Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 476 of 2887 (822226)
10-21-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Dredge
10-20-2017 10:11 PM


The bet Darwin never suspected that the superstition of spontaneuos generation would reappear in a different form - Punctuated Equilibrium.
The superficial illiteracy of your post only serves to accentuate its deep fundamental stupidity.
Why didn't you learn what any of those words meant before putting them together in a post?
And why the devil did you puke up this bit of moronic ignorance on this particular thread anyway? Confine yourself to the topic, which is how evolutionists have the fossils and win. Do you have anything to say about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 10:11 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 477 of 2887 (822227)
10-21-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:14 PM


The fossil record reveals the miserable failure of Darwism's most fundamental prediction - gradualism. Gould stated that the fossil record is characterised two things antithetical to gradualism - sudden appearance and stasis.
Sudden appearance and stasis fit two fundamental predictions of creation. Ain't that interesting?
You lie a lot, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:14 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 480 of 2887 (822339)
10-23-2017 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by Dredge
10-22-2017 9:04 PM


I don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate, please?
I mean that you are frequently prone to mendacity, that you have a persistent tendency to untruthfulness, that it is your habit and custom to perpetrate falsehoods, and that you have often been known to fib. Did I stutter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 9:04 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Dredge, posted 10-23-2017 11:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 488 of 2887 (822435)
10-24-2017 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Dredge
10-23-2017 11:23 PM


Re: Let me help
Of course gradualism is fundamental to ToE - does a fish grow a foot overnight?
Different rates of gradualism is still gradualism.
So in the sense in which you now mean gradualism, Darwin was absolutely right, Gould too is a gradualist, and the fossil record supports gradualism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Dredge, posted 10-23-2017 11:23 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 489 of 2887 (822436)
10-24-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Dredge
10-23-2017 11:32 PM


Is that good or bad?
Lying is bad, Dredge.
Besides that, you didn't answer my question.
Yes I did, Dredge. You asked what I meant. I told you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Dredge, posted 10-23-2017 11:32 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 492 of 2887 (824313)
11-26-2017 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Dredge
11-26-2017 6:27 AM


Well, that's a peculiar daydream, Dredge. Do you have any evidence for it? Or any conceivable explanation for God's motivations in behaving in such a way?
Talk us through this. Take the evolution of birds, for example. According to your notions, God kept creating one lot of birds, destroying them, and then replacing them with slightly less basal-dinosaur-y birds, yes? And then did that again and again, right?
When you talk about "successive creations" does that mean that every time he destroyed a batch of birds he also destroyed all the other species alive at that time, only to carefully put them back along with the new model birds?
Either way, why did he do all this? Presumably an omnipotent being knew what he was aiming for, why not just make modern birds to start with? The sole effect of his approach seems to be that he successfully fooled scientists into thinking that evolution had taken place. But why would he want to?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Dredge, posted 11-26-2017 6:27 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-26-2017 3:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 496 by Dredge, posted 11-27-2017 3:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 509 of 2887 (824446)
11-29-2017 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Dredge
11-27-2017 3:04 AM


Your questions are like rocks hurled at my fragile, egg-shell mind.
Nevertheless, they are good questions ... for which I have no answers - although there is a theory about the fall of the angels (Satan and co.) causing the destruction of creation on earth.
Also, how often do you envisage this process of destruction and creation taking place? If you look at the fossil record, there's pretty much always something new popping up or going extinct. Geologists distinguish between 99 official geological ages, and these are themselves capable of subdivision.
But there are many mysteries which humans cannot answer without divine revelation.
If we accept that God may be dicking with us by producing false appearances, then every truth, no matter how apparent, acquires an air of mystery. You can appeal to God's mysterious ways to suppose that instead of seeing evidence for evolution, we are seeing hundreds of vast and pointless miracles producing the appearance of evolution. But why stop there? We could equally look at a cow and wonder if it's a cow, or if God is exercising his miraculous powers to make the mere appearance of a cow, for reasons beyond our mortal ken.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Dredge, posted 11-27-2017 3:04 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Dredge, posted 11-29-2017 3:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 516 of 2887 (824524)
11-30-2017 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Dredge
11-29-2017 3:08 AM


Re: what a pathetic God Dredge markets
The Unitarians are cultural Marxists masquerading as Christians, in other words.
Because you think that real Christians would be against civil rights and in favor of war? You're a hoot, Dredge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Dredge, posted 11-29-2017 3:08 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Dredge, posted 11-30-2017 3:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 524 of 2887 (824542)
11-30-2017 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by Dredge
11-30-2017 4:17 AM


You're partly correct - not a theory, but excellent theology which can also accommodate the geological evidence of the history of the earth.
But the notion of a God who deceives humanity just for the heck of it has never been good theology. As the Reverend Mr. Charles Kingsley wrote back in the nineteenth century: "I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." Now here you come asking us to believe in God as the Great Deceiver. And with no Biblical warrant to do so, this is just something you've made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Dredge, posted 11-30-2017 4:17 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Dredge, posted 12-01-2017 3:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 525 of 2887 (824543)
11-30-2017 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dredge
11-30-2017 3:40 AM


