Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

[shunyadragon]

Such is origin sciences ideas and propaganda and doctrines. Thanks for that.

No, because science is based on the confirmation, falsifiability, and predictability based on objective verifiable evidence, and repeatedly confirmed by scientists all over the world from many different religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, repeated cut and paste responses...thought this looked familiar.

Lurkers, this poster was asked to post the claimed verifiable evidence and observations for a same nature on earth in the past. Instead we get cut and paste spam posts.

. . . because it is the only meaningful response to your posts . . .

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .

Question: What is your qualifications to understand the scientific literature that represents the objective verifiable evidence? Your only assertion is the rejection of uniformity of the nature of our physical existence, and you have provided no evidence for your assertions.

 

[dad]

I am praying for you. I pray that you will find your way and stop attacking Christians. Stop twisting the Bible to evil ends. Stop perverting the Word.

I will still monitor your replies . If you ever cease the spam and personal attacks and weird demonic accusations. And address the topic, I may still reply.

 

[dad]

No, because science is based on the confirmation, falsifiability, and predictability based on objective verifiable evidence, and repeatedly confirmed by scientists all over the world from many different religious beliefs.

Show confirmation for the same state past then? It is required for all items in the op.

Please don't pretend you did as all we got so far is religious twaddle. If you claim you did provide the link.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will still monitor your replies . If you ever cease the spam and personal attacks and weird demonic accusations. And address the topic, I may still reply.

I no longer care about your posts. They are irrelevant, meaningless drivel sponsored by a person who has shown a decided lack of morals and ethics. Your willingness to bear false witness is the only testimony I need to determine what you are and are all about.

Respond to me or ignore me, the result will be the same.

I am praying for you.

 

[shunyadragon]

I will still monitor your replies . If you ever cease the spam and personal attacks and weird demonic accusations. And address the topic, I may still reply.

First, you have to provide scientific research and publications that demonstrate your assertions, Any other post would be meaningless.

 

[dad]

I no longer care about your posts. They are irrelevant, meaningless drivel sponsored by a person who has shown a decided lack of morals and ethics. Your willingness to bear false witness is the only testimony I need to determine what you are and are all about.

Respond to me or ignore me, the result will be the same.

I am praying for you.

You neither addressed the topic nor answered direct questions such as whether you believe God took eve from a bone of a man He created and formed? I know what spirit you have.

 

[shunyadragon]

Show confirmation for the same state past then? It is required for all items in the op.

Please don't pretend you did as all we got so far is religious twaddle. If you claim you did provide the link.

Link provided concerning the lamela in the lake in Japan. Also simply goolge this anfind there are deposits like this all over the world. The references you can access easily describe in detail how they form annually. So far you have provided zip, nada, negatory, nothing in response and a lack of knowledge in the fundamentals of geology.

The research on the uniform consistent more than 480,000 lamela is confirmation of the prediction of an ual deposition of lamela. You have provided nothing to support your assertions except vague unfounded assertions against uniformitism

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

First, you have to provide scientific research and publications that demonstrate your assertions, Any other post would be meaningless.

My assertion is science doesn't know what forces existed. Their opinion is worthless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The 480,000 ;amela is confirmation of the prediction of anual deposition of lamela. You have provided nothing to support your assertions except vague unfounded assertions against uniformitism

Still waiting . . .

Has he ever presented anything to support his claims? I have not seen it.

 

[dad]

The 480,000 ;amela is confirmation of the prediction of anual deposition of lamela. You have provided nothing to support your assertions except vague unfounded assertions against uniformitism

Still waiting . . .

Who predicted there should be 480 thousand layers and why? Remember there are adults here.

 

[shunyadragon]

Who predicted there should be 480 thousand layers and why? Remember there are adults here.

The prediction was for the annual pattern for lamela over time, and the correlation with known events in history and prehistory.

Problem, you have failed to demonstrate your knowledge in sedimentology, geomorphology and even basic geology, nor have you apparently read the references provided, nor present any scientific literature to support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Bear Wild]

You neither addressed the topic not answered direct questions such as whether you believe God took eve from a bone of a man He created and formed? I know what spirit you have.

I see you have come to bless us with more of your ranting in another subject. We need your posts to remind us how fortunate we are to understand and believe in evolution. Your unending rhetoric of how no one has addressed the subject correctly gives us the chance to learn more supportive evidence for evolution as so many try to help you understand. Your belief that a woman could actually be created from the rib of a man helps me to understand your lack of insight on biology and genetics both of which are essential to understand the current topic. Look forward to seeing more of the same from you dad.

