Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Wrong. Why make such an assumption?

This is what happens. Those that take the side of science denial cannot support their claims and make valid arguments in support of those claims, so they incessantly prod others to make their arguments for them. They post nonsense just to keep the rejection on feelings side alive when it has nothing to actually sustain it beyond repetition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I often wonder how a creationist can claim to believe divine creation and reject what was created at the same time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I often wonder how a creationist can claim to believe divine creation and reject what was created at the same time?

They have to deny the evidence, even though they cannot justify it, because even they can see that they are claiming that their own God is a liar.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They have to deny the evidence, even though they cannot justify it, because even they can see that they are claiming that their own God is a liar.

It is certainly a conclusion I can agree with.

The view that God tells us one story through the Bible and a completely different story from the evidence present in the creation makes little sense. It doesn't seem to paint a very good picture of God. I can't imagine how you can develop a cogent theology from such a precarious position.

 

[cladking]

I didn't always know it. I learned about it and then I observed it for myself. I didn't pretend I invented it or created a new species by killing the ones that were landing on my tabletop. I took the time to learn what is already known. But I guess that is too complex for some to carry off.

Most individuals never or rarely land on the underside of furniture in a room. This goes many times over when the furniture is covered in sticky sweet spills and other food.

The new species normally landed on the underside of furniture.

Fly science changes one swat at a time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think claiming to have created a new species without any evidence for doing so is a form of scientism that borders on religion.

Nonsense doesn't change at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe cleaning the table occasionally would remove the flies that can and often do land on the underside of objects.

Good grief, poor hygiene as part of experimental design isn't something to be lauded for.

 

[cladking]

So what do you or did you think a fossil is? Or was?

A fossil is a crystalline or other solid representation of something that had existed. Even a stalactite can be thought of as a fossil of the lowest spot in a cave ceiling where water ran or runs. Anyrhing can fossilize in almost any solid material given proper conditions.

Most believers will define "fossil" as Darwin's theory cast in stone.

 

[cladking]

Good grief, poor hygiene as part of experimental design isn't something to be lauded for.

I had already booted the rats out of the joint. I'm just one man and the entire world is not my responsibility.

I'm ecstatic if I can just keep my little corner of it clean or in shouting distance of godliness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Beavers don't eat fish. I knew that as a child.

 

[Astrophile]

So what do you or did you think a fossil is? Or was?

According the the first paragraph of the definition in The Penguin Dictionary of Geology (first published in 1972), a fossil is 'An organic trace buried by natural processes, and subsequently permanently preserved. The term "organic trace" is here used to include skeletal material, impressions of organisms, excremental material, tracks, trails and borings. Human artifacts are not regarded as fossils.'

The Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences (published in 2003) defines a fossil as 'The remains of a once-living organism, generally taken to be one that lived prior to the end of the last glacial period, i.e. fossils are older than 10 000 years. The term includes skeletons, tracks, impressions, trails, borings and casts. Fossils are usually found in consolidated rock, but not always (e.g. woolly mammoths living 20 000 years ago were recovered from the frozen tundra of Siberia).'

 

[YoursTrue]

According the the first paragraph of the definition in The Penguin Dictionary of Geology (first published in 1972), a fossil is 'An organic trace buried by natural processes, and subsequently permanently preserved. The term "organic trace" is here used to include skeletal material, impressions of organisms, excremental material, tracks, trails and borings. Human artifacts are not regarded as fossils.'

The Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences (published in 2003) defines a fossil as 'The remains of a once-living organism, generally taken to be one that lived prior to the end of the last glacial period, i.e. fossils are older than 10 000 years. The term includes skeletons, tracks, impressions, trails, borings and casts. Fossils are usually found in consolidated rock, but not always (e.g. woolly mammoths living 20 000 years ago were recovered from the frozen tundra of Siberia).'

OK, thank you for that. So a fossil, according to that definition, is an organic trace buried ... by natural processes (that leaves much open to understand about being buried by natural processes, however, I'm willing to wait). I'd like to know if the sentence above "The term "organic trace" is here used to include skeletal material," etc. is from the dictionary definition? I tried looking for the Penguin Dictionary of Geology online but couldn't find it accessible.
I see that fossil apparently refers to something organic, not like a piece of pottery.

 

[Astrophile]

I'd like to know if the sentence above "The term "organic trace" is here used to include skeletal material," etc. is from the dictionary definition?

Yes, it is from the dictionary definition.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it is from the dictionary definition.

OK, I'd have to look more into what organic trace means. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They have to deny the evidence, even though they cannot justify it, because even they can see that they are claiming that their own God is a liar.

Regarding the fossil evidence, it isn't just the evidence of individual fossils that support the theory of evolution. It is that more recent fossils do not match the extant species of today and the further back you go, the older fossils are not evidence for the same species as the more recent fossils. As you move backwards through the fossil record, species drop out and there is no evidence they exist in increasingly older strata. So fossils are not just evidence that something once lived, died and left evidence of its existence behind. And it isn't just finding the fossils, it is the locations that are also relevant. Some fossils are found in some parts of the world and not others. Some fossils that are morphologically similar to modern tropical species are found in association with other indications of a tropical environment in places that are not now tropical. So fossils can indicate not only change in species, but change in ecosystems or geographical position. Of course, this is all based on evidence and there is no proof. But since it has been stated innumerable times so that all should know by now, proof is not a standard of science. Of course, it isn't a standard of religion either.

Paleontologists also do not claim that the sequence of fossils demonstrating gradual morphological change over time are a direct linear, ancestral, relationship. The important morphological evolution is still indicated by the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it is from the dictionary definition.

By the way, do you know what organic trace means?

 

[YoursTrue]

Beavers don't eat fish. I knew that as a child.

That's good. Maybe I read that but forgot it. They build dams, however. Now I learned that beavers are herbivores. I didn't know that! Nice to know. Although they build dams.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's good. Maybe I read that but forgot it. They build dams, however. Now I learned that beavers are herbivores. I didn't know that! Nice to know. Although they build dams.

No thanks. I don't want to engage. I'm just observing patterns.

 

[gnostic]

That's good. Maybe I read that but forgot it. They build dams, however. Now I learned that beavers are herbivores. I didn't know that! Nice to know. Although they build dams.

The intention isn’t to build any dam, YoursTrue. They are building protective shelters/homes for themselves.

Yes, the structure may seemed to be like a “dam”, but the purpose is that build up of water would serve to provide beavers some levels of safety/security against predators. They would enter their “lodge” through underwater entrance.

They would also store food inside their home, such as leaves, flowers, roots, grasses, weeds, and even barks.

cladking’s idea that the dams serve as “fish farms” only demonstrated his ignorance, not realizing that beavers don’t eat fishes. The very idea that were farming fishes, is ludicrous claim.

I have noticed that @cladking have never admitted his errors, when @Dan From Smithville have corrected him a number of times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The intention isn’t to build any dam, YoursTrue. They are building protective shelters/homes for themselves.

Yes, the structure may seemed to be like a “dam”, but the purpose is that build up of water would serve to provide beavers some levels of safety/security against predators. They would enter their “lodge” through underwater entrance.

They would also store food inside their home, such as leaves, flowers, roots, grasses, weeds, and even barks.

cladking’s idea that the dams serve as “fish farms” only demonstrated his ignorance, not realizing that beavers don’t eat fishes. The very idea that were farming fishes, is ludicrous claim.

I have noticed that @cladking have never admitted his errors, when @Dan From Smithville have corrected him a number of times.

I thought that it was time for some humor, but I could not even find a meme of a beaver eating a fish. This will have to serve its place: