# Show Me the Fossils!



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.

So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).

Here's an example from Scientific American, no less:





OK, that is pretty convincing, right?  The face is relatively flat, rather than elongated as are the faces of most animals who rely more heavily on sense of smell than do humans.  But the brain case is relatively small, a more ape-like trait.  Viola!  The long sought Missing Link!

But . . . look at the fine print:





It's a composite reconstruction.  It's a drawing of how the artist imagines a collection of bone fragments might look IF it were one complete skull.  Now this seems a pretty skilled drawing.  Not a Da Vinci, but the work of a competent commercial artist.  But that artist was not given a collection of bones and told, "draw us what these bones would look like."  Or if they were, of course they would have asked, "what are you going for here?"  The quick answer:  "You know, an ape-man.  The missing link."

I picture the artist saying, "So, Luca Brasi meets Mighty Joe Young.  Gotcha."

Anyway, to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

Thank you.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 30, 2022)




----------



## occupied (Jan 30, 2022)

The evolution of humanity from more ape like hominids is a proven fact.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

occupied said:


> The evolution of humanity from more ape like hominids is a proven fact.


and yet you cant post any of that proof,,


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 30, 2022)

In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist




Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about 

EVOLUTION


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


>


Nice paintings above and bone fragments filled in with modelling material below.  Exactly the opposite of what I asked for, plus no explanation of how they prove Darwinian evolution.

Nice . . . try?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist
> 
> View attachment 594799
> Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about
> ...


anything is complex to you so your opinion means nothing,,


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist
> 
> View attachment 594799
> Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about
> ...


That Troglodite looks pretty complex to me.

How is it simple, other than being relatively small?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> anything is complex to you so your opinion means nothing,,



Run Away!
Run Away!

You claim no fossil evidence can be provided
When it is, you…..


Run Away!
Run Away!


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That Troglodite looks pretty complex to me.
> 
> How is it simple, other than being relatively small?


No brain, no backbone, no organs


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> No brain, no backbone, no organs


sounds pretty complex if it can survive without those things,,


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

It's hilarious watching YouTube videos on those trying to prove evolution.
In the meanwhile, almost every physicist on YouTube is admitting that due to new technologies that allow them to examine everything down to the quark, they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> No brain, no backbone, no organs


Nobody asked you to describe yourself.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> sounds pretty complex if it can survive without those things,,


RWers does.


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws (Jan 30, 2022)

Fossils?

Ok..........................


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> In the geological layer this fossilized Troglodite was found there are no complex creatures. No fish, no dinosaurs, no humans…….They did not exist
> 
> View attachment 594799
> Fossil history reveals that simple creatures existed before more complex creatures came about
> ...





Seymour Flops said:


> That Troglodite looks pretty complex to me.
> 
> How is it simple, other than being relatively small?





rightwinger said:


> No brain, no backbone, no organs


First of all, that is a  Trilobite, not a Troglodite.  A Troglodite is a hypothetical primitive caveman.  The word is often used as an  insult.  I won't fault you too much for that slip, since I didn't catch it myself at first.

There is no brain, backbone, nor organs visible in the fossil you show, which is preserved impression in rock formed by compressing sand in the ocean.  But clearly, an animal like that had organs.  It had no spine, since animals with exoskeletons don't have spines.  Not sure how that means it is "simpler." 

*Terminology[edit]*​*As might be expected for a group of animals comprising c. 5,000 genera,[68] the morphology and description of trilobites can be complex. Despite morphological complexity and an unclear position within higher classifications, there are a number of characteristics which distinguish the trilobites from other arthropods: a generally sub-elliptical, dorsal, chitinous exoskeleton divided longitudinally into three distinct lobes (from which the group gets its name); having a distinct, relatively large head shield (cephalon) articulating axially with a thorax comprising articulated transverse segments, the hindmost of which are almost invariably fused to form a tail shield (pygidium). When describing differences between trilobite taxa, the presence, size, and shape of the cephalic features are often mentioned.

During moulting, the exoskeleton generally splits between the head and thorax, which is why so many trilobite fossils are missing one or the other. In most groups facial sutures on the cephalon helped facilitate moulting. Similar to lobsters and crabs, trilobites would have physically "grown" between the moult stage and the hardening of the new exoskeleton.
*
*Cephalon[edit]*​*See also: Cephalon (arthropod anatomy)
Morphology of the trilobite cephalon



The major subdivisions of the cephalon



The subdivisions can be further broken down into different areas used in describing trilobite cephalic morphology. 1 – preocular area; 2 – palpebral area; 3 – postocular area; 4 – posterolateral projection; 5 – occipital ring; 6 – glabella; 7 – posterior area; 8 – lateral border; 9 – librigenal area; 10 – preglabellar area
A trilobite's cephalon, or head section, is highly variable with a lot of morphological complexity. The glabella forms a dome underneath which sat the "crop" or "stomach". Generally the exoskeleton has few distinguishing ventral features, but the cephalon often preserves muscle attachment scars and occasionally the hypostome, a small rigid plate comparable to the ventral plate in other arthropods. A toothless mouth and stomach sat upon the hypostome with the mouth facing backward at the rear edge of the hypostome.

Hypostome morphology is highly variable; sometimes supported by an un-mineralised membrane (natant), sometimes fused onto the anterior doublure with an outline very similar to the glabella above (conterminant) or fused to the anterior doublure with an outline significantly different from the glabella (impendent). Many variations in shape and placement of the hypostome have been described.[61] The size of the glabella and the lateral fringe of the cephalon, together with hypostome variation, have been linked to different lifestyles, diets and specific ecological niches.[8]

The anterior and lateral fringe of the cephalon is greatly enlarged in the Harpetida, in other species a bulge in the pre-glabellar area is preserved that suggests a brood pouch.[69] Highly complex compound eyes are another obvious feature of the cephalon.*









						Trilobite - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Of all the unscientific nonsense presented as "proof" of Darwinian evolution, this technique of calling some organisms "simple" and others "complex" and placing them in a timeline that "shows" evolution from simple to complex is the silliest.  If Trilobites were complex enough that different types of them had different lifestyles, that hardly seems to show proof of evolution from simple to complex.

Even if it did, how does that prove Darwinian evolution and eliminate evolution by design? 

Clearly, some of you read the title of the OP and thought, 'so, just show a fossil and I win?  Ok, here's one . . . '


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.
> 
> So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).
> 
> ...


I think the answer is there will never be 'proof', only evidence.  Right now the overwhelming scientific evidence is that all (or almost all) life today is descended from a common ancestor.  In short we all evolved.  There is no science, be it anthropology, geology, biology, etc., that is in conflict with that.  Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated.  Newton was right about gravity but Einstein showed it was more complex than Newton theorized.

Bottom line is that EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found supports the theory of evolution.  No other theory comes close.  You can attack Darwin but you need an alternative theory to be taken seriously.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I think the answer is there will never be 'proof', only evidence.  Right now the overwhelming scientific evidence is that all (or almost all) life today is descended from a common ancestor.  In short we all evolved.  There is no science, be it anthropology, geology, biology, etc., that is in conflict with that.  Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated.  Newton was right about gravity but Einstein showed it was more complex than Newton theorized.
> 
> Bottom line is that EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found supports the theory of evolution.  No other theory comes close.  You can attack Darwin but you need an alternative theory to be taken seriously.


not a single fossil proves evolution,, they only proved something died and got buried,,


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.
> 
> So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).
> 
> ...



Photographs of fossils as well as the physical evidence is available all across the web. 

Would you find it shocking to learn that T-Rex exhibits, for one example, are typically not assembled from rock, calcified bones as the exhibit would literally weigh many tons. 

That might not have been conveyed at the Benny Hinn madrassah. 

Here's one source you could have found yourself. 









						Museum of Paleontology | U-M LSA Museum of Paleontology
					






					lsa.umich.edu
				





It might be helpful if you contacted the myseum and provided the data you have acquired as a way to refute the fossil record as one, large global conspiracy of those evilutionist, atheist scientists.

Be sure to copy us on your email to the museum.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Photographs of fossils as well as the physical evidence is available all across the web.
> 
> Would you find it shocking to learn that T-Rex exhibits, for one example, are typically not assembled from rock, calcified bones as the exhibit would literally weigh many tons.
> 
> ...


No museum is going to itself out of business.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> not a single fossil proves evolution,, they only proved something died and got buried,,


That's correct. A single fossil doesn't prove evolution. 

However, the fossil record that clearly shows transitions of species and adaptations of species over great expanses of time is undeniable.... except to the most extremist of religious types.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> not a single fossil proves evolution,, they only proved something died and got buried,,


You weren't paying attention, there are no proofs and demanding one makes you seem ignorant and arrogant.

A fossil is evidence that something died and got buried but that is only the beginning of the story, not the end.  What died?  How did it die?  How did it get buried?  What did it get buried with?  How long ago did it live?  What was buried in older layers, and what was buried in younger layers.  

Like a CSI, assembling the evidence gives a picture of the past and in every picture we have, evolution is the prime suspect.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> No museum is going to itself out of business.


Whatever that means.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> not a single fossil proves evolution,, they only proved something died and got buried,,


Give it up; you are dealing with the mentally ill.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You weren't paying attention, there are no proofs and demanding one makes you seem ignorant and arrogant.
> 
> A fossil is evidence that something died and got buried but that is only the beginning of the story, not the end.  What died?  How did it die?  How did it get buried?  What did it get buried with?  How long ago did it live?  What was buried in older layers, and what was buried in younger layers.
> 
> Like a CSI, assembling the evidence gives a picture of the past and in every picture we have, evolution is the prime suspect.


and none of those things can be observed or proven,, so as I said fossils mean nothing to proof of evolution,,


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Whatever that means.


If I have to explain it, you're not smart enough to be discussing evolution.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Give it up; you are dealing with the mentally ill.


I know,, but its fun to a point,,


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I think the answer is there will never be 'proof', only evidence.  Right now the overwhelming scientific evidence is that all (or almost all) life today is descended from a common ancestor.  In short we all evolved.  There is no science, be it anthropology, geology, biology, etc., that is in conflict with that.  Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated.  Newton was right about gravity but Einstein showed it was more complex than Newton theorized.
> 
> Bottom line is that EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found supports the theory of evolution.  No other theory comes close.  You can attack Darwin but you need an alternative theory to be taken seriously.


I'd be perfectly happy if people would say, "Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated."  I agree with that statement, my argument is with people who claim that Darwin's theories are scientific fact.  

I wonder if that statement were put on a sticker for textbooks, if the USSC would say that it amounted to "establishment of religion."  Based on precedent, it would.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> If I have to explain it, you're not smart enough to be discussing evolution.



If you can't write coherent sentences, you might want to avoid these forums.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I'd be perfectly happy if people would say, "Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated."  I agree with that statement, my argument is with people who claim that Darwin's theories are scientific fact.
> 
> I wonder if that statement were put on a sticker for textbooks, if the USSC would say that it amounted to "establishment of religion."  Based on precedent, it would.


It seems you would be perfectly happy demanding others agree the earth is flat.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> If you can't write coherent sentences, you might want to avoid these forums.


My sentence is coherent; Liberals don't understand sarcasm that exposes reality.
Do you really believe anyone working for a museum is going to expose the possibility that their exhibits are based on bullshit?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It seems you would be perfectly happy demanding others agree the earth is flat.


Nice ad hominem...Who here said the earth was flat?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> My sentence is coherent; Liberals don't understand sarcasm that exposes reality.
> Do you really believe anyone working for a museum is going to expose the possibility that their exhibits are based on bullshit?


You and the other extremist should co-author an email to the museum referenced earlier and demand they admit to their part in the global evilutionist atheist conspiracy. 

cc us on that email.

Thanks.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Nice ad hominem...Who here said the earth was flat?



It's not?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You and the other extremist should co-author an email to the museum referenced earlier and demand they admit to their part in the global evilutionist atheist conspiracy.
> 
> cc us on that email.
> 
> Thanks.


It's not a conspiracy, it's simply a way for people who know some science and hate God to make a living.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> It's not a conspiracy, it's simply a way for people who know some science and hate God to make a living.


Are museums sanctuaries for God haters?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Are museums sanctuaries for God haters?


I enjoy a good dinosaur exhibit.
It takes a lot of math and artistry to set up those exhibits.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I enjoy a good dinosaur exhibit.
> It takes a lot of math and artistry to set up those exhibits.


You spend a lot of time at the Ken Ham Ark Park?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You spend a lot of time at the Ken Ham Ark Park?


It would be the New York Metropolitan Museum of History.
I don't go to NYC anymore due to fear of being murdered.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> It would be the New York Metropolitan Museum of History.
> I don't go to NYC anymore due to fear of being murdered.



Giant Noah's Ark Attraction In Kentucky Features Caged Dinosaurs​Come on. This is actual earth history, just a few thousand years ago. Didn't you know that evilutionist atheist scientists are out every night, under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting evidence as a part of their global conspiracy?

I thought you had this all figured out. 








It's like the 'Flintstones,' except on a big boat.
https://www.huffpost.com/author/ed-mazza

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/noahs-ark-dinosaurs_n_577d9ff8e4b0344d514dea93
https://twitter.com/share?text=That...modushpmg00000004&hashtags=&via=HuffPostWeird









Dinosaurs on display in a cage at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. The creationist behind the attraction claims dinosaurs and man lived together.
BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Giant Noah's Ark Attraction In Kentucky Features Caged Dinosaurs​Come on. This is actual earth history, just a few thousand years ago. Didn't you know that evilutionist atheist scientists are out every night, under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting evidence as a part of their global conspiracy?
> 
> I thought you had this all figured out.
> 
> ...


