The Genesis Conflict - 101 - The Earth in Time and Space

[Youwerecreated]

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

I did not change the subject,you said it was intellectually dishonest to say many fossils were found in the wrong strata and I posted many things showing you to be wrong.

And if you can't understand the problem polystrate trees present for the geologic timeline, and the age of fossils, and the earth you are blind.

Not to mention the many fossils found in the wrong strata as well.

There is no such thing as "wrong strata." And "polystrate trees" is term meaningful only to the superstitious who simply refuse to accept that the formations they refer to are inconsistent with validly presented old earth descriptions of the sedimentary formations they are found in.

Did you not read anything I posted that showed otherwise ?

Do you really understand why they named each and every layer of strata they found fossils in ?

Really,if you want to talk geology I suggest you take a class this is rediculous arguing with someone that does not have a clue on the subject.

 

[konradv]

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time. Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism. But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution...

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.

 

[LOki]

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time.

The requirement that the faithful deny evidence is entirely true (it's inherent in the nature of faith), I agree that the faithful deny evidence and/or valid logic all the time.

Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism.

Macro- and micro-evolution are substantially the same thing, and operate through the same processes. The superstitious disingenuously make a distinction for the purposes of denying the verifiable evidence and valid logic that supports the differentiation of genetics as the explanation for the differentiation of species.

But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution.

This is you again making strawman claims to refute, because you refuse to engage the actual assertions being made.

 

[LOki]

Those comments are spot on just look at any of the threads in this forum on the subject and look at the comments coming from your side.

You don't like it because creationists know how your side will act before they act.

You have called me dishonest for asking legitimate questions or ask you to back your claim with evidence. I have given plenty of explanations for my beliefs and I offer evidence but I am being intellecually dishonest according to your side.

Your questions were demonstrated to NOT be legitimate, as they were demonstrated to be challenging assertions NOT made by those you are challenging.

These are intellectually dishonest tactics, as is your current denial of reality expressed above.

So you're rewriting geology textbooks that say it took millions of years for each layer of strata to form ?

Again, you dishonestly submit a strawman to refute, because you simply cannot hope to prevail against claims I actually made.

 

[LOki]

I did not change the subject,you said it was intellectually dishonest to say many fossils were found in the wrong strata and I posted many things showing you to be wrong.

And if you can't understand the problem polystrate trees present for the geologic timeline, and the age of fossils, and the earth you are blind.

Not to mention the many fossils found in the wrong strata as well.

There is no such thing as "wrong strata." And "polystrate trees" is term meaningful only to the superstitious who simply refuse to accept that the formations they refer to are inconsistent with validly presented old earth descriptions of the sedimentary formations they are found in.

Did you not read anything I posted that showed otherwise ?

I actually did. And nothing you presented changes the obvious fact that your point in offering them is to rationalize your superstition.

Do you really understand why they named each and every layer of strata they found fossils in ?

I do know--the actual reason they name strata, and from where such names are derived. Which is entirely different than the conspiracy theory you present as a rationalization for your fatuous belief.

Really,if you want to talk geology I suggest you take a class this is rediculous arguing with someone that does not have a clue on the subject.

I suggest you take your own advice, but avoid the Sunday Schools of superstitious geology if you wish to have an actual clue on the subject.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

I did not change the subject,you said it was intellectually dishonest to say many fossils were found in the wrong strata and I posted many things showing you to be wrong.

And if you can't understand the problem polystrate trees present for the geologic timeline, and the age of fossils, and the earth you are blind.

Not to mention the many fossils found in the wrong strata as well.

There is no such thing as "wrong strata." And "polystrate trees" is term meaningful only to the superstitious who simply refuse to accept that the formations they refer to are inconsistent with validly presented old earth descriptions of the sedimentary formations they are found in.

Geologic timescale.

Redirect Notice

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time. Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism. But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution...

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.

Is your version of animal Mutation called adaption or adapting to their surroundings?

 

[konradv]

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time. Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism. But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution...

