'We' Evo's think.....................

quote:

---

But it is the 'evo'' side that believes m.y.If the article was non biased it could not mention them.

---

Not mention dates, when evolution says the these must have lived millions of years ago? That wouldn't make sense. And the principles of geology (someone another thread pointed out you could make rough estimates based on observed erosion and sedimentation rates) cannot explain the strata without millions of years. That the fossils come in the correct order - oldest lower down in the geologic column. And that these dates can be confirmed through radiometric dating, a technique based on a completely different field of science that has absolutely nothing to do with fossils or geology. Of course the article mentions "millions of years" nothing makes sense without "millions of years".

quote:

---

My point is you say there are 'undecided' jigsaw phenomenon and Rei says there aren't. I am ASKING are there jigsaw phenomenon? Yes - some 'tran'' may not fit the toe No - All skulls have been collected, in an unbiased way without removing jigsaw phenomenon

---

You apparently didn't read what I wrote, so let me reiterate.1) There are no chimeric features.. For example, if a branch begins, and one side begins developing two-lobed teeth, fused vertebrae, and fenestra (in the usual steady progression), and the other begins developing high brow ridges, a short muzzle, and short pelvis, you won't come into anything that has the same overall morphometry but has all of those features together.2) The species are in order and in the right layers. You will never, ever find a species out of order unless there is something in the rock to indicate why (such as a rubble pile). Ever. For example, you will not find a primate skeleton in the same layer as a dinosaur. Ever. Anywhere in the world - it just doesn't happen. The size and shape of the dinosaur are irrelevant. Likewise, you will not find, say, a apatasaur, but have no trail at all that leads up to it - or, instead, find the trail that leads up to it in later sediments.3) Sister species do exist. Just like closely related species exist now, they existed in the past. As an example, lets say that the aquatic lizards of the galapagos became wildly successful, and spread to cover the world's oceans, with a wide variety of decendants. What are the odds that, 50 million years from now, the galapagos will even remotely exist? Not very good at all. If they do, heavy metamorphism, magma intrusion, and erosion likely will have taken a toll. What are the odds, even if they *still* exist just fine, that an archaeologist 50 million yeras in the future would pick just the right spot to hit the galapagos? The odds are almost none. *However*, the odds that archaologists would manage to hit a modern close relative of the galapagos lizards *are* good. Thus, most fossils you find are sister species. You do not, however, find "chimeric" features where you observe a branch occur past a feasable level of interbreeding possibility, and then see the branch re-merge in a later species.Again, I must ask you for specifics about where you have complaints.

quote:

---

'Mike, they're not pulling those numbers out of a hat.'

​

But it is the 'evo'' side that believes m.y.If the article was non biased it could not mention them. A dead giveaway for an evolutionist based article.

---

Um... mike... have you *ever* read anything from any sort of archaeological journal? You'll find that all but a tiny handfull of archaeologists believe in evolution. Asking for archaeological work that isn't dated is essentially not going to happen in this day in age. It'd be idiotic. If you're going to toss everything that's been dated in some way or another, you're going to toss 99% of fossils out the window.I hope that you do realize that you're arguing against what is a near universal consensus in the scientific community - there are only a handful of archaeologists who ever try and argue otherwise (and many of those are on the payroll of groups like ICR). Like it or not, it's the truth. Check your polls of scientists for belief in creationism if you doubt me (want references?).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-19-2003]

Is this a fit of species or traits? there IS a difference Select Case.
Topobiology of the jaw joint vs the "genes for horns" are ripe tonight. I know herps by traits and THEN by species names not the other way around. Again I will even have to bow out of strictly biological discourse till I catch up.

'And the principles of geology (someone another thread pointed out you could make rough estimates based on observed erosion and sedimentation rates) cannot explain the strata without millions of years'I wonder....... Could this be the same Geology that aimed to get rid of Moses. Because I know a Geologist who works without these glasses on. And he tells me another story that makes tremendous sense. Was it Einstein who said ' when you find the simple solution to a complicated problem you've found God' ? If it was him I have to agree , if it wasn't I don't.

quote:

---

Could this be the same Geology that aimed to get rid of Moses.

---

Okay, I'll bite: how is geology related to Moses?

quote:

---

Because I know a Geologist who works without these glasses on. And he tells me another story that makes tremendous sense.

---

I would love to hear this story. Does it explain why we have all of these transitional species between major animal taxa? Or does it simply ignore them?

If your calling me an idiot I'm hardly going to smile. Nevertheless it was a nice post, and it may get my vote, thankyou for that effort, it was neat set, and interesting aswell. I havent any complaints this time around, just questions. You have answered well.

quote:

---

I wonder....... Could this be the same Geology that aimed to get rid of Moses. Because I know a Geologist who works without these glasses on. And he tells me another story that makes tremendous sense.

