What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Amil posted at 1:52 am Reply # 1952
Post in question:
I posted it at 7:52 am; should have been numbered 1953 and last edited at 7:55 am.
There was no editing after that!
My next post is at 9.04 am and numbered 1953 but it should have been numbered 1954.
I did not delete any post and I do not understand how that happened.
David M’s post at 2:14 pm and numbered 1954
Question now is, WHEN was my post removed? It must have been between 7:55 am and 2:14 pm.
David M did not quote directly from my post. He got the information from Googling it. How did he know what to Google?
Let’s go by the posted times:
If my post was removed before 2:14 pm, how did David M know about it, enough to copy an entire sentence - this sentence:" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, (with the opening quotation marks that indicated it was a quote), and then Google it?
At the end of the quote, the closing quotation mark appears, followed by: NATURAL SELECTION: thus…
even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
I submitted this: (http://www.weloennig.de/Natural Selection.html) but it appeared like this:
NATURAL SELECTION
This is getting to look more and more like David M’s doing.
Nevertheless the charge is false. There was no plagiarism.

Accusations is a favorite tactic of unbelievers and it started with the Devil.
He accused his own creator of holding out on Adam and Eve and that accusation resulted in our present dying condition.
He further accused faithful Job of serving God for selfish reasons.
He then went on to accuse God’s servants while in heaven, just before he was tossed out:
“So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!” (Revelation 12:9-10)

So, go ahead - I expect further accusations because I know where it is coming from.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Right, Satan created the post. Satan also buried the fossils.

 

[David M]

Amil posted at 1:52 am Reply # 1952
David M&#8217;s post at 2:14 pm and numbered 1954
Question now is, WHEN was my post removed? It must have been between 7:55 am and 2:14 pm.
David M did not quote directly from my post. He got the information from Googling it.

No. I did quote from your post. My post #1954 quoted your post and was made nearly 12 hours after your post was made. By my clock (GMT) your post was made at 7:55am on the 12th and my response came at 7:14pm on the 12th.

The google cache shows your post was there at 14:28 GMT on the 12th (while mine was not which matches the timeline above).

How did he know what to Google?

Because I saw your original post when I replied nearly 12 hours later in my post #1954.

Let&#8217;s go by the posted times:
If my post was removed before 2:14 pm, how did David M know about it, enough to copy an entire sentence - this sentence:" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, (with the opening quotation marks that indicated it was a quote), and then Google it?

Your post was still present at 7:16pm GMT on the 12th when I replied to it. That is how I knew to google for that phrase, in fact I googled for the 1st paragraph up to the ellipses.

At 01.40am GMT on the 13th (Post #1955) you replied there was no plagiarism (you did not deny that my quote was correct or suggest that the post I was referring to did not exist). This is reasonable evidence that your original post was still there at that point in time.

It was not until 2:37pm on the 13th GMT that you asked for the post # of the plagiarism. So it looks like the post was deleted sometime between 01:40am and 2:37pm on the 13th.

Once I returned at about 6pm GMT on the 13th I noticed that your post was no longer there, suspecting what had happened I searched the thread for your post and then went to google cache to see if I could locate the post. Et voila, your post had been deleted and my google-fu is still strong.

At the end of the quote, the closing quotation mark appears, followed by: NATURAL SELECTION: thus&#8230;
even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
I submitted this: (http://www.weloennig.de/Natural Selection.html) but it appeared like this:
NATURAL SELECTION
This is getting to look more and more like David M&#8217;s doing.

What, I hacked the religous forums server or Google Cache? Or I was made an admin here for a few minutes and deleted your post?

Or did someone logged in as WilsonCole pressed edit on that post and then pressed the delete button?

Maybe I used telepathy over the internet to pull your password out of your brain? Or maybe the magic internet goblins ate your post?

Everyone else knows which is the most likely.