 

[Bear Wild]

The prediction was for the annual pattern for lamela over time, and the correlation with known events in history and prehistory.

Problem, you have failed to demonstrate your knowledge in sedimentology, geomorphology and even basic geology, nor have you apparently read the references provided, nor present any scientific literature to support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

He has failed to demonstrate any knowledge for any aspect of science. Thus he continues with is constant denials. I don't think he wants to learn anything about science personally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

With a complete dialogue where evolution is considered there needs to consider the four types of evidence together. No single type of evidence stands alone. Each offers certain predictive objective falsifiable evidence that interrelate to support the hypothesis or theory of evolution.

Actually the most important key is stratigraphy falsifying and demonstrating a history of earth billions of years old with orderly complete strata of the history of the earth in a number of places on the earth. There are many places where plate techtonics, mountain building, erosion, and deposition, though incomplete, can be correlated with those places on earth with a complete stratigraphic column. The volcanics in these strata may be dated to the time they occurred and and often eroded. The type deposition or intrusion of each strata may be accurately identified, such as beach sands, lake deposits, marine deposits, coral reefs wind blown sand, loess (wind blown silt.) Terrestrial deposits such as rivers, erosion surfaces showing river systems, and deposits of coal in swamps. All these deposits are in normal cyclic sequences, and the same way they are found today in deposition, erosion and the igneous - intrusion and volcanic deposits.Actually it was stratigraphy and erosion that the contemporaries of Darwin that lead them to the conclusion of an ancient earth.

All the fossil evidence and radiometric dating is consistent evidence that correlates with stratigraphy. It must be understood that the stratigraphic evidence stands alone as dating the age and history of the earth. The radiometric dating just increases the specific accuracy of the sequence of the strata.The fossil evidence correlates well with startegraphy in that the animal and plant life fossil are falsified and determined to be progressively more complex from simple life forms to more complex over a period of billions of years.

Hint:
there are no rabbit fossils in Cambrian rock strata.

The discussion of genetics as correlated with the other evidence will follow.

I know of no evidence that would lead anyone to doubt that physical parameters were radically different in the pas than they are today. The idea of believing so, strikes me as desperation to cling to another gap rationale.

 

[dad]

The prediction was for the annual pattern for lamela over time, and the correlation with known events in history and prehistory.

Problem, you have failed to demonstrate your knowledge in sedimentology, geomorphology and even basic geology, nor have you apparently read the references provided, nor present any scientific literature to support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

The problem is that there IS no history for the period in question. Nor have you provided anything relevant from your links. Do not pretend they contain something we just can't quite understand! Ridiculous.

 

[dad]

I know of no evidence that would lead anyone to doubt that physical parameters were radically different in the pas than they are today. The idea of believing so, strikes me as desperation to cling to another gap rationale.

Me either...or any to say it was the same! Useless guesswork.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He has failed to demonstrate any knowledge for any aspect of science. Thus he continues with is constant denials. I don't think he wants to learn anything about science personally.

It all strikes me as a manifestation of delusional disorder. I see no reason to engage someone that is mentally incapacitated to the point that they cannot reason, think or behave honestly. He has made himself irrelevant and that is the only thing he has made that I agree with and can get on board with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see you have come to bless us with more of your ranting in another subject. We need your posts to remind us how fortunate we are to understand and believe in evolution. Your unending rhetoric of how no one has addressed the subject correctly gives us the chance to learn more supportive evidence for evolution as so many try to help you understand. Your belief that a woman could actually be created from the rib of a man helps me to understand your lack of insight on biology and genetics both of which are essential to understand the current topic. Look forward to seeing more of the same from you dad.

The history that he claims does not exist, exists in forms that we have only begun to recognize, read and understand over the last 200 years. Continually claiming that we have no history is a self-deception that is needed to maintain a frail faith. That faith need not have such a fragile foundation is beyond the apparent understanding I have seen. But all that is irrelevant. There has been no offering of any evidence to indicate that any physical parameter was different yesterday, 10,000 years ago or 4.3 billion years ago. It is mere assertion based on a particular person's biased, fragile and ill-informed beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is that there IS no history for the period in question. Nor have you provided anything relevant from your links. Do not pretend they contain something we just can't quite understand! Ridiculous.

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .