How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible, baby.

The Bible baby is evidence that you are the person bringing religion into the discussion.

 

[dwb001]

So instead of actually supporting your claim, you are going to try to divert attention from your complete failure to support your claim?

I am not going to create a doctoral paper from scratch for your entertainment. Ask a question and I will answer it as I can. I am asked for my entire idea of matching Biblical creation with observable evidence.... I can not. Question answered... not satisfactory but there you have it.

Lemme guess, "GodDidIt" right?

 

[dwb001]

The Bible baby is evidence that you are the person bringing religion into the discussion.

Not with you I didn't. Keep up, please.

 

[McBell]

I am not going to create a doctoral paper from scratch for your entertainment. Ask a question and I will answer it as I can. I am asked for my entire idea of matching Biblical creation with observable evidence.... I can not. Question answered... not satisfactory but there you have it.

More excuses.
it seems you cannot support your claim.
I mean, with all the song and dance as to why you can not....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Recorded history.

So, you don't have one. Got it.

Generally agreed to limit the possible if favour of the naturally probable.

Show us your demonstration of miracles and that they are naturally probable. Keeping in mind that something that is naturally probable wouldn't fit the definition of miracle of something unnatural and improbable.

Not circular reasoning.

I think that you will find that is not correct, but I do not see you acknowledging that given what you have provided so far.

I am not drawing a conclusion from the premise.

Again, I disagree.

I am asking for a fair hearing... something you appear to not be willing to give.

The claims that you are making are old and have had their fair hearing for decades. What you are not offering fair hearing of science. I think what you mean by "fair hearing" is that your claims should go unchallenged and should be swallowed whole without evaluation or any need for demonstration on your part.

That is one possibility... but what about all the trees scoured from the soil and floating in continent sized rafts? So we now have a filtering mechanism.

Bottom dwellers like shells would be buried first then fish in a surprise sand shift... the smaller creatures poor at swimming, followed be larger predators that could survive upon the forested mat.

We have mini models of this event at Spirit Lake. Coal seams forming from bark with vertical trees embedded into the silt.

What? Nonsense. If a worldwide flood took place 4300 years ago, we should be able to find that layer all over the earth just as @Subduction Zone indicated. We do not. There would be no sorting. This idea of yours had its fair hearing a long time ago and was refuted.

Just because those that want different outcome persist does not re-establish refuted positions.

I have... you reject it out of hand.

I have seen your claims, but no testable hypotheses offered.

Like what? What claims have I made? How are said claims irrational?

Good grief! That is about all you have done is make claims. And claims based on things not in evidence.

 

[dwb001]

Show me. Put up the evidence you are using.

Same evidence that evolutionists use.

The evidence doesn't support your claims.

What do you bass that opinion on?

It is as much a denial given the failure of the interpretations as outright denial.

????????????

The subject was fossils in support of theory and you started talking about eyewitness accounts in that context without providing any of your own context. Do we need to continue this fruitless line of inquiry of the obvious?

maybe. I have no idea what you point is but do go on.

Show me what an evolutionist is and that they do the same thing as literalist creationists.

Have bias. It is a human constant.

You didn't qualify that in your first posts, so it was confusing. You haven't established that you do have eyewitness testimony.

then ask questions.

The evidence that we are talking about and you are claiming you have too.

It does not. Show us that it does.

Ah yes, the last bastion of the flawed poster is to blame the other guy.

You first. It is your argument that you have it and that science is wrong. Your claims. Your burden of proof.

Ah yes, more of the insults and venom of the literalist creationist that is always the victim here.

I'm on the boat. I see you thrashing about there in the water. I'll throw you a lifesaver. What flavor do you like?

Sure you are. You keep saying it is only a matter of interpretation. I'm guessing you have heard that claim before and didn't explore the validity of it at all.

You mention the Bible repeatedly and that it is a true eyewitness account. Give me us a break.

no

Don't care. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion and isn't evidence for your claims.

because it is about the secondary topic.

are you not following along?