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.

Is your version of animal Mutation called adaption or adapting to their surroundings?

Adaptation to one's surroundings and learning from it is part of evolution in that the progeny of those organisms would have a higher survival rate. Mutation isn't adaptation, however, as it isn't directed by the environment, but by a chance rearrangement of a gene.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nonsense. Faith is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Faith only applies to your belief in the supernatural/

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

What evidence has science produced that isn't based on a theory of something? Theory's have been disproven all the time, so science moves the goal post and creates another theory that takes up where the other theory was disproven. Twick the words rearange the timeline and you have a new theory.

 

[LOki]

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time. Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism. But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution...

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.

Is your version of animal Mutation called adaption or adapting to their surroundings?

Are you just that ignorant or what? Seriously.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.

Is your version of animal Mutation called adaption or adapting to their surroundings?

Adaptation to one's surroundings and learning from it is part of evolution in that the progeny of those organisms would have a higher survival rate. Mutation isn't adaptation, however, as it isn't directed by the environment, but by a chance rearrangement of a gene.

OK then why haven't we seen anymore "Mutation" of animals if adapating to the surrondings is not a mutation?. It's odd that we keep finding new species of animals but never new Mutation of animals

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.

Is your version of animal Mutation called adaption or adapting to their surroundings?

Are you just that ignorant or what? Seriously.

What is the difference between Mutation and adaption?
Why haven't we seen more Mutation's of animals and less adapting to their surroundings?
Why do we find more new spieces of animals but no new mutating animals?

 

[LOki]

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

What evidence has science produced that isn't based on a theory of something?

Retard. You're just a retard. Scientific theories are based on evidence--not the other way around.

Theory's have been disproven all the time, so science moves the goal post and creates another theory that takes up where the other theory was disproven.

This is known as intellectual honesty and open mindedness. A quality that the faithful are in short supply of, as evidence by their retard-strength denials of every bit of verifiable evidence and valid logic that demonstrates their superstitious fairy tale notions of reality to be untrue.

"We can't be fooled! It's turtles all the way down!"

Twick the words rearange the timeline and you have a new theory.

A better theory. A better theory that benefits from better data, better evidence and better understanding. A notion lost upon the faithful for whom divine certainty in the validity of their beliefs has closed their minds to learning a single thing. Learning from errors: a phenomena made possible by the frank and mind opening admission that certainty of the entirety of the facts of reality cannot be expressed with "the bogeyman did it."

 

[konradv]

What is the difference between Mutation and adaption?
Why haven't we seen more Mutation's of animals and less adapting to their surroundings?
Why do we find more new spieces of animals but no new mutating animals?

Do you have a source that shows we've seen more adaptation and less mutation? I don't see that as a given.

Who says we see no new mutating animals? What makes you think they've stopped or slowed down? Mutations occur by the millions or probably billions DAILY. Most are of no consequence and we don't notice because of our limited time scale. Remember we're talking millions of years. Your question isn't appropriate for anyone but a scientists in the field, but creationists always discount their conclusions, when it comes to the "proof" of evolution. You demand proof, but refuse to consider it, when it's presented.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is the difference between Mutation and adaption?
Why haven't we seen more Mutation's of animals and less adapting to their surroundings?
Why do we find more new spieces of animals but no new mutating animals?

Do you have a source that shows we've seen more adaptation and less mutation? I don't see that as a given.

Who says we see no new mutating animals? What makes you think they've stopped or slowed down? Mutations occur by the millions or probably billions DAILY. Most are of no consequence and we don't notice because of our limited time scale. Remember we're talking millions of years. Your question isn't appropriate for anyone but a scientists in the field, but creationists always discount their conclusions, when it comes to the "proof" of evolution. You demand proof, but refuse to consider it, when it's presented.

First answer what is the difference between Mutations and adaptions?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

What evidence has science produced that isn't based on a theory of something?

Retard. You're just a retard. Scientific theories are based on evidence--not the other way around.