Re: what a pathetic God Dredge markets
Wow, how childishly naive. The civil rights movement was invented by Communists and the 1960's anti-war movement was also a Communist construct - Western Communists trying to defend their comrades in the East and funded largley by the USSR. Martin Luther King was a Christian frontman for Communists. It ain't rocket science.
If Communists got black people civil rights, then that was an awesome thing that Communists did right there, and all decent people should be grateful to them for it.
And if no real Christians were against segregation, if all Christians supported racism and injustice, then that right there shows the moral bankruptcy of Christianity.
But are you quite sure, Dredge, that no-one but a Communist could be against racism? It seems to me that one could despise racism quite easily never having read a word of Karl Marx. (Especially if one was black.)
So despite what you have said, I will go on believing that some Christians are decent people, and that Communists do not have a monopoly on virtue.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Dredge, posted 11-30-2017 3:40 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Dredge, posted 12-01-2017 4:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 538 of 2887 (824662)
12-01-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Dredge
12-01-2017 4:09 AM


Re: what a pathetic God Dredge markets
The religion of Equality is a bit like the religion of Darwinism - it has only one enemy - reality. Restrictions on freedom of speech prevent me from expressing my thoughts about the insane, Marxist delusions of equality that exists in Western civilization. The senseless Loony Left laps up this demented, vacuous rubbish because it massages their egos and makes them feel morally superior.
And from the beginning (Eve in the Garden of Eden), Satan has used the sophistry of equality to deceive and harm mankind.
What "restrictions on freedom of speech" prevent you from expressing your opinions? Perhaps the moderators would prefer that you use another thread for your rantings (so would I) but I'm sure they'll let you have your say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Dredge, posted 12-01-2017 4:09 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 539 of 2887 (824663)
12-01-2017 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by Dredge
12-01-2017 3:54 AM


You've never heard of the Gap theory of creation? Google it.
I note that this is not actually a reply to my post.
If you find your bullshit indefensible, you should abandon it. That would be more dignified than to go on posting after you've run out of things to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Dredge, posted 12-01-2017 3:54 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 545 of 2887 (824732)
12-02-2017 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dredge
12-02-2017 4:26 PM


Well, many fossils have been found but they cannot be submitted as evidence for evolution. Here's why:
The fossils that have been discovered so far could represent only the tiniest fraction of the total number of fossils in existence. So our present fossil collection could be so small as to be "statistically insignificant". An election result can't be decided if only 0.01% of the votes have been counted, can it?
Furthermore, since there is no way of knowing the total number of fossils in existence, there is no way of knowing when a "statistically significant" number of fossils have been collected. In which case, the fossil record can never be safely used as definitive empirical evidence for evolution.
Let's add statistics to the list of subjects that you know nothing about, shall we?
Did it ever occur to you to wonder why scientists, who are steeped in the notion of statistical significance and use it daily as one of their most commonplace tools, have never availed themselves of your remarkable argument?
Here's a hint: it's because they understand the concept. And because they aren't idiots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dredge, posted 12-02-2017 4:26 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2017 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 547 of 2887 (824738)
12-02-2017 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dredge
12-02-2017 4:26 PM


Well, many fossils have been found but they cannot be submitted as evidence for evolution. Here's why:
The fossils that have been discovered so far could represent only the tiniest fraction of the total number of fossils in existence. So our present fossil collection could be so small as to be "statistically insignificant". An election result can't be decided if only 0.01% of the votes have been counted, can it?
Furthermore, since there is no way of knowing the total number of fossils in existence, there is no way of knowing when a "statistically significant" number of fossils have been collected. In which case, the fossil record can never be safely used as definitive empirical evidence for evolution.
The great thing about your latest bullshit is that it can be applied with equal facility to everything else in science. What proportion of the mass in the universe have we tested to see if it really does obey the law of gravity? Hardly any, and so the observations we have made "cannot be submitted as evidence". What proportion of the atoms in the universe have we observed to conform to the laws of chemistry? Surely it is "only the tiniest fraction". And so all of the observations we have made are not "statistically significant" according to your bizarre, ignorant use of that phrase, and so " can never be safely used as definitive empirical evidence".
Congratulations, you have proved that all of science is unscientific. That was easy; that was surprisingly easy. The task of convincing everyone of your discovery will probably be a little harder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dredge, posted 12-02-2017 4:26 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by Dredge, posted 12-04-2017 7:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 569 of 2887 (824901)
12-04-2017 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by Dredge
12-04-2017 7:09 PM


Meanwhile, please consider this:
If evolution has been progressing for at least three billion years, then there might be at least three billion fossils in existence (this is a very conservative estimate - only one fossil formed on earth per year). If we have collected one million fossils so far, this might represent only 0.033% of all fossils, which is hardly a statistically significant sample size.
Imagine how stupid it would be for a politician to claim victory after only 0.033% of the votes had been counted. He would be laughed at and ridiculed and called a fool. So embarrassment.
I notice that you still don't know what "statistically significant" means. Did it never occur to you to find out before you started using the phrase?
Meanwhile, please consider this:
If chemists had used the entire mass of the Earth in their experiments, they would still only have tested to see if 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the atoms in the visible universe conform to their theories.
Imagine how stupid it would be for a politician to claim victory after only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the votes had been counted. He would be laughed at and ridiculed and called a fool. So embarrassment.
Plus, there is the situation alluded to by Mr. Percy - that creatures that inhabit low-lying areas are much more likely to be fossilized than creatures that don't. And I dare say birds are much less likely to fossilized than non-birds. Indeed, the majority of fossils discovered are marine creatures. So these factors further detract from the statistical worth of the fossil collection.
And the Earth contains more oxygen atoms than thallium atoms, which further detracts from the statistical worth of our chemical observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Dredge, posted 12-04-2017 7:09 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024