Don't care. Not evidence supporting your claims.

Opinion

Please stop treating me like an idiot when you cannot support your own claims.

what claims?

You brought it up. Not me.

What? Please be clear. Your responses are difficult to decipher.

same

Are you a scientist questioning the foundations of science or are you someone with a religious view that is claiming that view is factual. Considering that you are making claims about a book that is the basis of a theology and calling inerrant seems to be in favor of the latter.

Irrelevant.

 

[dwb001]

More excuses.
it seems you cannot support your claim.
I mean, with all the song and dance as to why you can not....

What claim? Ask specific questions and you will get.my beat answer. As general questions and you will get very unsatisfactory answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not with you I didn't. Keep up, please.

Please leave the grade school rhetoric, literalist tactics and unjustified sense of superiority out of your responses. They are of no use, despite the consistency with pre-existing views.

I am well up with this discussion that you seem to be brand new to.

You have claimed the Bible and a religious position on this subject on this forum. Not explicitly doing that with every person in opposition to your unevidenced views does not wipe that a way.

Good grief, where did you learn how to discuss and debate?

 

[dwb001]

Please leave the grade school rhetoric, literalist tactics and unjustified sense of superiority out of your responses. They are of no use, despite the consistency with pre-existing views.

I believe I qualified my statement about religion in this conversation using the recently qualifier.

I am well up with this discussion that you seem to be brand new to.

Good.for you. I dont even recall what this conversation is about. I just respond. So if you are not liking my posts... look to your own content as i am only responding to that.

You have claimed the Bible and a religious position on this subject on this forum. Not explicitly doing that with every person in opposition to your unevidenced views does not wipe that a way.

i qualified my statements with you... you chose to ignore the qualifiers. Or if i missed it i am sorry.

Good grief, where did you learn how to discuss and debate?

The sparky answer would be "from your mama" but I will take the high road and say... from life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Same evidence that evolutionists use.

If you can't show us this evidence and how your interpretation of it is superior, then you have done nothing.

What do you bass that opinion on?

The failure, as here, of those claiming it. You haven't supported your claims, so you haven't really gotten to the point of using evidence much at all for this particular attempt, but all other attempts that I have seen over the last 30 years have failed.

????????????

You haven't done any interpretation. Just made claims

maybe. I have no idea what you point is but do go on.

I know that you do not. But do go on.

Have bias. It is a human constant.

Your projection is noted by this example. Please explain what this is supposed to mean in the context of my question.

then ask questions.

I have been. It is not my fault that the answers are insufficient and rely on base tactics to stay afloat.

no

Yes. You are making the claims. It is your responsibility to support them.

because it is about the secondary topic.

are you not following along?

Opinion

what claims?

same

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant nonsense that I have come to expect when it is clear the claimant cannot meet their obligation and that they know it too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe I qualified my statement about religion in this conversation using the recently qualifier.

I don't believe you qualified your statement about religion in this conversation using the recently qualifier.

Good.for you. I dont even recall what this conversation is about.

It doesn't seem like that is much change from your first post.

I just respond.

Me too. I don't expect you to support your claims, so there isn't much else to do. Perhaps to see how long you will prolong this.

So if you are not liking my posts... look to your own content as i am only responding to that.

Once again, blaming others for your failings is not a rational response and it indicative of what I would naturally expect here.

i qualified my statements with you... you chose to ignore the qualifiers. Or if i missed it i am sorry.

I have ignored nothing. I haven't gotten anything from you either except your belief that you can wiggle out of your responsibilities by making this about some alleged failure on my part that doesn't exist.

The sparky answer would be "from your mama" but I will take the high road and say... from life.

Of course. Passive aggression isn't unexpected here either.

Your techniques are wanting.

 

[McBell]

What claim?

This one:

The Bible is an accurate accounting of early events.

