What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

You said;
Instead of empty assertions I figured you would give examples. You didn't. You're rather content on quote mining from your online Awake journal.

I have not written one false word from AWAKE!
I wonder if you realize that your pressure tactics will never work with me.
All of JWs are trained on how to resist it.
Here's an exerpt from our lesson for Sunday next, to be studied simultaneously in 236 countries:
"Some trials are due to our own imperfections or are a consequence of the system of things in which we live. Others are due to the enmity that exists between those who serve God and those who do not. (Gen. 3:15)
From early on in human history, God has helped his faithful servants to withstand religious persecution, resist harmful peer pressure, and endure all kinds of adversities. His holy spirit can empower us to do the same.
Religious persecution is harassment or injury deliberately inflicted on people because of their faith or beliefs. Its purpose is to stamp out such beliefs, prevent their spread, or break the integrity of believers.
Persecution can take various forms, some overt, some subtle. The Bible likens Satan's attacks to those of both a young lion and a cobra.
“For he will give his own angels a command concerning you, To guard you in all your ways. 12 Upon their hands they will carry you, That you may not strike your foot against any stone. 13 Upon the young lion and the cobra you will tread; You will trample down the maned young lion and the big snake. 14 Because on me he has set his affection, I shall also provide him with escape. I shall protect him because he has come to know my name. 15 He will call upon me, and I shall answer him. I shall be with him in distress. I shall rescue him and glorify him.” (Psalm 91:11-15)
Like a savage lion, Satan has often made open, frontal attacks by means of violence, imprisonment, or ban.(Ps. 94:20) Lawless mobs, some led by clergymen or political fanatics, have mistreated God's people in many places. These lionlike attacks have cause a few to stumble. Like a cobra, the Devil also launches treacherous attacks from hidden places in order to poison minds and deceive people into doing his will.
this type of attack is designed to weaken or corrupt us spiritually. But by means of God's holy spirit, we can withstand both forms of persecution." (WT 1/15 11 p.26,27)

You employ the wiles of the cobra. I am quite aware of it and it will never work.

Nope and neither do you

Neither do I? That is the silliest thing you ever wrote! Why should I have evidence of abiogenesis?

which is why I, personally, am not raising any sort of case for or against Abiogenesis. I am specifically talking about the fossil record and the origin and diversity of species on the planet.

I know how that happened without trying to read old bones like a holy book.
“And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.” (Genesis 1:24-25)
To this day, his word has proved true. Living things still produce only according to their own kind. Animals produce animals and humans produce humans. It has been this way from the very beginning.
You can never change that order of things.

The question wasn't moot.

No! It wasn't moot - it IS moot. Fossils come from once-living creatures. You could not get fossils if they were never alive. How they got to be alive is a question that can never be bypassed.

You simply refuse to backup your assertions in regards to intermediate fossils.

You know why and I just reminded you. There never were any "transitionary" animals.
You are thoroughly deceived!

Do YOU accept the hypothesis of Abiogenesis?

You are getting worse. Another very silly question.

No trick question here and I'm not going to ask you to present evidence for it. It requires a simple YES or NO. Which one is it?

As one of your buddies wrote:
"Stupid questions do not deserve an answer."

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Evolution predicts that all organisms have to be fully functional to survive and pass on their genes. He can't even see that. He should stick to Engineering. Biologists and the scientific community in general would consider him a clown if he keeps on making such idiotic statemments about biology.

An "incomplete" animal won't survive and won't pass on their genes. All living animals have to be complete at their first appearance. Just like evolution predicts. Look at all those instances of speciation in the other thread. All those new species were complete at their first appearance.

Evolution does not predict anything!
Only its adherents claim that it does.
Where are these "predictions" written and how long ago were they made?

THE ART OF PREDICTION
“. . .And it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a certain servant girl with a spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing the art of prediction. 17 This [girl] kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to YOU the way of salvation.” 18 This she kept doing for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned and said to the spirit: “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.” (Acts 16:16-18)

The "art of prediction" originates with demons.
Don' try it!
That is not the same as prophesying.
"Prophecy is an inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come.
Prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages (Heb., na·va’&#8242;; Gr., pro·phe·teu&#8242;o); yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.

