> 
> The particular "quote" was mined from a site titled "Center for Scientific Creationism".
> 
> Yeah, I know, I was laughing also. This site seems to be nothing more than a repository for "quotes" that appeal to the "quote- mining" types who cut and paste with abandon... and are suffering from oxygen starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But more fun. This particular quote can also be found on Harun Yahya with a different citation as to the quot-or
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and chief science advisor for the BBC:
> 
> ... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.225
> 
> 
> Oh narly. The princess is a Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _c_ appears here:
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> If anyone missed it, Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student and previously served time in jail for some less than legal activities involving underage girls.
> 
> Lovely!
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _d_ is another snippet of 1980's origin. And as bogus as the princess is a fraud.
> 
> Check out quote 33, here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
Click to expand...







"Quote mining" is the phrase you hide behind when you fail in a debate.

As you have.

....where are the fossils?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
> 
> Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?
> 
> 
> The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
> Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> 
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, but princess was on a cut and paste tear across the web.  Ya know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are creationists really so desperately insecure in their belief system that their compelled to scour the internet to find validation of their beliefs by quote mining? How sad!
> 
> Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution.
> 
> You know, while the web can be an invaluable source of information / data gathering, it can also be a playground for cut & pasters such as the princess. There are those... "_less than discriminating types_", who scour the web for "quotes" they cut and paste without feeling any need or obligation to confirm the accuracy of their "quotes".
> 
> Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears in virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.
> 
> 
> Regarding "quote" _a_, we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:
> 
> Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _b_ is another example of a "quote" being mined from a creationist website. As usual, only a portion of the "quote" is available so we are left to question why is there a need to cut and paste the "quote" without any underlying context.
> 
> In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps
> 
> The particular "quote" was mined from a site titled "Center for Scientific Creationism".
> 
> Yeah, I know, I was laughing also. This site seems to be nothing more than a repository for "quotes" that appeal to the "quote- mining" types who cut and paste with abandon... and are suffering from oxygen starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But more fun. This particular quote can also be found on Harun Yahya with a different citation as to the quot-or
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and chief science advisor for the BBC:
> 
> ... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.225
> 
> 
> Oh narly. The princess is a Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _c_ appears here:
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> If anyone missed it, Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student and previously served time in jail for some less than legal activities involving underage girls.
> 
> Lovely!
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _d_ is another snippet of 1980's origin. And as bogus as the princess is a fraud.
> 
> Check out quote 33, here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote mining" is the phrase you hide behind when you fail in a debate.
> 
> As you have.
> 
> ....where are the fossils?
Click to expand...


Just a note of caution, princess. Be careful with your "quote-mining". A great many of the edited, parsed, falsely attributed and manufactured "quotes" that dishonest religious zealots post, I've seen before.

I'll require you to send me your "quotes" prior to posting so I can save you a great deal of embarrassment.

Kindly post your MasterCard number and I'll charge only a reasonable fee to preview, edit and / or correct your nonsensical cutting and pasting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the gazillionth time, ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL (except creationists, of course.  They are on a side branch heading for extinction due to failure to adapt).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL..."
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Why are you trying to change the term fossils to species?
> 
> Oh...'cause you've lost, and have been revealed as a fraud and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the transitional FOSSILs of the species that have been named in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a liar without proof is called slander.  Careful.
> 
> ALL species are transitional.  Homo Sapiens is transitional.  Cockroaches are transitional.  There is no life form on Earth that is not transitional, and  never has been.
Click to expand...


Liar.

Feel free to sue me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. Having shipped your order you now want something else instead. Unfortunately the variety of fossils you prefer are not available from Amazon. The specific fossils that you want are on "back order". We suggest that you check back on a regular basis. Alternatively you could try looking for them yourself by enrolling in college and learning something useful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You ordered pre-Cambrian fossils. "
> 
> No I didn't, you idiot!!!
> 
> What do you do, read alternate words????
> 
> 
> Fossils-of-transitional-forms- leading-to-the-biological-assays-of-the-Cambrian-Explosion!!!
> 
> How many times have trilobites and brachiopods been mentioned in this thread?????
> 
> 
> No wonder you still have a job that requires a name tag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the gazillionth time, ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL (except creationists, of course.  They are on a side branch heading for extinction due to failure to adapt).
Click to expand...


All species are transitional? Not according to everything I know about evolution, did you find that under a pile of dirt somewhere?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. Im always suspicious of authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and *religion.*
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> omminnaoommmminaomminnnal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gentle hint for PC, the topic is evolution. Your source has no academic credentials in any scientific discipline and you just threw him under the creationist bus. Your buddy KG throws a hissyfit whenever anyone who doesn't have a doctorate in divinity dares to discuss the bible. If you want to defend your position you are going to have to find more credible sources. Too bad there aren't any.
Click to expand...


Neither do you, what's your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Having a law degree does not qualify him to be called a scientist.  No doubt, you would have your mechanic perform the lobotomy you so desperately need instead of a skilled neurosurgeon.



It doesn't disqualify him either. Quite a few scientists, even today, don't have academic credentials. The only people that make an issue of that are the idiots that think getting a degree makes you smart.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and religion.
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> &#8216;omminna&#8230;oommmmina&#8230;omminnnal&#8230;.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Princess is angry.
> 
> Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.
> 
> Like here, for example:
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the fossils that identify the steps leading to the signature organisms of the Cambrian Explosion?
> 
> 
> They don't exist...do they.
> 
> 
> So...you accept Darwin's thesis on faith.....it's your religion.
> 
> Admit it.
Click to expand...


You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.  For instance:

The Origin of Animal Body Plans » American Scientist

The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals

Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion

Proterozoic and early Cambrian protists: evidence for accelerating evolutionary tempo

*Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian?  Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?*


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a law degree does not qualify him to be called a scientist.  No doubt, you would have your mechanic perform the lobotomy you so desperately need instead of a skilled neurosurgeon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't disqualify him either. Quite a few scientists, even today, don't have academic credentials. The only people that make an issue of that are the idiots that think getting a degree makes you smart.
Click to expand...


Actually, it does.  Do you believe that any science organization would hire him as a scientist based on his qualifications as a lawyer (keeping in mind that he has no other qualifications)?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.
> 
> Or...would you like to explain why you accept it based on faith, as there are no cases of new species formed along the lines indicated by Darwin?
> 
> 
> The lack of fossils explaining the 'Cambrian Explosion'....
> Darwin faced the problem...the less intelligent attempt to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation *of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed* either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> 
> b. ". . . *there are no intermediate forms* between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
> G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> 
> c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are* missing.*"
> David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> 
> 
> d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. *In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.*"
> Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.
> 
> Go in peace, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, but princess was on a cut and paste tear across the web.  Ya know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are creationists really so desperately insecure in their belief system that their compelled to scour the internet to find validation of their beliefs by quote mining? How sad!
> 
> Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution.
> 
> You know, while the web can be an invaluable source of information / data gathering, it can also be a playground for cut & pasters such as the princess. There are those... "_less than discriminating types_", who scour the web for "quotes" they cut and paste without feeling any need or obligation to confirm the accuracy of their "quotes".
> 
> Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears in virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.
> 
> 
> Regarding "quote" _a_, we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:
> 
> Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _b_ is another example of a "quote" being mined from a creationist website. As usual, only a portion of the "quote" is available so we are left to question why is there a need to cut and paste the "quote" without any underlying context.
> 
> In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps
> 
> The particular "quote" was mined from a site titled "Center for Scientific Creationism".
> 
> Yeah, I know, I was laughing also. This site seems to be nothing more than a repository for "quotes" that appeal to the "quote- mining" types who cut and paste with abandon... and are suffering from oxygen starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But more fun. This particular quote can also be found on Harun Yahya with a different citation as to the quot-or
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and chief science advisor for the BBC:
> 
> ... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.225
> 
> 
> Oh narly. The princess is a Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _c_ appears here:
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> If anyone missed it, Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student and previously served time in jail for some less than legal activities involving underage girls.
> 
> Lovely!
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _d_ is another snippet of 1980's origin. And as bogus as the princess is a fraud.
> 
> Check out quote 33, here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote mining" is the phrase you hide behind when you fail in a debate.
> 
> As you have.
> 
> ....where are the fossils?
Click to expand...


Where are the fosills?  You'll need to wait till after dark when those atheistic, evilutionist scientists go out under cover of darkness with their rakes and shovels to plant the evidence.

In the meantime - Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional. Eohippus is shown in various stages. Whales have intermediaries. Creationists simply ignore the facts written in stone (they prefer the myths inscribed on parchment)

Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.
If princess is looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species, princess can look here:  Observed Instances of Speciation 


Would princes like more? 
Some More Observed Speciation Events


How about transitional fossils? Would princess like transitional fossils? 



There are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a law degree does not qualify him to be called a scientist.  No doubt, you would have your mechanic perform the lobotomy you so desperately need instead of a skilled neurosurgeon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't disqualify him either. Quite a few scientists, even today, don't have academic credentials. The only people that make an issue of that are the idiots that think getting a degree makes you smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it does.  Do you believe that any science organization would hire him as a scientist based on his qualifications as a lawyer (keeping in mind that he has no other qualifications)?
Click to expand...


Which scientific organizations hire people?

Have you ever heard of Michael Farraday?


----------



## flacaltenn

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet like a petulant child only serves to demonstrate your inability to offer a coherent comment.
> 
> Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Philip Johnson, previously a lawyer with no training or academic credentials in evolutionary biology, is in any position to author a book on a subject he has no formal training in.
> 
> This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist hacks. I&#8217;m always suspicious of &#8220;authors&#8221; who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and religion.
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> &#8216;omminna&#8230;oommmmina&#8230;omminnnal&#8230;.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my. Princess is angry.
> 
> Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.
> 
> Like here, for example:
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
Click to expand...


For the record -- I'm not a Creationist hack.. I find the stories of Creation to be remarkably in tune with scientific theory now that was unavailable to the authors who wrote them however. 

I also never attempt to impeach sources of innovation and creative thought. After all, a community organizer is now responsible for generating all the economic, diplomatic, social and scientific efforts of this nation.

Darwin was a failed and frustrated medical student. Let's impeach him.. 
He had NO KNOWLEDGE of the mechanism responsible for mutations and supposed there was a constant and consistent pressure for mutations. He also had no idea of the statistics or speed of the mutation process. 

If every specie on earth evolved solely on "natural selection" -- every living thing would have huge teeth and claws and be much smarter than your average bug.. 

So the OP is correct. In that Darwin is NOT the everlasting last word on evolution. And there is no reason for the evolutionists to suggest that is ALL our kids need to know about the subject. 

In fact --- in the 150 years since the Beagle sailed -- we've learned a LOT about MACRO-evolutionary processes and it is LIKELY that large JUMPS in evolution actually occured due to extreme climatic change, stress and radiation.   I consider those events more akin to acts of GOD than anything that Darwin suggested. 

Go ahead -- ignore the gaps in Darwinian theory and for God's sake -- SMITE those who that DENY that only tiny incremental changes in anatomy and "survival of the fittest" are responsible for EVERY living thing.

Good luck with all that..


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't disqualify him either. Quite a few scientists, even today, don't have academic credentials. The only people that make an issue of that are the idiots that think getting a degree makes you smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it does.  Do you believe that any science organization would hire him as a scientist based on his qualifications as a lawyer (keeping in mind that he has no other qualifications)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which scientific organizations hire people?
Click to expand...


Erm, which ones DON'T hire people?



> Have you ever heard of Michael Farraday?



Yes.  He is irrelevant to anything we are discussing.  He doesn't live in our time.  There were few standards in the 19th century for calling oneself a scientist.  You could buy a license to call yourself a doctor, and people frequently did, whether or not they had the training or educational background.  But you know what?  Why don't I just call myself a lawyer and try working in that field?  Do you think the courts would allow it?  Of course they wouldn't.  We don't allow non-credentialed people to work in fields that require it.  Which is why your pal will never be hired as a scientist. Oh, and by the way, your attempt to compare your Looney creationist lawyer friend with Michael Faraday?  That too was Looney.


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a transparent dunce.....and the fear is palpable.
> 
> You won't accept the considered opinion of Professor Johnson....'cause he's a lawyer?
> 
> Nah....it's because he reveals that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> What would you say if he had expertise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....BTW...
> 
> Phillip E. Johnson
> Title: Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law (Emeritus)
> Tel: 510-642-5370
> Fax: 510-643-2673
> Email Address: pjohnson@law.berkeley.edu
> After law school, Phillip Johnson clerked for Chief Justice Roger Traynor of the California Supreme Court and Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court. He joined the Boalt faculty in 1967.
> 
> Johnson has served as deputy district attorney while on leave from his teaching duties and has held visiting professorships at Emory University and at University College, London.
> 
> *He is the author of two books on evolution *and naturalistic philosophy for the general reader,* Darwin on Trial *(2nd ed., 1993) and Reason in the Balance (1995). He frequently lectures and *writes on subjects relating to science*, philosophy, and religion.
> 
> EDUCATION:
> A.B., Harvard University (1961)
> J.D., University of Chicago (1965)
> 
> 
> 
> BUSTED!!!
> 
> 
> You're such a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....do it one more time:
> 
> &#8216;omminna&#8230;oommmmina&#8230;omminnnal&#8230;.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Princess is angry.
> 
> Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.
> 
> Like here, for example:
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For the record -- I'm not a Creationist hack.. I find the stories of Creation to be remarkably in tune with scientific theory now that was unavailable to the authors who wrote them however. *
Click to expand...


Please watch this video, and then come back and explain how any of the ancient creation stories are in any way "remarkably in tune" with what we know today.

http://www.primewire.ag/tv-2717625-How-the-Universe-Works/season-2-episode-8


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Princess is angry.
> 
> Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.
> 
> Like here, for example:
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For the record -- I'm not a Creationist hack.. I find the stories of Creation to be remarkably in tune with scientific theory now that was unavailable to the authors who wrote them however. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please watch this video, and then come back and explain how any of the ancient creation stories are in any way "remarkably in tune" with what we know today.
Click to expand...


Don't know or care what "rational" video you needed me to consume. 
Probably one of those "we're so smart -- because we hate the Bible" PowerPoint deals eh?

When's the last time you READ the beginning of the Book of Genesis? 

It's really simple... 

Earth was unformed and void. First came the Light (Big Bang) -- formation of land and oceans, PLANTS BEFORE BEASTS, Beasts before Man.. 

Also the basic order of higher life springing from the sea is in there.. 
As well as the recognition that the stars in the heavens were signs of seasons.

What's the prob chief?? Gonna get picky with that narrative? 
It's only a page or two... Almost as brief as a twitter feed.. Can't get wonky in a twitter msg -- can ya? 

Back to the topic...


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *For the record -- I'm not a Creationist hack.. I find the stories of Creation to be remarkably in tune with scientific theory now that was unavailable to the authors who wrote them however. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please watch this video, and then come back and explain how any of the ancient creation stories are in any way "remarkably in tune" with what we know today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know or care what "rational" video you needed me to consume.
> Probably one of those "we're so smart -- because we hate the Bible" PowerPoint deals eh?
> 
> When's the last time you READ the beginning of the Book of Genesis?
> 
> It's really simple...
> 
> Earth was unformed and void. First came the Light (Big Bang) -- formation of land and oceans, PLANTS BEFORE BEASTS, Beasts before Man..
> 
> Also the basic order of higher life springing from the sea is in there..
> As well as the recognition that the stars in the heavens were signs of seasons.
> 
> What's the prob chief?? Gonna get picky with that narrative?
> It's only a page or two... Almost as brief as a twitter feed.. Can't get wonky in a twitter msg -- can ya?
> 
> Back to the topic...
Click to expand...


http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html

Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?

Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse. 

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". 

There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others. 

There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth". 

This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars. 

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 

The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today. 

The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth. 

However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans. 

But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong. 

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 

This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being. 

4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 

This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down". 

5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 

Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong. 

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 

7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 

8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 

The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy". 

Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong. 

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 

10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 

According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets. 

11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 

12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 

13: And the evening and the morning were the third day. 

According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong. 

Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants. 

14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 

15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 

16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 

17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 

18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 

19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 

Lots of problems here . . . . 

According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near. 

The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong. 

Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other. 

Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly. 

Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong. 

Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this. 

Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting). 

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 

23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 

The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group. 

25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 

The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land. 

The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong. 

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 

Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . . 

The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two). 

Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood. 

On to Genesis Chapter Two: 

1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 

2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 

3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 

The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear. 

The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . . 

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 

5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 

6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 

Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots. 

We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive. 

7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing. 

9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans. 

10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 

And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other. 

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 

20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 

Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative. 

21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 

22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 

And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time. 

*******************
Sorry, genesis is not remotely based on reality.  By the way, that video I posted for you if an episode of "How the Universe Works", and is very good.  I highly recommend it.

Watch How the Universe Works online (TV Show) - on PrimeWire | LetMeWatchThis | Formerly 1Channel - Season 2 and Episode 8


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it does.  Do you believe that any science organization would hire him as a scientist based on his qualifications as a lawyer (keeping in mind that he has no other qualifications)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which scientific organizations hire people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, which ones DON'T hire people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of Michael Farraday?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  He is irrelevant to anything we are discussing.  He doesn't live in our time.  There were few standards in the 19th century for calling oneself a scientist.  You could buy a license to call yourself a doctor, and people frequently did, whether or not they had the training or educational background.  But you know what?  Why don't I just call myself a lawyer and try working in that field?  Do you think the courts would allow it?  Of course they wouldn't.  We don't allow non-credentialed people to work in fields that require it.  Which is why your pal will never be hired as a scientist. Oh, and by the way, your attempt to compare your Looney creationist lawyer friend with Michael Faraday?  That too was Looney.
Click to expand...


I know, we are so much smarter now than we were when Faraday was a live, which explains why you needed to go to school to be taught about dirt, and he figured out how to invent electric motors, balloons, homopolar generators, and electrolysis machines without all that training.

My point, which you obviously missed in your attempt to look intelligent, is that a degree does not make you a scientist. In fact, there was a study recently that compared the abilities of scientists who are trained in their specialty and people who just want to help with science. You might be embarrassed to learn that non scientist do almost as good as trained experts, and that, even in areas where special training should show a major difference, the actual difference was less than 10%.

PLOS ONE: Comparing the Quality of Crowdsourced Data Contributed by Expert and Non-Experts

By the way, since all I have done in this thread is explain to you how little you know about science in general, and evolution in particular, what the fuck makes you think some random lawyer is my friend?


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which scientific organizations hire people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, which ones DON'T hire people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of Michael Farraday?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  He is irrelevant to anything we are discussing.  He doesn't live in our time.  There were few standards in the 19th century for calling oneself a scientist.  You could buy a license to call yourself a doctor, and people frequently did, whether or not they had the training or educational background.  But you know what?  Why don't I just call myself a lawyer and try working in that field?  Do you think the courts would allow it?  Of course they wouldn't.  We don't allow non-credentialed people to work in fields that require it.  Which is why your pal will never be hired as a scientist. Oh, and by the way, your attempt to compare your Looney creationist lawyer friend with Michael Faraday?  That too was Looney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, we are so much smarter now than we were when Faraday was a live, which explains why you needed to go to school to be taught about dirt, and he figured out how to invent electric motors, balloons, homopolar generators, and electrolysis machines without all that training.
Click to expand...


For future reference, it wasn't dirt that I learned about in college.



> My point, which you obviously missed in your attempt to look intelligent, is that a degree does not make you a scientist. In fact, there was a study recently that compared the abilities of scientists who are trained in their specialty and people who just want to help with science. You might be embarrassed to learn that non scientist do almost as good as trained experts, and that, even in areas where special training should show a major difference, the actual difference was less than 10%.
> 
> PLOS ONE: Comparing the Quality of Crowdsourced Data Contributed by Expert and Non-Experts



If all scientists did was collect data and post it on a web site, you might have a point (which is all the volunteers referenced in your paper did).  What apparently went straight over your head is that those volunteers didn't analyze the data and publish it in peer reviewed papers.  Even the paper you referenced was not written by non-experts.  Would you like to know their names?  Here you go:

*Linda See*, with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

*Alexis Comber*, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

*Carl Salk*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria, and Institute for Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

*Steffen Fritz*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

*Marijn van der Velde*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

*Christoph Perger*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria, and University of Applied Sciences, Weiner Neusdadt, Austria

*Christian Schill*, Remote Sensing and Land Information Systems, Albert-Ludwig University, Freiburg, Germany

*Ian McCallum*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

*Florian Kraxner*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

*Michael Obersteiner*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

ALL Degreed academics, career professionals certified in their respective fields publishing their results in a peer-reviewed professional publication.  Would you have given that paper as much weight as you did using it in your example if it had been written and posted on a religious blog by a lawyer with no standing whatsoever in applied science?  Well, perhaps you would have, but that's because you're a dumbass.