Theory's have been disproven all the time, so science moves the goal post and creates another theory that takes up where the other theory was disproven.

This is known as intellectual honesty and open mindedness. A quality that the faithful are in short supply of, as evidence by their retard-strength denials of every bit of verifiable evidence and valid logic that demonstrates their superstitious fairy tale notions of reality to be untrue.

"We can't be fooled! It's turtles all the way down!"

Twick the words rearange the timeline and you have a new theory.

A better theory. A better theory that benefits from better data, better evidence and better understanding. A notion lost upon the faithful for whom divine certainty in the validity of their beliefs has closed their minds to learning a single thing. Learning from errors: a phenomena made possible by the frank and mind opening admission that certainty of the entirety of the facts of reality cannot be expressed with "the bogeyman did it."

Retard. You're just a retard. Scientific theories are based on evidence--not the other way around.

What are theory's? Is a conspircey theory based on evidence?

 

[LOki]

Is your version of animal Mutation called adaption or adapting to their surroundings?

Are you just that ignorant or what? Seriously.

What is the difference between Mutation and adaption?

HOLY FUCK! Are you serious? 4th grade science class material. You literally don't know the difference between mutation and adaptation?

Why haven't we seen more Mutation's of animals and less adapting to their surroundings?
Why do we find more new spieces of animals but no new mutating animals?

No retard, I'm not going to hold your superstitious little hand end explain it to you.

It's not because I can't; it's because it would be insulting to YOU. Just SO insulting--and though I'm not above insulting retards like yourself--I do draw the line at inflicting unnecessary suffering upon animals, because it's just inhumane.

So go. Go quietly, so I won't regret my charity to you. Go enjoy your bliss; your stupid, arrogant in your divinely bestowed certainty, superstitious, ignorance.

 

[konradv]

What is the difference between Mutation and adaption?
Why haven't we seen more Mutation's of animals and less adapting to their surroundings?
Why do we find more new spieces of animals but no new mutating animals?

Do you have a source that shows we've seen more adaptation and less mutation? I don't see that as a given.

Who says we see no new mutating animals? What makes you think they've stopped or slowed down? Mutations occur by the millions or probably billions DAILY. Most are of no consequence and we don't notice because of our limited time scale. Remember we're talking millions of years. Your question isn't appropriate for anyone but a scientists in the field, but creationists always discount their conclusions, when it comes to the "proof" of evolution. You demand proof, but refuse to consider it, when it's presented.

First answer what is the difference between Mutations and adaptions?

We're here to discuss evolution. If you're not familiar with first principles, perhaps you should study up before posting again. I don't have time to keep addressing the same question, just because you don't like the answer.

 

[konradv]

What are theory's? Is a conspircey theory based on evidence?

They should be or it's a bad theory.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you just that ignorant or what? Seriously.

What is the difference between Mutation and adaption?

HOLY FUCK! Are you serious? 4th grade science class material. You literally don't know the difference between mutation and adaptation?

Why haven't we seen more Mutation's of animals and less adapting to their surroundings?
Why do we find more new spieces of animals but no new mutating animals?

No retard, I'm not going to hold your superstitious little hand end explain it to you.

It's not because I can't; it's because it would be insulting to YOU. Just SO insulting--and though I'm not above insulting retards like yourself--I do draw the line at inflicting unnecessary suffering upon animals, because it's just inhumane.

So go. Go quietly, so I won't regret my charity to you. Go enjoy your bliss; your stupid, arrogant in your divinely bestowed certainty, superstitious, ignorance.

According to some people they think adapting is mutating. Really dude I am trying to be nice to you. You have given nothing but insults. Keep it up and I will return the favor junior.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time. Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism. But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution...

...and your side ignores the fact that, given the lengths of time in question, the unlikely becomes more likely. Mutations may harm the organism, but that's JUST ONE ORGANISM! Get a different mutatuion in each of millions of individuals and eventually something will be better and that organism's progeny will thrive.