Illustrating the sense of the original words are these examples:
1. When Ezekiel in a vision was told to “prophesy to the wind,” he simply expressed God’s command to the wind. (Eze 37:9, 10)
2. When individuals at Jesus’ trial covered him, slapped him, and then said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?” they were not calling for prediction but for Jesus to identify the slappers by divine revelation. (Mt 26:67, 68; Lu 22:63, 64." "(INSIGHT vol. 2 pp. 690-691 published by JWs)


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolution does not predict anything!
Only its adherents claim that it does.
Where are these "predictions" written and how long ago were they made?

So, you don't know the difference between a prediction and a divination?

Here's an example. Based on the fossils we had collected, scientists were able to predict that we would find the fossils of some of the earliest tetrapods in a specific area of coast. Sure enough, we excavated that coast, found the teatrapod fossils, dated them and found that the dating confirmed their age to be almost exactly as predicted.

Evolution theory makes these kinds of predictions based on data all the time. The flu vaccine would be impossible to make if it weren't for such predictions. Did you just not bother to look?

 

[camanintx]

Nobody asked you how you got on the ladder. Read carefully:
Nobody can CLIMB a ladder from halfway up.

So If I have a ladder reaching from the ground to the third floor, there is no way I can get on it at the second floor? Because if evolution is the ladder, the origin of life is how we get on it.

Put another way; Nobody can build a tower from the second floor up.

If evolution is the tower, the origin of life is the foundation, not the first floor. And a foundation can take many forms separate from the tower that sits on it. Your really do need to work on your analogies.

Apart from direct creation, only abiogenesis could account for the origin of life. Since you reject the first, do you have any evidence for the second?
Note is importance: If abiogenesis did not happen, neither can evolution.

Unlike your creator, there is evidence for abiogenesis.

I am thoroughly convinced that you know absolutely nothing about the law of recurring variation, yet, just like the Bible, you glibly condemn it.

And yet I know enough that without acceptance from the scientific community at large, Lönnig's "law" is no such thing. I also know that it's called "recurrent variation" and not "recurring variation".

 

[meogi]

Nobody can CLIMB a ladder from halfway up.

You obviously have never jumped onto a fire escape ladder from below.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have not written one false word from AWAKE!

Quote mine is what I said.

Neither do I? That is the silliest thing you ever wrote! Why should I have evidence of abiogenesis?

You promote your book as though it is but it's hardly able to play in the arena of science. Your book is unable to shed light on the diversity of life on the planet which is why no one (i.e. scientist) turn to it for the answers..... but the religious (e.g. You) turn to it... If you promote it as having the "answer" to the "origin of life" then show evidence of you designer and that this particular designer is behind Abiogenesis.

I know how that happened without trying to read old bones like a holy book.
“And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.” (Genesis 1:24-25)

As mentioned before....you have a hypothesis on the (WHO) but not the (HOW). The Theory of Evolution explains how we have such a diversity of species on the planet. The fossil record is only a small part of the answer. The bible is completely silent on the fossil record.

Fossils come from once-living creatures. You could not get fossils if they were never alive. How they got to be alive is a question that can never be bypassed.

You don't have a testable answer as to how they appeared no do you have a clue as to how one specie relates to another.

You know why and I just reminded you. There never were any "transitionary" animals.
You are thoroughly deceived!

Wrong..!!

Here's a very good (but tentative) list of transitional creatures....

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wilsoncole]

So, you don't know the difference between a prediction and a divination?
Here's an example. Based on the fossils we had collected, scientists were able to predict that we would find the fossils of some of the earliest tetrapods in a specific area of coast. Sure enough, we excavated that coast, found the teatrapod fossils, dated them and found that the dating confirmed their age to be almost exactly as predicted.

Evolution theory makes these kinds of predictions based on data all the time. The flu vaccine would be impossible to make if it weren't for such predictions. Did you just not bother to look?

I looked. I found a bunch of baloney like this here:
CA210: Evolution predictions
With stupid statements like this from a Mark Isaak:

"For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics."