> By the way, since all I have done in this thread is explain to you how little you know about science in general, and evolution in particular, what the fuck makes you think some random lawyer is my friend?



Well, since he was not random, being the guy you were apologizing for, I guess that makes your outburst a moot point.  If you can't keep up with the thread, perhaps you should bow out before you get more mud on your face.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, but princess was on a cut and paste tear across the web.  Ya know, I so appreciate one who engages in this type of comical quote mining. Are creationists really so desperately insecure in their belief system that their compelled to scour the internet to find validation of their beliefs by quote mining? How sad!
> 
> Another aspect of this practice is that these "quotes" are widely passed around and used repeatedly by creationists, while neither bothering to check the original source nor giving any indication that they are taken from secondary sources. This is shown by the fact (as can be seen in a number of these cases) that there are errors that can and have crept into these quotes or their citations which are then propagated by other creationists when they are copied without attribution.
> 
> You know, while the web can be an invaluable source of information / data gathering, it can also be a playground for cut & pasters such as the princess. There are those... "_less than discriminating types_", who scour the web for "quotes" they cut and paste without feeling any need or obligation to confirm the accuracy of their "quotes".
> 
> Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears in virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.
> 
> 
> Regarding "quote" _a_, we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:
> 
> Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _b_ is another example of a "quote" being mined from a creationist website. As usual, only a portion of the "quote" is available so we are left to question why is there a need to cut and paste the "quote" without any underlying context.
> 
> In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23.** Fossil Gaps
> 
> The particular "quote" was mined from a site titled "Center for Scientific Creationism".
> 
> Yeah, I know, I was laughing also. This site seems to be nothing more than a repository for "quotes" that appeal to the "quote- mining" types who cut and paste with abandon... and are suffering from oxygen starvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But more fun. This particular quote can also be found on Harun Yahya with a different citation as to the quot-or
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> Gordon Rattray Taylor is an evolutionist author and chief science advisor for the BBC:
> 
> ... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.225
> 
> 
> Oh narly. The princess is a Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _c_ appears here:
> 
> Harun Yahya
> 
> If anyone missed it, Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student and previously served time in jail for some less than legal activities involving underage girls.
> 
> Lovely!
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote" _d_ is another snippet of 1980's origin. And as bogus as the princess is a fraud.
> 
> Check out quote 33, here:
> 
> Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote mining" is the phrase you hide behind when you fail in a debate.
> 
> As you have.
> 
> ....where are the fossils?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the fosills?  You'll need to wait till after dark when those atheistic, evilutionist scientists go out under cover of darkness with their rakes and shovels to plant the evidence.
> 
> In the meantime - Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional. Eohippus is shown in various stages. Whales have intermediaries. Creationists simply ignore the facts written in stone (they prefer the myths inscribed on parchment)
> 
> Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.
> If princess is looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species, princess can look here:  Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> Would princes like more?
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> How about transitional fossils? Would princess like transitional fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> There are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Click to expand...




"How about transitional fossils? Would princess like transitional fossils?"


"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- *ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.* By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



"....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
(Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago


----------



## orogenicman

On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

From: Evan Yeung

Let me congratulate you on a fantastic website! I have been thoroughly impressed with the articles and information presented here. It's too bad that many of this information seems to be deliberately ignored by many people who post on this feedback board... 

I do have a question...

In a number of articles that I've read from pro-creationist or intelligent design theorists, they have quoted David Raup from the Field Museum, who reportedly stated in 1979 that "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." Did David Raup really say this, or is he being taken out of context like so many other paleontologists when they are quoted by creationists?

Thanx! Evan
****************************

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context: 


Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.* (p. 25,  emphasis mine)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. (p. 22)

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about, in the quote creationists use, are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf). Not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:

There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . . (p. 23, emphasis mine)

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge are favorite targets for this creationist tactic because their hypothesis of punctuated equilibria is intended to explain why, from a biological point of view, we should expect species level transitions to be rare in the fossil record. Thus in their writings they frequently state the problem(s) they are attempting to solve. Creationists quote them stating the problems but not the solutions they propose. This seems to be the nature of the quote they have taken from Raup. The beginning of the very next paragraph after the one they quote tends to confirm this:

Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.  (p. 25)

He then moves on to the fossil record:

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent.  (p. 26)

He then goes on to discuss natural selection versus other possible explanatory mechanisms and how they might relate to the fossil record. He also discusses the effects of historical contingency as it relates to extinction pointing out that sometimes species may become extinct due more to "bad luck" than bad genes  (this by the way is the basis for Raup's 1991 book  Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?). Raup concludes this article stating:

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29)

Not particularly damning. Perhaps the more interesting question is where do creationists get the idea that lists of such (out of context) quotations are a valid form of scientific argument?

********************
I'd say that Creationists don't get much more dishonest than this, but that would be wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

Evolution is a FACT

God is a Theory


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Quote mining" is the phrase you hide behind when you fail in a debate.
> 
> As you have.
> 
> ....where are the fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the fosills?  You'll need to wait till after dark when those atheistic, evilutionist scientists go out under cover of darkness with their rakes and shovels to plant the evidence.
> 
> In the meantime - Archaeopteryx is clearly a transitional. Eohippus is shown in various stages. Whales have intermediaries. Creationists simply ignore the facts written in stone (they prefer the myths inscribed on parchment)
> 
> Secondly, It is an identifiable fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is an identifiable fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures.
> If princess is looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species, princess can look here:  Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> Would princes like more?
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> How about transitional fossils? Would princess like transitional fossils?
> 
> 
> 
> There are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species?
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How about transitional fossils? Would princess like transitional fossils?"
> 
> 
> "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- *ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.* By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> 
> 
> "....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
> (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago
Click to expand...


Good for you. More "quotes" you mined from Harun Yahya.  You don't seem to understand how comically tragic it is that you cut and paste from Harun Yahya. As usual, you mindlessly spam the thread with "quotes" which, as I've already demonstrated, are largely fraudulent. That makes you an accomplice to the fraud that is creationism.   

The fossil record does, clearly,  support evolution, in spite of your revulsion for knowledge and truth. There is no other rational explanation for the fossil record.  Click on the seach button at the top of your browser window and type in "Cambrian Explosion" and please get educated.

As far as the quotation from David Raup, please state the *exact* source with a link to the relevant "quote".  I know from experience to be extremely careful in accepting any "quote" offered by a creationist, as they routinely lie, fabricate and twist.



Archaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record

When Raul says the following (1983, p.157) it is unlikely that he said or meant what you claim.

"[t]he practicing paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia. Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles that we would indeed do that."


Late edit: I realized the "quote" from PC was already addressed in more thorough detail. 

Kudos, OM. Nicely done.


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please watch this video, and then come back and explain how any of the ancient creation stories are in any way "remarkably in tune" with what we know today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know or care what "rational" video you needed me to consume.
> Probably one of those "we're so smart -- because we hate the Bible" PowerPoint deals eh?
> 
> When's the last time you READ the beginning of the Book of Genesis?
> 
> It's really simple...
> 
> Earth was unformed and void. First came the Light (Big Bang) -- formation of land and oceans, PLANTS BEFORE BEASTS, Beasts before Man..
> 
> Also the basic order of higher life springing from the sea is in there..
> As well as the recognition that the stars in the heavens were signs of seasons.
> 
> What's the prob chief?? Gonna get picky with that narrative?
> It's only a page or two... Almost as brief as a twitter feed.. Can't get wonky in a twitter msg -- can ya?
> 
> Back to the topic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
> 
> Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?
> 
> Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.
> 
> Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
> 
> There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.
> 
> There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".
> 
> This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.
> 
> 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> 
> The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.
> 
> The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.
> 
> However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.
> 
> But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
> 
> 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> 
> This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.
> 
> 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".
> 
> 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.
> 
> 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
> 
> 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
> 
> 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
> 
> The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
> 
> Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
> 
> 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
> 
> 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.
> 
> 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.
> 
> Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.
> 
> 14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
> 
> 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> 
> 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
> 
> 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
> 
> Lots of problems here . . . .
> 
> According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near.
> 
> The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong.
> 
> Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other.
> 
> Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly.
> 
> Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong.
> 
> Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this.
> 
> Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting).
> 
> 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
> 
> 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.
> 
> 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land.
> 
> The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong.
> 
> 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 
> 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> 
> Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . .
> 
> The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two).
> 
> Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood.
> 
> On to Genesis Chapter Two:
> 
> 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
> 
> 2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> 
> 3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> 
> The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear.
> 
> The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . .
> 
> 4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
> 
> 5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
> 
> 6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
> 
> Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots.
> 
> We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.
> 
> 9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans.
> 
> 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
> 
> And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other.
> 
> 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
> 
> 20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
> 
> Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative.
> 
> 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
> 
> 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 
> And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time.
> 
> *******************
> Sorry, genesis is not remotely based on reality.  By the way, that video I posted for you if an episode of "How the Universe Works", and is very good.  I highly recommend it.
> 
> Watch How the Universe Works online (TV Show) - on PrimeWire | LetMeWatchThis | Formerly 1Channel - Season 2 and Episode 8
Click to expand...


Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you.. 

I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest. 

It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.

There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality. 

Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
How much FAITH does that take eh?? 

Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..


----------



## Derideo_Te

> For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH



Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know or care what "rational" video you needed me to consume.
> Probably one of those "we're so smart -- because we hate the Bible" PowerPoint deals eh?
> 
> When's the last time you READ the beginning of the Book of Genesis?
> 
> It's really simple...
> 
> Earth was unformed and void. First came the Light (Big Bang) -- formation of land and oceans, PLANTS BEFORE BEASTS, Beasts before Man..
> 
> Also the basic order of higher life springing from the sea is in there..
> As well as the recognition that the stars in the heavens were signs of seasons.
> 
> What's the prob chief?? Gonna get picky with that narrative?
> It's only a page or two... Almost as brief as a twitter feed.. Can't get wonky in a twitter msg -- can ya?
> 
> Back to the topic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
> 
> Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?
> 
> Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.
> 
> Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
> 
> There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.
> 
> There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".
> 
> This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.
> 
> 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> 
> The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.
> 
> The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.
> 
> However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.
> 
> But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
> 
> 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> 
> This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.
> 
> 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".
> 
> 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.
> 
> 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
> 
> 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
> 
> 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
> 
> The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
> 
> Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
> 
> 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
> 
> 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.
> 
> 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.
> 
> Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.
> 
> 14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
> 
> 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> 
> 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
> 
> 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
> 
> Lots of problems here . . . .
> 
> According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near.
> 
> The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong.
> 
> Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other.
> 
> Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly.
> 
> Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong.
> 
> Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this.
> 
> Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting).
> 
> 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
> 
> 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.
> 
> 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land.
> 
> The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong.
> 
> 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 
> 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> 
> Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . .
> 
> The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two).
> 
> Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood.
> 
> On to Genesis Chapter Two:
> 
> 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
> 
> 2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> 
> 3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> 
> The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear.
> 
> The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . .
> 
> 4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
> 
> 5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
> 
> 6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
> 
> Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots.
> 
> We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.
> 
> 9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans.
> 
> 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
> 
> And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other.
> 
> 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
> 
> 20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
> 
> Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative.
> 
> 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
> 
> 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 
> And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time.
> 
> *******************
> Sorry, genesis is not remotely based on reality.  By the way, that video I posted for you if an episode of "How the Universe Works", and is very good.  I highly recommend it.
> 
> Watch How the Universe Works online (TV Show) - on PrimeWire | LetMeWatchThis | Formerly 1Channel - Season 2 and Episode 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you..
> 
> I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest.
> 
> It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.
> 
> There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality.
> 
> Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
> Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
> How much FAITH does that take eh??
> 
> Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..
Click to expand...


Well, hate boy, hate all you want, because that is your weakness, not mine.  I'm certain you are prepared to imagine all sorts of things not in evidence.  Rest assured, your faith is intact, no matter the evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
Click to expand...





You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.





While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*






Tutorial coming up:

1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.

2.	Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies.

3.	It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies. 

a.	Why? For the same reason that the pitch of a police siren is changed as the police car disappears down the street: the Doppler Effect, the waves carrying the sound is stretched by the speeding car. That is why the redshift indicates that the galaxy in question is receding!* The universe is expanding.  *Thus, the reasoning behind the Big Bang.






4.	So, if *the universe is expanding,* 
a.	The particles must have been closer at some time
b.	And hotter at some time
c.	The retreat *into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!*! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.

5.	Get it? All the lines converge into.*.the beginning! *This presents a problem* if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. *
That would be *you.*
The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time....there was no time prior to the Big Bang.Was there a time before the big bang? - Curiosity

6.In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing singularity theorems. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some singularity where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews ?The Nature of Space and Time? by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose · LRB 1 August 1996 






OK....now...get ready!

	Astronomer Joseph Silk states that *at singularity the laws of physics break down!* On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books



Check this out....you're gonna hate it:

"Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. 

At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.		 



Get it?

"...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."

Know what he's saying?


----------



## Hollie

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know or care what "rational" video you needed me to consume.
> Probably one of those "we're so smart -- because we hate the Bible" PowerPoint deals eh?
> 
> When's the last time you READ the beginning of the Book of Genesis?
> 
> It's really simple...
> 
> Earth was unformed and void. First came the Light (Big Bang) -- formation of land and oceans, PLANTS BEFORE BEASTS, Beasts before Man..
> 
> Also the basic order of higher life springing from the sea is in there..
> As well as the recognition that the stars in the heavens were signs of seasons.
> 
> What's the prob chief?? Gonna get picky with that narrative?
> It's only a page or two... Almost as brief as a twitter feed.. Can't get wonky in a twitter msg -- can ya?
> 
> Back to the topic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
> 
> Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?
> 
> Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.
> 
> Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
> 
> There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.
> 
> There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".
> 
> This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.
> 
> 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> 
> The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.
> 
> The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.
> 
> However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.
> 
> But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
> 
> 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> 
> This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.
> 
> 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".
> 
> 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.
> 
> 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
> 
> 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
> 
> 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
> 
> The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
> 
> Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
> 
> 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
> 
> 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.
> 
> 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.
> 
> Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.
> 
> 14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
> 
> 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> 
> 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
> 
> 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
> 
> Lots of problems here . . . .
> 
> According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near.
> 
> The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong.
> 
> Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other.
> 
> Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly.
> 
> Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong.
> 
> Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this.
> 
> Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting).
> 
> 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
> 
> 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.
> 
> 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land.
> 
> The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong.
> 
> 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 
> 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> 
> Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . .
> 
> The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two).
> 
> Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood.
> 
> On to Genesis Chapter Two:
> 
> 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
> 
> 2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> 
> 3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> 
> The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear.
> 
> The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . .
> 
> 4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
> 
> 5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
> 
> 6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
> 
> Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots.
> 
> We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.
> 
> 9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans.
> 
> 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
> 
> And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other.
> 
> 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
> 
> 20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
> 
> Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative.
> 
> 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
> 
> 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 
> And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time.
> 
> *******************
> Sorry, genesis is not remotely based on reality.  By the way, that video I posted for you if an episode of "How the Universe Works", and is very good.  I highly recommend it.
> 
> Watch How the Universe Works online (TV Show) - on PrimeWire | LetMeWatchThis | Formerly 1Channel - Season 2 and Episode 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you..
> 
> I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest.
> 
> It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.
> 
> There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality.
> 
> Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
> Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
> How much FAITH does that take eh??
> 
> Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..
Click to expand...


I should probably know better than to ask, but what do you mean by &#8220;literary license&#8221; in the context here?

Are you suggesting that the words in the bible are sometimes metaphorical - sometimes not? Sometimes in &#8220;general agreement&#8221; - sometimes not? Sometimes an accurate rendition &#8211; sometimes not?

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words / verses are &#8220;gospel&#8221; and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?

I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct. Why not simply be clear and do not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers a god who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.

This is most spectacularly displayed with apologists&#8217; tendency to interpret length of days, well, this puts you firmly on a slippery slope. The story doesn't indicate anything is particularly metaphorical-- it seems to be in the context of "This happened, then this happened". Suddenly you can play fast and loose with the term "day" (and I know there are numerous translations of the word "day" from the Hebrew and Greek, but then we'd get in the problems with shoddy translation and why god'd allow that, etc. and that is a different thread). Well, if you can play fast and loose with the term "day", then so can anyone with... oh, the parting of the Red Sea. The Flood. The resurrection.

And yes, as a materialist, I can dissect the stories because I believe them to be wholly fabricated. You have a lot less latitude if you wish to assert a perfect god is the author of all of this, directly or otherwise.


----------



## Derideo_Te

> Darwin was a failed and frustrated medical student. Let's impeach him..
> He had NO KNOWLEDGE of the mechanism responsible for mutations and supposed there was a constant and consistent pressure for mutations. He also had no idea of the statistics or speed of the mutation process.



Darwin obtained the concept for evolution from a good friend of his who was studying capitalist market systems. How opportunities present themselves and are exploited while other existing markets whither and die off as change occurs. FYI that friend was an ordained minister of religion.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
> 
> 2.	Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies.
> 
> 3.	It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.
> 
> a.	Why? For the same reason that the pitch of a police siren is changed as the police car disappears down the street: the Doppler Effect, the waves carrying the sound is stretched by the speeding car. That is why the redshift indicates that the galaxy in question is receding!* The universe is expanding.  *Thus, the reasoning behind the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	So, if *the universe is expanding,*
> a.	The particles must have been closer at some time
> b.	And hotter at some time
> c.	The retreat *into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!*! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.
> 
> 5.	Get it? All the lines converge into.*.the beginning! *This presents a problem* if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. *
> That would be *you.*
> The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time....there was no time prior to the Big Bang.Was there a time before the big bang? - Curiosity
> 
> 6.In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing singularity theorems. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some singularity where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews ?The Nature of Space and Time? by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose · LRB 1 August 1996
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK....now...get ready!
> 
> Astronomer Joseph Silk states that *at singularity the laws of physics break down!* On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?
Click to expand...


Why didn't you simply link to your cut and pasting from an earlier thread?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4638044-post178.html


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> For future reference, it wasn't dirt that I learned about in college.



I thought you said that you had a degree in geology? Isn't that the science that deals with the Earth's physical structure and substance? If you want to pretend that rocks and dirt are different because one is harder than the other, I refer you to ice and water to make my point.



orogenicman said:


> If all scientists did was collect data and post it on a web site, you might have a point (which is all the volunteers referenced in your paper did).  What apparently went straight over your head is that those volunteers didn't analyze the data and publish it in peer reviewed papers.  Even the paper you referenced was not written by non-experts.  Would you like to know their names?  Here you go:
> 
> *Linda See*, with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria
> 
> *Alexis Comber*, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
> 
> *Carl Salk*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria, and Institute for Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
> 
> *Steffen Fritz*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria
> 
> *Marijn van der Velde*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria
> 
> *Christoph Perger*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria, and University of Applied Sciences, Weiner Neusdadt, Austria
> 
> *Christian Schill*, Remote Sensing and Land Information Systems, Albert-Ludwig University, Freiburg, Germany
> 
> *Ian McCallum*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria
> 
> *Florian Kraxner*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria
> 
> *Michael Obersteiner*, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services, and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria
> 
> ALL Degreed academics, career professionals certified in their respective fields publishing their results in a peer-reviewed professional publication.  Would you have given that paper as much weight as you did using it in your example if it had been written and posted on a religious blog by a lawyer with no standing whatsoever in applied science?  Well, perhaps you would have, but that's because you're a dumbass.



I know you think your degree in dirt makes you special, and proves that you are automatically smarter about dirt than anyone else, but quite a bit of the knowledge you were taught came from the efforts of people who were self taught. 

