Irony of the evolutionary belief

[blü 2]

I am saying that the article you linked does not state that lava can move sediment.
In other words, it does not support your claim.

YoursTrue's Link #3739 above says in paragraph 1 of the Introduction,

Sediment is carried from the volcano to the sea to be stored for a time in subaqueous borderland environments, and then remobilized and carried into deep marine basins (Fisher, 1984). During times of quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and volcanic epiclastic sediment are remobilized by similar flow transformations (Walton, 1979).​

Is that not to the point?

 

[Charles Philips]

Then they'll be poor very fast if they are honest.
But they aren't off course.
In fact, I bet they got rich by tax-free donations from their fanboys.



Newsflash: youtube clips are edited. And comfort has been caught with his pants down multiple times with dishonest editing.
Try a science publication instead of dishonest youtube clips.

Your "argument by youtube" isn't impressing anyone.



Tiktaalik is not mysterious nor is it a secret.
It's one of the best known transitional fossils around, partly due to its significance in evolutionary history and in part because of the sheer impressiveness of how it was found.

Neither of which you know about, obviously.
You might want to look it up.

Meanwhile, still no explanation fo why you (or rather: your creationist overlords) think it doesn't count as a transition.

Note that you asked for a transitional and then received an answer. Note now that you are doing your outmost best to not discuss it.
Is this an example of that honest upright christian behavior I keep hearing about?



it is.



it did.



Please. Nothing would stop creationist. Just like nothing would stop flat earthers.
Their position is based on religious faith, not on evidence.
So no amount of evidence is ever going to change their mind.

Also, don't forget that the income of these creationists literally depend on advancing their creationist propaganda.
Telling their flock "we were wrong" would instantly mean an end to their "seminars" and book sales and youtube channel income.

This is not the case with a scientist. In fact, stubbornly sticking to an idea that is demonstrably wrong will in fact accomplish the opposite of keeping their jobs.
A scientist's income depends on the advancement of knowledge, not on upholding the status quo.



Try actually explaining why you think this fossil isn't a transitional.
This off course means that you will first have to look it up and actually read about it.
I know you are scared of learning. But give it a shot.

None of that has been independently examined or evaluated, so it's a false religion in my view.

 

[Charles Philips]

Yes, much like natural disasters. The well educated clean up the mess creationists make.

Yes, like bacterial infections.

Creationists already lost, as they don't have evidence, and fail due to unwarranted assumptions about their religious stories. We see the well educated constantly correct the errors that creationsits make, and then the creationists deny what science and reason concludes. And let's not forget, creationism is complete fraud. There are no universities doing creationist work. There are no biolabs doing creationist research on the mutations of bacterias and virus so new vaccines can be made. There are no creationist science labs at all. All there are is office spaces rented where creationist disinformation is written. And then it's sold to gullible Christians, and even some Muslims. So what battle is being won, except the battle against Christians being well educated?

You bet, the return to witch trials and executions, because that's what Jesus taught.

Opinions are like blank blanks, everyone has one. The problem we have is, there's no arbitrator or referee, to tell us who the liars are. so we just have to agree to disagree and call it a dead rubber stale mate. No winners here, just mutual losers

 

[leroy]

You don't even know what your words mean, you just copy and paste something that sounds like what you think you are trying to say.

Irrelevant . Even if true , that shouldn't stop you from quoting my mistakes

 

[leroy]

You are describing the weak anthropic principle, if the values were not close to what they are we wouldn't be here. It took you several posts to recognize the triviality of this statement.
As with that this flies over your head.

Again this tendency of quoting my posts and make an irrelevant comment is tedious

 

[leroy]

Not in the sense that you try to use the argument. And you keep forgetting that you do not understand the argument in the first place.

I will probably have to remind you again and again.

Granted I dont understand your strawman version of the argument

 

[Charles Philips]

You aren't well informed on science. You don't even seem well informed on creationism, which these days is called Intelligent Design.

Creationists used to insist on the Ussher timeline where the earth and universe is only 6000 years old. After they tried to make the history of geology and biology fit into 6000 years they eventually started oving it to about 10,000 years. Well what is the point? The only reason to claim a young earth is to fit the Ussher timeline. If they can't mak that fit, then forget it.

So the classic YEC ceationism started to be changed to ID, and the old universe (as scientists discovered) was accepted. But Christian literalists still tried to find someplace in science to shoehorn their God into. And that is where the Kool Aid comes in. All the fraud created by AiG and the Discovery Institute, who don't do science, just invent disinformation to sell to gullible Christians.

You didn't set aside your religious bias, which is a major flaw in your approach.

Well, you need to set aside your Atheist religion before you can see the forest through the trees. There are much smarter people that you and I debating this issue, why don't you take advantage of their knowledge and wisdom and have a look at their work.

Then you may be qualified to comment on the subject, as it is now, you're just having an emotional, irrational, reaction to being exposed.

