Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

 

[Youwerecreated]

What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
That is what it is and is supposed to be.
A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
Nothing about science, it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.

I will agree to a point,God did not need a science book to complete his work. There are many references in the bible however that can be tested by science which you ignore.

....and which you are unable to identify.

I won't waste my time listing them again everyone in this thread has seen them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is no god.

Prove it.

I was returning one red herring for another.

I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.

I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.

Then you admit your views to are based in faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?

Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?

are youreally this ignorant?
In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek αδάμας – adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions

Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw graphite is also carbon...

I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.

 

[Youwerecreated]

it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
your denial of dating methods is a dodge
it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...

You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.

lol...asshat

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Michael Benton
articlehighlights
Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:

•the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
•mathematical calculations are used
•the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
•tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001
Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
Engraving from William Smith’s 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

Millions of fossils have been discovered.•They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.•Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.•The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
Fossils occur in sequences
Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.•Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy — that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.•Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

•From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.

•All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his “On the origin of species”. The ‘progress’ shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.

Accuracy of the fossils
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.

•Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.

•Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.

•Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.

•The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.

Accuracy of dating
Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:

Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.•Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
•Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
•By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

•The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
•Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.

© 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact [email protected] for reprint permission. See reprint policy.

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids’ books.
People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol

Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods

Not only was carbon found on stones while you are at it explain why dinosaur fossils found contain carbon. Asshat

 

[Youwerecreated]

Prove it.

I was returning one red herring for another.

I would never actually make the claim "there is no god" because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative existential claim.

I can however, prove that the christian god does not exist, because it is logically incongruous. As defined, the judeo-christian god is said to be perfect, yet this being needs or wants a relationship? A perfect being wouldn't need anything. It would never be jealous, as the bible often indicates. Also, omniscience and omnipotence are also logically incongruous. If you know every action you are going to take in the future, you are powerless to change them.

You could add that the creator, if real, had to have been created himself.

Prove it,this is to easy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.

translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.

Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.

FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.

Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.

 

[daws101]

I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.

translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.

Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.

FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.

dodge and a lie...
I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .

 

[daws101]

The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.

This is a tautology. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. What you just said is "my belief without evidence needs no evidence."

Faith (noun):

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that his hypothesis about the origin of the cell would eventually be proven as fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

is it just me or in the that definition there is no metion of faith being proof or fact or evidence of anything but faith itself.

 

[daws101]

I ain't got time to read all that. If you can't make a point in a coupe of paragraphs then I feel sorry for you.

translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.

I don't read your super long irrelevant posts either. You've already proven you are totally clueless so why would I waste precious moments of my life reading more of your endless vitriol???

this from the queen of super long irrelevant posts !

(place irony here)

 

[ima]

There's no proof that god isn't a retard.

 

[daws101]

Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?

are youreally this ignorant?
In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek αδάμας – adámas "unbreakable") is an allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at ambient conditions

Diamond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw graphite is also carbon...

I don't need your answers based on conjecture. I just want you to answer why carbon is found on stones that should not be there according to the dating methods.

since it's not conjecture the answer stands.
first there is no should in geology...
you do understand the concepts of plate tectonic, volcanism, erosion, glacial expantion and retraction, flooding? all these things move shit around and mix things up .so finding carbon mixed with other stones is no big suprise.
discribe what kind of dating method it was,
better yet give me the link to the site where you read that.

 

[daws101]

You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.

lol...asshat

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Michael Benton
articlehighlights
Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines:

•the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
•mathematical calculations are used
•the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
•tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
read articlelearn moreget involvededucator resources January 2001
Fossils provide a record of the history of life.
Engraving from William Smith’s 1815 monograph on identifying strata based on fossils. Smith (1759-1839) is known as the Father of English Geology. Source: Oxford Library.
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

Millions of fossils have been discovered.•They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.•Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.•The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
Fossils occur in sequences
Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.•Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy — that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.•Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

•From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.

•All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his “On the origin of species”. The ‘progress’ shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.

Accuracy of the fossils
Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.

•Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.

•Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.

•Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.

•The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.

Accuracy of dating
Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:

Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.•Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
•Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
•By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

•The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
•Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Conclusion: The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.Conclusion
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.

© 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact [email protected] for reprint permission. See reprint policy.