You also described yourself as an amateur astronomer, which is probably the most open field in all of science for people who do not have specialized training to make historical impact, even today, Yet, for some reason, you insist that all your efforts as an amateur astronomer are worthless. 

Why do it at all?



orogenicman said:


> Well, since he was not random, being the guy you were apologizing for, I guess that makes your outburst a moot point.  If you can't keep up with the thread, perhaps you should bow out before you get more mud on your face.



I didn't apologize for anybody, all I did was point out that your arrogance that your degree in dirt trumps the fact that his degree is in law. That, in case you have future questions about my friends, means I am attacking you, not defending a random lawyer.

By the way, since you are the idiot that claimed evolution is guided, when it clearly is not, how do I have mud on my face. The only way evolution could be guided is if you assume that someone is controlling everything that happens, which would make you a believer in either creationism, or intelligent design which is actively guided by advanced aliens.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
Click to expand...


Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



> 2.	Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies.



Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.



> 3.	It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.



That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

<snip>



> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?



The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup
> 
> From: Evan Yeung
> 
> Let me congratulate you on a fantastic website! I have been thoroughly impressed with the articles and information presented here. It's too bad that many of this information seems to be deliberately ignored by many people who post on this feedback board...
> 
> I do have a question...
> 
> In a number of articles that I've read from pro-creationist or intelligent design theorists, they have quoted David Raup from the Field Museum, who reportedly stated in 1979 that "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." Did David Raup really say this, or is he being taken out of context like so many other paleontologists when they are quoted by creationists?
> 
> Thanx! Evan
> ****************************
> 
> Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context:
> 
> 
> Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.* (p. 25,  emphasis mine)
> 
> .
> .
> .
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that Creationists don't get much more dishonest than this, but that would be wrong.



Well thanks for helping us identify all the weaknesses of viewing evolution from a Darwinian POV.. It certainly has led folks on wild goose chases looking for missing links. 

The "dwell times" of those transistions in the fossil record OUGHT to be long enough to FIND THEM --- IF they led to survivable species. But this guy is SAYING that the transistions are likely MUCH SHORTER than explainable by "natural selection". 

Thanks for help in CORRECTING the public misconception that all our kids need to know comes from Darwin.. Better Science is always a good thing..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a Theory



I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
Click to expand...


Since physics tells me that the universe is not eternal, does that mean that the law of conservation does not exist? Or does it really mean that you have no fucking idea what the hell you are talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Darwin was a failed and frustrated medical student. Let's impeach him..
> He had NO KNOWLEDGE of the mechanism responsible for mutations and supposed there was a constant and consistent pressure for mutations. He also had no idea of the statistics or speed of the mutation process.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin obtained the concept for evolution from a good friend of his who was studying capitalist market systems. How opportunities present themselves and are exploited while other existing markets whither and die off as change occurs. FYI that friend was an ordained minister of religion.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## flacaltenn

Derideo_Te said:


> For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
Click to expand...



That desparate attempt to slam a prosaic story about the Creation wasn't speculating "on all possible forms". It was asserting SPECIFIC CONDITIONS for which there is no theoretical linkage or proof. If it was an excersize in trying to account for energy conservation in the tiny dense spark of the Big Bang --- whatever wasn't at Ground Zero is taken on faith...

I find this to be PARTICULARLY humorous... 



> The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons.



Besides being ambiguous as to whether this is pre-Big-Bang or after, the use of the word "SEA" is hysterical.. Because later on, the author chastizes the Bible for using the reference to "God's face upon the waters" to blast the concept that water actually existed. It's OK to use literary license if you're a mighty arrogant Bible basher -- but no slack for the literal words in the Bible itself.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, it wasn't dirt that I learned about in college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you said that you had a degree in geology? Isn't that the science that deals with the Earth's physical structure and substance? If you want to pretend that rocks and dirt are different because one is harder than the other, I refer you to ice and water to make my point.
Click to expand...


Geology is the study of the planet Earth.  The study of soil is pedology.  The former encompasses far more than dirt.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



> I know you think your degree in dirt makes you special, and proves that you are automatically smarter about dirt than anyone else,



No, just smarter than you.  



> but quite a bit of the knowledge you were taught came from the efforts of people who were self taught.
> 
> You also described yourself as an amateur astronomer, which is probably the most open field in all of science for people who do not have specialized training to make historical impact, even today, Yet, for some reason, you insist that all your efforts as an amateur astronomer are worthless.



I never said that, so don't put words into my mouth. Amateurs make important contributions, but they cannot and don't do it alone.  That bulk of amateurs don't have the requisite expertize for many fields of study, nor the capital needed to do the work.  Aside from the legal issues, that is why we have no amateur brain surgeons.  And any amateur worth his salt knows when to step aside and let the experts do their job.  As an amateur astronomer, I may discover a supernova, and may even take some rudimentary measurements such as apparent brightness, location in the sky, and even some spectroscopic data, but I don't possess a 200 million dollar observatory where I can throw the state of the science at the problem, nor do I have the expertize to wield that science.  And neither does your creationist lawyer friend.




orogenicman said:


> Well, since he was not random, being the guy you were apologizing for, I guess that makes your outburst a moot point.  If you can't keep up with the thread, perhaps you should bow out before you get more mud on your face.





> I didn't apologize for anybody, all I did was point out that your arrogance that your degree in dirt trumps the fact that his degree is in law.



My degree in geology does trump his degree in law in matters of geological science in the exact same way his degree in law trumps my degree in geology in matters of the law.



> That, in case you have future questions about my friends, *means I am attacking you*, not defending a random lawyer.



Was there any doubt?



> By the way, since you are the idiot that claimed evolution is guided, when it clearly is not, how do I have mud on my face.



Not once did I say that evolution was guided.  I said that it is non-random.  That is a statement of fact.  Do you understand that concept?  Of course you don't.


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup
> 
> From: Evan Yeung
> 
> Let me congratulate you on a fantastic website! I have been thoroughly impressed with the articles and information presented here. It's too bad that many of this information seems to be deliberately ignored by many people who post on this feedback board...
> 
> I do have a question...
> 
> In a number of articles that I've read from pro-creationist or intelligent design theorists, they have quoted David Raup from the Field Museum, who reportedly stated in 1979 that "We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." Did David Raup really say this, or is he being taken out of context like so many other paleontologists when they are quoted by creationists?
> 
> Thanx! Evan
> ****************************
> 
> Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context:
> 
> 
> Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.* (p. 25,  emphasis mine)
> 
> .
> .
> .
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that Creationists don't get much more dishonest than this, but that would be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for helping us identify all the weaknesses of viewing evolution from a Darwinian POV.. It certainly has led folks on wild goose chases looking for missing links.
Click to expand...


You do realize that he is an evolutionary scientist, right?  And that his position is that of an evolutionary scientist, right? And that science advances as new knowledge is gained.  RIGHT?  Do you honestly believe that we have learned nothing since the 1980s?  REALLY?



> The "dwell times" of those transistions in the fossil record OUGHT to be long enough to FIND THEM --- IF they led to survivable species. But this guy is SAYING that the transistions are likely MUCH SHORTER than explainable by "natural selection".



Continuing to misconstrue what he said demonstrates the willful ignorance of creationists I've been pointing out since I joined this thread.  Congratulations.



> Thanks for help in CORRECTING the public misconception that all our kids need to know comes from Darwin.. Better Science is always a good thing..



The misconception is that something as complicated as the theory of evolution can be taught from the pulpit of uninformed, willfully ignorant creationists.


----------



## Old Rocks

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
Click to expand...


Sheesh. Fecal, it is you that demonstrate total ignorance of what theory means in science. In fact, the way that you refer to theory is far more the layman's definition than the scientific one. 

And Newton was not proven wrong by Einstein. What Einstein demonstrated was that Newtonian physics does not apply when the numbers get very large or very small. We still use the Newtonian equations for most things in our daily lives. The differance between the answers they give, and the answers the Reletivistic equations give is to small to be of use in normal situations. So the underpinnings were hardly destroyed. 

I find your endless errors concerning science to be amusing, especially when you try to debate with people with far more knowledge and training in science than you obviously have. And a fellow with a degree in 'dirt', or Geology, is the very person to talk to about evolution. Only a biologist knows the subject better.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
> 
> 2.	Each atom has a unique spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency. Therefore the light that comes to us from space reveals the composition of distant galaxies.
> 
> 3.	It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.
> 
> a.	Why? For the same reason that the pitch of a police siren is changed as the police car disappears down the street: the Doppler Effect, the waves carrying the sound is stretched by the speeding car. That is why the redshift indicates that the galaxy in question is receding!* The universe is expanding.  *Thus, the reasoning behind the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	So, if *the universe is expanding,*
> a.	The particles must have been closer at some time
> b.	And hotter at some time
> c.	The retreat *into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity!*! This is known as the Big Bang Singularity.
> 
> 5.	Get it? All the lines converge into.*.the beginning! *This presents a problem* if one is tempted to believe in a universe with no beginning and no ending. *
> That would be *you.*
> The Big Bang, therefore, suggests a universe that is finite in time....there was no time prior to the Big Bang.Was there a time before the big bang? - Curiosity
> 
> 6.In the Sixties Hawking and Penrose joined in constructing singularity theorems. These seemed to show that everything now visible to us must have originated from a single point, or from something much like one: some singularity where gravitationally induced curvature was indefinitely high, and at which particle histories had their first moments. John Leslie reviews ?The Nature of Space and Time? by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose · LRB 1 August 1996
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK....now...get ready!
> 
> Astronomer Joseph Silk states that *at singularity the laws of physics break down!* On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe - Joseph Silk - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't you simply link to your cut and pasting from an earlier thread?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/4638044-post178.html
Click to expand...




What a coincidence!!!  You read this and thought I was calling you?

I post "..one can only suspect the operation of* psychological forces lying very much deeper *than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."


Exactly who this suggested!!!



You must be ever so sensitive to that phrase....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



Stupid is as stupid does.

She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."

FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.



> The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the  atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high  energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is  being constructed. It instantly pops into existance.   So the question is: where does the photon come from?
> Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put  the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required  energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also  instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them.



Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?

One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.



orogenicman said:


> Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.



And those photons come from what, exactly?

Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I? 

FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.



orogenicman said:


> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.



Other than demonstrating your ignorance?

<snip>



orogenicman said:


> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.



Interesting argument.

Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.

It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.


----------



## flacaltenn

Hollie said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
> 
> Is Genesis Scientifically Accurate?
> 
> Many creationists make the claim that the order and timing of the events described in Genesis are scientifically accurate, and thus could only be the result of divine knowledge. The most vociferous proponents of this argument are the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their booklet "Life: How Did It Get Here?". Are the creationists right? Is Genesis accurate in the order and timing of the events it describes? Is Genesis a historical narrative that accurately describes the appearence of life? A cursory examination shows that it is not. To see why, let's go through the creation accounts verse by verse.
> 
> Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
> 
> There are some questions about this translation. The original Hebrew word usually translated as "God" here is elohim, which is actually the plural form. Literally, this verse reads, "in the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." This is one of several places in the Bible where God is referred to in the plural. Biblical scholars conclude that these fragments are left over from an early part of Hebrew history when the Jewish religion was, like every other religion on earth at the time, polytheistic, with more than one god. During this time, the god Yahweh was a storm god, one of many others.
> 
> There is also some dispute about the words. An alternate translation has this verse as "When god began to create the heavens and the earth".
> 
> This verse implies that the "heavens and the earth" were created more or less at the same time. Scientifically, we know that the "heavens", that is, space, appeared billions of years before the earth ever appeared. The sun is at least a "third generation" star, which formed from condensed gas clouds made up of remnants of at least two supernovae from previous stars.
> 
> 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> 
> The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.
> 
> The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.
> 
> However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.
> 
> But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.
> 
> 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> 
> This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being.
> 
> 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> 
> This verse betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of "light", one that was common to the pre-industrial peoples who wrote the Bible. During these times, it was believed that "darkness" was an element separate and distinct from "light" (see, for example, Amos 5:8, which declares that God "maketh the day dark with night"). This of course is simply not true. Darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. One can no more "separate" light from darkness than one can separate "left" from "right" or "up" from "down".
> 
> 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> 
> Notice here that there is no Sun yet, it not having yet been created. This account is thus contradicted by science on several grounds. Since a "day" is itself based on the earth's rotation near the Sun, there could have been no "day" until AFTER the sun appeared. Nor is there any cosmic source of "day light" other than the sun. Scientifically, we know that the sun actually condensed first, and was already burning nuclear fuel when the earth first began to appreciably accrete. The Genesis account, which has the earth and the "waters" formed before the Sun, is simply wrong.
> 
> 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
> 
> 7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
> 
> 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
> 
> The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".
> 
> Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.
> 
> 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
> 
> 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.
> 
> 11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
> 
> According to the Genesis account, the first living things to be created were grasses and plants, and they lived on land. Scientifically, this is untrue. For the first three billion years of its existence, all life, both animal and plant, was entirely aquatic and lived in the sea. The land area was sterile and had no life. During this period, all life consisted of single-celled prokaryotes that were not grasses, not herbs, and not even plants. The Biblical account that has grasses appearing at the same time, or shortly before, fruit trees is also incorrect. Flowering plants, or angiosperms, appeared during the Cretaceous period, just before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and before any grasses appeared. As far as grasses, they weren't even remotely the first forms of life---grasses didn't appear until the early Tertiary period, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs. They are actually one of the LAST major groups of plants to have formed. The Genesis writer's idea that plants appeared before animals is also simply wrong----we know from the fossil record that multicellular animals appeared first. The Genesis account gets all of this wrong.
> 
> Note here too that the Sun hadn't been created yet. . . . Plants, of course, cannot live without photosynthesis using sunlight. The Biblical idea that plants could have appeared before the Sun appeared simply reflects their lack of knowledge about the most basic biology of plants.
> 
> 14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
> 
> 15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
> 
> 16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
> 
> 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
> 
> 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
> 
> Lots of problems here . . . .
> 
> According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near.
> 
> The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong.
> 
> Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other.
> 
> Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly.
> 
> Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong.
> 
> Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this.
> 
> Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting).
> 
> 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
> 
> 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
> 
> 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group.
> 
> 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
> 
> The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land.
> 
> The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong.
> 
> 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 
> 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> 
> Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . .
> 
> The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two).
> 
> Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood.
> 
> On to Genesis Chapter Two:
> 
> 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
> 
> 2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
> 
> 3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
> 
> The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear.
> 
> The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . .
> 
> 4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
> 
> 5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
> 
> 6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
> 
> Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots.
> 
> We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing.
> 
> 9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans.
> 
> 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
> 
> And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other.
> 
> 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
> 
> 20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
> 
> Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative.
> 
> 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
> 
> 22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 
> And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time.
> 
> *******************
> Sorry, genesis is not remotely based on reality.  By the way, that video I posted for you if an episode of "How the Universe Works", and is very good.  I highly recommend it.
> 
> Watch How the Universe Works online (TV Show) - on PrimeWire | LetMeWatchThis | Formerly 1Channel - Season 2 and Episode 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you..
> 
> I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest.
> 
> It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.
> 
> There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality.
> 
> Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
> Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
> How much FAITH does that take eh??
> 
> Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should probably know better than to ask, but what do you mean by literary license in the context here?
> 
> Are you suggesting that the words in the bible are sometimes metaphorical - sometimes not? Sometimes in general agreement - sometimes not? Sometimes an accurate rendition  sometimes not?
> 
> The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words / verses are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
Click to expand...


Of course there is literary license in the Bible.. Why would we have so many preachers and rabbinical students if there was only ONE WAY to read it. There are some that take every word literally.. I'm not one. I'm spiritual and FULLY SUPPORT people of faith, but I'm not as fundamental about religion as I am for instance about my political and social "beliefs".



> I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct. Why not simply be clear and do not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers a god who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.



Even more reason to cut the narrative some slack.. From where the Earth sits at the moment --- would have been several hundred thousand years for the light to arrive.



> This is most spectacularly displayed with apologists tendency to interpret length of days, well, this puts you firmly on a slippery slope. The story doesn't indicate anything is particularly metaphorical-- it seems to be in the context of "This happened, then this happened". Suddenly you can play fast and loose with the term "day" (and I know there are numerous translations of the word "day" from the Hebrew and Greek, but then we'd get in the problems with shoddy translation and why god'd allow that, etc. and that is a different thread). Well, if you can play fast and loose with the term "day", then so can anyone with... oh, the parting of the Red Sea. The Flood. The resurrection.
> 
> And yes, as a materialist, I can dissect the stories because I believe them to be wholly fabricated. You have a lot less latitude if you wish to assert a perfect god is the author of all of this, directly or otherwise.



Your loss. Ever hear the Native American accounts of Creation? You had time to read Homer? Maybe some Beowolf? What's the diff? Unless you're FRIGHTENED of early accounts of civilized culture --- you should have nothing to fear. 

Unless you regard the Bible as a symbol of your own arrogance and believe you are above it all. Like the parent who lets' out a snicker at a cartoon that he just told his kid not to watch. Beating up on FAITH is for stupid folks who BELIEVE themselves to be intellectually superior. After a good portion of a career in science and engineering, I'm here to tell you that without FAITH -- nothing would get innovated. 

Here we are discussing Darwin and missing links and the predictable DEFENSE of "natural selection" still continues DESPITE massive NEW science and revelations since the Beagle sailed. *WHY? Because the folks who HATE people of faith with a passion --- would have to admit that in their RECENT HISTORY --- they've ignored basic weaknesses in the theory that they trusted implicitly and ADMIT that some creationist arguments MIGHT have had validity.*

And their arrogance won't let them admit that..


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.	It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
Click to expand...



Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?

Loser.


How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"


----------



## Old Rocks

When ol' PC starts posting real information from people like Ernst Myer, then she will have something to say. Not likely to happen in this lifetime.

Ernst Mayr Biography -- Academy of Achievement


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
Click to expand...


Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. The Law of Conservation equates to an eternal universe. Speculation is nothing more than normal interest in the unknown. What would requires "faith" is the belief that there was a specific "state" for the universe to have assumed prior to the big bang. (That there was no light for instance.) But simply speculating on all of the possible forms requires no faith at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.	It was found that the frequency of the hydrogen atoms of these galaxies was shifted to the red part of the spectrum. In 1912, Vesto Slipher was the first to observe the shift of spectral lines of galaxies, making him the discoverer of galactic redshifts. Edwin Hubble was generally incorrectly credited with discovering the redshift of galaxies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
Click to expand...


Not trying to find God in the creation of the Universe. I think we're merely pointing out how much Faith it takes to believe the best science on the subject. 'bout the time you get around to suspending time to make it more palatable -- I'd say you should just relax and take it on faith..


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"
Click to expand...


Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, it was thought that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

*My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Geology is the study of the planet Earth.  The study of soil is pedology.  The former encompasses far more than dirt.  You didn't know this?  Huh.



I can assume, from your user name, that your field is orogeny. That, at best, is the study of a specific strata of the Earth, not the entire planet. 

And it is still dirt.



orogenicman said:


> No, just smarter than you.



Yet you insist on displaying your lack of education. Is that because you aren't as smart as you think you are?



orogenicman said:


> I never said that, so don't put words into my mouth. Amateurs make important contributions, but they cannot and don't do it alone.  That bulk of amateurs don't have the requisite expertize for many fields of study, nor the capital needed to do the work.  Aside from the legal issues, that is why we have no amateur brain surgeons.  And any amateur worth his salt knows when to step aside and let the experts do their job.  As an amateur astronomer, I may discover a supernova, and may even take some rudimentary measurements such as apparent brightness, location in the sky, and even some spectroscopic data, but I don't possess a 200 million dollar observatory where I can throw the state of the science at the problem, nor do I have the expertize to wield that science.  And neither does your creationist lawyer friend.



Philosophically, nobody does anything alone. That does not mean your specialized training trumps the ability of someone to learn everything you know, and jump ahead of you in your own field. 

By the way, as an amateur astronomer, I know I can access those observatories, with all their hardware, and contribute significantly to the understanding of supernovas, even if I don't discover them. I also know that similar programs are open to amateur scientists in other fields. Perhaps you should consider moving into the 21st century.



orogenicman said:


> My degree in geology does trump his degree in law in matters of geological science in the exact same way his degree in law trumps my degree in geology in matters of the law.



