What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

You can say that again.
Read your next sentence:
That's the definition of plagiarism.

According to you! Ridiculous!
DEFINITION:
1. stealing somebody’s work or idea: copying what somebody else has written or taking somebody’s else’s idea and trying to pass it off as original.
2. something plagiarized: something copied from somebody else’s work, or somebody else’s idea that somebody presents as his or her own.
A link was provided.

I'll allow the jury to draw their own conclusion.

1. Juries have made serious mistakes.
2. Lives have been ruined because of them.
3. Many prosecutors have had to withdraw their cases due to lack of evidence.
“Yet if by reason of my lie the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)

Hmmm...that's not what I get.

You wouldn't. You couldn't!

You might want to report yourself then.

Don't hold your breath.

It's been proven in this thread.

Lies cannot be proven. The charge of plagiarism is false. Just another diversionary tactic.

Please, don't make your situation worse. Remember, the coverup is always worse than the crime.

You cannot intimidate me. There was no "crime." You got nothing and you know it.

If by "nasty" you mean "honest."

No! I mean nasty. As nasty as they come. This is nasty and false:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2394592
Lonnig quoted Coyne and told no lies.
Honest? You wouldn't recognize honesty if it slapped you. Lawyers are not known for that quality.

Yes, we can see that. That's why you didn't realize you'd be caught.

Caught my foot! You can't catch a crook who is not a crook.
It is impossible to con a person who is not selfish nor greedy.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

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".

The fossil record does support the idea that one species evolves into another, but then observed reality shows that one species evolves into another as does genetics.

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.

And where would these 500 million mammoths be found? Because reality says you are talking complete rubbish.

Reality (ie the Facts) says that your fantasy flood never happened, that was established by Christain geologists back in the 18th century.

 

[wilsoncole]

Sorry, I missed this before, but I’ll answer it now. No, I’m looking for any evidence for a supernatural creator like the one described in your Bible. There ain’t any. 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 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. 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: 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 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.

You talk so much and yet say nothing.
Your logic is seriously flawed!
Look in the mirror and then tell me that you made yourself.
It was you who put the color in your own eye.

It is simple, deductive reasoning. Unless you are Unreasonable - unable to reason.
You cannot escape the "WHO?"
Give me your opinion:
You are in a desert; nothing for miles around but sand and heat.
In the distance you see a house and you hurry to get to it. Inside you find every comfort you could imagine and a note promising a continuing supply of everything you need.
Will you conclude that it just grew out of the sand, or will you be wondering - who?

The Big Bang - was it chaotic or was it orderly?
If it was chaotic, what would you have now?
If it was orderly, WHO arranged it?

You move into a new house but the movers dump all your furniture on the front porch. How will your kitchen utensils find their way into the kitchen?
You go to the store for a sandwich and when you get back you find your furniture neatly arranged, quite to your liking.
Will you conclude that they just arranged themselves or will you be wondering: "Who's in my house?"

You cannot escape the "WHO?"
“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26)

I await your response to those little scenarios.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Bereanz]

The fossil record does support the idea that one species evolves into another, but then observed reality shows that one species evolves into another as does genetics.





And where would these 500 million mammoths be found? Because reality says you are talking complete rubbish.

Reality (ie the Facts) says that your fantasy flood never happened, that was established by Christain geologists back in the 18th century.

Whatever you say face palm guy. While your in my face, care to tell me what your definition of a Christian is? That would be useful.

 

[wilsoncole]

The plagiarism is that you did not properly attribute the text in your post.

You have accused me of deleting a post to avoid detection.

03-12-2011post of yours has been deleted due to Rule 7 infraction.
07:26 PM LuisDantas

And now - I await your apology.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

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.

No longer? I do not believe you knew anything about Lonnig until I introduced him here. So that is nonsense.
You will find a list of Leonnig's peer-reviewed work here:
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Literaturverzeichnis

You can press your "translator" button to get it in English.

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:

You have denunked nothing of Lonnig's so far.
Besides.....
What makes you think that Lonnig seeks credibility with atheists?
He has done a lot of work in the field of DNA and particularly plant genetics.
Check out some of his work. He has lots more.
He supplied me with these websites:

W.-E. Loennig: Dynamic Genomes
http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
http://www.weloennig.de/Dollo-1a.pdf
Designer Scientific Literature
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Literaturverzeichnis


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

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whatever you say face palm guy. While your in my face, care to tell me what your definition of a Christian is? That would be useful.

Do try to stay on topic. Do you have anything to add in regards to "What the fossil record says"?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No longer? I do not believe you knew anything about Lonnig until I introduced him here. So that is nonsense.
You will find a list of Leonnig's peer-reviewed work here:
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Literaturverzeichnis

You don't understand what Peer Review means then. It's not about presenting your biased information to those who share your bias (i.e. attributing the observable natural world to the supernatural or touting "irreducible complexity). Some of his more recent work was submitted for peer review and accepted by those who share his bias view in obscure creationist journals. I could find no information that his work landed in front of biologist in the relevant field for peer review. To date I have not seen these articles in respected publications such as (Science or Naturue). What I did find in Nature is this bit of info from the Science Community....

Access : Axeing of website article sparks row at Max Planck : Nature
Alison Abbott
The Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne has removed the detailed description of 'intelligent design' from its website, following complaints from scientists that it was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission.The article, which was posted by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a theorist at the institute, discusses the idea that an intelligent force must be responsible for the origin of the Universe and for the diversity of life forms.

Access : Designer scientific literature : Nature
&#8221;Axeing of website article sparks row at Max Planck&#8220;, describing the removal of several hundred web pages discussing a concept called 'intelligent design' (ID), is welcome.In Germany, efforts to undermine evolution education &#8212; mostly in the form of ID, which rejects the theory of natural selection &#8212; have evolved into a successful campaign, including a standard textbook in its fifth edition, several journals and two professional video films in which proponents of ID such as the microbiologist Siegfried Scherer and the geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig give interviews in the laboratories of their government-sponsored departments.


So if you think Lonnig is still respected by the science community then you're sadly mistaken or ill-informed as to what "Science" community means.

You have denunked nothing of Lonnig's so far.

If he continues to assert "irreducible complexity" then I sure have.

Besides.....
What makes you think that Lonnig seeks credibility with atheists?

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a fact that there are a lot of biologist who are theist (i.e. Ken Miller). There are a lot of Christian as well as Hindu biologist who believe in the supernatural but never put forth such a notion in their papers or books. I will agree that there are Atheist in the field of science but it's not even a factor because when your papers are peer reviewed they are done so by theist and atheist alike. If Lonnig and the rest seek to be accepted by creationist/ID "scientist" that's on them but don't expect the rest of us to take them serious because to date they have not validated their claims of the supernatural in order to be independently tested.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

What "religious faith" are you talking about? Evolution works just fine and is supported by the facts regardless of the fossil record.

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

If you believe that then put forth a coherent argument against the fossil record and try backing it up with facts instead of jaw-jacking....

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.

The WWF hypothesis expressed in your bible has already been shown to be false.

How else do you explain a mass conglomerated fossil grave yard of over 500 million, that's right, 500 million mammoths in one place

What evidence do you have to support this? I have seen information that says 150 million were found in one area (Mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) but this is supported that there was freezing going on and not a worldwide flood. Ice core samples show the earth to be billions of years old so the scene in your bible is inconsistent with a WWF. A flood as described in your bible would raise the temperature on the whole planet, the humidity levels, the pressures on the planet making it inhospitable for ANY life (including the supposed Noah, his family and the animals) to survive. The boat itself would not be able to stay a float for as long as the bible says considering it was made of wood and the sheer size of it would not be suitable for sailing. It would have cracked immediately under the immense pressures and waves of the ocean. Just look at what Tsunamis do to well constructed building of brick and steel that are anchored in the ground with massive footings.

:slap:

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Simple. There is no such thing. It's another creationist lie.

 

[Autodidact]

According to you! Ridiculous!
DEFINITION:
1. stealing somebody’s work or idea: copying what somebody else has written or taking somebody’s else’s idea and trying to pass it off as original.
2. something plagiarized: something copied from somebody else’s work, or somebody else’s idea that somebody presents as his or her own.
A link was provided.
1. Juries have made serious mistakes.
2. Lives have been ruined because of them.
3. Many prosecutors have had to withdraw their cases due to lack of evidence.
“Yet if by reason of my lie the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)
You wouldn't. You couldn't!
Don't hold your breath.
Lies cannot be proven. The charge of plagiarism is false. Just another diversionary tactic.
You cannot intimidate me. There was no "crime." You got nothing and you know it.
No! I mean nasty. As nasty as they come. This is nasty and false:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2394592
Lonnig quoted Coyne and told no lies.
Honest? You wouldn't recognize honesty if it slapped you. Lawyers are not known for that quality.
Caught my foot! You can't catch a crook who is not a crook.
It is impossible to con a person who is not selfish nor greedy.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

I'm done with the subject. The evidence is all right here in this thread, and all readers may draw their own conclusions; I've certainly drawn mine. Now can we move on?