Am I allowed to adopt one?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Am I allowed to adopt one?



You know they're not real, right?

Actually, they never existed. They're just a composite of a lot of math and artistry.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> and none of those things can be observed or proven,, so as I said fossils mean nothing to proof of evolution,,


Thanks for proving my point about you.  I look forward to hearing your *proof *that Darwin was wrong.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You know they're not real, right?
> 
> Actually, they never existed. They're just a composite of a lot of math and artistry.


I've seen iguanas in my daughters back yard...so dinosaurs will eventually become human!


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for proving my point about you.  I look forward to hearing your *proof *that Darwin was wrong.


We look forward to your proof that Darwin was correct.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I'd be perfectly happy if people would say, "Darwin's mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is a plausible theory but the truth is likely to be more complicated."  I agree with that statement, my argument is with people who claim that Darwin's theories are scientific fact.
> 
> I wonder if that statement were put on a sticker for textbooks, if the USSC would say that it amounted to "establishment of religion."  Based on precedent, it would.


I you agree that descent from a common ancestor has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, we agree.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I've seen iguanas in my daughters back yard...so dinosaurs will eventually become human!


That makes no sense.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That makes no sense.


I would have thought you would approve of my scientific evidence since you approve of it in museums.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I would have thought you would approve of my scientific evidence since you approve of it in museums.


What was your scientific evidence?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> We look forward to your proof that Darwin was correct.


Sigh...  If you followed my conversations with progressive hunter you know I was being sarcastic.  I told him repeatedly that asking for proof was a sign of ignorance but it made no impact.  So it seemed reasonable for me to ask for the impossible myself.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Sigh...  If you followed my conversations with progressive hunter you know I was being sarcastic.  I told him repeatedly that asking for proof was a sign of ignorance but it made no impact.  So it seemed reasonable for me to ask for the impossible myself.


Chill out!


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> What was your scientific evidence?


I performed the Vulcan Mind Meld with a real Iguana and it told me it would become a human in 700 trillion years.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I performed the Vulcan Mind Meld with a real Iguana and it told me it would become a human in 700 trillion years.


So, we agree, you had no evidence, no argument and nothing to contribute.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> So, we agree, you had no evidence, no argument and nothing to contribute.


Just like you...we have something in common!


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I you agree that descent from a common ancestor has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, we agree.


some call it adam and eve,, others call it a wet sponge,,

then there are those like me that just dont know and may never know,,

which one are you


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Sigh...  If you followed my conversations with progressive hunter you know I was being sarcastic.  I told him repeatedly that asking for proof was a sign of ignorance but it made no impact.  So it seemed reasonable for me to ask for the impossible myself.


isnt asking for the impossible the same as asking for something that doesnt exist??


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Just like you...we have something in common!


Not at all. The evidence that biological organisms evolve is well documented. That species adapt and change due to environmental pressures is also well documented. 

That the earth is flat and 6,000 years old... not so much.


----------



## Calypso Jones (Jan 30, 2022)

The 'Evolution' is NOT proven...that is why it is called THEORY of Evolution.    Some of you omitting the term THEORY.   And that's why you are so confused.

Now...why is it so important to you that this theory of evolution be right?    think hard.


----------



## Calypso Jones (Jan 30, 2022)

hollie said:
			
		

> Not at all. The evidence that biological organisms evolve is well documented. That species adapt and change due to environmental pressures is also well documented.



that's not evolution.  That's adaptation.  TWO very VERY different things.   I understand why evolutionists try to conflate the two.    It's all they've got to hold onto.  But it is not scientific, it is not legitimate.


----------



## Calypso Jones (Jan 30, 2022)

Just dealing with the one, arguably the most famous and now debunked Lucy...australopithecus afarensis..... only fragments of her bones were found   47 out of 200 plus and so......scientists had to 'interpret' the parts missing.  now come on man.    That is not science as what we grew up with, observational science....it is the new science...historical or origins science.  Where the scientist gets to make it up as he goes along.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Not at all. The evidence that biological organisms evolve is well documented. That species adapt and change due to environmental pressures is also well documented.
> 
> That the earth is flat and 6,000 years old... not so much.


Once again, who's the moron who says the earth is flat?
The earth can't be 6,000 years old because the sun didn't sun form until after the 4th cycle of creation.
You see, the problem is that you don't read anything you don't want to understand...that's makes you boring.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Once again, who's the moron who says the earth is flat?
> The earth can't be 6,000 years old because the sun didn't sun form until after the 4th cycle of creation.
> You see, the problem is that you don't read anything you don't want to understand...that's makes you boring.


The 4th cycle of godly creation?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The 4th cycle of godly creation?


The KJ erroneously translates the word Erev as Evening when it means Mixture as in the Mixed Multlitude that left Egypt with the Children Of Israel.
The KJ erroneously translates the word Boker as Day when it means Clarity.
The first 3 cycles of creation went through a metamorphosis to in order for the proper creations to take place...
The 4 cycles of Clarity and Mixture before the sun formed took billions of years.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The KJ erroneously translates the word Erev as Evening when it means Mixture as in the Mixed Multlitude that left Egypt with the Children Of Israel.
> The KJ erroneously translates the word Boker as Day when it means Clarity.
> The first 3 cycles of creation went through a metamorphosis to in order for the proper creations to take place...
> The 4 cycles of Clarity and Mixture before the sun formed took billions of years.


Hinduism has a different version. How did your religion get it so wrong?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Hinduism has a different version. How did your religion get it so wrong?


Hindus worship feces...do you?
How did they get it so right?


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.



TRY READING THIS:









						The Malay Archipelago, Volume 1 by Alfred Russel Wallace
					

Free kindle book and epub digitized and proofread by volunteers.




					www.gutenberg.org


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Hindus worship feces...do you?
> How did they get it so right?


You're really jealous.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You're really jealous.


Thanks for admitting you never saw a Hindu's property.
They also have the highest foreclosure rate on Long Island.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Thanks for admitting you never saw a Hindu's property.
> They also have the highest foreclosure rate on Long Island.


Oh, my.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2022)

The evolution of (Hominid) skull sizes in order to now​







			https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg
		








`

Seymour Flops Flops
`


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> some call it adam and eve,, others call it a wet sponge,,
> 
> then there are those like me that just dont know and may never know,,
> 
> which one are you


I have no clue what a 'wet sponge' is?  What I can say is that I have never encountered anything I believe was supernatural.  On the other hand, my studies tell me that everything that was needed to begin life on earth and then have it evolve into us can be explained by natural events.  

I've read the Bible and don't understand why believers insist evolution is fake.  They have no clue how their deity created us but they insist they know how he didn't.  How is that even possible?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The evolution of (Hominid) skull sizes in order to now​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice theories!


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

I'm well


Hollie said:


> Photographs of fossils as well as the physical evidence is available all across the web.
> 
> Would you find it shocking to learn that T-Rex exhibits, for one example, are typically not assembled from rock, calcified bones as the exhibit would literally weigh many tons.
> 
> ...


I'm well aware that many/most fossils displayed in museums are primarily fakes. This is the first time I've seen the fakery excused by claiming that the real fossils would be too heavy.

Where are the "real" t-rex fossil kept? In warehouses with anti gravity fields?

The Houston Museum of natural science has a massive Foulcalt pendulum hanging from its ceilng ringed by balconies occupied at times by hundreds of people with no collapse over several decades. They seem to have mastered that engineering feat so I doubt weight concerns are the reason that it's t-rex display is primarily man-made materials.

If you visit, check out also the aviation Museum in Galveston. You will no doubt be surprised to find that heavier than air machines can actually fly.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> isnt asking for the impossible the same as asking for something that doesnt exist??


No, it is playing semantics.  You asked me to prove Darwin right, which I said was impossible.  I asked you to prove Darwin wrong, which I said was equally impossible.  Two impossibilities but Darwin was either right or wrong.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I have no clue what a 'wet sponge' is?  What I can say is that I have never encountered anything I believe was supernatural.  On the other hand, my studies tell me that everything that was needed to begin life on earth and then have it evolve into us can be explained by natural events.
> 
> I've read the Bible and don't understand why believers insist evolution is fake.  They have no clue how their deity created us but they insist they know how he didn't.  How is that even possible?


natural events huh??
tell me how does one type of animal turn into a completely other type??
like the claim that a T-rex  turned into a chicken??


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> No, it is playing semantics.  You asked me to prove Darwin right, which I said was impossible.  I asked you to prove Darwin wrong, which I said was equally impossible.  Two impossibilities but Darwin was either right or wrong.


you may want to go back and reread what you said that I responded too,,,


----------



## Maxnovax (Jan 30, 2022)

What ever trump did it worked no wars


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Giant Noah's Ark Attraction In Kentucky Features Caged Dinosaurs​Come on. This is actual earth history, just a few thousand years ago. Didn't you know that evilutionist atheist scientists are out every night, under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting evidence as a part of their global conspiracy?
> 
> I thought you had this all figured out.
> 
> ...


The creationist behind that attraction is using the same method that the Darwinians use in their own museum attractions:  Put together a model based on their ideas of what the dinosaur era looked like, and expect people to accept it because they "see it with their own eyes."


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I you agree that descent from a common ancestor has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, we agree.


I applaud your efforts to find common ground.  Unfortunately, I can't sign off on that.

My take is that the "evidence" that all life on Earth descends from one common ancestor is based on some version of "well, it must have."  

That is the same idea that drives the biblical creation theory, not just the Darwinian evolutionary theory.  

Also driving acceptance of this idea is the implausibility of all of the theories of abiogenesis, i.e. life arising from non-life.  Since it is so improbable, I suppose it is easier to believe that abiogenesis happened one time only and that all life came from that one highly unlikely event.  

Highly unlikely events happen, especially in a universe so large.  But not only would such a highly unlikely event have to happen, but the life created in that event would have to be stable enough that it reproduced, and its descendants also stable enough to reproduce until the snowball effect took over.  In actual observation, one time exceedingly rare events tend to be unstable. 

I find it more likely to believe that we humans don't understand biogenesis nearly completely, so it may well be that it is a common occurance.  Perhaps it happens thousands of times per day, but most of the life thus formed is unstable.   Rarely then, does it lead to self-replicating life.

If it happens that often, then there is no reason to believe that only one of those events was the beginning of all life on Earth.  Why only once that life was created and sustained?  Why not twice, thrice, or dozens of times?

Maybe there is more evidence of descent from a common ancestor that I'm not aware of.  If so I welcome you or others to present it.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I'm well
> 
> I'm well aware that many/most fossils displayed in museums are primarily fakes. This is the first time I've seen the fakery excused by claiming that the real fossils would be too heavy.
> 
> ...



You will be surprised to discover that many/most fossils displayed in museums are actually _not_ primarily fakes. What you see, especially with the larger dinosaurs, are accurate castings of the actual fossil artifacts. If you had done your homework, you would know that some of these fossils are worth tens of millions of dollars to private collectors. Fortunately for you, those private collectors can be included in your fake fossil conspiracy theory. 

You may believe that the T-Rex, for example, never inhabited the planet and is a ''fake'', invented by evilutionist, atheist scientists but that puts us back to creationers needing to supply some evidence for their conspiracy theories involving the worldwide academic institutions. 

Regarding the Houston Museum of natural science, I would point out that your attempt at comparison is a bit silly, The thousands of individual, fossilized bones that comprise a large individual specimen aren't bolted / welded / screwed together like a mechanical device would be assembled. To destroy valuable fossil remains by trying to assemble them like a Toyota makes no sense.

If you had ever been to an aviation museum, the aviation Museum in Galveston or otherwise, you would know that the non-airworthy museum pieces are generally replete with replica pieces, stripped interiors and engine nacelles without engines. 

They don't fly.... neither do your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> The creationist behind that attraction is using the same method that the Darwinians use in their own museum attractions:  Put together a model based on their ideas of what the dinosaur era looked like, and expect people to accept it because they "see it with their own eyes."


The creationist charlatan, Ken Ham, who is the perpetrator of the Ark Park is using none of the methods used by science. Ken Ham is a part of the religious extremist AIG cult. Here is a part of their ''about'' section of the website.









						About Answers in Genesis
					

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.




					answersingenesis.org
				




Our Message​
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves: they must be interpreted.

As you know, (being a card carrying member?), they are charlatans who announce their bias. AIG requires their cult members to adhere to 'statement of faith' that facts and the truth are secondary to their fundamentalist agenda. They provide no science, they promote dogma.

To believe the planet us 6,000 years old, that people in buckskin outfits used to frolick with dinosaurs and that an Ark cruised the oceans just a few thousand years ago is delusional and dangerous.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> this fossilized Troglodite



Trilobite... a troglodyte is a cave dweller.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 30, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Trilobite... a troglodyte is a cave dweller.


Brain fart…thanks


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Brain fart…thanks


your whole existence on this forum has been a brain fart,,


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> natural events huh??
> tell me how does one type of animal turn into a completely other type??
> like the claim that a T-rex  turned into a chicken??


Evolution.

Of course one didn't turn into the other, but they do share a common ancestor.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Evolution.


evolution is an unproven theory not a fact of life let alone a natural event,,


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> natural events huh??
> tell me how does one type of animal turn into a completely other type??
> like the claim that a T-rex  turned into a chicken??



Speciation, (read below to understand what that means), has a great deal of observational evidence.

Let us know what Jimmy Swaggert has to say about this. 