DUH! That's here already.

"The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise."

Otherwise? What in the world does that mean? Like what?
I wonder what the "predictive power of science" would say about the future of nuclear power plants?

Now this is where it gets weird!

"These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future."

Huh? What else can PREdictions be about?
DEFINITION:
pre·dic·tion [pr&#601; díksh&#601;n]
(plural pre·dic·tions) n
1. statement about future: a statement of what someone thinks will happen in the future
2. act of predicting: the making of a statement or forming of an opinion about what will happen in the future

Dictionary.com
pre·dic·tion&#8194; &#8194;/pr&#618;&#712;d&#618;k

&#643;&#601;n/ Show Spel[pri-dik-shuh

n] Show IPA
–noun
1. an act of predicting.
2. an instance of this; prophecy.
Origin:
1555–65; < Latin praedicti&#333;n- (stem of praedicti&#333; ) a foretelling.

"They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet."

What? This crazy man done gone and made himself a word that means nothing.
Dictionary.com:
No results found for retrodictions:

"Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort."

The world deserves to be spared from that.

"Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000)."

Whaaaaat? It occured and THEN it was predicted?
Shouldn't that be "WILL arise?" And wouldn't that be rather late?
Here we go again:
This time THEORY is doing the predicting:

"Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates.":

This is nonsense! "Theory predicted?" Written by whom? When? Where?
"SHOULD have" does not amount to prediction. That should be "WOULD have"

"This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000)."

In what way does that prove evolution?

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

so - then, that made prediction impossible - right?

Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution.

In what sense does that amount to a prediction?

A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

There was no prediction in the first place, so that is not possible.

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Much too vague. Means nothing.

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees.

That's not prediction. That's wishful thinking. Its like saying: "My figures should match his figures." Just more of the same nonsense.

This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

"Informally?" Why? Where's the data?
So - if our figures match then a prediction has been fulfilled?
Ridiculous!

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface.

That is nonsense. Absolutely no proof of that!

Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too.

Give me a break! So, if I say that hagfish would retain their sucking mechanism, that's a prediction? And if I find that they do retain it, that's a fulfillment?
Get real!

This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

Help! This guy is killing me!
I found predictions regarding the periodic table of elements but this is utter nonsense!
So you see? I looked and found nothing proving prediction by evolution. Maybe you can do better. Will you?

Maybe you didn't read my question correctly.
I repeat:
" Where are these "predictions" written and how long ago were they made?"
And I might add:
Did evolution make the "predictions," or its advocates?

Here's an interesting piece:
The eye did not evolve!
Evolution under the microscope: Eye Evolution
Very interesting, indeed.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

So If I have a ladder reaching from the ground to the third floor, there is no way I can get on it at the second floor? Because if evolution is the ladder, the origin of life is how we get on it.

Are you kidding? What's the second floor built on? Wishful thinking?

If evolution is the tower, the origin of life is the foundation, not the first floor.

That’s exactly where you come up missing one. You have no answer for the origin of life. Do you? So you have no foundation nor first floor.

And a foundation can take many forms separate from the tower that sits on it.

More jokes! No foundation, no first floor. Since no architect would agree with you, would you mind illustrating that?

Your really do need to work on your analogies.

We’ll see - AFTER you submit your illustration.

Unlike your creator, there is evidence for abiogenesis.

Bring it on! This will be a first.

And yet I know enough that without acceptance from the scientific community at large, Lönnig's "law" is no such thing.

So, what is “Dollo’s Law?”

I also know that it's called "recurrent variation" and not "recurring variation".

Typo.
You said that once too often.
How can you tell if it has been accepted or not?
It has not been rejected by any scientific body.

http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/WebJournals/FOB_4(SI1)IssueInformation.pdf

See the term “peer-reviewed“ on page 1?
See the impressive list of “peers?”
Note the date - only 4 months ago.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Amill]

That&#8217;s exactly where you come up missing one. You have no answer for the origin of life. Do you? So you have no foundation nor first floor.

