evidence?

How can you type, handwave, and dodge mark24's challenge all at the same time? Truly remarkable physical feats.But maybe now with the offer of a sex slave to motivate you, you will be more "up" to the challenge

Mammuthus,I have just HEAVILY rewritten my last post (which was written whilst drunk), the offer of a sex slave was retracted, lawdog will be pleased to know.... *shudder*. My language was moderated, & I have tried to make myself clearer. lawdog will not be allowed to dodge.I do suspect, however, that this Precambrian fish/crustacean paper is going to take a long time in "retrieval".Mark

Hi mark24,
I am sure lawdog will be greatly saddened by the retraction of the sex slave offer as he clearly needs motivation to substantiate his assertions...asking him sure has not worked Maybe if I get drunk I will at last understand anything Syamsu or lawdog are babbling about since clearly one must be fully disconnected from any form of logic to debate the way they do...good timing since Oktoberfest starts tomorrow cheers,
M

"Intuition"? I think you meant to say "guessing", which is easily explained by probability. "Intuition" is just the name we give to "guessing" when it's right. Well, one might poll 1000 people and find out what they consider most important. That'd be a pretty clear quantification of what you're talking about. Historical events leave empirical evidence. Everything that happens, in fact, has the potential to leave empirical evidence. Nothing that affects the physical world is beyond the scope of methodological naturalism, by definition.And of course, that's the rub. Supernatural entities must, by definition, fall into two categories: those that can affect the world we observe, and those that can't. If they affect the real world, they're not actually supernatural at all - they're natural, because their actions leave physical evidence. If they don't affect the real world ever, what can you, a physical entity, know about them? Nothing!Methodological naturalism may not be all you can know, but it's all you can know that you know. Anything else is just guessing. I'll assume you meant to say "one population giving rise to another through speciation", because creatures turning into other creatures is a cartoonish strawman of evolution, and you wouldn't be so disingenuous as to argue against a strawman, would you? And yes, we have considerable evidence of new species. Don't confuse us with creationists. Evolutionists, like all scientists, alter their worldview to conform to data. Not the other way around.

This is something of an aside, but I thought it was interesting. People lie. If you ask people what they think is important you get a different result to what you get if you perform tests to study what they actually value. Once again the scientific method trumps intuition.

We creationists don't ascribe everything to the Flood, you know. I deeply suspect increased evaporation followed by salt deposits occurred after the Flood because of warmer water. Much water came from underground.
What cannot be explained is how, if each stratum is laid down over a long time period, how a skeleton could just sit there fossilising while the sediments were deposited around it. Also strange is the way we find so many fossilised sea creatures - shells etc. - on top of mountains; how the geological strata on the Swiss Alps are unaccountably upside down; and how the Grand Canyon got here the way it is. Being a massive gash through largely horizontal layers of rock, the canyon seems unlikely to have been caused by a river slowly eroding over time, since they bend and meander and deposit more uneven sediments.

I really think you need to research a bit more geology rather than jumping to conclusions.Seashells on top of mountains for instance is explained by uplift - mountains are produced by the continents slowly crumpling as they bump into each other. Land that was once underwater is pushed up, forming mountains.Uplift also played a role in the Grand Canyon - the land was rising and that affected the way erosion produced the channel - in rocks laid down before the river was there.

defenderofthefaith, It has been explained, I've even cited you an example of polystrate fossils in the process of foprmation, what didn't you understand?Mark

Remember how often Creationists say that if evolution were true then there would be more thin gradations of transitional fossils, instead of sudden changes? And remember the evolutionist answer that fossilization is actually a rare event, that it takes several special simultaneous conditions for an animal's bones to become fossilized, and that's why fossils aren't more common? Well, when you ask how could it possibly be that a "skeleton could just sit there fossilizing while the sediments were deposited around it" you're actually citing the reason that fossils are so rare. Nothing like what you describe ever happens. An animal lying dead on the ground doesn't fossilize, it gradually decays and disintegrates, after being pawed over by predators and scavengers and having the bones chewed, split, broken and scattered.Fossilization is a rare event usually requiring sudden burial (and it sounds like Mark provided more details earlier, perhaps he can provide a link to that message). The only reason there are as many fossils as there are is because they've been accumulating for millions of years.--Percy