			Observed Instances of Speciation
		





			Some More Observed Speciation Events
		





			CB910:  New species
		





			CA520:  "Origin of Species" on speciation.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> evolution is an unproven theory not a fact of life let alone a natural event,,


Biological evolution is among the most complete, well documented theories in science.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

I am impressed by the number of evolution scientists who spend so much time posting here!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I am impressed by the number of evolution scientists who spend so much time posting here!


I'm disappointed in the number of religious extremists who enter a science forum trying to tear down what they don't understand .


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I applaud your efforts to find common ground.  Unfortunately, I can't sign off on that.
> 
> My take is that the "evidence" that all life on Earth descends from one common ancestor is based on some version of "well, it must have."


Your take ignores the evidence that supports descent from a common ancestor and is the only viable theory that explains what we see from the fields of biology, geology, paleontology, etc.  



Seymour Flops said:


> Also driving acceptance of this idea is the implausibility of all of the theories of abiogenesis, i.e. life arising from non-life.  Since it is so improbable, I suppose it is easier to believe that abiogenesis happened one time only and that all life came from that one highly unlikely event.


Again I think it is your ignorance on the subject that makes you think abiogenesis improbable.  I think it more likely that, given the environment of the Earth, it was inevitable.



Seymour Flops said:


> Maybe there is more evidence of descent from a common ancestor that I'm not aware of.  If so I welcome you or others to present it.


Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:

*Anatomy.* Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (*homologous structures*).
*Molecular biology.* DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
*Biogeography.* The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
*Fossils.* Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
*Direct observation.* We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> evolution is an unproven theory not a fact of life let alone a natural event,,


I'm still waiting to hear your alternative theory.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm still waiting to hear your alternative theory.


lack of an alternative doesnt prove evolution correct,,


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I'm disappointed in the number of religious extremists who enter a science forum trying to tear down what they don't understand .


Wow!  You'd really hate my community where at least 30% have advanced hard science degrees.
The reality is that for every Evolution Scientists aka University Professor hired to convince students they7 are no better than gorillas, there is another, more qualified scientist, working in the real world, who claims the University Professor is full of shit.

The problem I have to live with is that, being a Jew, almost half the people I will ever run into are MDs and medical professionals.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> lack of an alternative doesnt prove evolution correct,,


''Nuh Uh'' is not an argument.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> ''Nuh Uh'' is not an argument.


From which University did you receive your science degree?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Wow!  You'd really hate my community where at least 30% have advanced hard science degrees.
> The reality is that for every Evolution Scientists aka University Professor hired to convince students they7 are no better than gorillas, there is another, more qualified scientist, working in the real world, who claims the University Professor is full of shit.
> 
> The problem I have to live with is that, being a Jew, almost half the people I will ever run into are MDs and medical professionals.


You seem to have a real antagonistic attitude toward learning. Not a good student, apparently. Your flailing tirade about professors teaching students ''they're no better than gorillas'' is a bit frantic. Are you attending a madrassah?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You seem to have a real antagonistic attitude toward learning. Not a good student, apparently. Your flailing tirade about professors teaching students ''they're no better than gorillas'' is a bit frantic. Are you attending a madrassah?


My daughter spent 6 years studying hard science from advanced University classes in High School through Graduate School and you have the balls to infer you know what you are talking about?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> From which University did you receive your science degree?


None of your business. I don't offer personal information on a public message board. 

What's your Mastercard number and 3 digit code?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> None of your business. I don't offer personal information on a public message board.
> 
> What's your Mastercard number and 3 digit code?


I didn't ask a personal question as many posters here mention their professions.
Did you earn a Graduate Degree in a hard science?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> My daughter spent 6 years studying hard science from advanced University classes in High School through Graduate School and you have the balls to infer you know what you are talking about?


I do. I also have no reason to accept any of what you wrote is true.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I do. I also have no reason to accept any of what you wrote is true.


Neither one of us has earned the credentials to claim a theory is fact, but here you are.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I do. I also have no reason to accept any of what you wrote is true.


Why would I lie?
I don't have a fraction of the knowledge my daughter has.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I didn't ask a personal question as many posters here mention their professions.
> Did you earn a Graduate Degree in a hard science?


''Hard science''?

I don't know the distinction between hard and soft science.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Wow!  You'd really hate my community where at least 30% have advanced hard science degrees.
> The reality is that for every Evolution Scientists aka University Professor hired to convince students they7 are no better than gorillas, there is another, more qualified scientist, working in the real world, who claims the University Professor is full of shit.
> 
> The problem I have to live with is that, being a Jew, almost half the people I will ever run into are MDs and medical professionals.


What a stupid and Anecdotal 'argument.'
Virtually every biologist believes in Evolution and it is the very basis of Modern Biology.
Where are your numbers/NOT anecdote fallacy.

You are fill of sh** with your personal anecdote meaning Nothing.

Take it from a secular and Wall Street and Science Jew, All Holy Book LITTERalists are just Taliban
\
.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Brain fart…thanks



It happens.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Neither one of us has earned the credentials to claim a theory is fact, but here you are.


That biological organisms change over time is a fact.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> ''Hard science''?
> 
> I don't know the distinction between hard and soft science.


Psychology is soft.
Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Electrical or Mechanical Engineering is hard.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That biological organisms change over time is a fact.


We do age, other than that, nah!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Psychology is soft.
> Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Electrical or Mechanical Engineering is hard.


Is that your official decree?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> We do age, other than that, nah!


Ok. So evolution is false except when it's not.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Is that your official decree?


O!  You're a therapist!
Do the human race a favor and stop pretending you're a scientist.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Ok. So evolution is false except when it's not.


Prove it.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> O!  You're a therapist!
> Do the human race a favor and stop pretending you're a scientist.


Continue....

And how does that make you feel?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Continue....
> 
> And how does that make you feel?


You're harmless on USMB but I can't imagine how many of your patients must have been messed up when you pushed your agenda on them.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Prove it.


That biological organisms change over time?  You already agreed.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You're harmless on USMB but I can't imagine how many of your patients must have been messed up when you pushed your agenda on them.


You're angry and emotive.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You're angry and emotive.


Me?  Not at all.
I'm just amused when a Therapist thinks they understand the science required to master Evolution.
My daughter told me she would have to take at least a week or two to determine if it's worth looking into.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Me?  Not at all.
> I'm just amused when a Therapist thinks they understand the science required to master Evolution.
> My daughter told me she would have to take at least a week or two to determine if it's worth looking into.


I didn't know until just now that I'm a therapist. You seem to get everything wrong.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I didn't know until just now that I'm a therapist. You seem to get everything wrong.


The fact is that as an ardent atheist, which is your business, of course, you don't want to reveal that the only basis you have for arguing in favor of Evolution is some religious people having bugged you in the past.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The fact is that as an ardent atheist, which is your business, of course, you don't want to reveal that the only basis you have for arguing in favor of Evolution is some religious people having bugged you in the past.


Your pressing for personal information is creepy.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I didn't know until just now that I'm a therapist. You seem to get everything wrong.


It seems my criteria for knowing anything science related annoyed you.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Your pressing for personal information is creepy.


Your being an ardent supporter of evolution with no science background is creepy.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> It seems my criteria for knowing anything science related annoyed you.


I haven't seen you offer anything science related.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I haven't seen you offer anything science related.


You also haven't noticed me pushing an agenda other than *the fact* that no one can prove evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Your being an ardent supporter of evolution with no science background is creepy.


You rattle on about things you don't understand.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You also haven't noticed me pushing an agenda other than *the fact* that no one can prove evolution.


Biological evolution is a proven fact.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You rattle on about things you don't understand.


The *Irony*!


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Biological evolution is a proven fact.


Who's frustrated?
Where's the proof?
HINT:  Every scientist on YouTube who says it's a fact says they can't actually prove it.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Who's frustrated?
> Where's the proof?
> HINT:  Every scientist on YouTube who says it's a fact says they can't actually prove it.


Why am I not surprised your exposure to science is via YouTube. Is it the bright, flashy colors and music that draws you?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The *Irony*!


The irony, yes. I provided links to science journals, articles linked and footnoted while you offered nothing in rebuttal. 

Anything from Harun Yahya on your YouTube adventures?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Why am I not surprised your exposure to science is via YouTube. Is it the bright, flashy colors and music that draws you?


Wow!  you're really thinking with your arteries, aren't you?
Have I not already posted about my local community, not to mention the nationwide community I share with my fellow Orthodox Jews?
Evolution is pure nonsense.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The irony, yes. I provided links to science journals, articles linked and footnoted while you offered nothing in rebuttal.
> 
> Anything from Harun Yahya on your YouTube adventures?


Why should I waste my time when I have already acknowledged that it takes many years of education to understand those videos?
Neither one of us has the scientific training to understand the science behind those videos.
I take it you have a *HUGE* ego.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Wow!  you're really thinking with your arteries, aren't you?
> Have I not already posted about my local community, not to mention the nationwide community I share with my fellow Orthodox Jews?
> Evolution is pure nonsense.


Yes. More of your unsupported opinions. 

You're angry because Harun Yahya is in jail. Did his youtube video collection stop production?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Yes. More of your unsupported opinions.
> 
> You're angry because Harun Yahya is in jail. Did his youtube video collection stop production?



I just looked; he should have his testicles cut off before they burn him in an oven.

I'm bored of this endless discussion; I like you much better when Evolution is not discussed.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> Why should I waste my time when I have already acknowledged that it takes many years of education to understand those videos?
> Neither one of us has the scientific training to understand the science behind those videos.
> I take it you have a *HUGE* ego.


I don't accept that Harun Yahya youtube videos take many years of study to understand.

How is the soundtrack to his YouTube videos?


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I don't accept that Harun Yahya youtube videos take many years of study to understand.
> 
> How is the soundtrack to his YouTube videos?


You're right...sex offences cannot be proven because sex takes billions of years to occur.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> lack of an alternative doesnt prove evolution correct,,


You don't accept the evidence for evolution but is there any evidence it is not correct?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You're right...sex offences cannot be proven because sex takes billions of years to occur.


There's a blue pill if you're having difficulty.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You don't accept the evidence for evolution but is there any evidence it is not correct?


all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> There's a blue pill if you're having difficulty.


If you saw my wife, you'd know I don't need a pill.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,


It's all assumption and opinion that biological organisms change over time? 

I hope you will advise the medical fields of this. Maybe prayer, or rattling bones will be the answer to antibiotic resistant bacterial infections.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,


So you have no evidence whatsoever that evolution is a fraud?  Right.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution it is only in your opinion it is laughable.  Laugh at this then, why is it that there are fossil layers with dinosaurs but older rocks don't have any fossils of dinosaurs?  Where did they come from?  I can ask the same question about just about every animal alive today, why are they not found in older rocks?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you have no evidence whatsoever that evolution is a fraud?  Right.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence for evolution it is only in your opinion it is laughable.  Laugh at this then, why is it that there are fossil layers with dinosaurs but older rocks don't have any fossils of dinosaurs?  Where did they come from?  I can ask the same question about just about every animal alive today, why are they not found in older rocks?


prove the rocks are older,,

and please dont use a test designed to come up with a predetermined date like all the carbon tests are designed,,

that brings us back to assumptions based on opinions,,


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> all of it is assumptions based on opinions,, so none of it is evidence of anything,, and most is just laughable,,


Evolution is defined as change in population over time.

In just 30 years, consumption of high protein diet has done what?



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/01/23/japanese-standing-taller/94ba4f2d-68f9-49ed-9617-0d3287f41a1f/
		


The rapid westernization of this traditional Asian society has brought such major changes in diet and lifestyle that Japanese people have experienced one of the fastest collective growth spurts ever recorded, according to public health officials.

In the last 30 years, the height of the average Japanese male has gone up nearly four inches, while average female height has increased about 2.7 inches. The average 20-year-old Japanese man today is 5 feet 8 1/4 inches, according to data released this month by Japan's Health and Welfare Ministry. That is about the same height as European 20-year-olds.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You will be surprised to discover that many/most fossils displayed in museums are actually _not_ primarily fakes. What you see, especially with the larger dinosaurs, are accurate castings of the actual fossil artifacts. If you had done your homework, you would know that some of these fossils are worth tens of millions of dollars to private collectors. Fortunately for you, those private collectors can be included in your fake fossil conspiracy theory.


Oh, of course!

Pieces of great monetary value are never - ever - kept in a museum. 

I didn't think you could come up with a worse excuse than "fossils are too heavy for commoners to gaze upon!"  But damned if you didn't outdo yourself.

Bottom line:  Most reconstructions of fossil skeletons are bone fragments held together with modeling material.  The gaps between the actual bones are filled in with imagination. 

Which I have zero problem with _as long as we are honest about it_.  Saying, "this is our current best guess about how this dinosaur we have named T-Rex would have looked," is fine.  Calling such mock-ups "scientific fact," doesn't meet the honesty test. 


Hollie said:


> You may believe that the T-Rex, for example, never inhabited the planet and is a ''fake'', invented by evilutionist, atheist scientists but that puts us back to creationers needing to supply some evidence for their conspiracy theories involving the worldwide academic institutions.


I believe that T-rex likely inhabited Earth.  My primary concern with fill-in-the-gap whole fossils is when that method is used to classify "Early man," and "ape-like human ancestors." Because people who hate religion and religious freedom pretend that these constantly shifting models of human evolution are actually science.  Then they try to force that "science" on people who understand that it is not science and don't want it forced on them.

Teach all the evolution you like, in private school and in public school.  So long as you teach it as the theoretical research that it is, not as a true experimental science.  Don't call any of it "settled science" because that is a flat lie.

Don't require students with religious beliefs to knowingly lie in order to pass their middle-school science class.