Just don't do it again.

 

[Autodidact]

You have accused me of deleting a post to avoid detection.



And now - I await your apology.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Dude, your post was deleted due to rule infraction...plagiarism! I rest my case.
btw, had you told us sooner, it would have saved us all a lot of time.

 

[outhouse]

it is that the Biblical record of a world wide deluge that covered the entire planet, is most likely true.

there was never a worldwide flood, ever. it is a myth.

jaw-jacking....

LOL

your bible has already been shown to be false

true

You don't understand what Peer Review means then

true

Reality (ie the Facts) says that your fantasy flood never happened,

true


this is allot of the creationist websites who rake in millions from faithful speading misinformation.

they prey on those less educated

wouldnt it be great if there was a world where people evolved foward enough to not worship obvious ancient myths and create a illusionary world around them that doesnt exist????????

 

[David M]

You have accused me of deleting a post to avoid detection.



And now - I await your apology.

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

Wilson

I apologise for accusing you of deleting the post, you did not.

Do you accept that it was a reasonable assumption rather than a malicious accusation as there was no indication that it had been deleted by a mod?

As it was deleted by the moderators for a Rule 7 violation do you accept that it was plagiarism because you did not follow the rules for posting the work of others with proper attribution?

 

[David M]

Whatever you say face palm guy. While your in my face, care to tell me what your definition of a Christian is? That would be useful.

Any news on where these 500 million mammoths were found? Unless you can provide this info that face palm is entirely warranted as that is a ridiculous claim.

Christian - Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

 

[Bereanz]

Christian - Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

"Belief in Jesus as Christ." What does that mean?
"Following the religion based on the teachings of Jesus " Again, what does this mean?

The above is not a suitable definition of what you believe, nor is it the definition of a Christian. Are you intentionally trying to be evasive here? I think you are.

Oh and re mammoths, do your own research! Clearly your brain is steeped in your religious dogma, try researching some facts on the subject.

 

[Bereanz]

Do try to stay on topic. Do you have anything to add in regards to "What the fossil record says"?

If you want to stay "on topic" then why do you feel the need to pass comment on what you deem to be "off topic" comments? I was responding to a face palm levelled at my ON TOPIC comment about THE FOSSIL RECORD! If you've got a problem with that, then seek some counselling, unless of ocurse it's your desire to be intentionally controversial, provocking and confrontational, in which case you've succeeded. Well done. Another small ape like step for apekind.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm curious as well...where were 500 million mammoth remains found?

 

[David M]

Oh and re mammoths, do your own research! Clearly your brain is steeped in your religious dogma, try researching some facts on the subject.

I have done my research, your claim that there are 500 million mammoths on one place and "Because the reality (IE FACT) is they are where discovered to be entombed in a glacier" is not true.

Stop evading the question and provide these so called facts that there are 500 million mammoths in one place or entombed in a glacier.

You will not be able to do so because this is not a fact, it is not true and you just made it up.

The closest fact is that there are estimated to be the remains of 150 million mammoths (and some remains are just fragments) in the ground in siberia in an area of permafrost that covers about 3 million square kilometres and is, in some areas, hundreds of metres deep.

So provide your evidence otherwise it will be obvious that you are being evasive and that you are making unsupportable claims that a pure garbage.

 

[Bereanz]

I have done my research, your claim that there are 500 million mammoths on one place and "Because the reality (IE FACT) is they are where discovered to be entombed in a glacier" is not true.

Stop evading the question and provide these so called facts that there are 500 million mammoths in one place or entombed in a glacier.

You will not be able to do so because this is not a fact, it is not true and you just made it up.

The closest fact is that there are estimated to be the remains of 150 million mammoths (and some remains are just fragments) in the ground in siberia in an area of permafrost that covers about 3 million square kilometres and is, in some areas, hundreds of metres deep.

So provide your evidence otherwise it will be obvious that you are being evasive and that you are making unsupportable claims that a pure garbage.

150 to 500. Its not as bad as 13.5 and 13.75 billions years. Get over it it This is your "science" for you. You use estimates like this all the time. Wild and eagerated unproven estimates too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I bet you googled the mammoths didn't you. Bet you'd never heard of it until I posted it, and now you think you're an expert who can school me on it. Sheesh the arrogance!