Accusations is a favorite tactic of unbelievers and it started with the Devil.
He accused his own creator of holding out on Adam and Eve and that accusation resulted in our present dying condition.
He further accused faithful Job of serving God for selfish reasons.
He then went on to accuse God&#8217;s servants while in heaven, just before he was tossed out:
&#8220;So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: &#8220;Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!&#8221; (Revelation 12:9-10)

Ha, Ha, Ha. Delusions of persecution.

You messed up and pasted other peoples words without properly attributing them. When you were called on it you tried to delete the evidence without realising that even this can be detected. You did this because you could not even admit that you made any mistake. If you had apologised and admitted that you had not made the attribution clear and would correct that in future you would have been given a pass on it. Here's some free education for you, if you want to attribute things properly put things in quote tags and provide the URL or Book reference, then everyone will know that you are quoting someone else.

You can't even get the timelines for posts correct based on what evidence there is.

 

[Autodidact]

What, a Christian admit his mistake? Apologize for his error?

 

[wilsoncole]

No. I did quote from your post. My post #1954 quoted your post and was made nearly 12 hours after your post was made. By my clock (GMT) your post was made at 7:55am on the 12th and my response came at 7:14pm on the 12th.

The google cache shows your post was there at 14:28 GMT on the 12th (while mine was not which matches the timeline above).

Because I saw your original post when I replied nearly 12 hours later in my post #1954.

Your post was still present at 7:16pm GMT on the 12th when I replied to it. That is how I knew to google for that phrase, in fact I googled for the 1st paragraph up to the ellipses.

At 01.40am GMT on the 13th (Post #1955) you replied there was no plagiarism (you did not deny that my quote was correct or suggest that the post I was referring to did not exist). This is reasonable evidence that your original post was still there at that point in time.

It was not until 2:37pm on the 13th GMT that you asked for the post # of the plagiarism. So it looks like the post was deleted sometime between 01:40am and 2:37pm on the 13th.
Once I returned at about 6pm GMT on the 13th I noticed that your post was no longer there, suspecting what had happened I searched the thread for your post and then went to google cache to see if I could locate the post. Et voila, your post had been deleted and my google-fu is still strong.

What, I hacked the religous forums server or Google Cache? Or I was made an admin here for a few minutes and deleted your post?

Or did someone logged in as WilsonCole pressed edit on that post and then pressed the delete button?

Maybe I used telepathy over the internet to pull your password out of your brain? Or maybe the magic internet goblins ate your post?

Everyone else knows which is the most likely.

Ha, Ha, Ha. Delusions of persecution.

You messed up and pasted other peoples words without properly attributing them. When you were called on it you tried to delete the evidence without realising that even this can be detected. You did this because you could not even admit that you made any mistake. If you had apologised and admitted that you had not made the attribution clear and would correct that in future you would have been given a pass on it. Here's some free education for you, if you want to attribute things properly put things in quote tags and provide the URL or Book reference, then everyone will know that you are quoting someone else.

You can't even get the timelines for posts correct based on what evidence there is.

Mr. M,
Until I read your information above, I had no idea that a post could be deleted.
I never noticed the "delete" button until you mentioned it. Then I went looking for it. I would not have used it anyway because I wanted you folks to read what Lonnig said about mutations.

I did not plagiarize anything nor did I delete anything. I do not know how it was done or why.
On second thought, the "why" is becoming clear.
Lonnig's information is staggering! You do not want to try refuting it nor do you want to read the Bible's point of view. This is all a sidetracking move and an attempt to besmirch my name. It will not work!

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by Amill:
Lol, and after we move past the problems with mutations, then you'd inform us that we'd have to figure out exactly how life started on earth before we could discuss mutations, then after figuring out life we'd have to discuss the origin of the earth and all of the factors that lead to it's beginnings, then the rest of the solar system...then atoms....universe...ect. It would be never ending with your logic. If only you applied this logic to your own beliefs. But I guess the simple idea that "man shall never know god's ways blah blah blah" is enough for you.