Hollie said:


> Regarding the Houston Museum of natural science, I would point out that your attempt at comparison is a bit silly, The thousands of individual, fossilized bones that comprise a large individual specimen aren't bolted / welded / screwed together like a mechanical device would be assembled. To destroy valuable fossil remains by trying to assemble them like a Toyota makes no sense.


Wow, so who does get to see the "real" fossils? 

Do people who own land on which dinosaur fossils are found become instant multi-millionaires?


Hollie said:


> If you had ever been to an aviation museum, the aviation Museum in Galveston or otherwise, you would know that the non-airworthy museum pieces are generally replete with replica pieces, stripped interiors and engine nacelles without engines.
> 
> They don't fly.... neither do your conspiracy theories.


Ok, not a bad turn of phrase in that last sentence, I'll give you that.

Yes, aviation museums, in fact all museums, often display replica pieces.  But - if they are honest - they clearly label the replicas from the real thing.  Why are fossil exhibits the only type that are excused from this required integrity? 

PS:  I've asked several questions here, but if any of them bother you, fee free to ignore them instead of answering them.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The creationist charlatan, Ken Ham, who is the perpetrator of the Ark Park is using none of the methods used by science.


Yes, that's why I said that he is using the same methods used by people who create dinosaur exhibits in museums.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> If you saw my wife, you'd know I don't need a pill.


I, too have that good fortune.  Mrs. Flops is Viagra on legs.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> prove the rocks are older,,
> 
> and please dont use a test designed to come up with a predetermined date like all the carbon tests are designed,,
> 
> that brings us back to assumptions based on opinions,,


If sedimentary layer 1 is deposited on sedimentary layer 2, layer 2 must already have been deposited and is therefore older.  See any opinions there or do you have an alternate scenario?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Oh, of course!
> 
> Pieces of great monetary value are never - ever - kept in a museum.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Strange thing. T-Rex probably did roam the planet, probably more than 6,000 years ago. What an audacious concept. 

That's quite a dilemma for the Ark'ists because the Theory of Evolution has undergone scrutiny, peer review and testing of the evidence within the scientific community, It remains the best, most coherent explanation of the observed development of life on Earth. The religious types are befuddled by the term ''theory'', in the context of science discussions. _Theory_ means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (termed by Barnhart 1948). Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time is denied passionately by the religious because science is a direct threat to their beliefs.

Supporting the fact of evolution are the complimentary sciences of biology, paleontology, earth science, chemistry, etc. The theory of evolution explains the facts. The theory of evolution is no less valid a theory than the theory of gravity, atomic theory or the germ theory of disease. On the fundamental, most basic issues of the theory of evolution, such as the demonstrated facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no controversy within the scientific community. With near exclusivity, the only controversy emerges from the fundamentalist Christian


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If sedimentary layer 1 is deposited on sedimentary layer 2, layer 2 must already have been deposited and is therefore older.  See any opinions there or do you have an alternate scenario?


but how much older is the assumption,,


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.
> 
> So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).
> 
> ...


It is called a "THEORY" because 100% of the evidence is not present to call it a proof.

BUUUUUT

if you have photos and proofs of any competing "theory," please provide them.

Love to see that photo of Jeebus!


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> It is called a "THEORY" because 100% of the evidence is not present to call it a proof.
> 
> BUUUUUT
> 
> ...


I don't have a competing theory, and I don't have a huge problem with the Darwinian theory.

So long as it is not falsely called a "fact," and so long as government schools do not require students to falsely claim that it is fact.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Yeah. Strange thing. T-Rex probably did roam the planet, probably more than 6,000 years ago. What an audacious concept.
> 
> That's quite a dilemma for the Ark'ists


See, that's where you lose me.  I'm not an "Ark'ist" (why the apostrophe?).  I don't have any religious reason to doubt Darwinian evolution.  My reasons are logic and common sense, and an unwillingness to suspend disbelief. 

So whatever you wrote after "Ark'ist" does not pertain to me.

I hope it was cut and paste, so you did not type all that for nothing.

BTW, just to make the conversation more interesting, you might consider responding to my statements, instead of pretending that I'm a creationist and debating that.

Can't  you find any actual creationists to debate?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, that's why I said that he is using the same methods used by people who create dinosaur exhibits in museums.


Yes, and that presents a real indication that your critical thinking skills don't allow for a logical progression of ideas to form a coherent thought.

Why don't you task Ken Ham and similar charlatans with presenting their Flat Earth, YEiC'ist notions to the same standards of evidence you demand of science. 

In this thread and many others like it, the hyper-religious demand ''proof'' and evidence that they insist does not exist. Yet, when the evidence is presented, they typically respond with nonsensical, scripted dogma from one of several fundamentalist creation ministries. 

As opposed to the vast bodies of evidence for biological evolution, let's see evidence for your gods. Before you can retreat to 'the gods did it'', you first need to make a defendable case for those gods. Next, I've not seen any evidence presented by the hyper-religious to refute biological evolution. Let's see the evidence presented by AIG for peer review. What body of work has AIG published in the journal _Nature_, for example? You know the answer. The creation ministries do no research and publish in peer reviewed journals. 

Show us the magic, Make _your_ case for _your_ particular gods as using supernatural, magical powers of instant creation to explain the diversity of life on the planet.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> See, that's where you lose me.  I'm not an "Ark'ist" (why the apostrophe?).  I don't have any religious reason to doubt Darwinian evolution.  My reasons are logic and common sense, and an unwillingness to suspend disbelief.
> 
> So whatever you wrote after "Ark'ist" does not pertain to me.
> 
> I hope it was cut and paste, so you did not type all that for nothing.



I typically see the religious extremists run for cover when they're tasked with offering something more than ''science is a conspiracy theory''.

Now would be the perfect time to present your ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*''. I ask for this all the time from creationers, but nothing yet. Come on, Laddie, show us the magic.



Let's remember that ''the gods did it'' is only a theory. But as we know, a theory is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948).

''The gods did it'', ''evolution is not true'' is far from ''a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".

You must have more than an AIG slogan, right?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Yes, and that presents a real indication that your critical thinking skills don't allow for a logical progression of ideas to form a coherent thought.
> 
> Why don't you task Ken Ham and similar charlatans with presenting their Flat Earth, YEiC'ist notions to the same standards of evidence you demand of science.


They're not worth debating.  They have a tiny and harmless following, and I have no need to disabuse them of their understanding of the shape of the Earth.  I assume that you are being honest in that Ken Ham, whoever that is, is a flat Earth proponent?  

Regardless, I've never heard of him.  If I were trapped in an elevator and he started in with his flat Earth theory (or his creationist theory, if that's what you actually mean), I might amuse myself by picking him apart.  But if he didn't try to convince me, I have no reason to try to convince him.  

Truth be told, people who claim that Darwinian evolution is "settled science" would not be worth debating either, were it not for the stranglehold they have on public schools.


Hollie said:


> In this thread and many others like it, the hyper-religious demand ''proof'' and evidence that they insist does not exist. Yet, when the evidence is presented, they typically respond with nonsensical, scripted dogma from one of several fundamentalist creation ministries.


That's horrible!  You have my sympathy for having to put up with that.

Please address your comments about that to them.


Hollie said:


> As opposed to the vast bodies of evidence for biological evolution, let's see evidence for your gods. Before you can retreat to 'the gods did it'', you first need to make a defendable case for those gods. Next, I've not seen any evidence presented by the hyper-religious to refute biological evolution. Let's see the evidence presented by AIG for peer review. What body of work has AIG published in the journal _Nature_, for example? You know the answer. The creation ministries do no research and publish in peer reviewed journals.
> 
> Show us the magic, Make _your_ case for _your_ particular gods as using supernatural, magical powers of instant creation to explain the diversity of life on the planet.


Make your case that I have claimed that my "particular gods are using supernatural, etc . . . "


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I typically see the religious extremists


Whoops!

Lost me again . . .


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> They're not worth debating.  They have a tiny and harmless following, and I have no need to disabuse them of their understanding of the shape of the Earth.  I assume that you are being honest in that Ken Ham, whoever that is, is a flat Earth proponent?
> 
> Regardless, I've never heard of him.  If I were trapped in an elevator and he started in with his flat Earth theory (or his creationist theory, if that's what you actually mean), I might amuse myself by picking him apart.  But if he didn't try to convince me, I have no reason to try to convince him.
> 
> ...



So nothing to offer as a refutation for biological evolution? Other than ''nuh uh, it ain't so'' there's nothing you can offer?

I'm not yet convinced of the creationer conspiracy that asserts evolution is a fraud so I was hoping you could offer something that refutes biological evolution as a demonstrated theory. 

Is the development of antibiotics to treat infection a global conspiracy? Let's start there and we can move on to dinosaurs taking that pleasure cruise on the Ark a bit later.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Whoops!
> 
> Lost me again . . .



I know.

Still waiting for your competing model to evolution... something more than  ''it aint true because I say so''


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> So nothing to offer as a refutation for biological evolution? Other than ''nuh uh, it ain't so'' there's nothing you can offer?


Not as long as you are lumping me in with creationists, no.


Hollie said:


> I'm not yet convinced of the creationer conspiracy that asserts evolution is a fraud so I was hoping you could offer something that refutes biological evolution as a demonstrated theory.
> 
> Is the development of antibiotics to treat infection a global conspiracy? Let's start there and we can move on to dinosaurs taking that pleasure cruise on the Ark a bit later.


See what I mean?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Not as long as you are lumping me in with creationists, no.
> 
> See what I mean?


I see what you mean. You can't refute the evidence for biological evolution so you enter a thread to announce you have no evidence to refute biological evolution but you're sure it is all a conspiracy. 

That's a really compelling argument.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I see what you mean. You can't refute the evidence for biological evolution so you enter a thread to announce you have no evidence to refute biological evolution but you're sure it is all a conspiracy.
> 
> That's a really compelling argument.


All of that is exactly correct, except that I did not enter this thread, I started it, I never claimed to refute biological evolution and I have never said that it was "all" a conspiracy.

Ok, none of it correct.  Zero for three.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> but how much older is the assumption,,


why does that matter?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> All of that is exactly correct, except that I did not enter this thread, I started it, I never claimed to refute biological evolution and I have never said that it was "all" a conspiracy.
> 
> Ok, none of it correct.  Zero for three.



Pretty typical. The term 'Darwinians'' is used at creation ministries as a derogatory slur and threads that demand ''show me... '' are typically met with ''nuh uh,, nope, that's not it'', when evidence is presented.

You're a stealth creationist?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 30, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> why does that matter?


you dont know??

it matters a lot if it was done over a short period of time verses millions of yrs,,


----------



## braalian (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.
> 
> So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).
> 
> ...


Do you really think you know more than the actual anthropologists?


----------



## Noel Long (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I know.
> 
> Still waiting for your competing model to evolution... something more than  ''it aint true because I say so''


Yeh Seymour, if not evolution then what?
If not creation then you need to give us your alternative 👍


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> you dont know??
> 
> it matters a lot if it was done over a short period of time verses millions of yrs,,


Why does it matter?  You're just deflecting from an uncomfortable fact, that new species continually appear in the fossil record, me thinks.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 31, 2022)

Fossils are less important than DNA.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

braalian said:


> Do you really think you know more than the actual anthropologists?


So appeal to authority is your only argument?



Noel Long said:


> Yeh Seymour, if not evolution then what?
> If not creation then you need to give us your alternative 👍


Not really.

The topic of this thread is that Darwinians constantly claim that the fossils prove Darwin was 100% right.  Yet the only fossils they show are drawings or bone fragments with gaps filled in by imagination.

If a DA presented such flimsy evidence at a criminal trial,* the defense need not come up with an alternative theory of the crime.  The reason a DA would bring such a weak case would likely be a lack of suspects.  So it would be a waste of time for the defendant to look for the real perpetrator, when the police have long since let that person get away by focusing on the wrong person.

If you just want to say that Darwinian evolution is - in your opinion - the most like explanation for the variety of species on Earth, I have no quarrel with that.  It is when you or anyone else falsely claims that there is irrefutable evidence that one particularly theory is the only explanation possible that my Spidey sense tells me they are lying, wrong, or both.

*Seriously, imagine final arguments in a case that did not go well for the DA.  He suddenly says, “I can show you that the defendant robbed that jewelry store!”  Then he pulls a drawing out of his briefcase of the defendant robbing the store.  I assume that the judge would declare a mistrial, perhaps prompted by the laughter of the jury.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Why does it matter?  You're just deflecting from an uncomfortable fact, that new species continually appear in the fossil record, me thinks.


Seems to me that the how matters.  Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.  So arguing the how doesn't matter is equivalent of saying science doesn't matter.  

FWIW.... punctuated equilibrium is the explanation of the how that best fits the observed data.


----------



## braalian (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> So appeal to authority is your only argument?


I’m not an anthropologist. Therefore I defer to those who are. If they say the fossil record exists and that it supports evolution, the sensible thing to do is assume they’re right.

Only foolish people assume they know better than experts.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> So appeal to authority is your only argument?
> 
> 
> Not really.
> ...



"Yet the only fossils they show are drawings or bone fragments with gaps filled in by imagination".

I'm not sure how you missed it but museums and this nations teaching and research universities hold vast numbers of fossil artifacts. To suggest "they only show fragments with gaps..." is simply nonsense. 

Creationers often make the claim that Darwinians use fossils to prove evolution. That's not accurate as Darwinians and the leading museums and research universities document the fossil record as a history of the diversity of life on the planet and how those populations evolved.

If you have a better explanation of how life evolved, you should present it. To suggest that the gods fiddled with new species and magically compressed billions of years of earth history into 6 000 years has a host of real contradictions.