Michael Benton, Ph.D., is a vertebrate paleontologist with particular interests in dinosaur origins and fossil history. Currently, he is studying certain basal dinosaurs from the Late Triassic and the quality of different segments of the fossil record. He holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, UK, in addition to chairing the Masters program in paleobiology at the university. He has written some 30 books on dinosaurs and paleobiology, ranging from professional tomes to popular kids’ books.
People: Earth Sciences: University of Bristol

Actionbioscience | Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods

Not only was carbon found on stones while you are at it explain why dinosaur fossils found contain carbon. Asshat

yes you are as ignorant as you seem

Carbon pools in the major reservoirs on earth.[2] Pool Quantity (gigatons)
Atmosphere 720
Oceans (total) 38,400
Total inorganic 37,400
Total organic 1,000
Surface layer 670
Deep layer 36,730
Lithosphere
Sedimentary carbonates > 60,000,000
Kerogens 15,000,000
Terrestrial biosphere (total) 2,000
Living biomass 600 - 1,000
Dead biomass 1,200
Aquatic biosphere 1 - 2
Fossil fuels (total) 4,130
Coal 3,510
Oil 230
Gas 140
Other (peat) 250

if that does not explain it nothing will.

 

[daws101]

translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.

Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.

FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.

Funny,the bible does not have artistic renditions of events or creatures described but evolutionist however do,it must make it more credible for them.

more of your ignorance come shinning through.

ever hear the term ilumnated bible or manuscript?
all of the bibles construted during the dark ages all had artistic ( showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution ) repesentations of events and creatures
the practice still goes on today.
so as always you are talking out your ass.

 

[pjnlsn]

It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.

The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.

 

[Hollie]

It's hard to find a specific post to quote, but as to evolution, the core of the idea is very simple. And is just to note that there are these fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out how it happened.

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.

The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.

Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn

Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.

The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.

The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.

If you Look here:

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".

You can derive your own conclusions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

translation: I'm illiterate and the concept that the facts may take more than a couple of paragraphs is too much for me....even my bible has pictures.

Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.

FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.

dodge and a lie...
I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .

A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.


Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.

Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!

 

[Hollie]

Reality: I have a job and don't have the time to read of bunch of nonsense.

FTR.... There are no pictures in my Bible.

dodge and a lie...
I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .

A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.


Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.

Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!

Dating methods are flawed?

Yet another fabrication coming out of the creationist ministries.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fossils prove what exactly?

There are several facts about the fossil record which do not fit well with Darwin’s theory of evolution – facts which evolutionary biologists need to explain away rather than use as evidence for their theory.

The key problem is this: Darwin’s theory relies on minute changes in organisms which slowly accumulate, gradually changing the organism until it eventually becomes a new species. If this is correct, then the fossil record should contain many fossils with forms intermediate between different species. This is not what the fossil record shows. As Darwin put it:

None of this contradicts what I said, though I can clarify, I suppose.

The core of that idea which can summarize that section of biology (circa the present day) is simply to say that there are fossils that we have, and that there is global change over time. The rest is as to try and reason out what happened in the minutia.

Your earlier comment was perfectly legitimate and essentially true, pjnlsn

Clarification on your part wasn't necessarily required as you were confronted with a pattern of behavior among fundie Christian creationists that has been observed frequently in this thread.

The poster, Lonestar, is repeating a process called "quote mining". The process (better termed "pathology") afflicts fundie Christians who dishonesty, insidiously and purposefully post "quotes" that are altered, parsed, edited, manufactured or revised with the intention to mislead a reader as to what the author of the quoted text intended to convey.

The "quote" that was posted by Lonestar was such a fraud. Charles Darwin is among the many, many scientists whose "quotes" are fraudulently edited and Lonestars' cut and paste was immediately familiar as a fraud.

If you Look here:

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

and scroll down the page to quote #75, you will see what actually Darwin wrote, in context, in "Origin of Species".

You can derive your own conclusions.

Ha! The quote stands on it's on merits you can quote the entire book and still not unsay what it said. You can't spin that no matter how hard you try!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

dodge and a lie...
I have a job and I manage to find the time to read your fantasies.
the truth is you're too chicken shit or prejudiced to want to learn any thing that might take you out of your comfort zone .

A dodge and a lie? You're more stupid than I thought.


Look asshole, I've been reading evolutionist jibberish for more years than I care to remember. It's all the same old bullshit. They accept results that fit their preconceived notions and disregard the rest. Fact is dating methods are flawed and in so being all dated material is questionable.

Get it through that neanderthal skull of yours and wise up!

Dating methods are flawed?

Yet another fabrication coming out of the creationist ministries.

Yes dating methods are flawed.

Evidence has been provided yet you chose to ignore it.

Stay stuck on stupid if you wish.