Irony of the evolutionary belief

[McBell]

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

That you think it irrelevant reveals that you are either to ignorant of the topic to have a meaningful discussion with on the topic
or
your your being dishonest to the point of not being able to have an honest discussion with on the topic.

 

[McBell]

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?

the article is talking about volcanic sediment, aka lava.
Yes, lava moves lava sediment.
Especially lava tunnels.

So if this redundancy is what the goal was moved to....

 

[McBell]

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

This one does not mention lava moving sediment.
It would help if you were to actually read the articles before presenting them as supporting your claim.

 

[Pogo]

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?).

Yes fossils are covered in sediment in many ways in their formation, including under volcanic layers which can be lava directly or smaller particles which directly cover (Pompei) or are transported to an indirect area.(your link)
None of this has to do with lava itself moving sediment which is like the cookie dough moving the flour on the baking sheet.

 

[Valjean]

Well, you need to set aside your Atheist religion before you can see the forest through the trees.

How is atheism a religion? It has no doctrine, no liturgy, no scripture, no teachings, no clergy, no goal, and no ritual; in short: no beliefs. How is a lack of doctrine or belief constitute a religion?

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.

I'm familiar with the usual apologetic arguments. Their flaws have been pointed out thousands of times. Theists have not met their burden.

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

The logical errors, factual errors, and flawed evidence from these sites is constantly being pointed out. We're familiar with the "evidence," You haven't answered our refutations.

 

[wellwisher]

This is one of your more readable posts. But nothing explains how you ended up with extremist views, and believing in conspiracy theories and right wing disinformation. The vast majority of your posts are unreadable because they are so rampant with disinformation and falsehoods that any repy is just a list of corrections. It's your job to be a critical thinker who is properly informed with reputable sources. I love to debate issues, but I am tired of being a fact checker for those indifferent to what's true.

My position is different from everyone; both sides of the issue. The Atheists want to lump my unique angles as Right wing bias, since it is not 100% their party line. The Creationists are less judgmental even though I also depart from their party line.

I look at the symbolism of Creation, as connected to the evolution of human consciousness, more than connected to human biology. This is based on first hand knowledge of the operating system of the brain; inner self outward. This premise makes more sense, since the biological premise for Creation does not jive with the science data. I agree with the long term earth science data. However, I do not think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater; Creation symbolism. Rather I believe we should repurpose the creation symbolism, since it is more in line with the evolution of the modern human brain's operating system. This approach is unique and developed independently.

The dating of Genesis is calculated to be about 6000 years by adding the records of bible genealogy. This bible time scale corresponds with the science based carbon dating of two pivotal changes; invention of written language and the rise of permanent civilization. Both of these changes are brain and consciousness related They are not exactly biology related. The invention of writing, improved the memory by adding an external hard-drive made of data on permanent stone tablets.

The net effect was Natural instinct and Darwinian natural selection, for humans, suddenly changes. Now it had to include more manmade selections in persistent unnatural manmade environments; civilization. Written language reinforced this new layer of selection; as it was written so it shall be done for many generations. The written stories of Creation, have been around for thousands of years, and they still imposed ancient selected advantages on various human circles, even today. This may be written on the DNA due to millennia of conscious selection. It did impact the operating system of the brain.

In terms of science and evolution; biology and evolution, my beef is not with the conceptual framework of Darwinian Evolution; natural selection or the advances in biology. One can look at nature and see the effect of natural potentials like cold or hot on species characteristics. Where I differ is I do not accept the black box approach of statistics. This approach for life has a fatal flaw. Cells have conservative areas of the DNA that are less likely to mutate, compared to other areas on the DNA, which are more variable. This means the genetic dice are loaded. How does the math of dice and cards, factor in loaded dice, which alter purely random odds?

Knowing this tradition is still used by thousands of scientists, who may not even realize the fatal flaw, I decided to leave the herd and develop an alternate way to explain the same things, using water as my main variable. Water is everywhere and touches everything in life. Water has the capacity to reflect the organic surfaces, and even impose repeatable (not random) organic packing and folding shapes. It can also move information within its 3-D hydrogen bonding network. The water approach, is life and evolution in one variable, and about how water loads the dice; now approaching 1.0; equilibrium spell check enzymes to proofread and correct.

I sense many people defending a political position and ignoring their flawed math approach.

 

[Pogo]

That you think it irrelevant reveals that you are either to ignorant of the topic to have a meaningful discussion with on the topic
or
your your being dishonest to the point of not being able to have an honest discussion with on the topic.

Being a failed Unitarian I don't have any particular belief in the alternatives you have presented.

 

[Valjean]

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

When is a fossil "transitional?" Why do we need to examine every footprint in a round-the-world hike to recognize what we're seeing?
Where are the transitional dialects between proto Indo-European and Russian or English? Maybe these also just popped into existence, fully formed, by magic.

I get the impression you think fossils are easily formed and easily found. They're not.

 

[Valjean]

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

The sources all present the same arguments and evidence. Their maths remains erroneous, as we repeatedly point out.

 

[Valjean]

Yes fossils are covered in sediment in many ways in their formation, including under volcanic layers which can be lava directly or smaller particles which directly cover (Pompei) or are transported to an indirect area.(your link)
None of this has to do with lava itself moving sediment which is like the cookie dough moving the flour on the baking sheet.

Lava tends to incinerate any organic material it contacts.

 

[leroy]

That you think it irrelevant reveals that you are either to ignorant of the topic to have a meaningful discussion with on the topic
or
your your being dishonest to the point of not being able to have an honest discussion with on the topic.

and your commitment to defend Pogo reveals that you are a fanatic atheist willing to defend your tribe even when they are obviously wrong

your your being dishonest to the point of not being able to have an honest discussion with on the topic

how can i have an honest discssion with @Pogo if everytime i make a comment he responds with an unrelated claim? and even more important, why do you condone this behavior when it is clearly a dishonest tactic to evade diffucult questions and challneges?