I'm still waiting for that creationer *General Theory of Supernatural Creation. *

That wouid go a long way toward, you know, finally crushing that nonsense science stuff.

Can I get a pur-ayze the lord brothas' and sistas'?

BTW, convictions by DA's based on circumstantial evidence are common.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Why does it matter?  You're just deflecting from an uncomfortable fact, that new species continually appear in the fossil record, me thinks.


thats assuming the fossil record is a record over a long period of time,,

see we are back to assumptions based on opinions with absolutely no facts to back it up,,


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> BTW, convictions by DA's based on circumstantial evidence are common.


Yes, and so are later overturned convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct. Manufacturing or embellishing evidence would be a perfect example of that.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

braalian said:


> I’m not an anthropologist. Therefore I defer to those who are. If they say the fossil record exists and that it supports evolution, the sensible thing to do is assume they’re right.
> 
> Only foolish people assume they know better than experts.


So you would defer to biochemistry professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, and so are later overturned convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct. Manufacturing or embellishing evidence would be a perfect example of that.


And that applies to the fossil record, how?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> And that applies to the fossil record, how?


By your own admission, the fossil record as presented to the public has been embellished and manufactured.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> By your own admission, the fossil record as presented to the public has been embellished and manufactured.


That's not my admission. What elements of the fossil record have been manufactured? Be specific and provide the data you have examined.

Take a look at the fossil evidence for T-Rex, as an example.  While you want to insist that fossil evidence is fake, the rendering of what the flesh and blood animal looked like is an obvious analog to the bone structure.

I get it, you're frantically trying to make a case that fossil evidence is all a part of some grand conspiracy. Why not email the Museum of Natural History and advise that they are wrong about depictions of ancient dinosaurs... you know... the ones that sailed on the Ark. I'm sure they appreciate the corrections you could offer based on your knowledge and expertise. 

Don't forget to cc us on your email.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That's not my admission. What elements of the fossil record have been manufactured? Be specific and provide the data you have examined.
> 
> Take a look at the fossil evidence for T-Rex, as an example.  While you want to insist that fossil evidence is fake, the rendering of what the flesh and blood animal looked like is an obvious analog to the bone structure.
> 
> ...





Hollie said:


> That's not my admission. What elements of the fossil record have been manufactured? Be specific and provide the data you have examined.
> 
> Take a look at the fossil evidence for T-Rex, as an example.  While you want to insist that fossil evidence is fake, the rendering of what the flesh and blood animal looked like is an obvious analog to the bone structure.
> 
> ...


It was you who said that t-rex fossils in museums are not the real bone fossils. First you said  because they are too heavy and then because they are too expensive.

Do you deny that fossils are commonly filled out with modelling material in order to depict what the paleontologist is going for?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It was you who said that t-rex fossils in museums are not the real bone fossils. First you said  because they are too heavy and then because they are too expensive.
> 
> Do you deny that fossils are commonly filled out with modelling material in order to depict what the paleontologist is going for?


What I wrote was that not all exhibits are of the actual fossilized bones. I never claimed the exhibits were not always the actual fossil evidence because they were too expensive.

I suggest you use the "quote" function when you respond to posts to avoid manufacturing what you respond to. 

Identify specific examples of molding material being used to depict what the paleontologist is going for.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> The evolution of humanity from more ape like hominids is a proven fact.





No, it isn't.  But there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the theory.  The most compelling to me is the genetic  commonality between homo sapians and chimpanzees.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> It was you who said that t-rex fossils in museums are not the real bone fossils. First you said  because they are too heavy and then because they are too expensive.
> 
> Do you deny that fossils are commonly filled out with modelling material in order to depict what the paleontologist is going for?






Fossils, for the most part, are stone.  Over millions of years the original bone material is eroded away and replaced by mineral deposits.  That's why they are so rare.

Museums use replicas because they use the originals for research, and that way the chance of damage is removed.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> What I wrote was that not all exhibits are of the actual fossilized bones. I never claimed the exhibits were not always the actual fossil evidence because they were too expensive.
> 
> I suggest you use the "quote" function when you respond to posts to avoid manufacturing what you respond to.
> 
> Identify specific examples of molding material being used to depict what the paleontologist is going for.


I'll give your quote back to you when I can get to a desktop.

I didn't realize you didn't know about the fill in the gap modelling material. I'll show you that also later.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 31, 2022)

The evolution of (Hominid) skull sizes in order to now​




https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg









`

Seymour Flops Flops

`


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Oh thanks, Abu! Right on time.

Hollie see the picture Abu posted above?

The 4th skull from the left on the top two rows has areas of bright blue. That is modelling material. The artist was more honest than most by using bright blue color.

Most fossil sculptors use "natural" looking material. It's pretty obvious in the third, fourth, and fifth skulls on the bottom two rows, as well as the fourth and fifth on the top two rows.

All that's fine as long as it's clearly stated as a mock up. It's when they just present it as factual in hopes that gullible people will swallow it whole *ahem* that they show how completely they have abandoned integrity.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I'll give your quote back to you when I can get to a desktop.
> 
> I didn't realize you didn't know about the fill in the gap modelling material. I'll show you that also later.


That's not going to help your case for the global conspiracy you believe is being perpetrated among evilutionist atheist scientists. 

You might want to consider searching for examples of facial recognition software used, for example, to superimpose muscles, tendons, etc over bone mass to create a more complete image.

That still doesn't support your conspiracy theory that actual fossil artifacts are fake.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Oh thanks, Abu! Right on time.
> 
> Hollie see the picture Abu posted above?
> 
> ...


The bright blue color doesn't suggest the evilutionist atheist scientists are faking anything. Are you suggesting the fossil artifacts are fake?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

ding said:


> Seems to me that the how matters.  Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.  So arguing the how doesn't matter is equivalent of saying science doesn't matter.
> 
> FWIW.... punctuated equilibrium is the explanation of the how that best fits the observed data.


You are right and wrong.  I agree the how matters but what I said was that the *time *does not matter.  I was discussing relative dating with progressive hunter and didn't think absolute dating was important.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> thats assuming the fossil record is a record over a long period of time,,
> 
> see we are back to assumptions based on opinions with absolutely no facts to back it up,,


Geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years.   Are you a YEC or do you accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

Why does if matter if the layers were put down a million years apart or a thousand years apart or a month apart?  You're the one *assuming *it is relevant.  The fact remains that animals found in younger layers are not found in older layers.  Where did they come from if they didn't evolve?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You are right and wrong.  I agree the how matters but what I said was that the *time *does not matter.  I was discussing relative dating with progressive hunter and didn't think absolute dating was important.


its not important to you because it debunks your whole narrative,,

without millions of yrs evolution falls flat on its face as the biggest joke ever played on humanity,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years.   Are you a YEC or do you accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?
> 
> Why does if matter if the layers were put down a million years apart or a thousand years apart or a month apart?  You're the one *assuming *it is relevant.  The fact remains that animals found in younger layers are not found in older layers.  Where did they come from if they didn't evolve?


do you have any proof its billions of yrs old??

I didnt think so,,


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You are right and wrong.  I agree the how matters but what I said was that the *time *does not matter.  I was discussing relative dating with progressive hunter and didn't think absolute dating was important.


ah.  I see.  I agree.  Thanks for straightening that out for me.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> *do you have any proof its billions of yrs old??*
> 
> I didnt think so,,


The problem being you are an Indoctrinated Moron... Like the stealth Creationist OP, Seymour Flops.
Unable and Unwilling to even look for info.
Willfully Ignorant.

How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth?​The examination and analysis of rocks on Earth’s surface, and of extraterrestrial rocks, have enabled scientists to determine the approximate age of the planet.
*National Geographic

GRADES
3 - 12+*









						How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth? | National Geographic Society
					

The examination and analysis of rocks on Earth’s surface, and of extraterrestrial rocks, have enabled scientists to determine the approximate age of the planet.




					www.nationalgeographic.org
				





*And a Bonus for you as a science ILLITERATE.
Science doesn't deal in "Proof," it deals in theories affirmed over time and ever increasing EVIDENCE. IN Evo's case, OVERWHELMING Evidence.
Not only do god/godS have no proof, unlike Evo, they have NO EVIDENCE.*

`


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years.   Are you a YEC or do you accept that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?
> 
> Why does if matter if the layers were put down a million years apart or a thousand years apart or a month apart?  You're the one *assuming *it is relevant.  The fact remains that animals found in younger layers are not found in older layers.  Where did they come from if they didn't evolve?





Actually,  it is measured in eras based on the fossil record.

Me thinks your claim to being a geologist are a fib.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> The bright blue color doesn't suggest the evilutionist atheist scientists are faking anything. Are you suggesting the fossil artifacts are fake?


That's what I said about the blue modelling material.

The fossils filled in with modelling material of a similar color clearly suggest the creators are faking something.

They're faking complete skulls in the examples provided by Abu.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> You might want to consider searching for examples of facial recognition software used, for example, to superimpose muscles, tendons, etc over bone mass to create a more complete image.


Exactly. They create the "fossils" and then ask us to pretend that they discovered the fossils.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That's what I said about the blue modelling material.
> 
> The fossils filled in with modelling material of a similar color clearly suggest the creators are faking something.
> 
> They're faking complete skulls in the examples provided by Abu.





When paleontologists reconstruct substantially complete skulls that have been crushed, I have no problem.  A skull is a physical structure.  It follows the laws of physics.  Thus the angles of the fragments are consistent.  They are not altering anything.  

Where I have a problem is when they have a single fragment and create a whole model from that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Exactly. They create the "fossils" and then ask us to pretend that they discovered the fossils.





No, they don’t.   A skull, found crushed in a sedimentary rock can be reconstructed to a high degree of accuracy. 

They are creating nothing.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> its not important to you because it debunks your whole narrative,,
> 
> without millions of yrs evolution falls flat on its face as the biggest joke ever played on humanity,,


Really?  I note you didn't answer my question about the age of the Earth.  Maybe we need to start there.  How old is the Earth and why do you believe so?


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> do you have any proof its billions of yrs old??
> 
> I didnt think so,,


Would you settle for evidence like a scientist would?

radioisotope dating
stratigraphy
mountain building
plate tectonics
biology
But I'm guessing nothing will be enough for you since you already know all the answers.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> Actually,  it is measured in eras based on the fossil record.
> 
> Me thinks your claim to being a geologist are a fib.


Really?  How many weeks did the Permian last?

Me thinks your claim to being a geologist are a fib.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Exactly. They create the "fossils" and then ask us to pretend that they discovered the fossils.



Creationers have some really over the rainbow, aint' comin' back, loopy conspiracy theories.


----------



## occupied (Jan 31, 2022)

Science in the hands of a creationist is a deliberate look through the wrong end of a telescope to find God.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Really?  I note you didn't answer my question about the age of the Earth.  Maybe we need to start there.  How old is the Earth and why do you believe so?


I dont know how old it is and due to the flawed testing from those that claim they do I dont trust or believe their numbers either,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Would you settle for evidence like a scientist would?
> 
> radioisotope dating
> stratigraphy
> ...


how do any of those tell you the age of the planet??

most of those can change in minutes to days,,

and the isotope tests have been flawed to many times for them to be trusted,, and thats not even getting into the fact the tests were designed to give a predetermined date when the evos went to other scientist and asked for a test to confirm our dating,,,


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> how do any of those tell you the age of the planet??
> 
> most of those can change in minutes to days,,
> 
> and the isotope tests have been flawed to many times for them to be trusted,, and thats not even getting into the fact the tests were designed to give a predetermined date when the evos went to other scientist and asked for a test to confirm our dating,,,


More of the conspiracy theories that seem to define creationers in the science forum.


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.
> 
> So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).
> 
> ...


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> I dont know how old it is and due to the flawed testing from those that claim they do I dont trust or believe their numbers either,,,


"Flawed testing"?  Please explain.

You don't know how old it is so it could well be 4.5 billion, you just don't know.  Is that right?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> "Flawed testing"?  Please explain.
> 
> You don't know how old it is so it could well be 4.5 billion, you just don't know.  Is that right?


it could be 10K,, whats your point??

did you know if you test the same object twice you get two different results??

did you know that an object tested cant be tracked back to the date of exposer???
that means the test cant be trusted because the rate of decay cant be tracked,,

I can list several other flaws in isotope testing but whats the use,, youve made it clear your mind is made up,,


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> how do any of those tell you the age of the planet??
> 
> most of those can change in minutes to days,,


Really?  So a mountain can form and erode in minutes to days?  Oceans can form in minutes to days?  Pegmatite can form in minutes to days?  Thousands of individual rock layers can form in minutes to days?  Somehow I don't think so.



progressive hunter said:


> and the isotope tests have been flawed to many times for them to be trusted,, and thats not even getting into the fact the tests were designed to give a predetermined date when the evos went to other scientist and asked for a test to confirm our dating,,,


Yes, it is all a grand conspiracy to fool you even though the scientists don't get any benefit.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> it could be 10K,, whats your point??
> 
> did you know if you test the same object twice you get two different results??
> 
> ...


I'd be happy to review any links you care to offer but you'll understand if I don't just take your word since you've made it clear your mind is made up.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Really?  How many weeks did the Permian last?
> 
> Me thinks your claim to being a geologist are a fib.







Weeks?  Don't be stupid.  The Permian, the last *PERIOD* of the Paleozoic *ERA*, spanned about 47 million years.

You don't even know the language


DURRRRRR


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Really?  So a mountain can form and erode in minutes to days?  Oceans can form in minutes to days?  Pegmatite can form in minutes to days?  Thousands of individual rock layers can form in minutes to days?  Somehow I don't think so.
> 
> 
> Yes, it is all a grand conspiracy to fool you even though the scientists don't get any benefit.