You must have some sort of forum control that allows you to set on ignore responses that show contradictions in your logic or statements.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1836.html

And here is a post you forgot to tackle as well. Wonder why.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...-post1858.html

I imagine that even if we had complete fossils of every single living species that existed on the planet and showed you how they all suggest common descent to the point where it's even more obvious than it already is today....that you'd still dismiss all the evidence because "abiogenesis hasn't been answered".

I can't believe you've gone to the point where now entire populations of neanderthals are deformed humans or apes. Of course any knowledgeable person would agree on the ape part. But I'd like to hear your definition of an ape, only by describing them by characteristics they possess.

The failure of mutations as an agent of advancement is well documented.

Fantastic claims lacking proof puts YOU in a dilemma.

What is the best case of natural selection that has been proposed so far?
Darwin's finches? E-coli and a change of diet? Peppered moth? Which? Are there others? These just don't cut it.
Take a good look at the peppered moth and "industrial melanism.":

" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998).......... After summarizing Kettlewell&#8217;s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn&#8217;t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and

(d) Kettlewell&#8217;s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations. Additionally, there are important points to be added from the original papers, as

(e) differences of vision between man and birds and

(f) the pollution-independent decrease of melanic morphs."


For another renowned textbook-example of natural selection, which was pointed out recently to consist more of a metaphysical explanation than a scientifically valid case, see Gould for the origin of the neck of the giraffe (Gould, 1996). Moreover, as for the inherent limitations of one of the prime examples for natural selection, to wit the sickle cell allele and malaria resistance, see ReMine (1993). Moreover, one may ask whether Mayr&#8216;s first four instances for natural selection mentioned above ("insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia") are really cases of natural selection or more "man-made" or "man-caused" (not natural) selection.

It may be asked: How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
NATURAL SELECTION


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

See?
The post is back, pasted from the Google (UK) link, exactly as it was before.

Where's the plagiarism?

Now - why don't you try refuting it instead of attempting to avoid it?

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Krok]

Thanks. This is what I was pointing out. This was something understood by many cultures before, during and after the text of the bible. Basically the writer took what was observable and attributed to his god. He explains a phenomenon of the natural world that was observable. Sumerians, Egyptians, Chinese as well as Hindus had already possessed such knowledge.

Pleasure. Sorry I got back so late (day jobs, I hate them!). Willson would never believe this, as he would always believe that the Bible refers to trees and whatever. He won't read the Bible, he would always just believe what he thinks his version of the Bible states. Even if it doesn't read it, he would always believe what he percieves as "authority"; people like his priest or church minister or pastor.

Luckily there's a lot of people out there who actually know and are curious about what the Bible indicates, instead of what believers think the Bible indicates. Ex-Christians , like me, just have to refer to the texts, compare that to what people like Wilson think the texts says, and we are the winners. A lot of people can figure out the difference all by themselves. We just have to point at facts.

 

[wilsoncole]

No. I did quote from your post. My post #1954 quoted your post and was made nearly 12 hours after your post was made. By my clock (GMT) your post was made at 7:55am on the 12th and my response came at 7:14pm on the 12th.

The google cache shows your post was there at 14:28 GMT on the 12th (while mine was not which matches the timeline above).

Because I saw your original post when I replied nearly 12 hours later in my post #1954.

Mr M,
You taught me something about the Google cache and the delete button.
But your tactics are much too dirty for me to play with so I will respond to you no more.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

Allow me to fill in the parts of your Copy and Paste you left out.

" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998)

Hence, we may conclude that Popper’s partial retraction of his views was not necessary, at least not because of the example of the peppered moth.

After summarizing Kettlewell’s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn’t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and

(d) Kettlewell’s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations. Additionally, there are important points to be added from the original papers, as

(e) differences of vision between man and birds and

(f) the pollution-independent decrease of melanic morphs."

So Popper’s case of the peppered moth as an observation against his own criticism of natural selection as a metaphysical research program consists, nonetheless, mostly of metaphysics. It may be asked: How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?

