New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[dad]

No, you aren't. As you keep demonstrating post after post

You need to demonstrate you know the difference.

 

[dad]

The geological column the fossils are found in.
Geological formations.

Nothing to do with your beliefs.
A geological column is just a name for various layers. It is not a prediction to note what sorts of animals died in the various layers, and 'predict' that is probably the sort we will find in those layers in the future also.
As for formations, name some predictions about what formations we should find, and why?

The dating mechanisms.

That basically mostly refers to ratios of isotopes. Noting that larger or fewer percentages of isotopes do exist in various layers is not a prediction. It is an observation! Once we see the pattern exists it is no prediction to say that we would see the same pattern in the various layers as previously observed there! Of course there was a changing pattern over time. That does not tell us why.
The ONLY thing that you think tells us why is that a certain process chain happens now, in this present nature, and you assume all layers got the ratios BY this nature and its processes.

I note that religious scriptures and myths are a dime a dozen and have never contributed anything to any understanding about reality about anything.

I note that the reason man still lives on the planet is because of the hundreds of fulfilled prophesies that Jesus would come to save us. I note that hearts are changed by words of God.

 

[dad]

There is no reason to believe they have.

Why would I ask someone with different beliefs what there may or not be a reason to believe? Believe what you like. Do not pretend those beliefs are knowledge or truth or science in any real sense of the word.

 

[dad]

You assume that a leaf has to come from a tree]

Where did you think olive branches and leaves come from?

We assume that radioactive decay products come from radioactive decay.

That could only be true as long as there was radioactivity and the fundamental forces in place that now exist. That must be proven first. If all you want to do is make a claim that ratios were affected for a few thousand years, fine. That dating is great. We know this present nature existed that long and longer.

When you can deny that radioactive decay products come from radioactive decay,

No one did that. Of course in this nature, we observe a process of decay.

I will deny that leaves have to come from trees (let alone trees that have grown in a week).

So you seem to be saying your denial is a joke.

The ability to invoke magic is only fun if others don't have the ability.

Science does not deal in anything but the present nature and physical world. The issue is not whether the poor sods declare anything else 'magic' or not. The issue is whether they can prove that this nature always existed on earth and always will. Otherwise, ALL their models and predictions about the far past and future are truly garbage.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing to do with your beliefs.
A geological column is just a name for various layers. It is not a prediction to note what sorts of animals died in the various layers, and 'predict' that is probably the sort we will find in those layers in the future also.
As for formations, name some predictions about what formations we should find, and why?

That basically mostly refers to ratios of isotopes. Noting that larger or fewer percentages of isotopes do exist in various layers is not a prediction. It is an observation! Once we see the pattern exists it is no prediction to say that we would see the same pattern in the various layers as previously observed there! Of course there was a changing pattern over time. That does not tell us why.
The ONLY thing that you think tells us why is that a certain process chain happens now, in this present nature, and you assume all layers got the ratios BY this nature and its processes.


I note that the reason man still lives on the planet is because of the hundreds of fulfilled prophesies that Jesus would come to save us. I note that hearts are changed by words of God.

And once again with the ostrich defense....

 

[dad]

And once again with the ostrich defense....

Not in any way is that remotely related to a shadow of the truth. You failed to answer the questions asked about the little vague list of evidence you posted. Be honest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not in any way is that remotely related to a shadow of the truth.

Obviously you wouldn't agree.
I'm pretty positive the rest of the forum posters do.

You failed to answer the questions asked about the little vague list of evidence you posted. Be honest.

You only think it's vague because you have to, and are terribly ill-informed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obviously you wouldn't agree.
I'm pretty positive the rest of the forum posters do.



You only think it's vague because you have to, and are terribly ill-informed.

I agree. With both.

 

[dad]

Obviously you wouldn't agree.
I'm pretty positive the rest of the forum posters do.



You only think it's vague because you have to, and are terribly ill-informed.

No. You failed to answer the specific questions. No wiggling.

 

[Heyo]

So you seem to be saying your denial is a joke.

It's a dad joke.

 

[Heyo]

Science does not deal in anything but the present nature and physical world. The issue is not whether the poor sods declare anything else 'magic' or not. The issue is whether they can prove that this nature always existed on earth and always will. Otherwise, ALL their models and predictions about the far past and future are truly garbage.