I guess youve never heard of earthquakes or volcanoes,,

how would you know what a scientist thinks benefits them??

how about you prove my clams wrong instead of deflecting??


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'd be happy to review any links you care to offer but you'll understand if I don't just take your word since you've made it clear your mind is made up.


so you tell me how the decay rate of an object claimed to be 2 million yrs old is tracked??


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> it could be 10K,, whats your point??
> 
> did you know if you test the same object twice you get two different results??
> 
> ...






No, the Earth is very, very, very old.  Four to five billion years old depending on who's estimates you prefer.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, the Earth is very, very, very old.  Four to five billion years old depending on who's estimates you prefer.



estimates are just another way to say a guess,,,

tell me did someone find a built on date somewhere??


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> Weeks?  Don't be stupid.  The Permian, the last *PERIOD* of the Paleozoic *ERA*, spanned about 47 million years.


So you agree that geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years.   Thanks.


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> I guess youve never heard of earthquakes or volcanoes,,


I heard of both.  Do you have any example of either creating mountains in a short time?

The Himalayas are almost 9 km high and are rising at the rate of 1 cm/year.  I'll let you do the math after you add in the time it would take to erode that 9 km range.  Hint: the answer is in the millions of years.

Ocean spreading occurs at the rate your fingernails grow so the Atlantic took 60 million years to grow to its current size.



progressive hunter said:


> how would you know what a scientist thinks benefits them??


Confirming the work of another scientist is useful, disproving the work of generations of scientist will make you rich and famous.



progressive hunter said:


> how about you prove my clams wrong instead of deflecting??


Done.  You're welcome.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I heard of both.  Do you have any example of either creating mountains in a short time?
> 
> The Himalayas are almost 9 km high and are rising at the rate of 1 cm/year.  I'll let you do the math after you add in the time it would take to erode that 9 km range.  Hint: the answer is in the millions of years.
> 
> ...


your opinions dont prove anything wrong,,


----------



## alang1216 (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> so you tell me how the decay rate of an object claimed to be 2 million yrs old is tracked??


Physics.  We know the 1/2 lives of various isotopes and their decay products.  After that is just a question of measuring.  Simple really.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.

The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Physics.  We know the 1/2 lives of various isotopes and their decay products.  After that is just a question of measuring.  Simple really.


does a buried object decay at the same rate as one sitting on or near the surface??


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I don't have a competing theory, and I don't have a huge problem with the Darwinian theory.
> 
> So long as it is not falsely called a "fact," and so long as government schools do not require students to falsely claim that it is fact.


If you have no competing theory then THIS is the one we have.
The THEORY is composed of supporting FACTS.
As new facts become available the THEORY is adjusted to accommodate those facts.
The THEORY is presented as theory, the supporting facts as fact.

Those opposed to the theory oppose it because it contradicts their religious beliefs and demand their religion be taught in schools as science.

Do you believe in nuclear power?  100% of the foundations of nuclear power is based on theory.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.
> 
> The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.


So your demanding we show you proof of something we do not claim?

Uh huh


----------



## occupied (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.
> 
> The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.


The context in which a fossil is found tells the story. An archeological dig is like a crime scene. There may be a body laying there but they look at everything in the room. A hominid fossil is a wonderful thing to find but more often they find extinct animals, cooking fires or garbage dumps. These provide context.

 There are anthropological digs into our own DNA. They have a good idea of how far you have to go back to find a common ancestor between any two organisms. This technique has provided a detailed picture of evolution that bears out the fossil record. .


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> If you have no competing theory then THIS is the one we have.
> The THEORY is composed of supporting FACTS.
> As new facts become available the THEORY is adjusted to accommodate those facts.
> The THEORY is presented as theory, the supporting facts as fact.
> ...


You said "theory" five times.

Does that mean that you don't object to public schools reminding students that evolution, in particular Darwinian evolution is theory, not fact?  

I have to assume you don't know of any fossil evidence that proves that Darwin is fact, or even supports Darwin, or you would have listed it.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> The context in which a fossil is found tells the story. An archeological dig is like a crime scene. There may be a body laying there but they look at everything in the room. A hominid fossil is a wonderful thing to find but more often they find extinct animals, cooking fires or garbage dumps. These provide context.
> 
> There are anthropological digs into our own DNA. They have a good idea of how far you have to go back to find a common ancestor between any two organisms. This technique has provided a detailed picture of evolution that bears out the fossil record. .


But you see what you're doing here, occupied?  Or do you?

I ask for examples of fossils that prove Darwinian evolution, and you go on a tangent about how fossils are found.  That's what a lawyer would call "unresponsive."


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Well, folks . . . we seem to have lost the thread of the thread, no pun intended.
> 
> The purpose of this thread is for dedicated Darwinists to show me real fossils and explain how they prove that Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection is factual.



Real fossils are on display at museums, US teaching and research universities and a host of other places. Denial of the fact by ID'iot creationers is their conspiracy theory to share among themselves. Being a recruiter for the Flat Earthers at AIG will leave you with a limited audience in the science forum.

Speciation through natural selection is common and the data was provided earlier. Dedicated ID'iot creationers will reject facts that conflict with their creationer dogma. 

Why don't you recite the 'statement of faith'' you agreed to when you joined the AIG Cult.


----------



## occupied (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> But you see what you're doing here, occupied?  Or do you?
> 
> I ask for examples of fossils that prove Darwinian evolution, and you go on a tangent about how fossils are found.  That's what a lawyer would call "unresponsive."


There are likely several fine texts on anthropology that can explain things better than I can. If you want an education I suggest you start there. My point is that there is far more to the story of early hominids than just bones. All of the natural sciences have something to say on the matter. What you ask is like telling a pathologist to solve a crime using only one forensic technique.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> There are likely several fine texts on anthropology that can explain things better than I can. If you want an education I suggest you start there. My point is that there is far more to the story of early hominids than just bones. All of the natural sciences have something to say on the matter. What you ask is like telling a pathologist to solve a crime using only one forensic technique.


Ok, you don't have to give me the whole curriculum, of course.  But I assume that you have read these fine texts, since you are so sure of their existance?

Just give, say, the best three examples of fossils that demonstrate that Darwinian theory is fact.

Or if your meaning is just, "Everyone says so, so who am I to question it," just say so.  Perfectly valid position to take.


----------



## occupied (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok, you don't have to give me the whole curriculum, of course.  But I assume that you have read these fine texts, since you are so sure of their existance?
> 
> Just give, say, the best three examples of fossils that demonstrate that Darwinian theory is fact.
> 
> Or if your meaning is just, "Everyone says so, so who am I to question it," just say so.  Perfectly valid position to take.


Are you a flat-earther as well? Rejecting evolution requires roughly the same level of scientific denial. Since it seems you are rejecting the long-held consensus on the natural history of Earth what good is it to argue with you? Believe what you want, flat-earther. I don't give a fuck.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> Are you a flat-earther as well? Rejecting evolution requires roughly the same level of scientific denial. Since it seems you are rejecting the long-held consensus on the natural history of Earth what good is it to argue with you? Believe what you want, flat-earther. I don't give a fuck.


None of that is even close to evidence.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> Are you a flat-earther as well? Rejecting evolution requires roughly the same level of scientific denial. Since it seems you are rejecting the long-held consensus on the natural history of Earth what good is it to argue with you? Believe what you want, flat-earther. I don't give a fuck.



Geologic and stratigraphic evidence shows beyond all doubt that:

Simple life begun in the seas.
Plants were first.
Animals came later.
Life moved onto land.
Simple life grew into more and more complex life over the millennia.
Basic mammals came first.
Most advanced upright walking bipedal humans were among the last to arrive on the scene.
All of which is consistent with the evidence found by Wallace at his Malay Archipelago.

Even the braincase of man has grown over that of earlier hominids.

Evolution and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive, but for a person to argue AGAINST evolution, one has a very weak argument.


----------



## occupied (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> None of that is even close to evidence.


Do I sound like I want to make a lot of effort with you flat-earther? I gave you a general overview of evolutionary research and you found that unsatisfying so now I'm just ridiculing your willful ignorance.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> estimates are just another way to say a guess,,,
> 
> tell me did someone find a built on date somewhere??





You can see how long something takes to happen now.  You then calculate the length of time required to form similar formations from long ago.

A good friend of mine is a geologist like myself, but also a devout Catholic.  I asked him how he reconciled creationism with geologic time.

I am paraphrasing but he essentially said how long is a day in God time?  We are incredibly arrogant to think a God day, is the same as OUR day.

Don't you think?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> Do I sound like I want to make a lot of effort with you flat-earther? I gave you a general overview of evolutionary research and you found that unsatisfying so now I'm just ridiculing your willful ignorance.


Yes, actually.  

You seem to be making post after post to convince me, while presenting no evidence at all.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So you agree that geologic time is generally measured in increments of a million of years.   Thanks.





Oh?  Where did I say that?  How long was the pre-Cambrian?


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I heard of both.  Do you have any example of either creating mountains in a short time?
> 
> The Himalayas are almost 9 km high and are rising at the rate of 1 cm/year.  I'll let you do the math after you add in the time it would take to erode that 9 km range.  Hint: the answer is in the millions of years.
> 
> ...






Yes, Anak Krakatoa.  Look it up.

Some geologist you are.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> You can see how long something takes to happen now.  You then calculate the length of time required to form similar formations from long ago.
> 
> A good friend of mine is a geologist like myself, but also a devout Catholic.  I asked him how he reconciled creationism with geologic time.
> 
> ...


now thats some funny shit right there,,,

in reference to isotope testing, tell me how long does an uncovered object take to decay verses a covered object??

and how do you see something that happened long ago without guessing??


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> now thats some funny shit right there,,,
> 
> in reference to isotope testing, tell me how long does an uncovered object take to decay verses a covered object??
> 
> and how do you see something that happened long ago without guessing??


Seeing something that happened wouldn't need any guessing. 

Such are the stunted critical thinking skills of the religiously addled.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> now thats some funny shit right there,,,
> 
> in reference to isotope testing, tell me how long does an uncovered object take to decay verses a covered object??
> 
> and how do you see something that happened long ago without guessing??





Radioactive isotopes decay at a regular rate whether they are covered or not.  We can see how long sediment takes to accumulate right now.  You extrapolate that back.  Over decades we have been building up a database that places the formations around the world into a time line that is fairly accurate.

I don't care if you believe me, but the 6000 year old claim was calculated by the Bishop Usher by adding up the lifetimes of the people in the Bible.

So, I am happy for you to believe what you do, so respect my opinion as well.


----------



## occupied (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, actually.
> 
> You seem to be making post after post to convince me, while presenting no evidence at all.


I'll make fun of dumbasses all day. It's kind of a hobby of mine and entirely self-indulgent.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> Radioactive isotopes decay at a regular rate whether they are covered or not.  We can see how long sediment takes to accumulate right now.  You extrapolate that back.  Over decades we have been building up a database that places the formations around the world into a time line that is fairly accurate.
> 
> I don't care if you believe me, but the 6000 year old claim was calculated by the Bishop Usher by adding up the lifetimes of the people in the Bible.
> 
> So, I am happy for you to believe what you do, so respect my opinion as well.


youre wrong,, an uncovered object decays faster than a covered one.. and it varies more depending on how deep or covered it is and by whats covering it,,

as for sediment,, the world is a far more different place today than it was thousands or millions of yrs ago,, so all we can do now is assume or guess,,

I do respect your opinion because thats all it is is an opinion devoid of any facts,,


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jan 31, 2022)

occupied said:


> I'll make fun of dumbasses all day. It's kind of a hobby of mine and entirely self-indulgent.


Ah.

Sort of a mental masturbation thing?

Carry on, then . . .


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> youre wrong,, an uncovered object decays faster than a covered one.. and it varies more depending on how deep or covered it is and by whats covering it,,
> 
> as for sediment,, the world is a far more different place today than it was thousands or millions of yrs ago,, so all we can do now is assume or guess,,
> 
> I do respect your opinion because thats all it is is an opinion devoid of any facts,,


Did you miss that your ''.... because I say so '' opinion is devoid of any facts?

No?

I knew that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> youre wrong,, an uncovered object decays faster than a covered one.. and it varies more depending on how deep or covered it is and by whats covering it,,
> 
> as for sediment,, the world is a far more different place today than it was thousands or millions of yrs ago,, so all we can do now is assume or guess,,
> 
> I do respect your opinion because thats all it is is an opinion devoid of any facts,,





Not radioactive elements.   They decay at a fixed rate.  Biological decay is more regulated by oxygen availability.   Depth is not important until you get real deep then heat from the Earth's crust takes over.

And, no, the Earth is the same now as it was a billion years ago. The processes that operated then, operate now.

Thanks for making plain your intolerance for free, independent thought.  You sound just like a progressive.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> You said "theory" five times.
> 
> Does that mean that you don't object to public schools reminding students that evolution, in particular Darwinian evolution is theory, not fact?
> 
> I have to assume you don't know of any fossil evidence that proves that Darwin is fact, or even supports Darwin, or you would have listed it.


A theory supported by multitude of facts.

You are acting foolish, some may think it not an act.
Your attempt at playing word games makes your premise even more unlikely.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 31, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> A theory supported by multitude of facts.
> 
> You are acting foolish, some may think it not an act.
> Your attempt at playing word games makes your premise even more unlikely.


dont you mean a multitude of assumptions,,,


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> dont you mean a multitude of assumptions,,,


Change in populations over time due to environmental and other factors is proven.

You repeat the same falsehoods and announce your ignorance on a public message board.


----------



## Dadoalex (Jan 31, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> youre wrong,, an uncovered object decays faster than a covered one.. and it varies more depending on how deep or covered it is and by whats covering it,,
> 
> as for sediment,, the world is a far more different place today than it was thousands or millions of yrs ago,, so all we can do now is assume or guess,,
> 
> I do respect your opinion because thats all it is is an opinion devoid of any facts,,


Do you understand the meaning of "decay" in this context?  Your post would indicate otherwise.

Decay rates, as used in the context, is constant for all isotopes no matter the location.
Decay of biomatter, the context you're presenting, does vary depending on many factors but is not relevant in the context.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> does a buried object decay at the same rate as one sitting on or near the surface??


My knowledge of physics says Yes.  Do you know different?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yes, Anak Krakatoa.  Look it up.
> 
> Some geologist you are.


Apples and oranges, as any good geologist would know.  A volcano erupting is very different from a mountain range rising and eroding and no geologist would confuse the two.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Apples and oranges, as any good geologist would know.  A volcano erupting is very different from a mountain range rising and eroding and no geologist would confuse the two.





You asked for a mountain created in days.  I gave you one.  The Channeled Scablands give you canyons carved in a week.

Like I said, for a supposed geologist you know very little about geology.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> You asked for a mountain created in days.  I gave you one.


No, you gave me a mountain (not a mountain range) *destroyed *in days.  Not that it matters but how long did it take to create the volcano that eventually blew up?



westwall said:


> The Channeled Scablands give you canyons carved in a week.


A catastrophic event that happened there exactly once.  Lots of erosion in that event but no mountains, let alone any mountain ranges, removed.



westwall said:


> Like I said, for a supposed geologist you know very little about geology.


I'll be insulted once you demonstrate your expertise in geology.  Until then you're just a guy and his Google on the internet.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> No, you gave me a mountain (not a mountain range) *destroyed *in days.  Not that it matters but how long did it take to create the volcano that eventually blew up?
> 
> 
> A catastrophic event that happened there exactly once.  Lots of erosion in that event but no mountains, let alone any mountain ranges, removed.
> ...





The Channeled Scablands was a periodic event.  Three times that we know of.  Were you not a wiki commando you would know that.  Anak Krakatoa formed in a few days, then grew to over 3000 feet over a period of months.

Then it blew up.  And it will reform again.
Funny how a supposed geologist, like you, doesn't know that.

You sure backtrack, and move goalposts a lot.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> The Channeled Scablands was a periodic event.  Three times that we know of.  Were you not a wiki commando you would know that.  Anak Krakatoa formed in a few days, then grew to over 3000 feet over a period of months.
> 
> Then it blew up.  And it will reform again.
> Funny how a supposed geologist, like you, doesn't know that.
> ...


Volcanos and floods can happen fast but did volcanos build the Himalayas?  If not what did and how long did it take?

What created the Atlantic Ocean, Hawaiian Islands, and Alaskan exotic terrain and how long did they take to form?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Volcanos and floods can happen fast but did volcanos build the Himalayas?  If not what did and how long did it take?
> 
> What created the Atlantic Ocean, Hawaiian Islands, and Alaskan exotic terrain and how long did they take to form?


please enlighten us,,


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> please enlighten us,,


Plate tectonics.  Spreading takes place at about as fast as your fingernails grow.  The Atlantic has taken about 60 million years to form.  

Or is there another theory that you can share?


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Volcanos and floods can happen fast but did volcanos build the Himalayas?  If not what did and how long did it take?
> 
> What created the Atlantic Ocean, Hawaiian Islands, and Alaskan exotic terrain and how long did they take
> 
> ...


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Plate tectonics.  Spreading takes place at about as fast as your fingernails grow.  The Atlantic has taken about 60 million years to form.
> 
> Or is there another theory that you can share?


thanks for your opinion,, now do you have any proof of that??


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> thanks for your opinion,, now do you have any proof of that??


Hardly my opinion, I have been swimming in the Atlantic.  It really exists.  What part don't you believe?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Hardly my opinion, I have been swimming in the Atlantic.  It really exists.  What part don't you believe?


when did I say it didnt exist??
do try and keep up,,


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> when did I say it didnt exist??
> do try and keep up,,


Try and be more clear then.  What do you consider an 'opinion'?  Plate tectonics?  Sea floor spreading?  Magnetic banding?  Like swimming in the Atlantic, you can see all these for yourself.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Try and be more clear then.  What do you consider an 'opinion'?  Plate tectonics?  Sea floor spreading?  Magnetic banding?  Like swimming in the Atlantic, you can see all these for yourself.


what happened and how long it took,,

all youve given is opinions based on assumptions,,


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> what happened and how long it took,,
> 
> all youve given is opinions based on assumptions,,


The science of geology is founded on uniformitarianism, the present is the key to the past.  That is an observation confirmed by many geologists over the past several centuries.

The Atlantic Ocean is opening by seafloor spreading from the Mid Atlantic Ridge at a rate of *about 0.02 metres per year*. This means that North America and Europe are moving away from each other at about the rate it takes for your fingernails to grow.

Based on the width of the Atlantic and confirmed by isotope dating and magnetic banding, the Atlantic is at least 145 million years old.  That is based on observation and measurements NOT opinions based on assumptions.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The science of geology is founded on uniformitarianism, the present is the key to the past.  That is an observation confirmed by many geologists over the past several centuries.
> 
> The Atlantic Ocean is opening by seafloor spreading from the Mid Atlantic Ridge at a rate of *about 0.02 metres per year*. This means that North America and Europe are moving away from each other at about the rate it takes for your fingernails to grow.
> 
> Based on the width of the Atlantic and confirmed by isotope dating and magnetic banding, the Atlantic is at least 145 million years old.  That is based on observation and measurements NOT opinions based on assumptions.


not a single geologist has ever observed what happened in the past and can only give opinions based on assumptions of observing things in the present,,

and the idea that using the present as an example of the past is what makes it laughable,,,
the planet in its infancy is far different that what it is today,,


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> thanks for your opinion,, now do you have any proof of that??





Yes, we do.  Both sides of the Mid Atlantic Ridge have matching magnetic reversals.  It is quite simply a time stamp in the rock that we can use to measure the rate of spread and the time intervals for the pole reversals.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> not a single geologist has ever observed what happened in the past and can only give opinions based on assumptions of observing things in the present,,
> 
> and the idea that using the present as an example of the past is what makes it laughable,,,
> the planet in its infancy is far different that what it is today,,





Yes, it is called the Principle of Uniformitarianism.  The Earth is the same today, as it was billions of years ago.  I will grant you that no one knows what the Earth was like when it formed, and for millions of years afterwards, but once it was set, the processes have remained constant.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> not a single geologist has ever observed what happened in the past and can only give opinions based on assumptions of observing things in the present,,


Not a single geologist has any reason to believe the past was any different than the present.  You are the one making assumptions based on your opinions/biases.



progressive hunter said:


> and the idea that using the present as an example of the past is what makes it laughable,,,
> the planet in its infancy is far different that what it is today,,


That is an opinion based on an assumption that is completely unsupported by any evidence.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Not a single geologist has any reason to believe the past was any different than the present.  You are the one making assumptions based on your opinions/biases.
> 
> 
> That is an opinion based on an assumption that is completely unsupported by any evidence.


so youve talked to every geologist that there is in the world,, that must have taken a long time to do,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yes, it is called the Principle of Uniformitarianism.  The Earth is the same today, as it was billions of years ago.  I will grant you that no one knows what the Earth was like when it formed, and for millions of years afterwards, but once it was set, the processes have remained constant.


you just said two different things,,


----------



## Hollie (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> so youve talked to every geologist that there is in the world,, that must have taken a long time to do,,


Is there anything you can offer from the charlatans at AIG?


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> so youve talked to every geologist that there is in the world,, that must have taken a long time to do,,


Thankfully there are geologic journals and the internet so it was not difficult.  Have you found any geologists that doubt uniformitarianism?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Thankfully there are geologic journals and the internet so it was not difficult.  Have you found any geologists that doubt uniformitarianism?


so you were just making it up,,,

at least the creationist admit it all on faith,, your guys religion is just crazy people talking out your ass's,,


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> you just said two different things,,






Yes, I did, I stated what we can scientifically prove, and what we surmise based on observation.  

However, the Earth when it was being formed CAN'T be observed.  So, we have to make educated guesses based on physics, and geologic processes that exist now.  

I can tell you without reservation that starting 4.2 billion years or so ago, the Earth began behaving like it does now.

I CAN'T tell you what it was like as it was forming, or for about 100 million years afterwards.  We simply don't know.  But we are honest enough to admit it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> so you were just making it up,,,
> 
> at least the creationist admit it all on faith,, your guys religion is just crazy people talking out your ass's,,






Geology isn't a religion.  We can only report on what we can measure, and observe.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yes, I did, I stated what we can scientifically prove, and what we surmise based on observation.
> 
> However, the Earth when it was being formed CAN'T be observed.  So, we have to make educated guesses based on physics, and geologic processes that exist now.
> 
> ...


and it also cant be observed beyond written records,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Geology isn't a religion.  We can only report on what we can measure, and observe.


exactly,, and you cant observe beyond written records,, if those cant even be trusted,,


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> and it also cant be observed beyond written records,,,





Not true.  I can review 1.7 billion years of history in the Grand Canyon.

Clear as a book.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Not true.  I can review 1.7 billion years of history in the Grand Canyon.
> 
> Clear as a book.


first you have to do is prove its 1.7 billion yrs old,, and theres a lot of evidence its not that old,,,


----------



## Hollie (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> exactly,, and you cant observe beyond written records,, if those cant even be trusted,,


Does anyone understand what that meant?


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> first you have to do is prove its 1.7 billion yrs old,, and theres a lot of evidence its not that old,,,





There is not one iota of evidence that it is not.  The Vishnu schist, and Zoroaster granite are well documented as to age.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> first you have to do is prove its 1.7 billion yrs old,, and theres a lot of evidence its not that old,,,


What evidence?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> There is not one iota of evidence that it is not.  The Vishnu schist, and Zoroaster granite are well documented as to age.


when you can explain how water runs uphill we can get into the other problems with it,,,


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> when you can explain how water runs uphill we can get into the other problems with it,,,





The Colorado Plateau was up lifted, and as it rose, the river cut down and carved out the Grand Canyon.

Like I said, we can read it like a book.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> The Colorado Plateau was up lifted, and as it rose, the river cut down and carved out the Grand Canyon.
> 
> Like I said, we can read it like a book.


and who is it that observed that??


----------



## westwall (Feb 1, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> and who is it that observed that??





Me, for one.   I have spent many years researching the plateau.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 2, 2022)

Science relies on observation.  There is no way to observe Earth's history, because it already happened.

We can look at parts of the Earth and make conjecture and assumptions.  We can say, "look at this canyon with layers of rock on its walls and a river at its bottom.  The layers of rock must have piled on over billions of years, and then the river carved down into the layers in more billions."

We can guess that, but we can't be sure, because it was not observed and science is about observation.  Maybe we can all vote on it and the majority say that is what happened.  We can write textbooks and claim that it is a fact.  But it still will not be a scientific fact.

I have no problem with teaching such conjecture, as long as it is honestly stated that it is conjecture.  I don't understand why there would be such fear of dissent that people would want to lie and say it is fact, and even mandate such lies.

Anyway, this thread is meandering badly, like an ancient river, so to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and *explain* how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Science relies on observation.  There is no way to observe Earth's history, because it already happened.
> 
> We can look at parts of the Earth and make conjecture and assumptions.  We can say, "look at this canyon with layers of rock on its walls and a river at its bottom.  The layers of rock must have piled on over billions of years, and then the river carved down into the layers in more billions."
> 
> ...


Science  relies on a great deal more than just observation.

Your conspiracy theory that the fossil evidence is fake is typical among those of the creationer ministries.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 2, 2022)

There isnt proof for evolution. Its silly to ask for it.
Im of the impression that is is the most plausible of all the theories of our beginning. So much evidence... Much more evidence than from outdated stories made by a bunch of ignorant savages thousands of years ago.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 2, 2022)

TNHarley said:


> There isnt proof for evolution. Its silly to ask for it.
> Im of the impression that is is the most plausible of all the theories of our beginning. So much evidence... Much more evidence than from outdated stories made by a bunch of ignorant savages thousands of years ago.


If there isn't proof, it isn't a fact.

If we can be honest about that, I'm happy.

Why do you think so many people make evolution into a religion that is to be believed in the absence of proof?


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If there isn't proof, it isn't a fact.
> 
> If we can be honest about that, I'm happy.
> 
> Why do you think so many people make evolution into a religion that is to be believed in the absence of proof?


Im honest about it. Its just a theory.
Because some people want a reason not to believe in god.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If there isn't proof, it isn't a fact.
> 
> If we can be honest about that, I'm happy.
> 
> Why do you think so many people make evolution into a religion that is to be believed in the absence of proof?


It's important to point out the context you don't understand. Proof that populations of biological organisms evolve over time has been proven. Your revulsion for evolution derives from the well established theory, supported by fossil evidence that mankind was not magically created 6,000 years ago.


"If we can be honest"

I would never expect a religious extremist to be honest.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> Me, for one.   I have spent many years researching the plateau.


so youre millions of yrs old,,

I doubt that,


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> It's important to point out the context you don't understand. Proof that populations of biological organisms evolve over time has been proven. Your revulsion for evolution derives from the well established theory, supported by fossil evidence that mankind was not magically created 6,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> "If we can be honest"
> ...


"Proof . . . has been proven?"