For another renowned textbook-example of natural selection, which was pointed out recently to consist more of a metaphysical explanation than a scientifically valid case, see Gould for the origin of the neck of the giraffe (Gould, 1996). Moreover, as for the inherent limitations of one of the prime examples for natural selection, to wit the sickle cell allele and malaria resistance, see ReMine (1993). Moreover, one may ask whether Mayr‘s first four instances for natural selection mentioned above ("insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia") are really cases of natural selection or more "man-made" or "man-caused" (not natural) selection.

Now, despite your inclusion of what follows in "Quotes", for some reason, you copied it out of order from the actual LINKED SOURCE.

It may be asked: How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"

As for what Lönnig claims, it has already been noted that Lönnig's work, like Behe's, fails to pass peer review in anything other than Pro-ID publications.

"Irreducible Complexity" has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific community, and endorsing it is simply an effort in futility.

 

[Jose Fly]

The failure of mutations as an agent of advancement is well documented.

Fantastic claims lacking proof puts YOU in a dilemma.

What is the best case of natural selection that has been proposed so far?
Darwin's finches? E-coli and a change of diet? Peppered moth? Which? Are there others? These just don't cut it.
Take a good look at the peppered moth and "industrial melanism.":

" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998).......... After summarizing Kettlewell’s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn’t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and

(d) Kettlewell’s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations. Additionally, there are important points to be added from the original papers, as

(e) differences of vision between man and birds and

(f) the pollution-independent decrease of melanic morphs."


For another renowned textbook-example of natural selection, which was pointed out recently to consist more of a metaphysical explanation than a scientifically valid case, see Gould for the origin of the neck of the giraffe (Gould, 1996). Moreover, as for the inherent limitations of one of the prime examples for natural selection, to wit the sickle cell allele and malaria resistance, see ReMine (1993). Moreover, one may ask whether Mayr‘s first four instances for natural selection mentioned above ("insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia") are really cases of natural selection or more "man-made" or "man-caused" (not natural) selection.

It may be asked: How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
NATURAL SELECTION


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

So you just ignore data that shows your post to be completely wrong and repost it again as if nothing had happened?

Do you not see how that can be seen as the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA! I can't hear you!"?

 

[David M]

See?
The post is back, pasted from the Google (UK) link, exactly as it was before.

Where's the plagiarism?

Now - why don't you try refuting it instead of attempting to avoid it?

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

The plagiarism is that you did not properly attribute the text in your post. As I am feeling generous I will not wait for you to admit to even incompetent attribution and will procede to expose Loennig as the deceptive liar that he is.

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn&#8217;t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

Lie. The natural distribution of moth resting places is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths

Kettlewell did not place moths on tree trunks for documentation nor did he place them there for photographing. Loennig is wrong.

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

And when the moths are on these resting places the birds can hunt them, which makes the time when the resting place is chosen irrelevant. And no the illustrations do not imply the choose their resting places during the day only that the pictures were taken during the day. Loennig is wrong.

There you are, Loennig's first 2 statements are wrong.

 

[David M]

Mr M,
You taught me something about the Google cache and the delete button.
But your tactics are much too dirty for me to play with so I will respond to you no more.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

So I post facts which can be verified from this thread and google cache and these a dirty tactics?

All the posts here are tinestamped and so is google cache.

If you don't want to respond to the facts of the matter then run away Wilson, I will continue to point out when you are factually incorrect.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The plagiarism is that you did not properly attribute the text in your post. As I am feeling generous I will not wait for you to admit to even incompetent attribution and will procede to expose Loennig as the deceptive liar that he is.

Lie. The natural distribution of moth resting places is:
Icon of Obfuscation

Kettlewell did not place moths on tree trunks for documentation nor did he place them there for photographing. Loennig is wrong.

And when the moths are on these resting places the birds can hunt them, which makes the time when the resting place is chosen irrelevant. And no the illustrations do not imply the choose their resting places during the day only that the pictures were taken during the day. Loennig is wrong.

There you are, Loennig's first 2 statements are wrong.

100% Correct. This is why I linked the video Showing the moths as you described above as well as the actual scientist.....I guess wilson missed that....but the video refutes Loennig's assertions.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2393049-post1970.html





:yes:

 

[Jose Fly]

100% Correct. This is why I linked the video Showing the moths as you described above as well as the actual scientist.....I guess wilson missed that....but the video refutes Loennig's assertions.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2393049-post1970.html

And earlier I posted the link to that talkorigins article as well IN THIS POST.

But like most creationists, WilsonCole seems to ignore inconvenient facts.

 

[wilsoncole]

Allow me to fill in the parts of your Copy and Paste you left out.
Hence, we may conclude that Popper’s partial retraction of his views was not necessary, at least not because of the example of the peppered moth.

So Popper’s case of the peppered moth as an observation against his own criticism of natural selection as a metaphysical research program consists, nonetheless, mostly of metaphysics. It may be asked: How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?

Now, despite your inclusion of what follows in "Quotes", for some reason, you copied it out of order from the actual LINKED SOURCE.

Mr Weed,
I merely replaced the post, exactly as it was, to show there was no plagiarism.
What does that matter anyway? This is nitpicking and you know it. You got nothing there! Seems to me you do not understand what is being said.
Lonnig is quoting Popper to nullify his own point? Is that what you think?
You seem to be straining hard to find anything to detract from a consideration of Lonnig's points.

As for what Lönnig claims, it has already been noted that Lönnig's work, like Behe's, fails to pass peer review in anything other than Pro-ID publications.

So - we'll take them, one by one and then see if YOU can refute them. Never mind the peer-review baloney. You have to stand up for yourself - defend your own convictions.

"Irreducible Complexity" has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific community, and endorsing it is simply an effort in futility.

What does that matter to me? I said nothing about it. I am not associated with any movement to take science to any court.
I really wish you would deal with the information that is presented to you and stop chasing every wisp of a point that you think supports you.

Watch out for more Lonnig.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

100% Correct. This is why I linked the video Showing the moths as you described above as well as the actual scientist.....I guess wilson missed that....but the video refutes Loennig's assertions.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2393049-post1970.html

You are too easily misled.

Lonnig is not wrong at all! He told no lies. That's just another accusation!
If you had read his piece on Natural Selection, you would have noticed that he was quoting J.A.Coyne.
Go back and read the piece under the subheading:
"Popper’s Case of the Peppered Moth: Still more Metaphysics than Science."
In fact, I'll help you along:

"Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998)..........
After summarizing Kettlewell’s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn’t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

Then read the references.

You are being misled into refuting Coyne - not Lonnig.

Now - see if you can refute these additional points of Coyne's:
(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and
(d) Kettlewell’s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Never mind the peer-review baloney.

Unfortunately for Lonnig and any other scientist who wants to be taken seriously in the scientific community, being peer reviewed does matter. The reason he is no longer taken as serious as some one like Ken Miller is that he (Lonnig) has been published in some obscure creationist/ID publication. Scurting the traditional peer review process doesn't cut it.

What does that matter to me? I said nothing about it. I am not associated with any movement to take science to any court.

It's not so much about court cases but Lonnig begins to lose credibility when he cites and backs Behe in regards to the thoroughly debunked "irreducible complexity". Lonnig has offered his opinions on the matter but I haven't seen anything from him that you've been pasting that refutes the ToE or the fossil record. Maybe you can present some experiments he's done that has been peer reviewed by biologist in the relevant fields........:sad:

 

[David M]

You are too easily misled.

Lonnig is not wrong at all! He told no lies. That's just another accusation!
If you had read his piece on Natural Selection, you would have noticed that he was quoting J.A.Coyne.
Go back and read the piece under the subheading:
"Popper&#8217;s Case of the Peppered Moth: Still more Metaphysics than Science."
In fact, I'll help you along:
Then read the references.

You are being misled into refuting Coyne - not Lonnig.

Now - see if you can refute these additional points of Coyne's:
(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and
(d) Kettlewell&#8217;s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

Note that I did not state that Loennig was lying, I said that a statement was a lie. I was aware that Loennig was quoting Coyne.