---

Actually, you'll find that many (if not most) of the archaeologists working on biblical site digs are christians, jews, and muslims - it's the draw of the holy land, I guess. Your own people are the ones who have failed to find evidence of an exodus, and instead, much evidence to the contrary. For example, many cities that the bible says were conquered in Joshua's time didn't even exist then; others were tiny villages. Some have records of their kings and wars, and indicate nothing special at this time. None have offered anything to indicate that the Exodus is true. But, this is another thread, I'm sure.

quote:

---

Was it Einstein who said ' when you find the simple solution to a complicated problem you've found God' ? If it was him I have to agree , if it wasn't I don't.

---

I can't find any record of that quote anywhere. But, if it was Einstein, you should be well aware that he did not believe in a personal god, or take the bible literally. He believed in a "guided universe" - one where God layed the plans, and the laws of physics as they were created took over. I should add that the physics that he worked with worked on the base of an ancient universe and an old earth, with the most distant stars ranging upwards of billions of light years away, etc.

quote:

---

If your calling me an idiot I'm hardly going to smile. Nevertheless it was a nice post, and it may get my vote, thankyou for that effort, it was neat set, and interesting aswell. I havent any complaints this time around, just questions. You have answered well.

---

No, I'm calling any scientist who wouldn't do radiometric dating on a fossil (where possible) - even if they're one of the 1% or so of professional archaeologists who are creationist - an idiot. You lose credibility if you don't take part in standard procedure. It'd be like me being a researcher who didn't sterilize equipment before culturing bacteria, joining in 1% of researchers who didn't believe in sterilizing equipment before such experiments. Even if I didn't believe in it, I'd be an idiot not to do it - I'd lose all credibility.Time to head home for dinner!------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-19-2003]

'Okay, I'll bite: how is geology related to Moses?'The rules of geology today (I was told by a geologist) were very much intended for 'the present is the key to the past'.Any ideas? [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2003]

This topic seems to be defined such that nothing is off-topic.Go nuts! I hope nothing profound gets buried in the process.It looks that this one will hit the 300 message limit in record time.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Only a Creationist could achieve such vagueness.'hope nothing profound gets buried in the process.'I reckon layers and layers will be buried rapidly despite their differences, in a very short time. In years to come the only explanation will be a long process. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2003]

The "tran" that I am talking about fit the ToE they are simply not on our direct lineage. You need to work a little harder at understanding what you are arguing with.It is simply not possible to create a solid counter argument against something unless you understand what it is you are argueing against first. You are a long, long way from having much of a clue about what you choose not to believe.And could you spell out in detail what "jigsaw" phenomena are?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-19-2003]

quote:

---

The rules of geology today (I was told by a geologist) were very much intended for 'the present is the key to the past'.

---

Sounds sensible to me. Would you rather they just make stuff up?

That's funny, because It was a simple question, yes question. I'm giving YOU the chance to explain it. Did I mistakenly tell you I am a scientist or something Ned?Now how about jigsaw phenomenon?
Are there skulls that wouldn't do 'a line of' much credit?'ToE they are simply not on our direct lineage.'Who decides the lineage?
History or the photographer, if there is jigsaw phenomenon why 'can't' these be in the picture, or are you, like I said fitting the pieces that you want to fit? Name the decider.

Hey this is way off the topic mike but I figured out how to make quotes. type a [ symbol, then qs, then a ] at the begining of what you want to quote. then when you are finished with the quote type [ /qs and ]. Just don't leave spaces inbetween the bars and the qs or /qs .If this doesn't help then look at this post and edit it and you will see how to do it.By the way I am glad to see another creationist on the site.

Just exactly when, Mike, are you actually going to join the discussion. So far you've made a number of posts with no particular content that relates to the questions at hand.If you don't like the dating, go to a dating thread and make clear exactly what is wrong with it. I think you will find that all the apparent rebuttals that you have available to you have been torn to shreds. Given that and the fact that you aren't able to make anything but somewhat irrelevant statments isn't it time you gave up.You do have the choice of saying:
"I know nothing about this, I refuse to look at it, I simply don't believe any of it"
or
"I see what the natural evidence is telling me I simply assume that God chose to make it look like that for His own mysterious reasons"
or
"The bible is one of the messages from God. It tells us some of why we are here and how we are expected to behave. It does not attempt to tell us how God made the universe or how He made it work. It is completely correct in what He intended it for. In other areas I have been misinterpreting it. Sorry about that and thanks for straightening me out on how to read the other message God has given us."