Predictably, the true colors of evolutionists has been exhibited on these boards. I thought this might be a somewhat more 'professional' board for discussion, minus the usual ad hominems, foul language, etc. Alas, it is not.I do find it amusing how fossils that obviously contradict the fossil record (and the appertaining assumptions) are force-fitted into the theory of evolution anyway, as if to silence any opposition. Oh, the irony! Instead, fully-developed fossils in the Precambrian simply means that the origins are pushed further back, yet, without any 'empirical' verification from earlier ancestry (aka transitionals). Thus, enter appeals to future discovery.I was hoping to continue this discussion, with many other relevant off-shoot topics. However, I can get insulted just as much at the atheist discussion boards, which is where I shall return.For the lurkers, don't let the fluff and bluff of long ages or fossils be claimed as evidence of evolution or anything else........neither has been empirically demonstrated, and neither never will. A plan requires a Planner. Things such as humility, patience, forgiveness, constant wisdom (as opposed to the ever-changing 'facts' of science), intuition, etc. cannot be frozen or tested in a tube........much to the dismay of the naturalists.Ceeya.

Lawdog, you are making still more assertions. I recall no references to back these up. Not a one. Perhaps you could supply them again?If not you are full of it!

Predictably another creationist runs away when he can't back up his assertions.As I pointed out you were the one who dropped the discussion of the Precambrian crustacea without any explanation of why they would be any problem for evolutionary theory. Presumably, like many creationists, you expect us to simply accept your opinions on your say-so. The opposition was apparently "silenced" only in that it had nothing worth saying. Nobody stopped you from backing up your assertions - they simply disagreed. And, it seems, to that you had no answer except to accuse others of being unreasonable for disagreeing with your unfounded opinions. If your accusations had any merit you would have had no need to resort to such a tactic.Thus we establish that your accusations are a bluff, intended to cover up the fact that you are unable to support your claims - a conclusion stengthened by your inability to deal wiht the arguments put ofrward by your opponents. And this conclusion provides a plausible explanation for why you choose to retreat at this time. You have been utterly defeated but cannot admit the truth and that is why you run.

lawdog, The true colours of the creationist has been evident since you have been here. Make assertions, NEVER back them up. Rubbish evidence with no logical justification for doing so. Sound familiar, lawdog?Do you wonder why others get frustrated with you? You have failed to show how, & you have failed to justify how you reject that morphology & stratigraphy show a close corelation. Theefore this is just sour grapes & bluster. The assumptions are tested, perhaps you should read again for comprehension. On the contrary, that phylogeny & morphology correlate is empirical evidence of evolution, by definition.Unfortunately for you, lawdog, the rest of the world, in the main, subscribes to logic. So a theory with testable assumptions that discovers a correlation in two erstwhile unrelated datasets provides logically sound evidence in support of that theory. Your ridiculous objection would rule out all of science. If tests were carried out to provide evidence of electrons, it isn't evidence because the assumption is that electrons exist, right? Er, no, lawdog, no.There need not have been any correlation at all, & indeed, if your ID fantasy were indicative of reality, there shouldn't have been. But there was.I'm afraid that the lurkers can only conclude one thing, that lawdog got himself caned. He provided no evidence of his assertions, whilst at the same time had empirical evidence spoon fed to him that supported evolution & contradicted his version of ID. He was not able to refute the conclusions drawn on either evidential or logical grounds, yet remained in denial without any justifiable reason. He made several attempts at moving the goalposts that were easily detected, but basically spent the last few days running around with his zipper undone.I suppose the missing promised cite of those Precambrian crustacea & fish is still in the "retrieval" process?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Also for the lurkers: What Lawdog seems to be saying is good advice. Examine the evidence and let it speak for itself. Don't accept evolution just on someone else's say-so. This part seems to be based upon a fundamental misunderstanding. No one here has ever made any such claims, but Lawdog says he's leaving, so why he felt the need to challenge what was never asserted will have to remain a mystery.--Percy

Actually the lurkers should pay careful attention to the fact that lawdog completely avoided mark24's challenges. Instead he went on a bizarre rant about foul language and how he is leaving rather than address anything that mark24 posted. It would appear he needed an exit desparately as he knew he was badly overmatched.And yes, by all means everyone should look at the evidence for themselves and not take the word of evolutionists...but likewise, one should not take the word of people like lawdog who make claims and complete misrepresentations about and regarding evolution which are not true.