At least, that is one of your many claims that I am interested in.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More excuses.
it seems you cannot support your claim.
I mean, with all the song and dance as to why you can not....

That is my expectation and it is being fulfilled.

 

[dwb001]

If you can't show us this evidence and how your interpretation of it is superior, then you have done nothing.

What evidence... be specific.

The failure, as here, of those claiming it. You haven't supported your claims, so you haven't really gotten to the point of using evidence much at all for this particular attempt, but all other attempts that I have seen over the last 30 years have failed.

What claims? Be specific.

You haven't done any interpretation. Just made claims

What claims?

I know that you do not. But do go on.

Your projection is noted by this example. Please explain what this is supposed to mean in the context of my question.

I have been. It is not my fault that the answers are insufficient and rely on base tactics to stay afloat.

Not using tactics. Just responding.

Yes. You are making the claims. It is your responsibility to support them.

What claims?

Irrelevant nonsense that I have come to expect when it is clear the claimant cannot meet their obligation and that they know it too.

I may not be able to provide a satisfactory answer... and I will admit to that... will you?

 

[dwb001]

This one:



At least, that is one of your many claims that I am interested in.

What about it?

Thanks for finally getting a actual claim.
Like pulling hens teeth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What claim? Ask specific questions and you will get.my beat answer. As general questions and you will get very unsatisfactory answers.

We still need to see your demonstration that the Bible or at least Genesis is a verified depiction of historical events. You haven't done this yet.

Then, you have to demonstrate that a global flood is possible as we understand flooding and physics. You haven't done that yet either.

Then you have to establish that Noah was a real person involved in a real event. One more thing you haven't done.

Then you need to show that the evidence you claim is the same for all is the same evidence that is being used to come to different conclusions. I hate to belabor the obvious, but you haven't done that either.

Then you need to show that this evidence is consistent with a global flood as described in the Bible that you declare, but do not show, is historical fact. Once more, not something that you have even tried.

Then...

 

[dwb001]

I don't believe you qualified your statement about religion in this conversation using the recently qualifier.

It doesn't seem like that is much change from your first post.

Me too. I don't expect you to support your claims, so there isn't much else to do. Perhaps to see how long you will prolong this.

Once again, blaming others for your failings is not a rational response and it indicative of what I would naturally expect here.

I have ignored nothing. I haven't gotten anything from you either except your belief that you can wiggle out of your responsibilities by making this about some alleged failure on my part that doesn't exist.

Of course. Passive aggression isn't unexpected here either.

Your techniques are wanting.

So I don't have to claim anything nor support any claim I do make.

Thanks for that license. I will continue as long as needed. I usually get banned after a few days... so we will see how long we can continue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What evidence... be specific.

Oh no. You be specific. Stop trying to shirk your responsibilities.

What claims? Be specific.

Oh no. You be specific. They are your claims and it shouldn't require that we need to point out that YOU need to support them. No more games. If you can't do it as most suspect is the case, then just say so. Intellectual honesty is a virtue.

What claims?

Your claims. Do you need help remembering them? Perhaps you might need to take a break.

Not using tactics. Just responding.

I disagree. You have used several tactics including attempts at belittling and superiority that are inconsistent with your actual contribution here.

What claims?

Your claims. Just more games huh? That is what I expected, but I had high hopes you might be different. Not really.

I may not be able to provide a satisfactory answer... and I will admit to that... will you?

I haven't made any claims that I haven't had satisfactory support for, but if that happens, sure. It is consistent with my beliefs and scientific integrity to do so.

This misguided attempt to bring others down to a level is noted along with its failure to thrive.

 

[McBell]

What about it?

Thanks for finally getting a actual claim.
Like pulling hens teeth.

Support it.

And pulling hens teeth thus far seems to be much easier than getting you to support your claims...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So I don't have to claim anything nor support any claim I do make.

Thanks for that license. I will continue as long as needed. I usually get banned after a few days... so we will see how long we can continue.

Of course, when you can't do or teach, you think the best response is to run?