Only if you ignore the fact that people do not have to go to school to learn, which you seem intent on doing.



orogenicman said:


> Was there any doubt?



You seemed to have some, why else would you insist I was defending someone?



orogenicman said:


> Not once did I say that evolution was guided.  I said that it is non-random.  That is a statement of fact.  Do you understand that concept?  Of course you don't.



FYI, any equation that has a random element will always produce a random unless something occurs to random elements from the equation.

Since evolution is dependent on random events, the only way it can be non random is if some sort of intelligent agent interferes to eliminate the randomness of the process. 

That means that, by definition, you are saying evolution is guided.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."
> 
> FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the  atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high  energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is  being constructed. It instantly pops into existance.   So the question is: where does the photon come from?
> Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put  the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required  energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also  instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?
> 
> One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> And those photons come from what, exactly?
> 
> Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?
> 
> FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than demonstrating your ignorance?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting argument.
> 
> Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.
> 
> It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.
Click to expand...


You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response.  As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are.  What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read.  It is my opinion.  That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0?  Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs.  So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation.  However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade.  Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen.  Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheesh. Fecal, it is you that demonstrate total ignorance of what theory means in science. In fact, the way that you refer to theory is far more the layman's definition than the scientific one.
> 
> And Newton was not proven wrong by Einstein. What Einstein demonstrated was that Newtonian physics does not apply when the numbers get very large or very small. We still use the Newtonian equations for most things in our daily lives. The differance between the answers they give, and the answers the Reletivistic equations give is to small to be of use in normal situations. So the underpinnings were hardly destroyed.
> 
> I find your endless errors concerning science to be amusing, especially when you try to debate with people with far more knowledge and training in science than you obviously have. And a fellow with a degree in 'dirt', or Geology, is the very person to talk to about evolution. Only a biologist knows the subject better.
Click to expand...


I get it, Newton is right, except when he isn't. That doesn't mean he was wrong though, just that the Newtonian universe doesn't work.

Other than that tortuous logic, how is my description of a scientific theory, which was meant for a guy that doesn't know what a fact is, inaccurate? What is the precise way scientists use theory to build a worldview? What happens when someone, like Einstein, prove that that worldview is inaccurate?

Feel free to educate us, or just keep pretending you are smarter than everyone else.


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.
> 
> As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?
Click to expand...


What cave did you just crawl out of?? As I said to Hollie above, when you do move on from the incomplete and simplistic views of evolution that you've insisted on for your life -- aren't ya gonna have to admit that the creationists were correct about some of their "weaknesses" in your theory? 

Ever hear of creating 100 new species in 10 days in the lab?



> According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:
> 
> So Muller put hundreds of fruit flies in gelatin capsules and bombarded them with X-rays. The irradiated flies were then bred to untreated ones. In 10 days thousands of their offspring were buzzing around their banana-mash feed, and Muller was looking upon an unprecedented outburst of man-made mutations. There were flies with bulging eyes, flat eyes, purple, yellow and brown eyes. Some had curly bristles, some no bristles...
> Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.
> 
> Then, natural selection takes over.



What's the implication of that? 

Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net



> Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.
> 
> Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons also known as jumping geneshave had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.
> 
> Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.
> 
> You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate, he says.



And then there is plenty of work on how periods of great stress from disasters and climate can fuel acceleration of mutation and adaptation. THere is a mountain of non-Darwinian science out there. All pointing toward evidence of MASSIVE LEAPS in evolution rather than random slower adaptations.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never miss an opportunity to prove you are less than the sharpest knife in the draw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Judeo-Christian definition of God includes* 'always was, always will be,' the same does not apply to laws of physics.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tutorial coming up:
> 
> 1.	Observations of the heavens made the Big Bang plausible. Begin with light, understood as the undulations of the electromagnetic field. It is due to the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out....you're gonna hate it:
> 
> "Perhaps the best *argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism* is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
> 
> At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation [steady state] or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that *one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory.*" Isham, C. 1988. "Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process," in Physics, Philosophy, and Theology, A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger, and G. V. Coyne, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, p. 378.
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> "...one can only suspect the operation of *psychological forces* lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."
> 
> Know what he's saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"
Click to expand...


Hmm.  Moving the goalpost, I see.  You know, people can be stubborn sometimes.  They are comfortable with what they know (or think they know).  But when multiple people cite multiple credible sources that all show that you are mistaken, you really should be a man (or woman) and admit that you were mistaken, and then move on.  All species are transitional because ALL species evolve.  There is nothing unambiguous or mistaken in that statement.  Like I said, go find me that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian.  Go find that, and you will no doubt win a Nobel prize like the theory of evolution did.  Good luck.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a FACT
> 
> God is a Theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.
> 
> As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?
Click to expand...


Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."
> 
> FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.
> 
> 
> 
> Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?
> 
> One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> And those photons come from what, exactly?
> 
> Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?
> 
> FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than demonstrating your ignorance?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting argument.
> 
> Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.
> 
> It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response.  As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are.  What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read.  It is my opinion.  That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0?  Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs.  So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation.  However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade.  Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen.  Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?

Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.
> 
> As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.
Click to expand...


The phrase you used was "proven wrong".  He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else.  As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> She did not say that light is composed of atoms or electrons, she said that it is "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits."
> 
> FYI, that is an accurate, if incomplete, description of how photons are created.
> 
> 
> 
> Curious About Astronomy: How are photons created and destroyed?
> 
> One would think an amateur astronomer would know this, even if he studied dirt to get a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> And those photons come from what, exactly?
> 
> Sorry, I just answered that question, didn't I?
> 
> FYI, anything that reflects light is, by definition, ionized.
> 
> 
> 
> Other than demonstrating your ignorance?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting argument.
> 
> Tell me something, other than anecdotal evidence that clearly abounds, what evidence is there that causality exists at all? What proof is there that causality is linked to time as you understand it? Even if you are correct, given the current understanding of physics, it is entirely possible that something from outside our universe could have precipitated the Big Bang without violating your limited linear view of time and causality in the least.
> 
> It also would not require the actions of God, so step down from your accusations before you get started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response.  As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are.  What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read.  It is my opinion.  That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0?  Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs.  So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation.  However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade.  Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen.  Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?
> 
> Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.
Click to expand...


My mistake.  I misunderstood what she had said.  Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):

She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits".  Photons are not electrons.  Electrons have mass.  A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 &#8722;31 kg.  Photons do not have mass.  If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.  

As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right.  What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.
> 
> As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The phrase you used was "proven wrong".  He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else.  As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.
Click to expand...


Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong. 

It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize, of course, that nothing you said refutes anything I said in my response.  As for causality, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, though I have friends and colleagues who are.  What I said about causality is what I understand of it from my conversations with other scientists, and from what I've read.  It is my opinion.  That said, do you have any evidence that time is not linear, that causality is not linear, and even if they are not, is there any evidence that time or causality can exist at t=0?  Yes, there are theories of multiverses and repeating universes, and so repeating big bangs.  So far as we know, they are not currently testable, and so falls under the realm of speculation.  However, the notion that causality breaks down at the big bang does have some evidence supporting it, as well as a lot of very cool, and solid mathematics that is, admittedly, way above my pay grade.  Whether any of this is shown to be true in the future remains to be seen.  Certainly, none of it calls for the god of the gaps argument, as you appear to admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?
> 
> Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I misunderstood what she had said.  Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):
> 
> She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits".  Photons are not electrons.  Electrons have mass.  A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 &#8722;31 kg.  Photons do not have mass.  If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.
> 
> As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right.  What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.
Click to expand...


We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.
> 
> Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.
> 
> As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What cave did you just crawl out of?? As I said to Hollie above, when you do move on from the incomplete and simplistic views of evolution that you've insisted on for your life -- aren't ya gonna have to admit that the creationists were correct about some of their "weaknesses" in your theory?
> 
> Ever hear of creating 100 new species in 10 days in the lab?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:
> 
> So Muller put hundreds of fruit flies in gelatin capsules and bombarded them with X-rays. The irradiated flies were then bred to untreated ones. In 10 days thousands of their offspring were buzzing around their banana-mash feed, and Muller was looking upon an unprecedented outburst of man-made mutations. There were flies with bulging eyes, flat eyes, purple, yellow and brown eyes. Some had curly bristles, some no bristles...
> Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.
> 
> Then, natural selection takes over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the implication of that?
> 
> Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.
> 
> Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons also known as jumping geneshave had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.
> 
> Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.
> 
> You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate, he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then there is plenty of work on how periods of great stress from disasters and climate can fuel acceleration of mutation and adaptation. THere is a mountain of non-Darwinian science out there. All pointing toward evidence of MASSIVE LEAPS in evolution rather than random slower adaptations.
Click to expand...


As I have said a half a dozen times, dufus, Darwin was not the end of the story.  Secondly, since you have apparently admitted that evolution occurs based on the above citations, what is your point about creationism?  Do you believe that it supplants evolution, and if so, how so?


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase you used was "proven wrong".  He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else.  As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.
> 
> It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.
Click to expand...


But it is not impossible to use Newtonian physics to get us out into the solar system.  And we have done just that.

Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used today in many fields?  Do you have an understanding that 1=1=2 is not the last word in  mathematics?  That all of these works have limitations, even Einstein's?  And that Newton laid the foundation for pretty much everything and everyone that came after in physics, including Einstein's work?

Newton's laws: background and limitations. From Physclips: Mechanics with animations and film.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?
> 
> Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I misunderstood what she had said.  Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):
> 
> She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits".  Photons are not electrons.  Electrons have mass.  A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 &#8722;31 kg.  Photons do not have mass.  If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.
> 
> As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right.  What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.
Click to expand...


But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up.  That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there.  To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.


----------



## orogenicman

PC Chic, you didn't get back to me with regard to my questions:



> Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?



Oh, and how is that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian search going?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase you used was "proven wrong".  He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else.  As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.
> 
> It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it is not impossible to use Newtonian physics to get us out into the solar system.  And we have done just that.
> 
> Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used today in many fields?  Do you have an understanding that 1=1=2 is not the last word in  mathematics?  That all of these works have limitations, even Einstein's?  And that Newton laid the foundation for pretty much everything and everyone that came after in physics, including Einstein's work?
> 
> Newton's laws: background and limitations. From Physclips: Mechanics with animations and film.
Click to expand...


Do you understand that the Newtonian universe, which was the standard model before Einstein, is wrong?

Do you also understand that Einstein knew he didn't have all the answers, and that he was even aware of the existence of quantum mechanics? That, as a result, his work was aimed specifically at what he did know?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.  I misunderstood what she had said.  Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):
> 
> She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits".  Photons are not electrons.  Electrons have mass.  A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 &#8722;31 kg.  Photons do not have mass.  If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.
> 
> As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right.  What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up.  That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there.  To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.
Click to expand...


We couldn't test for the Higgs bosun either, what's your point?


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.
> 
> It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is not impossible to use Newtonian physics to get us out into the solar system.  And we have done just that.
> 
> Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used today in many fields?  Do you have an understanding that 1=1=2 is not the last word in  mathematics?  That all of these works have limitations, even Einstein's?  And that Newton laid the foundation for pretty much everything and everyone that came after in physics, including Einstein's work?
> 
> Newton's laws: background and limitations. From Physclips: Mechanics with animations and film.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand that the Newtonian universe, which was the standard model before Einstein, is wrong?
Click to expand...


Hello!  I'm not , and never have been arguing that Newton's 'standard model' was right.  WTH is wrong with you?  How many times do I have to repeat myself?



> Do you also understand that Einstein knew he didn't have all the answers, and that he was even aware of the existence of quantum mechanics? That, as a result, his work was aimed specifically at what he did know?



What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up.  That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there.  To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We couldn't test for the Higgs bosun either, what's your point?
Click to expand...


You enjoy watching me repeat myself, don't you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

flacaltenn said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you..
> 
> I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest.
> 
> It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.
> 
> There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality.
> 
> Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
> Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
> How much FAITH does that take eh??
> 
> Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should probably know better than to ask, but what do you mean by literary license in the context here?
> 
> Are you suggesting that the words in the bible are sometimes metaphorical - sometimes not? Sometimes in general agreement - sometimes not? Sometimes an accurate rendition  sometimes not?
> 
> The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words / verses are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is literary license in the Bible.. Why would we have so many preachers and rabbinical students if there was only ONE WAY to read it. There are some that take every word literally.. I'm not one. I'm spiritual and FULLY SUPPORT people of faith, but I'm not as fundamental about religion as I am for instance about my political and social "beliefs".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct. Why not simply be clear and do not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers a god who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more reason to cut the narrative some slack.. From where the Earth sits at the moment --- would have been several hundred thousand years for the light to arrive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is most spectacularly displayed with apologists tendency to interpret length of days, well, this puts you firmly on a slippery slope. The story doesn't indicate anything is particularly metaphorical-- it seems to be in the context of "This happened, then this happened". Suddenly you can play fast and loose with the term "day" (and I know there are numerous translations of the word "day" from the Hebrew and Greek, but then we'd get in the problems with shoddy translation and why god'd allow that, etc. and that is a different thread). Well, if you can play fast and loose with the term "day", then so can anyone with... oh, the parting of the Red Sea. The Flood. The resurrection.
> 
> And yes, as a materialist, I can dissect the stories because I believe them to be wholly fabricated. You have a lot less latitude if you wish to assert a perfect god is the author of all of this, directly or otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your loss. Ever hear the Native American accounts of Creation? You had time to read Homer? Maybe some Beowolf? What's the diff? Unless you're FRIGHTENED of early accounts of civilized culture --- you should have nothing to fear.
> 
> Unless you regard the Bible as a symbol of your own arrogance and believe you are above it all. Like the parent who lets' out a snicker at a cartoon that he just told his kid not to watch. Beating up on FAITH is for stupid folks who BELIEVE themselves to be intellectually superior. After a good portion of a career in science and engineering, I'm here to tell you that without FAITH -- nothing would get innovated.
> 
> Here we are discussing Darwin and missing links and the predictable DEFENSE of "natural selection" still continues DESPITE massive NEW science and revelations since the Beagle sailed. *WHY? Because the folks who HATE people of faith with a passion --- would have to admit that in their RECENT HISTORY --- they've ignored basic weaknesses in the theory that they trusted implicitly and ADMIT that some creationist arguments MIGHT have had validity.*
> 
> And their arrogance won't let them admit that..
Click to expand...






The literary references show you to be way over the heads of these folks....


And, being as limited as they are, it goes far toward explaining why they become incensed when one fails to agree with their tunnel vision.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, what?  No.  Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.
> 
> 
> 
> Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.  What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason.  What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> The mystery unfolds.  So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right.  Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation.  As you tried to point out, "The retreat into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it.  This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation.  Causation requires a few things, particularly time.  And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist.  So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity".  The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.
> 
> Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.
> 
> *My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.*
Click to expand...


 been thought 

most likely

it was thought 

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested 

 more likely 

 related to 



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

 Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *

Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?
> 
> Loser.
> 
> 
> How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.
> 
> Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.
> 
> *My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
Click to expand...


Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.
> 
> Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.
> 
> *My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
Click to expand...





Did I miss a post?

Where is the one where you thanked me for teaching you that the laws of physics are hardly eternal?

I thought it was a darned good lesson......did you take notes?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.
> 
> Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.
> 
> *My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
Click to expand...




You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?


----------



## Hollie

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> 
> It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.
> 
> Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.
> 
> *My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
Click to expand...


It would be great to see the peer reviewed research in biology that Berlinski has performed and submitted. Too bad there isn't any. 

It's always comical to see the discredited and laughable creationist hacks that PC finds to cut and paste from. 


Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski


As we see with regularity, PC is simply a cut and paster. She scours such locations as Harun Yahya for fraudulent "quotes" and references creationist hacks such as Berlinski who shills for the charlatans at the Disco' tute.  

So we're clear, Berlinski is not a biologist. Anyone is free to question the validity of the biological sciences. However, if one does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology and knows nothing about biology, then they really have no business critiquing biological sciences. Berlinski just has no authority or valid position from which to criticize such subject matter. Hes free to make the criticism, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Berlinski is in any position to offer a comprehensive refutation of evolutionary theory.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?
Click to expand...


As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> *Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?*
Click to expand...


Should you really be revealing your kinky proclivities in this forum, PC?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> *Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should you really be revealing your kinky proclivities in this forum, PC?
Click to expand...



How did I know you'd go for the low hanging fruit?




And how come you left out the part about your bonehead claim?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.
Click to expand...





I whipped you good.....didn't I.


I am so looking forward to your add on Craig's List: For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> been thought
> 
> most likely
> 
> it was thought
> 
> some degree of diachronous transition
> 
> it has been suggested
> 
> more likely
> 
> related to
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce.
> 
> Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.
> 
> 
> You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
> The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:
> 
> 
> 
> "The greater part of the debate over Darwins theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.
> 
> Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing *the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. *
> 
> Darwin? a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. *Thats just the party line.*
> David Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the phrase 'party line'.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be great to see the peer reviewed research in biology that Berlinski has performed and submitted. Too bad there isn't any.
> 
> It's always comical to see the discredited and laughable creationist hacks that PC finds to cut and paste from.
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, PC is simply a cut and paster. She scours such locations as Harun Yahya for fraudulent "quotes" and references creationist hacks such as Berlinski who shills for the charlatans at the Disco' tute.
> 
> So we're clear, Berlinski is not a biologist. Anyone is free to question the validity of the biological sciences. However, if one does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology and knows nothing about biology, then they really have no business critiquing biological sciences. Berlinski just has no authority or valid position from which to criticize such subject matter. Hes free to make the criticism, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Berlinski is in any position to offer a comprehensive refutation of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...





Do I have to keep reminding you?

You can prove that the OP is in error simply by providing proof of the transitional fossil that lead to the 'age of the trilobites,'...the Cambrian.


But you can't...'cause I'm correct.....

....and you are....and will always be.....a dunce.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSLfgR2vZg]Nature Sounds - Sound of Crickets at Night - Meditation Sleep Relaxing Sounds - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I whipped you good.....didn't I.
> 
> 
> I am so looking forward to your add on Craig's List: For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
Click to expand...

You obviously realized that parading Berlinski around as an authority on evolutionary biology was hopeless. 

You made yourself look like quite the fool, didn't you.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great to see the peer reviewed research in biology that Berlinski has performed and submitted. Too bad there isn't any.
> 
> It's always comical to see the discredited and laughable creationist hacks that PC finds to cut and paste from.
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, PC is simply a cut and paster. She scours such locations as Harun Yahya for fraudulent "quotes" and references creationist hacks such as Berlinski who shills for the charlatans at the Disco' tute.
> 
> So we're clear, Berlinski is not a biologist. Anyone is free to question the validity of the biological sciences. However, if one does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology and knows nothing about biology, then they really have no business critiquing biological sciences. Berlinski just has no authority or valid position from which to criticize such subject matter. Hes free to make the criticism, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Berlinski is in any position to offer a comprehensive refutation of evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to keep reminding you?
> 
> You can prove that the OP is in error simply by providing proof of the transitional fossil that lead to the 'age of the trilobites,'...the Cambrian.
> 
> 
> But you can't...'cause I'm correct.....
> 
> ....and you are....and will always be.....a dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSLfgR2vZg]Nature Sounds - Sound of Crickets at Night - Meditation Sleep Relaxing Sounds - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


You should try out for the Olympic swim team  -- the backstroke for your failure to defend Berlinski. 

What's that sound I hear?  it's bibles thumping.


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> *Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should you really be revealing your kinky proclivities in this forum, PC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know you'd go for the low hanging fruit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how come you left out the part about your bonehead claim?
Click to expand...


When dealing with a fruit like you, PC, how can one resist?


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I whipped you good.....didn't I.
> 
> 
> I am so looking forward to your add on Craig's List: For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
Click to expand...


LOL. When someone makes statements like this, you know they were on the losing end of the debate. 

PC, you are such a wonderfully ignorant flap yap. 

The Bard said it best.

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
 And then is heard no more. It is a tale
 Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
 Signifying nothing


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.
> 
> *Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should you really be revealing your kinky proclivities in this forum, PC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How did I know you'd go for the low hanging fruit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how come you left out the part about your bonehead claim?
Click to expand...