And why does that have to stop one from any kind of speculation about his current surroundings or the building itself? You don't have any kind of demonstrable answer to the origin of life either, sure as hell doesn't stop you from speculating on the nature of things.:angel2:

Oh that's right, you don't have to provide anything to support your arguments, because they are already "facts" lol...

 

[wilsoncole]

Quote mine is what I said.

I know what you said. You don't know what "quote mining" is.
Here
Quote mining - Conservapedia
Make your corrections.

You promote your book as though it is but it's hardly able to play in the arena of science.

A change of target, eh? Now its the Book.
OK. Come on; you will just get a pounding.
That book is far above any science textbook you ever heard of because it gives a reason for morality, the purpose and sanctity of life, making a success of marriage and family responsibility, honesty in business dealings and in life, love of God and fellow humans, proper care of earth and its animal inhabitants, how to achieve real and lasting peace in a world of violence, the correct use of knowledge (wisdom,) unerring prophecy and the future of humanity and the earth, none of which seems to be important to you.
Playing in the arena is one thing. You can't even get there!

Your book is unable to shed light on the diversity of life on the planet

Sure it is! You are unable to see, to listen or to hear. I'll try again:
“And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.” (Genesis 1:24-25)
IT HAS NEVER BEEN ANY DIFFERENT!

which is why no one (i.e. scientist) turn to it for the answers.....

Science makes problems. It provides no answers.

but the religious (e.g. You) turn to it...

And they run into the billions.

If you promote it as having the "answer" to the "origin of life" then show evidence of you designer

Every artist is evaluated by his work. Creation is matchless! There's your evidence. It is all around you but you cannot see it.

and that this particular designer is behind Abiogenesis.

There is no such thing as abiogenesis.
Life comes only from life.
That is a FACT!

As mentioned before....you have a hypothesis on the (WHO) but not the (HOW).

I have no hypothesis and I don't care how.

The Theory of Evolution explains how we have such a diversity of species on the planet.

It does no such thing. What it proposes is impossible. DNA and genetics does not allow it.

The fossil record is only a small part of the answer.

Old bones have no answer either. They offer no hope for life. They only point to death.

The bible is completely silent on the fossil record.

Sin causes death. The evidence of death is bones. No answers in death.

You don't have a testable answer as to how they appeared no do you have a clue as to how one specie relates to another.

What good has it done the world? What good has it done you? It is worthless as far as solving the world's mushrooming problems are concerned. How can the fossil record stop the global economic free-fall? How can it stem the rising tide of violence? How can it get men to share the world's resources fairly? How can it protect your children from predators and online degradation? How can it stop the waste of warfare?
The Bible has the answers to all of that, the kind of stuff that is killing you and all of your generation.
I'll give you a Bible answer that you can test:
"You must love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 18:19)
You can test that and see how well it works.

Here's a very good (but tentative) list of transitional creatures....

You can allow yourself to be fooled that easily. Not me.
There are no transitional creatures. Never were.
All living things produce only after their own kind.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Krok]

Evolution does not predict anything!
Only its adherents claim that it does.
Where are these "predictions" written and how long ago were they made?

Darwin, 1859. You should read it. Very informative.

THE ART OF PREDICTION
“. . .And it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a certain servant girl with a spirit, a demon of divination, met us. She used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing the art of prediction. 17 This [girl] kept following Paul and us and crying out with the words: “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to YOU the way of salvation.” 18 This she kept doing for many days. Finally Paul got tired of it and turned and said to the spirit: “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.” (Acts 16:16-18)

Quotes from Superman comics. I don't take Superman comics seriously, as I know it was all made up in the minds of people. No evidence that Superman ever existed.

The "art of prediction" originates with demons.

There's absolutely no evidence that demons exist, therefore predictions can't originate from non-existant things like demons.

Don' try it!

I can certainly predict that Wilson will fall back on quotes from Superman again and pretend that he is doing science.

That is not the same as prophesying.
"Prophecy is an inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come.
Prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages (Heb., na·va’&#8242;; Gr., pro·phe·teu&#8242;o); yet it forms an outstanding feature of Bible prophecy.