Atheism might no be a religion, but some atheist act like fanatics in a cult.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's a question. Did the universe have a beginning? Did it come about by natural circumstances, whatever they would be? If there was no universe, would you and I be alive?

I am saying that what is taken as evidence by some for the supposedly very slow process of mutations leading from fish to land animals is obviously not substantiated by any type of real time observations, only suppositions which hitherto cannot be supported by actual showing of fish, for example, slowly, very slowly developing (or evolving) to landlubbers.

For the 901st time now ... MUDSKIPPERS.
Please, I implore you to learn something, take in new information and think about it. It doesn't hurt, I promise.

I can only say that the entire embodiment or principle of arguing pro evolution with or without FT becomes insane. Insanity has no real defense or cogent explanation. Nothing personal. So carry on and have fun. And I don't think pro evolutionists will readily agree but that's the way it is. Might as well figure maybe the universe started from nothing, maybe it didn't. Maybe as Dr. Hawking said, that's the way humans see it. Can't be the way squirrels see it. Here's for a few here who go to church, say they believe in God and evolution at the same time...chip chip.

Biological evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the universe. For the 902nd time now. Hawking was a physicist and a cosmologist. NOT a biologist. No idea why you keep quoting him in a thread about evolution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing than your own opinion, pal.

NO, your lack of any real understanding of the sciences in question have been demonstrated repeatedly by your own posts.

 

[leroy]

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

the lack (or scarcity) of transitional fossils, is a real issue for the theory of evolution, (common ancestry) but this is a minor problem compared to the tons and tons of positive evidence in favor of this theory.

as an analogy, Imagine that John murdered Tom, there is DNA evidence, video recordings, finger prints expert studies, etc. all confirming thatg John is guilty.....
Now imagine that we only have few eye witnesses (not as many as we would expect) this would be a strange thing, but it wold be just a minor issue, not important enough to trump all the evidnce that suggests that John is guilty.

in this analogy, transitional fossils would be analogous to testimonies, sure we dont have as many as we would expect, but it is not a big of a deal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Being a failed Unitarian I don't have any particular belief in the alternatives you have presented.

Curious - what drove you away from the Unitarian church? I was just reading about their beliefs on wiki and find them very interesting.

 

[F1fan]

Opinions are like blank blanks, everyone has one.

Thanks for your confession.

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

That's why being well educated and having critical thinking skills allows oneself to have discipline and accurate frameworks.

Well, you need to set aside your Atheist religion ...

Atheism isn't a religion. It seems you haven't thought through this claim, and that religions can be wrong.

... 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.

I do. You're not one of them. You're an example of what happens when a person lacks critical thinking skill.

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.

This looks to be projection, and common among theists who get trapped by their own beliefs in open debate.

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

I have, and they are anti-reason, anti-science, and complete fraud.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One more comment before I go now -- and it's been interesting chatting with you--

Warm water lured landlubber animals back to sea

Vertebrates moved out of the sea and onto land once, 365 million years ago, but many animals later went back – only when the water was warm, though

www.newscientist.com

See? Could be that "landlubbers" that came from water went back TO water after a while... Now if you believe that -- all I can say now is have a good day.

We'll leave it to you, then, to explain why whales have vestigial hip bones.

 

[YoursTrue]

the lack (or scarcity) of transitional fossils, is a real issue for the theory of evolution, (common ancestry) but this is a minor problem compared to the tons and tons of positive evidence in favor of this theory.

as an analogy, Imagine that John murdered Tom, there is DNA evidence, video recordings, finger prints expert studies, etc. all confirming thatg John is guilty.....
Now imagine that we only have few eye witnesses (not as many as we would expect) this would be a strange thing, but it wold be just a minor issue, not important enough to trump all the evidnce that suggests that John is guilty.

in this analogy, transitional fossils would be analogous to testimonies, sure we dont have as many as we would expect, but it is not a big of a deal.

One would think that with the so-called transitional fossils there would be more substance to the fossil record, but really there are not. There were no video cameras following fish around to show over the said millions of years how fish grew mutated legs and eventually flopped out on land and became land-dwellers.

 

[F1fan]

the lack (or scarcity) of transitional fossils, is a real issue for the theory of evolution, (common ancestry) but this is a minor problem compared to the tons and tons of positive evidence in favor of this theory.

No it isn't. If you look at this serioes of numbers you can see a pattern:

5 7 8 9 13 15 16 18 20 22 23 24 27 29 31 33 34 36 37 40 42 44 45 46 48 49 51

What you creationists are claiming is that since there are numbers missing that no one can determine a pattern. You are demanding that all the numbers be presented for anyone to claim that a pattern exists.

And there are hundreds of thousands of these kinds of patterns in the fossil record, all of which are consistent with each other.

So you are victim of creationist fraud that tries to minimize the vast number of examples which show a distinct pattern of evolution all over the planet. Creationism works to break down the number of fossils to smaller examples, and then tries to diminish the fossil lineage because there is not a complete sequence of examples. You perpetuate fraud. That's on you.

 

[F1fan]

One would think that with the so-called transitional fossils there would be more substance to the fossil record, but really there are not. There were no video cameras following fish around to show over the said millions of years how fish grew mutated legs and eventually flopped out on land and became land-dwellers.

So sayeth a person who believes in a God not known to exist, who performed magic that can't be detected, and rejects science that follows evidence all over the planet showing evolution is real. You also perpetuate fraud.