I was feeling generous and didn't want to point out that you just admitted that your ideas often come from vacuum of your inability to stay focused.


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein.  Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders.  His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible.  That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.
> 
> As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity.  And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises.  So I eagerly await publication of your treatise.  You are working on it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cave did you just crawl out of?? As I said to Hollie above, when you do move on from the incomplete and simplistic views of evolution that you've insisted on for your life -- aren't ya gonna have to admit that the creationists were correct about some of their "weaknesses" in your theory?
> 
> Ever hear of creating 100 new species in 10 days in the lab?
> 
> 
> 
> What's the implication of that?
> 
> Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.
> 
> Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons also known as jumping geneshave had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.
> 
> Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.
> 
> You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate, he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then there is plenty of work on how periods of great stress from disasters and climate can fuel acceleration of mutation and adaptation. THere is a mountain of non-Darwinian science out there. All pointing toward evidence of MASSIVE LEAPS in evolution rather than random slower adaptations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I have said a half a dozen times, dufus, Darwin was not the end of the story.  Secondly, since you have apparently admitted that evolution occurs based on the above citations, what is your point about creationism?  Do you believe that it supplants evolution, and if so, how so?
Click to expand...


Why do I have to be either a Creationist or an Evolutionist? Is that the only debate you want to have? 

When you bring in rapid changes in evolution, the game changes greatly.. In fact -- the more RAPID we discover the process can be --- the more it MIGHT look like acts of God to some.

Bolts of lightning from above in the form of Cosmic Ray Storms? Casting Fire and Brimstone to induce stress? THOSE could be the major movers of evolution... 

Like I said --- State Farm would consider those "acts of God"...


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What cave did you just crawl out of?? As I said to Hollie above, when you do move on from the incomplete and simplistic views of evolution that you've insisted on for your life -- aren't ya gonna have to admit that the creationists were correct about some of their "weaknesses" in your theory?
> 
> Ever hear of creating 100 new species in 10 days in the lab?
> 
> 
> 
> What's the implication of that?
> 
> Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net
> 
> 
> 
> And then there is plenty of work on how periods of great stress from disasters and climate can fuel acceleration of mutation and adaptation. THere is a mountain of non-Darwinian science out there. All pointing toward evidence of MASSIVE LEAPS in evolution rather than random slower adaptations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said a half a dozen times, dufus, Darwin was not the end of the story.  Secondly, since you have apparently admitted that evolution occurs based on the above citations, what is your point about creationism?  Do you believe that it supplants evolution, and if so, how so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I have to be either a Creationist or an Evolutionist? Is that the only debate you want to have?
Click to expand...


Earth to flacaltenn!  Did you forget what thread in which you were posting?



> When you bring in rapid changes in evolution, the game changes greatly.. In fact -- the more RAPID we discover the process can be --- the more it MIGHT look like acts of God to some.



God of the gaps fallacy.



> Bolts of lightning from above in the form of Cosmic Ray Storms? Casting Fire and Brimstone to induce stress? THOSE could be the major movers of evolution...
> 
> Like I said --- State Farm would consider those "acts of God"...



State Farm believes in "acts of God" so that proves god exists?


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> PC Chic, you didn't get back to me with regard to my questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and how is that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian search going?
Click to expand...


bump!

Ahem.  PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC Chic, you didn't get back to me with regard to my questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and how is that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian search going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bump!
> 
> Ahem.  PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?
Click to expand...



"PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?"

Doesn't everyone?



This is so very sad. Sometimes honesty overcomes expediency, so....

First, you attempted to come on as though you were some sort of expert in science, so expert that your immediate tone could afford to be obnoxious. It would seem that you haven't been on message boards before, or you would probably have seen other lonely, unattractive, unaccomplished individuals who hope to establish that type of persona, behave in the same way.

Unfortunately for you, your 'expertise' proved diaphanous.

You misspoke, you contradicted yourself, you were proven wrong by several individuals.....

...and gave away your needy nature by your returning, over and over, with posts that boiled down to "Oh, yeah.....well....." 

As you did here.

I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit to a certain tart enjoyment your immolation.


But you've become boring.
And this is probably the very same cycle of events that happens to you in your real life, and has left you no venue but here.



I'm sure I don't have to say 'come again.'


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC Chic, you didn't get back to me with regard to my questions:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and how is that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian search going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bump!
> 
> Ahem.  PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?"
> 
> Doesn't everyone?
Click to expand...


No, they really don't.



> This is so very sad. Sometimes honesty overcomes expediency, so....
> 
> First, you attempted to come on as though you were some sort of expert in science, so expert that your immediate tone could afford to be obnoxious. It would seem that you haven't been on message boards before, or you would probably have seen other lonely, unattractive, unaccomplished individuals who hope to establish that type of persona, behave in the same way.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, your 'expertise' proved diaphanous.
> 
> You misspoke, you contradicted yourself, you were proven wrong by several individuals.....
> 
> ...and gave away your needy nature by your returning, over and over, with posts that boiled down to "Oh, yeah.....well....."
> 
> As you did here.
> 
> I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit to a certain tart enjoyment your immolation.
> 
> 
> But you've become boring.
> And this is probably the very same cycle of events that happens to you in your real life, and has left you no venue but here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't have to say 'come again.'



This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were.  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.  By the way, nice dodge.  You still didn't answer my questions.  Gee, I wonder why that is?  

Questions:  Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump!
> 
> Ahem.  PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?"
> 
> Doesn't everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so very sad. Sometimes honesty overcomes expediency, so....
> 
> First, you attempted to come on as though you were some sort of expert in science, so expert that your immediate tone could afford to be obnoxious. It would seem that you haven't been on message boards before, or you would probably have seen other lonely, unattractive, unaccomplished individuals who hope to establish that type of persona, behave in the same way.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, your 'expertise' proved diaphanous.
> 
> You misspoke, you contradicted yourself, you were proven wrong by several individuals.....
> 
> ...and gave away your needy nature by your returning, over and over, with posts that boiled down to "Oh, yeah.....well....."
> 
> As you did here.
> 
> I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit to a certain tart enjoyment your immolation.
> 
> 
> But you've become boring.
> And this is probably the very same cycle of events that happens to you in your real life, and has left you no venue but here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't have to say 'come again.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were.  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.  By the way, nice dodge.  You still didn't answer my questions.  Gee, I wonder why that is?
> 
> Questions:  Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
Click to expand...




"This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."

No....of course not.

If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.


BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
I don't know where you got that idea....


Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.

Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.



No doubt, you'll be back.


----------



## Matrixx8

Orogenicman,

Excellent series of posts. The question arises, how does one explain science to someone who does not accept the basic principles of science -- especially the epistemology of the scientific method?

Even an "expert" in the religion of Intelligent Design, Dr. Behe, had to admit that his definition of ID would have to include astrology, for example. 

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told - science-in-society - 19 October 2005 - New Scientist


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?"
> 
> Doesn't everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so very sad. Sometimes honesty overcomes expediency, so....
> 
> First, you attempted to come on as though you were some sort of expert in science, so expert that your immediate tone could afford to be obnoxious. It would seem that you haven't been on message boards before, or you would probably have seen other lonely, unattractive, unaccomplished individuals who hope to establish that type of persona, behave in the same way.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, your 'expertise' proved diaphanous.
> 
> You misspoke, you contradicted yourself, you were proven wrong by several individuals.....
> 
> ...and gave away your needy nature by your returning, over and over, with posts that boiled down to "Oh, yeah.....well....."
> 
> As you did here.
> 
> I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit to a certain tart enjoyment your immolation.
> 
> 
> But you've become boring.
> And this is probably the very same cycle of events that happens to you in your real life, and has left you no venue but here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't have to say 'come again.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were.  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.  By the way, nice dodge.  You still didn't answer my questions.  Gee, I wonder why that is?
> 
> Questions:  Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."
> 
> No....of course not.
> 
> If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.
> 
> 
> BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
> I don't know where you got that idea....
> 
> 
> Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.
> 
> Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you'll be back.
Click to expand...


Because, no doubt, fight songs are the most important thing one can learn in school.  

You still haven't answered my questions. I will be back until you do so you might as well give it a go.


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "PC Chic???  Are you just going to ignore me?"
> 
> Doesn't everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so very sad. Sometimes honesty overcomes expediency, so....
> 
> First, you attempted to come on as though you were some sort of expert in science, so expert that your immediate tone could afford to be obnoxious. It would seem that you haven't been on message boards before, or you would probably have seen other lonely, unattractive, unaccomplished individuals who hope to establish that type of persona, behave in the same way.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, your 'expertise' proved diaphanous.
> 
> You misspoke, you contradicted yourself, you were proven wrong by several individuals.....
> 
> ...and gave away your needy nature by your returning, over and over, with posts that boiled down to "Oh, yeah.....well....."
> 
> As you did here.
> 
> I'd be dishonest if I didn't admit to a certain tart enjoyment your immolation.
> 
> 
> But you've become boring.
> And this is probably the very same cycle of events that happens to you in your real life, and has left you no venue but here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I don't have to say 'come again.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were.  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.  By the way, nice dodge.  You still didn't answer my questions.  Gee, I wonder why that is?
> 
> Questions:  Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."
> 
> No....of course not.
> 
> If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.
> 
> 
> BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
> I don't know where you got that idea....
> 
> 
> *Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.*
> 
> Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you'll be back.
Click to expand...


Most people learn to stop fighting when they leave the playground and become adults, PC dearest.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were.  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.  By the way, nice dodge.  You still didn't answer my questions.  Gee, I wonder why that is?
> 
> Questions:  Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."
> 
> No....of course not.
> 
> If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.
> 
> 
> BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
> I don't know where you got that idea....
> 
> 
> Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.
> 
> Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you'll be back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, no doubt, fight songs are the most important thing one can learn in school.
> 
> You still haven't answered my questions. I will be back until you do so you might as well give it a go.
Click to expand...




" I will be back until you do..."


Yup.

That says it all.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they really don't.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were.  Sorry, that isn't going to happen.  By the way, nice dodge.  You still didn't answer my questions.  Gee, I wonder why that is?
> 
> Questions:  Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."
> 
> No....of course not.
> 
> If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.
> 
> 
> BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
> I don't know where you got that idea....
> 
> 
> *Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.*
> 
> Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you'll be back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people learn to stop fighting when they leave the playground and become adults, PC dearest.
Click to expand...




Some people grow out of childish shenanigans. Some people master them.


----------



## orogenicman

Matrixx8 said:


> Orogenicman,
> 
> Excellent series of posts. The question arises, how does one explain science to someone who does not accept the basic principles of science -- especially the epistemology of the scientific method?
> 
> Even an "expert" in the religion of Intelligent Design, Dr. Behe, had to admit that his definition of ID would have to include astrology, for example.
> 
> Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told - science-in-society - 19 October 2005 - New Scientist



Honestly, I don't know that there is a best way to deal with these people.  They obviously aren't going to simply disappear.  As a geologist, I've been most successful when I can get them out in the field, which I have managed to do on occasion.  There is nothing like hands on activity and one to one contact with people in a learning environment to affect change.  The problem is getting them in the field.  It is very difficult when they are so defensive about what they think they know.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."
> 
> No....of course not.
> 
> If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.
> 
> 
> BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
> I don't know where you got that idea....
> 
> 
> Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.
> 
> Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, no doubt, fight songs are the most important thing one can learn in school.
> 
> You still haven't answered my questions. I will be back until you do so you might as well give it a go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I will be back until you do..."
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> That says it all.
Click to expand...


To the forum members:  Don't you love questions that leave these people speechless?  

Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great to see the peer reviewed research in biology that Berlinski has performed and submitted. Too bad there isn't any.
> 
> It's always comical to see the discredited and laughable creationist hacks that PC finds to cut and paste from.
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski
> 
> 
> As we see with regularity, PC is simply a cut and paster. She scours such locations as Harun Yahya for fraudulent "quotes" and references creationist hacks such as Berlinski who shills for the charlatans at the Disco' tute.
> 
> So we're clear, Berlinski is not a biologist. Anyone is free to question the validity of the biological sciences. However, if one does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology and knows nothing about biology, then they really have no business critiquing biological sciences. Berlinski just has no authority or valid position from which to criticize such subject matter. Hes free to make the criticism, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Berlinski is in any position to offer a comprehensive refutation of evolutionary theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to keep reminding you?
> 
> You can prove that the OP is in error simply by providing proof of the transitional fossil that lead to the 'age of the trilobites,'...the Cambrian.
> 
> 
> But you can't...'cause I'm correct.....
> 
> ....and you are....and will always be.....a dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSLfgR2vZg]Nature Sounds - Sound of Crickets at Night - Meditation Sleep Relaxing Sounds - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should try out for the Olympic swim team  -- the backstroke for your failure to defend Berlinski.
> 
> What's that sound I hear?  it's bibles thumping.
Click to expand...




So.....you can't provide that 'proof' as outlined in the OP?


Your attempt to change the subject pretty much means that you accept the lack of support for Darwin's theory.

My work here is done.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This is where I am supposed to apologize for having a formal education, as opposed to being homeschooled like you were."
> 
> No....of course not.
> 
> If you had the self-awareness to consider a change such as that, you wouldn't have the lack of personality that produced the sad-sack that you are.
> 
> 
> BTW....I wasn't homeschooled.
> I don't know where you got that idea....
> 
> 
> *Actually I went to a pretty good school, one with the best fight song in the nation.*
> 
> Maybe that's why I was able to slap you around as well as I did.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt, you'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people learn to stop fighting when they leave the playground and become adults, PC dearest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people grow out of childish shenanigans. *Some people master them*.
Click to expand...


I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to keep reminding you?
> 
> You can prove that the OP is in error simply by providing proof of the transitional fossil that lead to the 'age of the trilobites,'...the Cambrian.
> 
> 
> But you can't...'cause I'm correct.....
> 
> ....and you are....and will always be.....a dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature Sounds - Sound of Crickets at Night - Meditation Sleep Relaxing Sounds - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try out for the Olympic swim team  -- the backstroke for your failure to defend Berlinski.
> 
> What's that sound I hear?  it's bibles thumping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....you can't provide that 'proof' as outlined in the OP?
> 
> 
> Your attempt to change the subject pretty much means that you accept the lack of support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> My work here is done.
Click to expand...

That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.

In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.

Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism.  Lets pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Lets pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an unlimited cause that started the whole thing.

What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that unlimited cause?

Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of gods unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should try out for the Olympic swim team  -- the backstroke for your failure to defend Berlinski.
> 
> What's that sound I hear?  it's bibles thumping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.....you can't provide that 'proof' as outlined in the OP?
> 
> 
> Your attempt to change the subject pretty much means that you accept the lack of support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> My work here is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.
> 
> In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.
> 
> Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism.  Lets pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Lets pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an unlimited cause that started the whole thing.
> 
> What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that unlimited cause?
> 
> Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of gods unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.
Click to expand...




Speak to the fact, ding-bat.


I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.

What I stated is true.
Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.


You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.

I win, don't I.

What more is there to say?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people learn to stop fighting when they leave the playground and become adults, PC dearest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people grow out of childish shenanigans. *Some people master them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.
Click to expand...



Hey....looks who's back!

The lonely loser.


Why?


Let's review.

I wrote an OP which you engaged.

I've been proven right....even by your admission....

I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.

And now you want to change the subject.
Of course, that's not about to happen.


Carry on.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people grow out of childish shenanigans. *Some people master them*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....looks who's back!
> 
> The lonely loser.
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> Let's review.
> 
> I wrote an OP which you engaged.
> 
> I've been proven right....even by your admission....
> 
> I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.
> 
> And now you want to change the subject.
> Of course, that's not about to happen.
> 
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that you are, indeed, a master of shenanigans, except that you aren't too good at that, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....looks who's back!
> 
> The lonely loser.
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> Let's review.
> 
> I wrote an OP which you engaged.
> 
> I've been proven right....even by your admission....
> 
> I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.
> 
> And now you want to change the subject.
> Of course, that's not about to happen.
> 
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
Click to expand...






You've already admitted that I am correct, and there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.

We'll leave it at that.....unless you'd like to begin your own OP.

As I'm certain is true in your life outside of the message board, you stand no chance of me doing things other than my way.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....looks who's back!
> 
> The lonely loser.
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> Let's review.
> 
> I wrote an OP which you engaged.
> 
> I've been proven right....even by your admission....
> 
> I win, you lose. Ergo, your new nickname.
> 
> And now you want to change the subject.
> Of course, that's not about to happen.
> 
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions: Do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted that I am correct, and there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
> 
> We'll leave it at that.....unless you'd like to begin your own OP.
> 
> As I'm certain is true in your life outside of the message board, you stand no chance of me doing things other than my way.
Click to expand...


I have admitted no such thing.  Lying for Jesus is still lying.  And projection is a common defense mechanism people use when they are put on the spot.  Instead, try being honest.  Answer the questions.  Hint - it is okay to admit that you don't know.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.....you can't provide that 'proof' as outlined in the OP?
> 
> 
> Your attempt to change the subject pretty much means that you accept the lack of support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> My work here is done.
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.
> 
> In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.
> 
> Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism.  Lets pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Lets pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an unlimited cause that started the whole thing.
> 
> What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that unlimited cause?
> 
> Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of gods unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak to the fact, ding-bat.
> 
> 
> I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.
> 
> What I stated is true.
> Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.
> 
> 
> You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
> There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.
> 
> I win, don't I.
> 
> What more is there to say?
Click to expand...


Im trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for winning something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, youre coming up short.

In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent quotes, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.

I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels. 

Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.

Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.

What is abundantly clear is that you dont understand the very first thing about Darwins theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. The entirety of your posts amounts to cutting and pasting from creationist charlatans.
> 
> In the relevant world, evolutionary science is among the best documented and supported sciences.
> 
> Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism.  Lets pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted him/herself. Lets pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an unlimited cause that started the whole thing.
> 
> What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that unlimited cause?
> 
> Not a doggone thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed cosmic entity or entities. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of gods unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak to the fact, ding-bat.
> 
> 
> I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.
> 
> What I stated is true.
> Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.
> 
> 
> You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
> There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.
> 
> I win, don't I.
> 
> What more is there to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for winning something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, youre coming up short.
> 
> In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent quotes, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.
> 
> I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.
> 
> This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.
> 
> Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.
> 
> What is abundantly clear is that you dont understand the very first thing about Darwins theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.
Click to expand...





"I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."


But you're the only one doing that.

Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....

You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
I feel like I'm taking advantage.


But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.


That was my point ...and that's what I did.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak to the fact, ding-bat.
> 
> 
> I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.
> 
> What I stated is true.
> Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.
> 
> 
> You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
> There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.
> 
> I win, don't I.
> 
> What more is there to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for winning something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, youre coming up short.
> 
> In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent quotes, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.
> 
> I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.
> 
> This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.
> 
> Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.
> 
> What is abundantly clear is that you dont understand the very first thing about Darwins theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."
> 
> 
> But you're the only one doing that.
> 
> Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....
> 
> You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
> I feel like I'm taking advantage.
> 
> 
> But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.
> 
> 
> That was my point ...and that's what I did.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...


That unseemly drool on your keyboard notwithstanding, I have to acknowledge the confused, rambling and largely quote-mined mess that was your OP.

As I did later in exposing the lies and fraudulent quotes you dumped into the thread, it was not surprising that you would throw in the obligatory Steven Mayer quote.

As with so much of the nonsense drooling out of the Discotute, Mayers latest disaster of a book is thoroughly trashed as incompetent and meaningless. And, not surprisingly, Mayer quote-mines his way through his book.

Stephen Meyer: workin' in the quote mines - The Panda's Thumb 

Stephen Meyers new book, Darwins Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, has received highly critical reviews from several working scientists. Don Prothero panned the book for (among other things) its misrepresentations of paleontology, and Nick Matzke showed Meyers ignorance of (among other things) phylogenetic methods (see also here). Now John Farrell has critically reviewed the book in National Review (behind a $0.25 paywall). Farrells review criticizes Meyers book on several grounds, but the part of immediate interest here is Meyers quote mining of a genuine scientist. Ill quote from the review at some length below the fold.