Because Loennig was using Coyne as an illustration of his claim and was taking those statements to be correct if Coyne was wrong then Loennig was also wrong.

The claims that Loennig used to support his arguments against natural selection in the perppered moth experiment were wrong. Exactly as I said originally I have shown you why Loennig was wrong, he used arguments that are not true.

As I don't have Coynes paper I can't address those 2 claims, however I have shown that Coynes first 2 claims were wrong and Loennigs use of them as support for his claims means that Loennig was also wrong.

 

[Krok]

Sorry, I missed this before, but I’ll answer it now.

Oh! You're looking for a creator to your liking - one that YOU created.

No, I’m looking for any evidence for a supernatural creator like the one described in your Bible. There ain’t any.

You won't find him.

Science is very good at finding things that exist. If they don’t exist they won’t be found. Look at the case of fairies.

Believers do not find him to be the way you describe.

Believers only find what they want to believe. Hence all the hundreds of religions and multitude of sects in each one of the religions. (Your particular religion, Christianity, has over 30 000 sects). Believers believe what they want to believe and find the god that suits every individual’s wishful thinking. Every believer wants a particular sky-daddy according to what the believer wants and the culture that believer was raized in overwhelmingly determines the flavour of religion.

See Reply # 1944. Maybe that will help you to see why you do not understand him at all.

Obviously I understand just as little as believers do, seeing that you have thousands of religions and sects, each one believing that his particular faith is the only true faith. I also do understand that there is no verifiable evidence for any kind of god or any kind of supernatural creator.

I see that you ignored my original post by providing a non-answer. Here it is again:

A natural creator. One that leaves verifiable evidence that he exists. One that used natural substances to create another natural substance. One that openly talks and communicates with every other natural organism in the world who wants to communicate with him. One that even appears on tv. One that doesn't hide. One that doesn't claim to be able to do miracles. One that's not going to burn anything in his his creation for all eternity. One that doesn't claim to know it all. One that doesn't "need" or even want to be worshipped. One that exists. Nothing supernatural about this creator.

Wilson, the only evidence we have of anything ever being “created” was that naturally occurring humans “created” them. We have pretty convincing evidence that humans exist. No supernatural creator has ever been observed. There is no verifiable evidence for any supernatural creator. Exactly what applies to the existence of fairies.
The only argument you use here is argumentum ad consequentiam, Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

…..is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences…

You want the god you believe in to be true, therefore you think that you were “created” by your desired god, therefore you see “creation” as “evidence” for the existence for your particular god. Classic case of circular reasoning coupled with the appeal to consequences.

You miss the most important part of the argument: Find and provide verifiable evidence that your god exists. Only after that you can even attempt to argue that your god did anything. :yes:

 

[Bereanz]

First, I have to say, I'm not laying a trap or having a go. This is a genuine thread.
I've heard many conflicitng things about the fossil record. Some say it's great with most of the link/pieces there whilst others say it's, to quote wikipidia "inherently imperfect". So which is it? Also, what exactly is the fossil record? Is it the collection of all fossils ever found or is it record of fossil of one spieces? Any thoughts?

The fossil record is generally used by those of the Evolutionist Religious faith in a vain and laughable attempt to prove evolution from species to species, when, in actual FACT the fossil record PROVES nothing of the sort. To say it does is a blatant bald face lie and a deceptive conspiracy theory of epic proportion. Thanks to the hollywood brain washing factory and the worlds media and the worlds museaums and eduction "brian washing" system, it is accepted as fact and believed by billions to be true, including even professing "Christians".

If the mass fossil graveyards around the world come close to PROVING anything, it is that the Biblical record of a world wide deluge that covered the entire planet, is most likely true. How else do you explain a mass conglomerated fossil grave yard of over 500 million, that's right, 500 million mammoths in one place OTHER THAN a mass attempted escape from an all to apparent dissasterous flood? Because the reality (IE FACT) is they are where discovered to be entombed in a glacier.