Either we do know that the laws of nature were the same in the past and will be the same in the future or we do know nothing. That conclusion is also true for you. Or do you think that you are special? If so, I call that Special pleading - Wikipedia.
And we have reason to believe that the laws of nature were the same in the past. We can look into the sky and find stars everywhere. And since starlight takes time to travel, a look into the sky is also a look into the past. And for the past 13 billion years we can see stars which only exist because the laws of nature were the same then as they are now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. You failed to answer the specific questions. No wiggling.

No answer would satisfy you or would be accepted by you, unless it agrees with your a priori crackpot beliefs.

 

[dad]

Either we do know that the laws of nature were the same in the past and will be the same in the future or we do know nothing.

Excellent. Admit ignorance.

And we have reason to believe that the laws of nature were the same in the past. We can look into the sky and find stars everywhere. And since starlight takes time to travel,

How much time anything takes in deep space is absolutely unknown. Man has only ever clocked/observed ANYTHING right here in our own space and time!


So no, the sky is not a look into the past you imagined.

 

[dad]

No answer would satisfy you or would be accepted by you, unless it agrees with your a priori crackpot beliefs.

No excuse for not answering topical direct questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No excuse for not answering topical direct questions.

Actually, it's a very good reason not to engage you on your nonsense, as it then is simply a waste of time and energy.

Just be honest... Is there anything we could provide you, which would convince you that your religious beliefs are incorrect?

I say there isn't. I say that if you are presented with facts that contradict your belief, you're just going to assume that the facts are wrong or that we are wrong about the facts. Because you hold your beliefs dogmatically and NOTHING will convince you otherwise. Regardless of your beliefs being accurate or not.

 

[Heyo]

Excellent. Admit ignorance.

I did that from the get-go. You are the one who claims knowledge that you can't possibly have. And I try to explain why you can't have it.
I'm beginning to suspect that Hanlon's Razor is too sympathetic for you. Have a nice day.

 

[dad]

Actually, it's a very good reason not to engage you on your nonsense, as it then is simply a waste of time and energy.

Just be honest... Is there anything we could provide you, which would convince you that your religious beliefs are incorrect?

I say there isn't. I say that if you are presented with facts that contradict your belief, you're just going to assume that the facts are wrong or that we are wrong about the facts. Because you hold your beliefs dogmatically and NOTHING will convince you otherwise. Regardless of your beliefs being accurate or not.

Still waiting for you to answer direct questions on the topic. Go back and find the post and answer them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for you to answer direct questions on the topic. Go back and find the post and answer them.

It looks as if other posters have come up with their own version of Rule Number One. Perhaps you could try to argue properly for once.

 

[Bear Wild]

No. Assuming does nothing. Name any prediction we can test that is based on the same nature in the past regarding the fossil record, for example?

Prediction from fossil evidence
1. layers containing fossils should show the changes in the organisms going from more simple forms to more complex forms as one samples successive layers going from the bottom layer to the top.
Prediction 1 - correct
2. Layers that are dated using the best techniques we have should show similar fossils for layers with similar dates.
Prediction 2 - correct

Two predictions two correct answers. Evidence for genesis predicting explaining anything about fossils - ZERO

 

[dad]

Prediction from fossil evidence
1. layers containing fossils should show the changes in the organisms going from more simple forms to more complex forms as one samples successive layers going from the bottom layer to the top.
Prediction 1 - correct

Prediction from fossil evidence:
Layers containing fossils should show what organisms that both died first, and could leave remains.
Prediction 1: Correct

2. Layers that are dated using the best techniques we have should show similar fossils for layers with similar dates.
Prediction 2 - correct

Prediction 2: Layers would have ratios of isotopes that changed in the former nature.
The pattern of greater/lesser ratios would be all through history in each layer. Those who mistakenly used the ratios for dates beyond the present nature period would come up with very old and wrong numbers.
Prediction 2: Correct.



Two predictions two correct answers.

Evidence for science predicting explaining anything about fossils - ZERO

What has occurred is that science has fraudulently tried to claim credit for the ratios and patterns and fossil record using their religion.