**

So Meyer (or maybe Casey Luskin, Meyers research assistant on the book), mashed up quotations separated by 15 pages in the original to create a statement that the original author did not make. Im not sure that ellipses zooming past 15 pages is a new land speed record, but it has to be well out in the tail of the distribution. This sounds like a case for John Pieret and the Quote Mine Project.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak to the fact, ding-bat.
> 
> 
> I made an OP to which you can refer as you wish.
> 
> What I stated is true.
> Science doesn't dispute what I've posted....only you do.
> 
> 
> You write: "...another total failure in the creationist argument for supernaturalism."
> There is no such argument made in the thread.....except by you.
> 
> I win, don't I.
> 
> What more is there to say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for winning something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, youre coming up short.
> 
> In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent quotes, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.
> 
> I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.
> 
> This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.
> 
> Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.
> 
> What is abundantly clear is that you dont understand the very first thing about Darwins theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."
> 
> 
> But you're the only one doing that.
> 
> Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....
> 
> You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
> I feel like I'm taking advantage.
> 
> 
> But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.
> 
> 
> That was my point ...and that's what I did.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...




> Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.



Of course it does, dear.

All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.

Enjoy your lurid conspiracies. 

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up.  That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there.  To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We couldn't test for the Higgs bosun either, what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You enjoy watching me repeat myself, don't you?
Click to expand...


You keep saying such stupid things.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im trying to be benevolent and throw you a bone for winning something. However, with the benchmark of rational, objective commentary, youre coming up short.
> 
> In terms of what you have offered, presented or demonstrated, you demonstrated only that your fraudulent quotes, stolen largely from Harun Yahya are pointless and easily dismissed as creationist blathering.
> 
> I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument.
> 
> This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true. Like most religious extremists, you rail against science and particularly evolutionary science because it presents any number of irreconcilable contradictions to biblical tales and fables.  Religious fundies / supernatural creationists have had decades to present a coherent argument supporting your gawds. In spite of the various, phony, incarnations of creationists that have appeared, they have only become more desperate and more pathetic in their attempts to advance their religious fundamentalism under differing labels.
> 
> Even if evolution is completely negated (and that is not likely given it adheres consistently to the principles of rationality and science to qualify it both as a Theory of Science [not a hypothesis], and knowledge) -- so what? It doesn't add a single factor in favor of any religious assertion.
> 
> Evolution being disproved does not equal Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Islam being "right". There are a few just-as-likely possibilities that are being ignored if evolution is not the mechanism by which life came about.
> 
> What is abundantly clear is that you dont understand the very first thing about Darwins theory of evolution, thus, you have no business bringing your silly creationist cutting and pasting into a public forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."
> 
> 
> But you're the only one doing that.
> 
> Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....
> 
> You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
> I feel like I'm taking advantage.
> 
> 
> But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.
> 
> 
> That was my point ...and that's what I did.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does, dear.
> 
> All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.
> 
> Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.
> 
> Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
Click to expand...





Geology?

Really?



I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.

I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.


Just gonna have to rip you up again.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I should educate you to the fact that evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to creationist (supernatural) argument."
> 
> 
> But you're the only one doing that.
> 
> Surely, that is a mental aberration: you bring it up....and then you deny it....
> 
> You know....both you and Lonely Loser seem to have something wrong with you...
> I feel like I'm taking advantage.
> 
> 
> But....I appreciate the opportunity to document the facts, i.e., Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.
> 
> 
> That was my point ...and that's what I did.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's theory lacks physical proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does, dear.
> 
> All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.
> 
> Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.
> 
> Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geology?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.
> 
> I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.
> 
> 
> Just gonna have to rip you up again.
Click to expand...

Now geology?

Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.

Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.

"Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does, dear.
> 
> All of the scientists representing the fields of geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry and physics have all conspired to fake the entirety of the evidence supporting evolution.
> 
> Enjoy your lurid conspiracies.
> 
> Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geology?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.
> 
> I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.
> 
> 
> Just gonna have to rip you up again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now geology?
> 
> Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.
> 
> "Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.
Click to expand...




I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.

You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.





It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:

Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think *I'm an idiot.*'

If one than were to quote you as having said "... *I'm an idiot.'"*...that would be quote mining.


So, you see, *you have been using it incorrectly.*



quote mining
Web definitions
The practice of *quoting out of context,* sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of *false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning*.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....

....in actuality,* you are an idiot.*


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.
> 
> I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.
> 
> 
> Just gonna have to rip you up again.
> 
> 
> 
> Now geology?
> 
> Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.
> 
> "Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.
> 
> You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:
> 
> Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think *I'm an idiot.*'
> 
> If one than were to quote you as having said "... *I'm an idiot.'"*...that would be quote mining.
> 
> 
> So, you see, *you have been using it incorrectly.*
> 
> 
> 
> quote mining
> Web definitions
> The practice of *quoting out of context,* sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of *false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning*.
> Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....
> 
> ....in actuality,* you are an idiot.*
Click to expand...


I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?

Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.

Go to your room for a time out.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now geology?
> 
> Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.
> 
> "Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.
> 
> You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:
> 
> Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think *I'm an idiot.*'
> 
> If one than were to quote you as having said "... *I'm an idiot.'"*...that would be quote mining.
> 
> 
> So, you see, *you have been using it incorrectly.*
> 
> 
> 
> quote mining
> Web definitions
> The practice of *quoting out of context,* sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of *false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning*.
> Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....
> 
> ....in actuality,* you are an idiot.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?
> 
> Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.
> 
> Go to your room for a time out.
Click to expand...




1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.

2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).

3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
Yours are.

4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
It's fun.


Write soon.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.
> 
> You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:
> 
> Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think *I'm an idiot.*'
> 
> If one than were to quote you as having said "... *I'm an idiot.'"*...that would be quote mining.
> 
> 
> So, you see, *you have been using it incorrectly.*
> 
> 
> 
> quote mining
> Web definitions
> The practice of *quoting out of context,* sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of *false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning*.
> Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....
> 
> ....in actuality,* you are an idiot.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?
> 
> Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.
> 
> Go to your room for a time out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.
> 
> 2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).
> 
> 3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
> As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
> Yours are.
> 
> 4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
> It's fun.
> 
> 
> Write soon.
Click to expand...


1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory". 

2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent. 

3. Your time out is now extended.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand you're angry at being exposed as a fraud, but why lash out at me?
> 
> Your dishonest quote mining is a tactic you chose to pursue. When your "quotes" were shown to be lies, you stomped your feet and whined like a petulant child who was scolded for bad behavior.
> 
> Go to your room for a time out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.
> 
> 2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).
> 
> 3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
> As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
> Yours are.
> 
> 4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
> It's fun.
> 
> 
> Write soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".
> 
> 2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.
> 
> 3. Your time out is now extended.
Click to expand...




What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?

Oh...right: you're an idiot.



"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Oh, gee....and here I thought you were going to admit that you are an idiot.
> 
> 2. I haven't lashed out, I explained the concept clearly, with documentation, as one would to any three year old (intellect).
> 
> 3. "When your "quotes" were shown to be lies,..."
> As you frequently do, you make things up. None of my selections were lies.
> Yours are.
> 
> 4. I view our little exchanges as the verbal equivalent of smashing a custard pie in your face.
> It's fun.
> 
> 
> Write soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".
> 
> 2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.
> 
> 3. Your time out is now extended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?
> 
> Oh...right: you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
Click to expand...


1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?

2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic. 

3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.

4. Those are just the rules of engagement.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I was expecting more quote mining from Harun Yahya, you know, to "prove" your "Creation Theory".
> 
> 2. Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent.
> 
> 3. Your time out is now extended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?
> 
> Oh...right: you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?
> 
> 2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.
> 
> 3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.
> 
> 4. Those are just the rules of engagement.
Click to expand...




"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can one say about an individual shown to be in error....yet repeats same?
> 
> Oh...right: you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?
> 
> 2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.
> 
> 3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.
> 
> 4. Those are just the rules of engagement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
Click to expand...

I notice you are confused and befuddled.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?
> 
> 2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.
> 
> 3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.
> 
> 4. Those are just the rules of engagement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice you are confused and befuddled.
Click to expand...


Creationism rests on circular logic: the thesis is true, therefore . . . . everything that supports it is true.  All belief systems that eschew the evaluation of empirical data and the operations of critical thinking are at best mental flagellation, which, perhaps enjoyable, are always sterile.

PC on occasion has posted creative and thought provoking pieces: this OP is worthy of a 10th grade piece of C- journalism.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geology?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've given me an idea for the next thorn in your paw.
> 
> I'm just gonna have to show still another area in which being clueless doesn't prevent you from exhibiting strong opinions.
> 
> 
> Just gonna have to rip you up again.
> 
> 
> 
> Now geology?
> 
> Oh my. It seems that with your earlier spamming of "quote mines" being exposed as fraudulent, you're goin to scour Harun Yahya's website for more stupidity.
> 
> Anyone who has ever weed whacked their way through the landscape of fundie / creationist "quote mining" has come across goofy cut and pasters such as PC.
> 
> "Quote mine" away, dear. Just remember that any new collection of lies and falsified "quotes" are subject to the same dismantling as your earlier lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that here is any hope that you'll ever be other than an idiot....but, do try to use words correctly.
> 
> You regularly use the term 'quote mining,' with no understanding of the meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean finding quotations that support a thesis....which is the correct usage....it means incorrectly using a quote....as in the following example:
> 
> Although you are clearly an idiot, you might try to hide same by writing "my friends don't think *I'm an idiot.*'
> 
> If one than were to quote you as having said "... *I'm an idiot.'"*...that would be quote mining.
> 
> 
> So, you see, *you have been using it incorrectly.*
> 
> 
> 
> quote mining
> Web definitions
> The practice of *quoting out of context,* sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of *false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning*.
> Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> So, although my example could be shown to be incorrect....
> 
> ....in actuality,* you are an idiot.*
Click to expand...


Dear, you quote mine, you misdirect, you misinterpret, misconstrue, and mislead.  ALL THE TIME.  You're just full of misses, aren't you, Missy?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How sad for you. Absent your need to drench this thread and other threads with a litany of fraudulent "quotes", you are unable to offer a single relevant comment. Did you somehow miss the earlier examples of the parsing, editing and lack of relevant citation of your quote mining?
> 
> 2. It's obvious you have retreated from any effort at trying to support the thread topic.
> 
> 3. When you open a thread that is propped up on the crooked timber of creationist lies and deceit, it is bound to fail (and come crashing to the ground in flames), as did this latest disaster of yours.
> 
> 4. Those are just the rules of engagement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice you are confused and befuddled.
Click to expand...


Actually, you don't.

But you do prove that "idiot" and "liar" are not mutually exclusive.




"Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."

I notice you didn't provide any examples.....



Still no examples?

Could that be because they don't exist?


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you are confused and befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't.
> 
> But you do prove that "idiot" and "liar" are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


Indeed, many of us have shown time and time again that you are a liar and an idiot.  Congratulations.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you are confused and befuddled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't.
> 
> But you do prove that "idiot" and "liar" are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> Still no examples?
> 
> Could that be because they don't exist?
Click to expand...


Could it be you're hoping to do some damage control regarding your thoroughly discredited cutting and pasting? 

It's a shame that people like you will just mindlessly cut and paste from extremist websites in the hope that you won't be challenged regarding the authenticity or accuracy of your fraudulent, parsed "quotes".

That's obviously why you scurried away when your "quotes" were presented in fuller context or when you were tasked with identifying their source.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you are confused and befuddled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't.
> 
> But you do prove that "idiot" and "liar" are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> Still no examples?
> 
> Could that be because they don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could it be you're hoping to do some damage control regarding your thoroughly discredited cutting and pasting?
> 
> It's a shame that people like you will just mindlessly cut and paste from extremist websites in the hope that you won't be challenged regarding the authenticity or accuracy of your fraudulent, parsed "quotes".
> 
> That's obviously why you scurried away when your "quotes" were presented in fuller context or when you were tasked with identifying their source.
Click to expand...




Still no examples?

So...what...you were lying?


Better wipe that egg off your face.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you don't.
> 
> But you do prove that "idiot" and "liar" are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your "quotes" were shown to lies and fraudulent."
> 
> I notice you didn't provide any examples.....
> 
> 
> 
> Still no examples?
> 
> Could that be because they don't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be you're hoping to do some damage control regarding your thoroughly discredited cutting and pasting?
> 
> It's a shame that people like you will just mindlessly cut and paste from extremist websites in the hope that you won't be challenged regarding the authenticity or accuracy of your fraudulent, parsed "quotes".
> 
> That's obviously why you scurried away when your "quotes" were presented in fuller context or when you were tasked with identifying their source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no examples?
> 
> So...what...you were lying?
> 
> 
> Better wipe that egg off your face.
Click to expand...


Still hoping to to sidestep your fraudulent cut and pasting?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC is a mistress of the misrecognition: her cut and paste is her tool of choice.


----------



## PoliticalChic

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. Princess is angry.
> 
> Aside from your usual slathering, you still haven't identified any academic background that would allow him to provide a comprehensive description of evolutionary biology.
> 
> Johnson is merely another creationist hack with some rather suspicious credentials.
> 
> Like here, for example:
> 
> Suspicious Creationist Credentials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the fossils that identify the steps leading to the signature organisms of the Cambrian Explosion?
> 
> 
> They don't exist...do they.
> 
> 
> So...you accept Darwin's thesis on faith.....it's your religion.
> 
> Admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.  For instance:
> 
> The Origin of Animal Body Plans » American Scientist
> 
> The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals
> 
> Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion
> 
> Proterozoic and early Cambrian protists: evidence for accelerating evolutionary tempo
> 
> *Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian?  Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?*
Click to expand...







'You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.'


That's pretty funny.

It's like you disputing the word 'cars' is a history of automobiles.


"The *"Age of Trilobites" *and the Cambrian Fauna
The* most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites*....The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"...."


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC has not denied the charge "You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species."

Yes, she has ignored the other Cambrian species.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC has not denied the charge "You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species."
> 
> Yes, she has ignored the other Cambrian species.




I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.


 "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock." 
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??



More evidence?

Comin' right up:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html



Whipped you again, didn't I.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And PC continues to exhibit her confirmation bias: twist the evidence to a bias and ignore anything that contradicts said bias.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> And PC continues to exhibit her confirmation bias: twist the evidence to a bias and ignore anything that contradicts said bias.





I just gave you a direct quote from Charles Darwin.


The quote supports my point exactly.


QED, your post is either a lie or abject ignorance.


So that I may address you correctly....would you identify which it is?


(You may choose 'Both' as an answer)


----------



## JakeStarkey

A quote by itself is suggestive but non conclusive, and I suspect that you are misusing Darwin's comment.

Show us a study that has factored in all Cambrian evidence.

We have to chuckle when you, of all people here, accuse others of lies or ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> A quote by itself is suggestive but non conclusive, and I suspect that you are misusing Darwin's comment.
> 
> Show us a study that has factored in all Cambrian evidence.
> 
> We have to chuckle when you, of all people here, accuse others of lies or ignorance.







So....you don't want to answer the question?

Too embarrassing, huh?



Let me give it a try: you're a liar.
Proof?
Right here:
"We have to chuckle when you, of all people here, accuse others of lies or ignorance."

Me of all people never lie.

But....if you can't come up with examples of me lying.....then you're....well, you know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quote by itself is suggestive but non conclusive, and I suspect that you are misusing Darwin's comment.
> 
> Show us a study that has factored in all Cambrian evidence.
> 
> We have to chuckle when you, of all people here, accuse others of lies or ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....you don't want to answer the question?  . . . .
Click to expand...


It was answered appropriately.

Lying has been your problem from the get go, when you get caught it out.

You need to change your ethos, PC, not you words.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A quote by itself is suggestive but non conclusive, and I suspect that you are misusing Darwin's comment.
> 
> Show us a study that has factored in all Cambrian evidence.
> 
> We have to chuckle when you, of all people here, accuse others of lies or ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....you don't want to answer the question?  . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was answered appropriately.
> 
> Lying has been your problem from the get go, when you get caught it out.
> 
> You need to change your ethos, PC, not you words.
Click to expand...




I never lie.

The proof?

You ignored the suggestion that you show where I've ever lied.


Nah...your annoyance is that I whip your butt regularly.....so you made up that fabrication.

True?



Actually, there is no cure for your problem.
You lack character...or you wouldn't be a liar.
But...here's some advice:
... the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....you don't want to answer the question?  . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was answered appropriately.
> 
> Lying has been your problem from the get go, when you get caught it out.
> 
> You need to change your ethos, PC, not you words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never lie.  The proof?  You ignored the suggestion that you show where I've ever lied. Nah...your annoyance is that I whip your butt regularly.....so you made up that fabrication.  True? Actually, there is no cure for your problem.  You lack character...or you wouldn't be a liar. But...here's some advice: .. the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades.
Click to expand...


Because you cannot critically research and think, you are guilty of misrecognition and bias confirmation.

I have shown it dozens of times.

I will do it the next time you pull it.

Liars like you love to deny they are liars.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was answered appropriately.
> 
> Lying has been your problem from the get go, when you get caught it out.
> 
> You need to change your ethos, PC, not you words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.  The proof?  You ignored the suggestion that you show where I've ever lied. Nah...your annoyance is that I whip your butt regularly.....so you made up that fabrication.  True? Actually, there is no cure for your problem.  You lack character...or you wouldn't be a liar. But...here's some advice: .. the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you cannot critically research and think, you are guilty of misrecognition and bias confirmation.
> 
> I have shown it dozens of times.
> 
> I will do it the next time you pull it.
> 
> Liars like you love to deny they are liars.
Click to expand...




You could simply show a mistake I've made in an OP, or a post, or a 'lie'....but you haven't.

"I have shown it dozens of times."

See....now, there's a lie.

Said event has yet to occur.

Your post was such an opportunity....but you didn't do it.

Why is that?

Oh...right...because your are our best source of greenhouse gases.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You aren't very good at this, are you, PC?

Maybe practice will make perfect, but you have had a long time to get better and haven't.

Must have been a workload for your professors.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> You aren't very good at this, are you, PC?
> 
> Maybe practice will make perfect, but you have had a long time to get better and haven't.
> 
> Must have been a workload for your professors.





What is this....three, four posts where you've tried to claim I'm either wrong or a liar.....and each time I've challenged you to document the charge.

Still waiting.

Since I'm my fav subject, I don't mind that every post of yours is simply an "I hate that you keep making me look like a simpleton" post.....that's really all they are.....

...but, heck, you are a simpleton.


If your claims were true...you'd have proven them.

But, alas, you can't. You started at the bottom...and it's been downhill ever since! 




"You aren't very good at this, are you, PC."

Really....you keep proving how good I am at this.


I keep putting that "kick me" sign on your back.




This is still my fav description of you: 
I wouldnt say youre uselessYoure the kind of a man that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are talking about yourself.

You make an assertion than twist only the evidence to it that fits while ignoring the rest.

You are a research hack, PC.

Sorry but there you have it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> You are talking about yourself.
> 
> You make an assertion than twist only the evidence to it that fits while ignoring the rest.
> 
> You are a research hack, PC.
> 
> Sorry but there you have it.




Don't be sorry.

Every time you post without supporting your charges that I am wrong, or a liar, you support my contention, i.e., that you write that because I am correct in everything I say, and, in fact, you are self-identified as a liar.


What is this your fifth such post?




Your posts are perfectly understandable as coming from one of low character, embarrassed at being regularly beaten from pillar to post.

And, until you learn that I post the truth, my research is both deep and wide, you will continue to be embarrassed.

And I will be in your face like Cagney with a grapefruit half.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, you don't get "just once more", because you deny when the proof is put before you, PC.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the fossils that identify the steps leading to the signature organisms of the Cambrian Explosion?
> 
> 
> They don't exist...do they.
> 
> 
> So...you accept Darwin's thesis on faith.....it's your religion.
> 
> Admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.  For instance:
> 
> The Origin of Animal Body Plans » American Scientist
> 
> The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals
> 
> Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion
> 
> Proterozoic and early Cambrian protists: evidence for accelerating evolutionary tempo
> 
> *Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian?  Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.'
> 
> 
> That's pretty funny.
> 
> It's like you disputing the word 'cars' is a history of automobiles.
> 
> 
> "The *"Age of Trilobites" *and the Cambrian Fauna
> The* most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites*....The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"...."
Click to expand...