Here's what you sound like to me:

"Proof has been proven with strong proof!  There is irrefutable evidence of the proof that proves it!  The proof proves the proven proof!  Science proves it!  Jimmy Swaggart!"

At least you haven't used the old catchphrase "a mountain of evidence."

So what is this evidence you speak of?  You've punted two challenges so far:  To show me real fossils and explain how they prove Darwinism and to make a prediction based on Darwinism.  Since I know that humans are not perfectly designed, I'll give you one - only one - more chance.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> "Proof . . . has been proven?"
> 
> Here's what you sound like to me:
> 
> ...


That's all very melodramatic but if you knew anything of germ theory, for example, that viruses mutate, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, that species adapt and change to environmental changes, you might be able to hold a grown up discussion.

Religionism tends to be a boat anchor around the neck of those who cant evolve as knowledge and learning advances.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> That's all very melodramatic but if you knew anything of germ theory, for example, that viruses mutate, bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, that species adapt and change to environmental changes, you might be able to hold a grown up discussion.
> 
> Religionism tends to be a boat anchor around the neck of those who cant evolve as knowledge and learning advances.


So, no evidence, then?

Alright . . .


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> "Proof . . . has been proven?"
> 
> Here's what you sound like to me:
> 
> ...



If humans are not perfectly designed, doesn't that suggest your designer gods are incompetent designers? Your gods are not going to be happy about your claim that they are incompetent. 

I'll give you one last chance....


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> So, no evidence, then?
> 
> Alright . . .


Except for the evidence you have previously been presented with. 

No evidence for your gods? Supernaturalism performed by the gods  should be easy to identify. Anything outside of naturally occurring processes like... I don't know.... talking snakes or mammal fossils in the sedimentary layers as early reptiles would be good. 

Anything like that?


----------



## Seymour Flops (Feb 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Except for the evidence you have previously been presented with.
> 
> No evidence for your gods? Supernaturalism performed by the gods  should be easy to identify. Anything outside of naturally occurring processes like... I don't know.... talking snakes or mammal fossils in the sedimentary layers as early reptiles would be good.
> 
> Anything like that?


Well, since I never claimed there were gods, I would have no need to present evidence for them.

I'm not sure how a talking snake would be preserved as such in a fossil.  Would there be speech bubbles above the snake's head in the fossil?

Makes about as much sense as some interpretations of fossils, I guess.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Well, since I never claimed there were gods, I would have no need to present evidence for them.
> 
> I'm not sure how a talking snake would be preserved as such in a fossil.  Would there be speech bubbles above the snake's head in the fossil?
> 
> Makes about as much sense as some interpretations of fossils, I guess.


When your attempts at argument are perfectly aligned with and represent the same science loathing pablum that oozes from creation ministries, one can make informed judgements.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> so you were just making it up,,,
> 
> at least the creationist admit it all on faith,, your guys religion is just crazy people talking out your ass's,,


As usual I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.  Rather than attack me why don't you answer the question: do you accept uniformitarianism?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> As usual I don't think either of us know what you're talking about.  Rather than attack me why don't you answer the question: do you accept uniformitarianism?


how about before you make claims about what all geologist think you should actually look it up first,,
I did and what you claimed isnt true,, theres a lot of them that dont support it,,


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> how about before you make claims about what all geologist think you should actually look it up first,,
> I did and what you claimed isnt true,, theres a lot of them that dont support it,,


I eagerly await your links.  

Don't be confused by catastrophism since even though things like floods, volcanic eruptions, and meteor strikes are very rare they are continually, one might say uniformly, occurring.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I eagerly await your links.
> 
> Don't be confused by catastrophism since even though things like floods, volcanic eruptions, and meteor strikes are very rare they are continually, one might say uniformly, occurring.


how about you provide your link since you made the first claim??


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> how about you provide your link since you made the first claim??


Uniformitarianism​


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Uniformitarianism​


you do realize your link proves your claim wrong dont you??


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> you do realize your link proves your claim wrong dont you??


There is a place for both claims.  Reality is never so neat as we'd like.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> There is a place for both claims.  Reality is never so neat as we'd like.


no there isnt,,

and youre the only one claiming neat and easy,, 
I have been clear its far more complicated and unknown,,


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> how about before you make claims about what all geologist think you should actually look it up first,,
> I did and what you claimed isnt true,, theres a lot of them that dont support it,,


''A lot of them.''

Wow. Very persuasive.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> no there isnt,,
> 
> and youre the only one claiming neat and easy,,
> I have been clear its far more complicated and unknown,,


So which do you claim it is?   Uniformitarianism, catastrophism, a combination, or something totally different?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So which do you claim it is?   Uniformitarianism, catastrophism, a combination, or something totally different?


I didnt claim it was or wasnt any of them,,


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> I didnt claim it was or wasnt any of them,,


A powerhouse of equivocation.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> I didnt claim it was or wasnt any of them,,


First you claimed there wasn't a place for both claims now you're backpedaling.  I guess you're never wrong if you're on both sides of the issue.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 3, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> First you claimed there wasn't a place for both claims now you're backpedaling. I guess you're never wrong if you're on both sides of the issue.


if you bothered to read what I said you would see I'm on neither side of the issue because neither can be proven and are opinions based on assumptions,,


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> opinions based on assumptions


Keep ignoring the evidence and reciting your mantra, you'll likely sleep better.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> if you bothered to read what I said you would see I'm on neither side of the issue because neither can be proven and are opinions based on assumptions,,


Change in species over time is proven. Biological organisms evolve. It is primarily hyper-religious Christians who are the science deniers.


----------



## james bond (Feb 4, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Change in species over time is proven. Biological organisms evolve. It is primarily hyper-religious Christians who are the science deniers.


Not humans from monkeys.  Biological organisms do not evolve like that.  Creationists have creation science which explains origins and how natural selection works and _doesn't work_.  Thus, you are partially correct with microevolution and totally wrong with macroevolution.  That's fair.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> Not humans from monkeys.  Biological organisms do not evolve like that.  Creationists have creation science which explains origins and how natural selection works and _doesn't work_.  Thus, you are partially correct with microevolution and totally wrong with macroevolution.  That's fair.


"Humans from monkeys" is ignorance that is stereotypical coming from Flat Earthers.


----------



## surada (Mar 30, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Nice paintings above and bone fragments filled in with modelling material below.  Exactly the opposite of what I asked for, plus no explanation of how they prove Darwinian evolution.
> 
> Nice . . . try?


You want someone to educate you here ? It's a waste of time.


----------



## james bond (Mar 30, 2022)

Hollie said:


> "Humans from monkeys" is ignorance that is stereotypical coming from Flat Earthers.


I have ape and monkey fossils.  As well as human fossils.  But no transitional, i.e. ape-human, fossils.  The reasoning should be there is no connection between humans and monkeys.  With creation science, we know God created separate species using some of the same DNA.  Otherwise, the twain will never meet.  Two separate species.  Of course, the atheists are like flat Earthers and never get it.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> I have ape and monkey fossils.  As well as human fossils.  But no transitional, i.e. ape-human, fossils.  The reasoning should be there is no connection between humans and monkeys.  With creation science, we know God created separate species using some of the same DNA.  Otherwise, the twain will never meet.  Two separate species.  Of course, the atheists are like flat Earthers and never get it.



Species are like genetic stair-steps of stability while evolution is more of an acute stimulus.  The evolutionary triggers happen over comparatively SHORT periods of time compared to a stable species once generated from it, but if one takes Australopithecina  and Goriilini and studies their attributes, the commonality between their evolutionary foundations can be seen in Homininae.


----------



## james bond (Mar 30, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Species are like genetic stair-steps of stability while evolution of more of a acute stimulus.  The evolutionary triggers happen over comparatively SHORT periods of time compared to a stable species once generated from it, but if one takes Australopithecina  and Goriilini and studies their attributes, the commonality between their evolutionary foundations can be seen in Homininae.


Sounds like you're just arguing to fit your evolutionary views instead of what the evidence leads one to conclude.  

The evidence shows different and we see that they are separate species.  Both exist to this day.  

Well, what other transitions do you have that really aren't transitions?


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2022)

james bond said:


> Sounds like you're just arguing to fit your evolutionary views instead of what the evidence leads one to conclude.
> 
> The evidence shows different and we see that they are separate species.  Both exist to this day.



Don't forget the evidence of the Malay Archipelago.  Sure we have separate species.  Man and ape have always been separate.  Species exist for millions of years.  The fallacy is that evolution is a slow gradual process leaving many samples of transitional fossils over a long period of time when in fact evolution happens more like the splitting of a cell with long periods of parallel development and little to show for the evolutionary triggers between the two which happen comparatively in the blink of an eye perhaps in a matter of only decades or hundreds of years.

Not sure why this should be surprising since individual mutation happens in front of us all the time in a single birth.


----------



## james bond (Mar 30, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> Don't forget the evidence of the Malay Archipelago.  Sure we have separate species.  Man and ape have always been separate.  Species exist for millions of years.  The fallacy is that evolution is a slow gradual process leaving many samples of transitional fossils over a long period of time when in fact evolution happens more like the splitting of a cell with long periods of parallel development and little to show for the evolutionary triggers between the two which happen comparatively in the blink of an eye perhaps in a matter of only decades or hundreds of years.
> 
> Not sure why this should be surprising since individual mutation happens in front of us all the time in a single birth.


Who are you referring to with Malay Archipelago?  Alfred Russel Wallace?  He may as well be an evolutionist.  I think he thought God created and guided evolution.  

""My whole argument tends in that direction [a Designer], though my object in writing 'Man's Place in the Universe' was purely scientific, not religious. Darwin believed that the mental, moral, and spiritual nature of man were alike developed from the lower animals, automatically, by the same processes that evolved his physical structure. I maintain, on the other hand, that there are indications of man having received something that he could not have derived from the lower animals. I do not think it is possible to form any idea beyond this, that when man's body was prepared to receive it, there occurred an inbreathing of spirit--call it what you will. I believe this influx took place at three stages in evolution--the change (1) from the inorganic to the organic, (2) from the plant to the animal, (3) from the animal to the soul of man. Evolution seems to me to fail to account for these tremendous transitions... To suppose that this one particular type of universe extends over all space is, I consider, to have a low idea of the Creator and His power. That would mean monotony, instead of infinite variety, which is the keynote of things as they are known to us. There may be a million universes, but they may all be different--certainly, I should say, not all matter. We are all agreed that ether is the fundamental, matter being its product; and it is possible that ether may have other products which are not perceptible by us. 'Then, as a scientist, you have no difficulty in believing in the existence of consciousness apart from material organism?' None whatever. At the same time, I have a difficulty in conceiving--though there is no reason why it should not exist--pure mind, pure spirit, apart from any substantial envelope or substratum. St. Paul speaks of a 'spiritual body'; that is a body possessed by disembodied spirits. To them it is real enough, but to us it is not corporeal."
-Sir Alfred Russell Wallace[1]"






						Alfred Russel Wallace - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com
				




Instead of Darwin or Wallace, creationist Edward Blythe came up with natural selection first. 

"According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are _all fully expressed_" in a paper written by creationist Edward Blyth in 18351 (emphasis added). Unlike Darwin, however, Blyth saw natural selection as a preserving factor rather than as "a potentially liberalizing" one. According to this under-appreciated naturalist, the conserving principle was "intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species." Atypical variations, to use Eiseley's words, led to the animal's "discovery and destruction."2

Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3

Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."









						Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea
					

According to Loren C. Eiseley, Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania before his death, "the leading tenets of Darwin's work — the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection, and sexual selection — are all fully...




					www.icr.org
				




Creationists do not think in terms of millions of years due to the global flood, but mostly go along with long time in order to disprove evolution.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> Who are you referring to with Malay Archipelago?  Alfred Russel Wallace?  He may as well be an evolutionist.  I think he thought God created and guided evolution.



I think by dividing people into two camps as either creationists or evolutionists, you are missing the point that the world has room for both creation and evolution.  The world changes over time so while things are created, they must also adapt and evolve as a natural mechanism for survival.


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> I think by dividing people into two camps as either creationists or evolutionists, you are missing the point that the world has room for both creation and evolution.  The world changes over time so while things are created, they must also adapt and evolve as a natural mechanism for survival.


I don't think creation and evolution will ever come together.

That said, it's prophecized in the Bible that the evolution side will win and the majority of humankind will be for evolution. It happens right before we face the end of the world.  I suspect the Antichrist will show himself in some physical form and perform an abomination.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> I don't think creation and evolution will ever come together.
> 
> That said, it's prophecized in the Bible that the evolution side will win and the majority of humankind will be for evolution. It happens right before we face the end of the world.  I suspect the Antichrist will show himself in some physical form and perform an abomination.


Does Jimmy Swaggert pay you by the word count?


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Does Jimmy Swaggert pay you by the word count?


Flattie Hollie:  Soy un perdedor.

james bond:  Soy un ganador.  So why don't you crown me?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> No museum is going to itself out of business.


You just accused the scientists of being liars. 

Because your iron aged handbook says so.GTFO of the science section, you don't belong here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 31, 2022)

surada said:


> You want someone to educate you here ? It's a waste of time.




The Seymour Flops  sockpuppet account only wants attention. He created this account specifically to troll the science section, because he gets off on the attention.

Nothing more.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2022)

james bond said:


> I have ape and monkey fossils.  As well as human fossils.  But no transitional, i.e. ape-human, fossils.  The reasoning should be there is no connection between humans and monkeys.  With creation science, we know God created separate species using some of the same DNA.  Otherwise, the twain will never meet.  Two separate species.  Of course, the atheists are like flat Earthers and never get it.


You have no fossils.


----------