You would greatly benefit by checking out; answersingenesis.com and creation.com

 

[leroy]

Oh that explains his false claims of "support" by scientists. I do not think that creationists do this on purpose. It also explains how he gets the argument wrong. In the weak anthropic principle no one is even proposing that the values could be different. The Fine Tuna argument does propose that. That is where the "tuning" comes from. I am sure that you know that. This is more for watchers and maybe @leroy .

Sean Carroll is my favorite example as I linked the video where he agued against the FTA against Low Bar Bill. And yet he and another source that looks as if he made the same mistake said that Sean Carroll supports it.


One more time for the hard of reading:

The weak anthropic principle is not the Fine Tuning Argument.

Sean Carroll is my favorite...

Well Sean Carol doest make the nonsense argument that you are making
"That the argument assumes that the values could be different "

 

[Charles Philips]

Source please
meaning a list of these rich Christian scientists.


This is nothing more than an already fully refuted bold face lie.


None of the fossils presented to creationists that further demonstrate the truth of evolution is accepted.
You know why the "missing link" will never be found?
It is because once they are found, they are no longer missing.

We're all waiting to make someone very rich. There should be millions of transitional fossils, but you have found a big fat zero of the millions available hmmmmm bit sus

 

[Charles Philips]

Really?
When are your posts going to reflect it?


View attachment 91079


Again, when are your posts going to start reflecting the "truth" of this claim?

There's no point in listing the thousands of sources, you don't even consider anything unless it passes the pseudo science muster

 

[Pogo]

By this time, I'm beginning to think that some people will see through you. Meantime, many sources say that lava can move sediment. Would you like the links?

Yes, what is this about an insignificant effect on world geology that you so love to harp about?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I know.
And you said you can provide links that lava can move sediment.
I replied that I would like to see your links because I am unable to find anything that says lava can move sediment.

I found a few that referenced underwater lava formations but same question here.

 

[Pogo]

OK. Here's one: https://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/facies.htm#:~:text=Sediment is carried from the,basins (Fisher, 1984).

Oh jeez. from before the part in the first paragraph your Google search highlighted. (1) active volcanism produces abundant sediment.
This article is about how the sedimentary material produced by volcanos is deposited in the nonvolcanic sedimentary layers.
I would say that it doesn't evidence whatever you are claiming, but we have no idea what you are even claiming.
What are you claiming that might be evidence of what?

 

[Pogo]

So you are understanding that to mean that lava cannot or does not at times move sediment or affect the surface of what had been on the earth's surface before the lava flow?

Reading Is Fundamental - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pogo]

Well, you need to set aside your Atheist religion before you can see the forest through the trees. There are much smarter people that you and I debating this issue, why don't you take advantage of their knowledge and wisdom and have a look at their work.

Then you may be qualified to comment on the subject, as it is now, you're just having an emotional, irrational, reaction to being exposed.

You would greatly benefit by checking out; answersingenesis.com and creation.com

Like Ray Comfort who apologized for the video you posted before removing it from circulation and later claiming it was supposed to be a joke.

Is this how you do science, because it is not the way anybody else does it including God believing scientists of all faiths.

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.[note 4]

Answers in Genesis-Creation Ministries International's Statement of Faith

Copyright AiG: copied for purposes of criticism or mockery (most likely mockery). The original document can be found on the official AiG website.[1] The same document exists at Creation Ministries International.[2]

rationalwiki.org

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying that the article you linked does not state that lava can move sediment.
In other words, it does not support your claim.

Here is another one about sediment. "For an organism to be fossilized, the remains usually need to be covered by sediment soon after death. Sediment can include the sandy seafloor, lava, and even sticky tar. Over time, minerals in the sediment seep into the remains. The remains become fossilized." Fossil

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh jeez. from before the part in the first paragraph your Google search highlighted. (1) active volcanism produces abundant sediment.
This article is about how the sedimentary material produced by volcanos is deposited in the nonvolcanic sedimentary layers.
I would say that it doesn't evidence whatever you are claiming, but we have no idea what you are even claiming.
What are you claiming that might be evidence of what?

Here is more about formation of fossils, which was the subject under discussion:
"Fossils are formed in many different ways, but most are formed when a living organism (such as a plant or animal) dies and is quickly buried by sediment (such as mud, sand or volcanic ash)." How do fossils form?).

 

[McBell]

We're all waiting to make someone very rich. There should be millions of transitional fossils, but you have found a big fat zero of the millions available hmmmmm bit sus

Again all talk and no substance,

For someone who whines so much about "opinion" you do not hesitate to prove that that is all you offer.

 

[McBell]

There's no point in listing the thousands of sources, you don't even consider anything unless it passes the pseudo science muster

Yet another all talk no substance.

Rather difficult to take you seriously.

 

[McBell]

Opinions are like blank blanks, everyone has one. The problem we have is, there's no arbitrator or referee, to tell us who the liars are. so we just have to agree to disagree and call it a dead rubber stale mate. No winners here, just mutual losers

The liars are the ones who repeated voice their opinon as though they are facts but run tail tucked when asked for support of their claims.

You know, like you have done from day one.