Yes, and the Holocene could be called the age of man, and yet there are millions of other species on this planet (most of which are more plentiful and more important to the global ecosystem than is man).  Arguably the most abundant and more important life form during the Cambrian were the cyanobacteria (and still is).


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you don't get "just once more", because you deny when the proof is put before you, PC.





Where's your 'proof'?

Either you're very stupid or very, very lonely.
Don't answer that.


Sixth post.....with still no such 'proof.'


Jakal...I never asked for "just once more"....what is the reference?
You must be thinking of Phil Collins.


Please, continue to keep digging.


I await your seventh post with no 'proof.'


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC has not denied the charge "You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species."
> 
> Yes, she has ignored the other Cambrian species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.
> 
> 
> "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
> 
> 
> What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence?
> 
> Comin' right up:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
> 
> 
> 
> Whipped you again, didn't I.
Click to expand...


Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph,  princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences. 

It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of _Origin of Species_, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. 

You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.

For you edification, _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection."  Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution,  rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy  theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC has not denied the charge "You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species."
> 
> Yes, she has ignored the other Cambrian species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.
> 
> 
> "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
> 
> 
> What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence?
> 
> Comin' right up:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
> 
> 
> 
> Whipped you again, didn't I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph,  princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.
> 
> It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of _Origin of Species_, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.
> 
> You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.
> 
> For you edification, _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection."  Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution,  rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy  theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.
Click to expand...



1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!


2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
"To the question why* we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer* . . . Nevertheless, *the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.*" 
 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

What???

You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
....hmmmmm.......



3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."

Sure about that?

 a. "*There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure* for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, *we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....





4. "...denial of facts..."

Did you just ask for facts???

Got ya' facts right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html


----------



## JakeStarkey

Twisting of evidence gets you only a Fail, hack.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.
> 
> 
> "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
> 
> 
> What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence?
> 
> Comin' right up:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
> 
> 
> 
> Whipped you again, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph,  princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.
> 
> It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of _Origin of Species_, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.
> 
> You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.
> 
> For you edification, _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection."  Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution,  rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy  theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
> I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!
> 
> 
> 2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
> Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
> "To the question why* we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer* . . . Nevertheless, *the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.*"
> Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
> 
> What???
> 
> You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
> ....hmmmmm.......
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."
> 
> Sure about that?
> 
> a. "*There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure* for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
> Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, *we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> 
> Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "...denial of facts..."
> 
> Did you just ask for facts???
> 
> Got ya' facts right here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
Click to expand...


1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph,  princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.
> 
> It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of _Origin of Species_, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.
> 
> You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.
> 
> For you edification, _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection."  Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution,  rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy  theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
> I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!
> 
> 
> 2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
> Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
> "To the question why* we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer* . . . Nevertheless, *the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.*"
> Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
> 
> What???
> 
> You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
> ....hmmmmm.......
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."
> 
> Sure about that?
> 
> a. "*There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure* for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
> Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, *we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> 
> Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "...denial of facts..."
> 
> Did you just ask for facts???
> 
> Got ya' facts right here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?
Click to expand...




I leveled you again, huh?

No answer to my post?




This is just too darn easy.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
> I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!
> 
> 
> 2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
> Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
> "To the question why* we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer* . . . Nevertheless, *the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.*"
> Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
> 
> What???
> 
> You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
> ....hmmmmm.......
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."
> 
> Sure about that?
> 
> a. "*There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure* for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
> Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
> 
> b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, *we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> 
> Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "...denial of facts..."
> 
> Did you just ask for facts???
> 
> Got ya' facts right here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I leveled you again, huh?
> 
> No answer to my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just too darn easy.
Click to expand...


You failed again. 

I understand that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is convenient, but why do you think your "quote mining" establishes anything but your ability to cut and paste?


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Twisting of evidence gets you only a Fail, hack.






So....how about you untwist it?

I see you were unable to  address any of the points in the post......as usual.


Is that because you're stoooooppppid?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I leveled you again, huh?
> 
> No answer to my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just too darn easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed again.
> 
> I understand that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is convenient, but why do you think your "quote mining" establishes anything but your ability to cut and paste?
Click to expand...




You don't want to focus on any to the quotes that destroyed you???

Understandable.


----------



## Hollie

Oh my, princess. It seems Darwin didn't agree with you.



The Origin of Species

Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings  



He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.

Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I leveled you again, huh?
> 
> No answer to my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just too darn easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed again.
> 
> I understand that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is convenient, but why do you think your "quote mining" establishes anything but your ability to cut and paste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to focus on any to the quotes that destroyed you???
> 
> Understandable.
Click to expand...


You don't want to acknowledge your out of context cut and pasting from Harun Yahya?

Understandable.


----------



## Hollie

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

Uh, princess. How is it possible that: "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

Are you going to float a conspiracy that the fossil's disappeared? Where did they go?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie just hung PC out to dry and wither and blow away.

Onlyz a matturz a timez.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> Oh my, princess. It seems Darwin didn't agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> The Origin of Species
> 
> Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings
> 
> 
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.
> 
> Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.






Oh, my little dummy.....you make this so easy.

Now watch closely as I skewer you...and you walked right into this:

1. "He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically,...."

Know what 'hypothetically' means?
Didn't think so.

It means "I guess."
*That's your evidence?????*
'I guess'???


So....that wasn't much of a quote you provided....not on your side. I*t supported my side.*



3. Did you notice the mention of *'Silurian"?*

I love this.
Know where the name comes from?

Get ready for your knock-out....


There was *Roderick Murchison, *a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. 

Some* five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work,* he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, *trilobites could not have evolved gradually* from some primitive, simple form: 

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely* exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being." *
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.




Wow.....did you set yourself up or what??????


Your Darwin quote says 'I guess....'


And the famed geologist Murchison, says the evidence would ".... exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being." 




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]





Hey....come back here!!!

Stop running away to hide!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie just hung PC out to dry and wither and blow away.
> 
> Onlyz a matturz a timez.





Moron.

Can't you read....

She flopped.....you must be used to that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

So we see PC guessing, just like her hero.

Nuance, PC, is strange to you, yes, we know.

You fell trying to get out of the batter's box.


----------



## Hollie

Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own&#8230; well&#8230; creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and &#8220;quote mining&#8221; Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Your &#8220;quote&#8221; was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22&#8211;9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

_&#8221;Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information &#8212; what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.&#8221;_


So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> Uh, princess. How is it possible that: "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
> 
> Are you going to float a conspiracy that the fossil's disappeared? Where did they go?




Don't you fanatics understand English???


Not as simple as you are....but simple.

What were originally treated as indicia of transition, upon closer inspection, have proven not to be so.




Done in by your IQ once again.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Any creationist or IDer is automatically a victim of circular logic.

Accept a manuscript that has been reworked so many times as literalist, without any empirical support and ballast of importance, and you end up with someone like PC.

That's why students from sectarian home schooling go off the rails in faith dissolution once they get to those instructors who employ critical thinking and the use of empirical data.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> So we see PC guessing, just like her hero.
> 
> Nuance, PC, is strange to you, yes, we know.
> 
> You fell trying to get out of the batter's box.





Stop it.....you're killin' me!


Take it to to open mic night at the Ice House comedy club!


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, princess. It seems Darwin didn't agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> The Origin of Species
> 
> Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings
> 
> 
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.
> 
> Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my little dummy.....you make this so easy.
> 
> Now watch closely as I skewer you...and you walked right into this:
> 
> 1. "He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically,...."
> 
> Know what 'hypothetically' means?
> Didn't think so.
> 
> It means "I guess."
> *That's your evidence?????*
> 'I guess'???
> 
> 
> So....that wasn't much of a quote you provided....not on your side. I*t supported my side.*
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Did you notice the mention of *'Silurian"?*
> 
> I love this.
> Know where the name comes from?
> 
> Get ready for your knock-out....
> 
> 
> There was *Roderick Murchison, *a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales.
> 
> Some* five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work,* he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, *trilobites could not have evolved gradually* from some primitive, simple form:
> 
> "The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely* exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being." *
> Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.....did you set yourself up or what??????
> 
> 
> Your Darwin quote says 'I guess....'
> 
> 
> And the famed geologist Murchison, says the evidence would ".... exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....come back here!!!
> 
> Stop running away to hide!!!
Click to expand...


Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, princess. It seems Darwin didn't agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> The Origin of Species
> 
> Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings
> 
> 
> 
> He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.
> 
> Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my little dummy.....you make this so easy.
> 
> Now watch closely as I skewer you...and you walked right into this:
> 
> 1. "He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically,...."
> 
> Know what 'hypothetically' means?
> Didn't think so.
> 
> It means "I guess."
> *That's your evidence?????*
> 'I guess'???
> 
> 
> So....that wasn't much of a quote you provided....not on your side. I*t supported my side.*
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Did you notice the mention of *'Silurian"?*
> 
> I love this.
> Know where the name comes from?
> 
> Get ready for your knock-out....
> 
> 
> There was *Roderick Murchison, *a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales.
> 
> Some* five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work,* he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, *trilobites could not have evolved gradually* from some primitive, simple form:
> 
> "The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely* exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being." *
> Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.....did you set yourself up or what??????
> 
> 
> Your Darwin quote says 'I guess....'
> 
> 
> And the famed geologist Murchison, says the evidence would ".... exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....come back here!!!
> 
> Stop running away to hide!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.
Click to expand...


The comedy queen of research and lack of data, our own PC, is killing the audience.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.
> 
> Your quote was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.
> 
> Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE
> 
> In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 229), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:
> 
> _Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information  what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection._
> 
> 
> So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?





"... now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years..."

You don't realize that that quote of yours disputes Darwin?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> Uh, princess. How is it possible that: "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
> 
> Are you going to float a conspiracy that the fossil's disappeared? Where did they go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you fanatics understand English???
> 
> 
> Not as simple as you are....but simple.
> 
> What were originally treated as indicia of transition, upon closer inspection, have proven not to be so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done in by your IQ once again.
Click to expand...


Uh, princess, do you understand that your sloppy cutting and pasting involves cutting and pasting material that is fraudulent?

That's been the history of your participation. You simply dump creationist nonsense into threads which means you become an accomplice to forgery, incompetence, lies and creationist "quote-mining" of edited, parsed and falsified "quotes".

Basically, you're just a fraud.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my little dummy.....you make this so easy.
> 
> Now watch closely as I skewer you...and you walked right into this:
> 
> 1. "He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically,...."
> 
> Know what 'hypothetically' means?
> Didn't think so.
> 
> It means "I guess."
> *That's your evidence?????*
> 'I guess'???
> 
> 
> So....that wasn't much of a quote you provided....not on your side. I*t supported my side.*
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Did you notice the mention of *'Silurian"?*
> 
> I love this.
> Know where the name comes from?
> 
> Get ready for your knock-out....
> 
> 
> There was *Roderick Murchison, *a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales.
> 
> Some* five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work,* he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, *trilobites could not have evolved gradually* from some primitive, simple form:
> 
> "The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely* exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being." *
> Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.....did you set yourself up or what??????
> 
> 
> Your Darwin quote says 'I guess....'
> 
> 
> And the famed geologist Murchison, says the evidence would ".... exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaZing! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....come back here!!!
> 
> Stop running away to hide!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comedy queen of research and lack of data, our own PC, is killing the audience.
Click to expand...





Another empty post?




I must have really wounded you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your failure to respond to this outs you, PC.  It's over.

Any creationist or IDer is automatically a victim of circular logic.

Accept a manuscript that has been reworked so many times as literalist, without any empirical support and ballast of importance, and you end up with someone like PC.

That's why students from sectarian home schooling go off the rails in faith dissolution once they get to those instructors who employ critical thinking and the use of empirical data.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.
> 
> Your quote was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.
> 
> Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE
> 
> In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 229), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:
> 
> _Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information  what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection._
> 
> 
> So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years..."
> 
> You don't realize that that quote of yours disputes Darwin?
Click to expand...


You don't realize that "quote" of yours was a fraud?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own well creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and quote mining Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.
> 
> Your quote was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.
> 
> Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE
> 
> In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 229), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:
> 
> _Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information  what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection._
> 
> 
> So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years..."
> 
> You don't realize that that quote of yours disputes Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't realize that "quote" of yours was a fraud?
Click to expand...


PC does not care.  In this sense of lack of academic integrity, she ranks with the Nazi race ethnologists.


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my little dummy.....you make this so easy.
> 
> Now watch closely as I skewer you...and you walked right into this:
> 
> 1. "He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically,...."
> 
> Know what 'hypothetically' means?
> Didn't think so.
> 
> It means "I guess."
> *That's your evidence?????*
> 'I guess'???
> 
> 
> So....that wasn't much of a quote you provided....not on your side. I*t supported my side.*
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Did you notice the mention of *'Silurian"?*
> 
> I love this.
> Know where the name comes from?
> 
> Get ready for your knock-out....
> 
> 
> There was *Roderick Murchison, *a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales.
> 
> Some* five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work,* he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, *trilobites could not have evolved gradually* from some primitive, simple form:
> 
> "The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely* exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being." *
> Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.....did you set yourself up or what??????
> 
> 
> Your Darwin quote says 'I guess....'
> 
> 
> And the famed geologist Murchison, says the evidence would ".... exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaZing! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey....come back here!!!
> 
> Stop running away to hide!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comedy queen of research and lack of data, our own PC, is killing the audience.
Click to expand...


Sorry princess. The Murchison "quote" was previously addressed by Stephen Gould. 

Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History - Stephen Jay Gould - Google Books


Hey. Come back. Don't run away. We'll get to your fraudulent "quotes" one by one.


----------



## Hollie

1. So moving on to another of princesses "quotes", we're on the horns of a dilemma.

2. Princess cut and pasted this "quote":


> "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."



Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

3. Well, I found the document so entitled, but oddly, the "quote" is a sentence snipped from a more thorough desscription.

4. Here's a link to the document.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio222-c/Reserve Reading/RR1/Field_1988.pdf

5. Princess, can you provide us with a description of what you would expect us to observe with such "historical continuity".  Can you explain this?

6. Here's a possible solution, princess. Why don't you provide the exact citation and a link to the exact "quote" you cut and pasted?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC often misattributes citations to quotes.

Always, always check her citations and the primary sources.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC often misattributes citations to quotes.
> 
> Always, always check her citations and the primary sources.




You're lyin' again.


I dare you to find one such.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Several have been provided above.

We won't tolerate your fabrications any longer without metaphorically making you swallow your lies .


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Several have been provided above.
> 
> We won't tolerate your fabrications any longer without metaphorically making you swallow your lies .




I asked you to provide some lies.

1."Several have been provided above."

So....you can't come up with any....shocker.

Got you again, didn't I, Loooooooossser.


2. "We won't tolerate..."

You and your tapeworm?


3. "...making you swallow your lies."

But I just proved that there aren't any!!

Now I'll have to go find a snack elsewhere.



I hate being redundant....but this is soooo you:

I wouldn&#8217;t say you&#8217;re useless&#8230;You&#8217;re the kind of a man that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.


----------



## midcan5

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU]Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several have been provided above.
> 
> We won't tolerate your fabrications any longer without metaphorically making you swallow your lies .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to provide some lies.
> 
> 1."Several have been provided above."
> 
> So....you can't come up with any....shocker.
> 
> Got you again, didn't I, Loooooooossser.
> 
> 
> 2. "We won't tolerate..."
> 
> You and your tapeworm?
> 
> 
> 3. "...making you swallow your lies."
> 
> But I just proved that there aren't any!!
> 
> Now I'll have to go find a snack elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate being redundant....but this is soooo you:
> 
> I wouldnt say youre uselessYoure the kind of a man that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.
Click to expand...


Yup, you are redundant in the fabrication department.  You have not offered any evidence of worth.

Tis what tis.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.
> 
> 
> "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
> 
> 
> What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence?
> 
> Comin' right up:
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html
> 
> 
> 
> Whipped you again, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph,  princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.
> 
> It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of _Origin of Species_, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.
> 
> You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.
> 
> For you edification, _Origin of Species_ accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
> 
> His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
> 
> Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection."  Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.
> 
> What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.
> 
> 
> We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.
> 
> 
> As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution,  rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy  theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
> I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!
> 
> 
> 2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
> Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
> "To the question why* we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer* . . . Nevertheless, *the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great.*"
> Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
> 
> What???
Click to expand...


What??? Is exactly the question that comes to my mind.  Also Why?  Why are you continuing to lie about what Darwin was talking about above when I already addressed it in full?  Are you retarded or what?



> 3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."
> 
> Sure about that?



Absolutely.  All type specimens are held at the National Museum for scientists from all over the world to study.  They have millions of specimens.  How many do you have?  Zero.



> a. "*There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure* for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
> Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.



Except that article has nothing to do with transitional species.  Moreover, your 'quote' makes it appear that they are saying that because there is "no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure[/B] for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla" that there is no other evidence that does do just that.  Clue, Einstein.  That evidence was what the friggin paper was presenting.

Here is the full paper:

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio222-c/Reserve Reading/RR1/Field_1988.pdf 



> b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, *we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. *By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)
> 
> 
> Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....



Certainly YOU have some explaining to do.  For instance, why, like your quote on Darwin, above, are you using this quote after I already showed everyone here how utterly out of context it is?  Are you truly so stupid that you would continue a lie after everyone has seen that it is a lie?  Is it spite? Denial?  Or are you mentally deficient?  Do you have memory issues? Come on  Lucy, splain!


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube





Wait....did you just call Bill Nye the Science Guy as a witness.


How the heck did you pass up Dora the Explorer????


----------



## Old Rocks

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.


----------



## orogenicman

Why would anybody in their right mind quote from Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya)?

He is not a scientist.  He isn't even a scholar.  He is an Islamist activist who works towards turning all of Islam into a Turkish caliphate.  He is also a conspiracy theorist and a holocaust denier.  In 1986, he was arrested for promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months.  In 1991, Oktar was arrested for possession of cocaine.  A number of faculty members where he attended university who taught evolution were harassed, threatened and slandered in flyers that labeled them "Maoists". In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against the BAV for defamation and were each awarded $4,000.  

He has also been instrumental in censoring the internet in Turkey, particularly scientific web sites that have discussions or present scientific papers on evolution.  He has made a fortune publishing his lies (through his own publishing house, I might add).  He has also used his wealth  to block dissent in Turkey to his Islamist creationist views.

Great friend you have there, PC.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....did you just call Bill Nye the Science Guy as a witness.
> 
> 
> How the heck did you pass up Dora the Explorer????
Click to expand...


Why not Bill Nye? He's a reasonable, respected voice who is urging that our teachers, school boards and politicians take responsibility for educating our children. His challenge is: put aside the myths, fears and superstitions surrounding ID'iot creationism that fundamentalists want to impose upon the public schools.

We know with certainty that ID'iot creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the ID'iot creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony ID'iot "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism. 

Let's see the ID'iot creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the ID'iots refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what ID'iot creationists cannot do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anybody who quotes Yahya automatically disqualifies herself for any respect in evolution and creationism dialogues.


----------



## orogenicman




----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.



Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.







You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.


Why is so very difficult for you to confine your posts to areas in which you have a modicum of knowledge??

Oh....'cause there are no such areas.





For your edification, Darwin and his supporters of the era were the very opposite of empiricists.

Many eminent scientists agreed with Darwin, that just because we haven't found the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't...or didn't exist. This was the position of Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel, Asa Gray and others. 
The theory itself seemed just too eloquent to pass up. 'Logic' won the day! 
Not evidence.

I'll have to OP this fact.



Just so you don't continue to look like a simpleton trying to be relevant, do a bit of research and see the dispute between Darwin and Louis Agassiz.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
Click to expand...


Try putting down that paper bag soaked in modeling glue that you have over your nose and mouth.

Are you still in a fog over the fact that we are about 150 years past Darwin's publication?

Have you by chance read in the newspapers that the tools of science have become more exacting in the last 150 years? 

Are you still convinced that the sciences of chemistry, biology and paleontology comprise a global conspiracy?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.
Click to expand...


When you attack personality, you admit you lose the game.

You don't understand evolution, Yahya is lost in creationism, and the rest of us are bewildered by your floundering.

Believe whatever your little heart desires, but when you attempt to explain matters beyond your stations please don't get exasperated that folks get exasperated by you.

Scriptural literalism is proof only of scriptural literalism: the greatest example of circular logic there is.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you attack personality, you admit you lose the game.
> 
> You don't understand evolution, Yahya is lost in creationism, and the rest of us are bewildered by your floundering.
> 
> Believe whatever your little heart desires, but when you attempt to explain matters beyond your stations please don't get exasperated that folks get exasperated by you.
> 
> Scriptural literalism is proof only of scriptural literalism: the greatest example of circular logic there is.
Click to expand...




Funny.

I beat you like a rented mule.   Appropriate analogy, huh?

The proof is that you cut off the rest of my post which highlighted your total ignorance.



Want to comment on Darwin and your claim that his work was based on empirical evidence?

No?

For obvious reasons.


----------



## Derideo_Te

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
Click to expand...


Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.

What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you attack personality, you admit you lose the game.
> 
> You don't understand evolution, Yahya is lost in creationism, and the rest of us are bewildered by your floundering.
> 
> Believe whatever your little heart desires, but when you attempt to explain matters beyond your stations please don't get exasperated that folks get exasperated by you.
> 
> Scriptural literalism is proof only of scriptural literalism: the greatest example of circular logic there is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof is that you cut off the rest of my post which highlighted your total ignorance.
> .
Click to expand...


Within in the rules, I addressed the major point.  Hollie has handed you your ass on evolution, so that is over.

Biblical literalism is circular logic.  There is no way it can be used to undermine evolution.

Yahya is a crank, nothing more.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.
> 
> What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?
Click to expand...



My point?

*Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."*


*That is exactly my point.*

Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?

*The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*



To the point: *I've had just about enough of your honesty!*

If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere. 

*My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth*....and, if you don't
mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.


Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.

It is interesting, and ties in with the *political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.*


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.
> 
> What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point?
> 
> *Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."*
> 
> 
> *That is exactly my point.*
> 
> Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?
> 
> *The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*
> 
> 
> 
> To the point: *I've had just about enough of your honesty!*
> 
> If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.
> 
> *My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth*....and, if you don't
> mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.
> 
> It is interesting, and ties in with the *political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.*
Click to expand...

Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?

How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.  

You fall down the stairs frequently, right?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.
> 
> What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point?
> 
> *Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."*
> 
> 
> *That is exactly my point.*
> 
> Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?
> 
> *The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*
> 
> 
> 
> To the point: *I've had just about enough of your honesty!*
> 
> If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.
> 
> *My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth*....and, if you don't
> mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.
> 
> It is interesting, and ties in with the *political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?
> 
> How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.
> 
> You fall down the stairs frequently, right?
Click to expand...





I write "The others either* lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*"


*And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.*

What a coincidence.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point?
> 
> *Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."*
> 
> 
> *That is exactly my point.*
> 
> Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?
> 
> *The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*
> 
> 
> 
> To the point: *I've had just about enough of your honesty!*
> 
> If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.
> 
> *My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth*....and, if you don't
> mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.
> 
> It is interesting, and ties in with the *political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.*
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?
> 
> How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.
> 
> You fall down the stairs frequently, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I write "The others either* lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*"
> 
> 
> *And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.*
> 
> What a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that _Origin of Species_ set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting. 

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered. 


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution. 

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.


----------



## orogenicman

I guess she is avoiding responding to my posts.  I don't blame her, really I don't.  Poor dear.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?
> 
> How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.
> 
> You fall down the stairs frequently, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I write "The others either* lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*"
> 
> 
> *And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.*
> 
> What a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that _Origin of Species_ set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.
> 
> Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.
> 
> The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.
> 
> 
> Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?
> 
> Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.
Click to expand...




Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I write "The others either* lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*"
> 
> 
> *And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.*
> 
> What a coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that _Origin of Species_ set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.
> 
> Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.
> 
> The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.
> 
> 
> Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?
> 
> Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.
Click to expand...


I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations. 


You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that _Origin of Species_ set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.
> 
> Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.
> 
> The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.
> 
> 
> Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?
> 
> Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.
> 
> 
> You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.
Click to expand...




Did you drop by to admit that Darwin was upset that the fossil evidence he was counting on didn't exist?


Nah....that would require honesty.

You're just very lonely....


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.
> 
> 
> You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you drop by to admit that Darwin was upset that the fossil evidence he was counting on didn't exist?
> 
> 
> Nah....that would require honesty.
> 
> You're just very lonely....
Click to expand...


Did the Harun Yahya madrassah never inform you that the fossil evidence to support Darwinian theory does exist?

Nah..... that would conflict with tales and fables of a 6,000 year old earth. 


You're just befuddled.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.
> 
> 
> You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you drop by to admit that Darwin was upset that the fossil evidence he was counting on didn't exist?
> 
> 
> Nah....that would require honesty.
> 
> You're just very lonely....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the Harun Yahya madrassah never inform you that the fossil evidence to support Darwinian theory does exist?
> 
> Nah..... that would conflict with tales and fables of a 6,000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> You're just befuddled.
Click to expand...



Ohhhh......you ARE lonely.

You poor ignorant thing.....no body loves  you?

Well....you're welcome here any time.


Don't expect to be paid attention to.....but drop by just the same.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I write "The others either* lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.*"
> 
> 
> *And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.*
> 
> What a coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that _Origin of Species_ set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.
> 
> Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.
> 
> The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.
> 
> 
> Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?
> 
> Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.
Click to expand...


Why did you slither away?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that _Origin of Species_ set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.
> 
> Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.
> 
> The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.
> 
> 
> Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?
> 
> Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you slither away?
Click to expand...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lscp1GCjUQ]"Hey There Lonely Girl" Live! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you slither away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harun Yahya doesn't have videos?
> 
> You poor, dear.
> 
> How difficult it must be for you when Harun Yahya doesn't have a handy "quote".
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> I guess she is avoiding responding to my posts.  I don't blame her, really I don't.  Poor dear.



Ahem.  (taps foot)


----------



## Old Rocks

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
Click to expand...


Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species. 

Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics. 

The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.
> 
> Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.
> 
> The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.
Click to expand...



"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.

When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
I like that word in this connection.


BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.
> 
> Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.
> 
> The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
Click to expand...


What would you know of it?  You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them.  Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn?  Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.
> 
> Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.
> 
> The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would you know of it?  You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them.  Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn?  Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.
Click to expand...


How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?

Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?
> 
> Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."
> 
> This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.
> 
> 
> Ready?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.
> 
> Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.
> 
> The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
> I like that word in this connection.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.
Click to expand...


Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.

Religious zealots continue to attack Darwinism because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.

It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.

The TalkOrigins website has a good article here:

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

The article reiterates one of the stereotypical creationist challenges to the fossil record. In this case, theres a comment from Duhwayne Gish.



> One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
> There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an udder failure (Gish 1985: 78-9).





BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, _there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence_ to require accommodation.

Once again the extremist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you know of it?  You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them.  Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn?  Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?
Click to expand...


Probably not.  How many have YOU found?  How many new species have you found?  How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?



> Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.



What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published.  I do and am.  I'm not a rock hound.  I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you know of it?  You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them.  Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn?  Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not.  How many have YOU found?  How many new species have you found?  How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published.  I do and am.  I'm not a rock hound.  I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.
Click to expand...


New species? Hate to point out the obvious, but there are no new species in the fossil record, all of them are old, and quite a number of them are extinct. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to find a new species is by looking places other than in fossils. I would have thought that even a guy that studies dirt would know that.

Digging up dirt does not educate you in evolution, even if you find fossils along the way. If it did you wouldn't have argued the way you did in this thread when I pointed out that you don't understand evolution.


----------



## orogenicman

Quantum Windbag said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not.  How many have YOU found?  How many new species have you found?  How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published.  I do and am.  I'm not a rock hound.  I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New species? Hate to point out the obvious, but there are no new species in the fossil record, all of them are old, and quite a number of them are extinct. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to find a new species is by looking places other than in fossils. I would have thought that even a guy that studies dirt would know that.
> 
> Digging up dirt does not educate you in evolution, even if you find fossils along the way. If it did you wouldn't have argued the way you did in this thread when I pointed out that you don't understand evolution.
Click to expand...


New species = new to science = not previously known.  8 new species to be precise.  Damn you are stupid.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

orogenicman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not.  How many have YOU found?  How many new species have you found?  How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?
> 
> What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published.  I do and am.  I'm not a rock hound.  I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New species? Hate to point out the obvious, but there are no new species in the fossil record, all of them are old, and quite a number of them are extinct. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to find a new species is by looking places other than in fossils. I would have thought that even a guy that studies dirt would know that.
> 
> Digging up dirt does not educate you in evolution, even if you find fossils along the way. If it did you wouldn't have argued the way you did in this thread when I pointed out that you don't understand evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New species = new to science = not previously known.  8 new species to be precise.  Damn you are stupid.
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Click to expand...


Not previously known &#8800;new.


----------



## Old Rocks

It does equal new to science, as you damned well know.

But for those defending the indefensible, seizing on any semantic tomfoolery is the standard.

Orogenicman is a professional geologist with much field experiance. Now I am just a millwright with over a 100 credits towards a BS in Geology, and a fulltime 40 to 45 hr a week job as a millwright in a steel mill. And I will be 70 before the year is out. I was raised in a very fundementalist family, and know all the arguements used against science. And really understand how willfull ignorance works. And even I know far more than PC and Quantum put together on the subject of evolution. These poster children for ignorance should read Earnst Myer. Or Stephen Jay Gould. There is much wonderful and enlightening information on evolutionary biology out there. But instead, you will convince yourselves that you know so much more than people like Orogenicman.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.
> 
> Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.
> 
> The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
> I like that word in this connection.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
> 
> Religious zealots continue to attack Darwinism because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
> 
> It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
> 
> The TalkOrigins website has a good article here:
> 
> The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
> 
> The article reiterates one of the stereotypical creationist challenges to the fossil record. In this case, theres a comment from Duhwayne Gish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
> There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an udder failure (Gish 1985: 78-9).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, _there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence_ to require accommodation.
> 
> Once again the extremist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...
Click to expand...




"Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.

Religious zealots....blah blah blah..."

Simple enough for you to prove that: put up.



As you are a certified Darwin zealot, you will not doubt lie or obfuscate when confronted with this query:

*Why have you been unable *to provide fossil evidence documenting change from one species to a different species?




 " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex,* but different from any living animals*.[14][15]

 The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were *so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. *Stephen Jay Goulds popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, *both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."* Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again?

"....both Whittington and Gould proposed that *all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."*

('cause there's no fossils that prove Darwin's theory...true? True.)


Gee....that's gotta hurt a Darwin fanatic, huh?



Can't wait to see your response....it won't include fossil evidence, will it.....


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
> I like that word in this connection.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
> 
> Religious zealots continue to attack Darwinism because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
> 
> It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
> 
> The TalkOrigins website has a good article here:
> 
> The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
> 
> The article reiterates one of the stereotypical creationist challenges to the fossil record. In this case, theres a comment from Duhwayne Gish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
> There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an udder failure (Gish 1985: 78-9).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, _there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence_ to require accommodation.
> 
> Once again the extremist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
> 
> Religious zealots....blah blah blah..."
> 
> Simple enough for you to prove that: put up.
> 
> 
> 
> As you are a certified Darwin zealot, you will not doubt lie or obfuscate when confronted with this query:
> 
> *Why have you been unable *to provide fossil evidence documenting change from one species to a different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex,* but different from any living animals*.[14][15]
> 
> The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were *so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. *Stephen Jay Goulds popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, *both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."* Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "....both Whittington and Gould proposed that *all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."*
> 
> ('cause there's no fossils that prove Darwin's theory...true? True.)
> 
> 
> Gee....that's gotta hurt a Darwin fanatic, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see your response....it won't include fossil evidence, will it.....
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to produce that Cambrian bunny rabbit, dear.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
> I like that word in this connection.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
> 
> Religious zealots continue to attack Darwinism because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs,  we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
> 
> It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
> 
> The TalkOrigins website has a good article here:
> 
> The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
> 
> The article reiterates one of the stereotypical creationist challenges to the fossil record. In this case, theres a comment from Duhwayne Gish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
> There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an udder failure (Gish 1985: 78-9).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, _there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence_ to require accommodation.
> 
> Once again the extremist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
> 
> Religious zealots....blah blah blah..."
> 
> Simple enough for you to prove that: put up.
> 
> 
> 
> As you are a certified Darwin zealot, you will not doubt lie or obfuscate when confronted with this query:
> 
> *Why have you been unable *to provide fossil evidence documenting change from one species to a different species?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex,* but different from any living animals*.[14][15]
> 
> The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were *so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. *Stephen Jay Goulds popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, *both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."* Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "....both Whittington and Gould proposed that *all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."*
> 
> ('cause there's no fossils that prove Darwin's theory...true? True.)
> 
> 
> Gee....that's gotta hurt a Darwin fanatic, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see your response....it won't include fossil evidence, will it.....
Click to expand...


Oh, my. How terrible it must be for you when Harun Yahya doesnt have a handy parsed, edited or fraudulent quote you can cut and paste. 



That is why you are left to the polluted backwater of creationist ineptitude and are reduced to
nothing more that _....blah blah blah..."_



You may stagger and reel and seek to evade, but others reading this thread will certainly recognize that you have refused to address the careless cutting and pasting that defines your pointless Harun Yahyaisms. You have not even attempted to refute the facts of evolutionary science. Like the craven Harun Yahya groupie sputtering on with fraudulent quotes, you have merely proven that you are unable to compete. Alas, I expected no better of you.

Those who deny evolution, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it obviously missed you, so you're excused. 

You are obviously unable to reconcile the facts of evolution with the religious tales and fables promoted by Harun Yahya. 

Simply ignoring the evidence for transitional fossils, and worse, suggesting that the entirety of the scientific data supporting evolutionary biology is a part of some grand, worldwide conspiracy theory is laughable.



PC and the Harun Yahya groupies she is in thrall to are illustrative of religious zealots who don't believe for intellectual reasons or reasons which are particularly intuitive. It's unfortunately true that many religious people are not concerned with the issue of truth and falsehood. Unfortunately, its not a simple matter of hand waving it off by saying that that's their problem, not mine because the consequences of such mindlessly connecting nonexistent dots has consequences. When such persistent and blatant irrationalism becomes a mindset, extremists can and do convince themselves of almost anything. Lets remember that the standards of knowledge are our only means of selective discrimination that defines rationality and irrationality from meaningless claims. 




As opposed to scouring Harun Yahya for selective quotes, the religious zealot is forced to quote-mine wiki.  Better still, the zealot is forced to quote, quotes of 1970s vintage.

And, not surprisingly, we see the lies and edits to quotes that are such a part of the fundamentalist zealot program of mis-information.


Whenever I see parsed quotes cut and pasted by religious zealots, I typically find the quotes are heavily edited so as to distort the authors  meaning and context.



In this case:
"....both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."

Gee whiz, it seems the religious extremist is a bit befuddled about terms such as rather suddenly with respect to geologic timescales.



With a bit of searching, what we find is that the religious zealot has further edited the quote.

"_While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phyla had appeared rather suddenly. This view was influenced by the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Eldredge and Gould developed in the early 1970s and which views evolution as long intervals of near-stasis "punctuated" by short periods of rapid change_"

Yep. Just more of the _lies_ that defines the agenda of the religious extremists. 

Its been a short learning process but Ive come to expect that if a religious extremists fingers are typing, its a lie.



CONCLUSIONS

The Cambrian Fossil Record and the Origin of the Phyla


The combination of important refinements in the treatment of the systematics of Cambrian fossils, and in our understanding of Cambrian stratigraphy is leading to a more precise view of the Cambrian explosion. Phyla do not appear in a sudden jumble, implying an appearance in the fossil record induced by some external influence (e.g., a rise in atmospheric oxygen levels) that allowed a standing diversity already present to be manifested in the record. Rather, the impression rather is of a rapid, but nevertheless resolvable and orderly appearance, starting with the earliest skeletal forms such as Cloudina that are reasonably assignable to a diploblast grade (i.e., stem- or crown-group cnidarians or basal stem-group bilaterians).


----------



## Hollie

_Cambrian faunas_

Cambrian faunas - The Panda's Thumb

File this under &#8220;It&#8217;s all a conspiracy perpetrated by those atheistic evolutionists&#8221;


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> _Cambrian faunas_
> 
> Cambrian faunas - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> File this under Its all a conspiracy perpetrated by those atheistic evolutionists



Wait.....


This is your latest retreat???

" In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc. There is no cambrian age."


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Cambrian faunas_
> 
> Cambrian faunas - The Panda's Thumb
> 
> File this under Its all a conspiracy perpetrated by those atheistic evolutionists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.....
> 
> 
> This is your latest retreat???
> 
> " In fact this is the origin for all fossil and sedimentary rock etc. There is no cambrian age."
Click to expand...



No, wait........





> ('cause there's no fossils that prove Darwin's theory...true? True.)





There is no Cambrian Age because there are no fossils.... ).... other than those planted by those "evilutionists".


You never did identify for us how those evilutionists managed to plant so many fossils (the fossils that don't exist), without being seen at night, under the cover of darkness, digging holes to plant the fossil evidence....(the fossils that don't exist).   



So, you typically slithered away when confronted with:

BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.



Could it be that the gods have played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## Old Rocks

The fossil record is a wonderful thing in that it is constantly being increased and added to. Look at the recent feathered dinosaurs from China. 

We have so many differant ways of dating material now that nobody accepts at valid a single type of dating on any item, whether fossil or statum. In fact, with the development of the many ways of dating differant fossils and strata, we have come to understand much of the fossil record that was confusing before. 

But if you already have your mind made up that it was all 'created', none of this is revelent. Willfull ignorance is ugly in any setting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> The fossil record is a wonderful thing in that it is constantly being increased and added to. Look at the recent feathered dinosaurs from China.
> 
> We have so many differant ways of dating material now that nobody accepts at valid a single type of dating on any item, whether fossil or statum. In fact, with the development of the many ways of dating differant fossils and strata, we have come to understand much of the fossil record that was confusing before.
> 
> But if you already have your mind made up that it was all 'created', none of this is revelent. Willfull ignorance is ugly in any setting.






You continue to pay attention, Rocks....and I'm gonna teach you guys about science, Darwin, and evolution.



Take notes.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is a wonderful thing in that it is constantly being increased and added to. Look at the recent feathered dinosaurs from China.
> 
> We have so many differant ways of dating material now that nobody accepts at valid a single type of dating on any item, whether fossil or statum. In fact, with the development of the many ways of dating differant fossils and strata, we have come to understand much of the fossil record that was confusing before.
> 
> But if you already have your mind made up that it was all 'created', none of this is revelent. Willfull ignorance is ugly in any setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to pay attention, Rocks....and I'm gonna teach you guys about science, Darwin, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Take notes.
Click to expand...


That's quite a fantasy coming from a Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fossil record is a wonderful thing in that it is constantly being increased and added to. Look at the recent feathered dinosaurs from China.
> 
> We have so many differant ways of dating material now that nobody accepts at valid a single type of dating on any item, whether fossil or statum. In fact, with the development of the many ways of dating differant fossils and strata, we have come to understand much of the fossil record that was confusing before.
> 
> But if you already have your mind made up that it was all 'created', none of this is revelent. Willfull ignorance is ugly in any setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to pay attention, Rocks....and I'm gonna teach you guys about science, Darwin, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy coming from a Harun Yahya groupie.
Click to expand...




Oh....I didn't intend to leave you out....I'll take on the Sisyphean task of trying to educate you, as well.


First lesson: try to stay away from your first impulse- lying.


Treat it as though it was a 12-Step. 
Begin by saying "My name is Hollie, and I am a liar."


See....you feel better already.


----------



## orogenicman

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to pay attention, Rocks....and I'm gonna teach you guys about science, Darwin, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Take notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a fantasy coming from a Harun Yahya groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....I didn't intend to leave you out....I'll take on the Sisyphean task of trying to educate you, as well.
> 
> 
> First lesson: try to stay away from your first impulse- lying.
> 
> 
> Treat it as though it was a 12-Step.
> Begin by saying "My name is Hollie, and I am a liar."
> 
> 
> See....you feel better already.
Click to expand...


Projection is not a valid argument.  Next.


----------