Referring to Superman comics again. Wilson, Superman does not exist. Superman was written to provide entertainment for kids. You're way too old to take it seriously.

Illustrating the sense of the original words are these examples:
1. When Ezekiel in a vision was told to “prophesy to the wind,” he simply expressed God’s command to the wind. (Eze 37:9, 10)
2. When individuals at Jesus’ trial covered him, slapped him, and then said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?” they were not calling for prediction but for Jesus to identify the slappers by divine revelation. (Mt 26:67, 68; Lu 22:63, 64." "(INSIGHT vol. 2 pp. 690-691 published by JWs)

Wow, Superman again.

 

[meogi]

Every artist is evaluated by his work. Creation is matchless! There's your evidence. It is all around you but you cannot see it.

1) Assume artist.
2) Attribute reality to assumed artist.
3) Proof of artist.

Sin causes death. The evidence of death is bones.

Do animals sin?

 

[shoinan]

Do animals sin?

Oxen covet other oxen, so that's them in the poop.

 

[wilsoncole]

Darwin, 1859. You should read it. Very informative.

Like Grimm - right?

Quotes from Superman comics. I don't take Superman comics seriously, as I know it was all made up in the minds of people. No evidence that Superman ever existed.

We agree on that.

There's absolutely no evidence that demons exist, therefore predictions can't originate from non-existant things like demons.

I won't waste time with that. You will never understand. I will tell you that all of your cities will soon be destroyed.
“Make the heart of this people unreceptive, and make their very ears unresponsive, and paste their very eyes together, that they may not see with their eyes and with their ears they may not hear, and that their own heart may not understand and that they may not actually turn back and get healing for themselves.” At this I said: “How long, O Jehovah?” Then he said: “Until the cities actually crash in ruins, to be without an inhabitant, and the houses be without earthling man, and the ground itself is ruined into a desolation; and Jehovah actually removes earthling men far away, and the deserted condition does become very extensive in the midst of the land.” (Isaiah 6:10-12)

I can certainly predict that Wilson will fall back on quotes from Superman again and pretend that he is doing science.

This is a religious forum and I am doing religion. It is you who shouldn't be here. Go to a science page.

Referring to Superman comics again. Wilson, Superman does not exist. Superman was written to provide entertainment for kids. You're way too old to take it seriously. Wow, Superman again.

Religion is what I do. If you talk to me, that's all you'll get.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I know what you said. You don't know what "quote mining" is.
Here
Quote mining - Conservapedia
Make your corrections.

You can't even be bothered to go and get a definition of the term from an unbiased source. You turn to conservapedia...?

Here is a better understanding of the term without the (obvious bias assertions) displayed in your link.

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A change of target, eh? Now its the Book.

Nope. Your position is that a designer, you call it Jehovah, is the originator of life as we know it. If not then I stand corrected and you'll have to let me know what you mean by designer. In the ID group they don't normally use "God" as the main designer. Some in the group of ID supporters posit an "alien" life form as being responsible for life on our planet. You seem to fall more in the "creationist" category.

OK. Come on; you will just get a pounding.

:sleep:

That book is far above any science textbook you ever heard of

Not when it comes to the fossil record, diversity of life on the planet, archeology, geology, physics........:thud:

because it gives a reason for morality, the purpose and sanctity of life, making a success of marriage and family responsibility, honesty in business dealings and in life, love of God and fellow humans, proper care of earth and its animal inhabitants, how to achieve real and lasting peace in a world of violence, the correct use of knowledge (wisdom,) unerring prophecy and the future of humanity and the earth, none of which seems to be important to you.

Some of these things are important to me but most are equally as important to a Buddhist as well. To me all religions are on equal footing.....but hey, I digressed....none of this has to to with the fossil record...

Science makes problems. It provides no answers.

Scripture has a problem. It has no answers for fossils and the diversity of life on this planet.

Every artist is evaluated by his work. Creation is matchless! There's your evidence. It is all around you but you cannot see it.

This is a logical fallacy. You have an untestable hypothesis on the (who) and absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the (how).

There is no such thing as abiogenesis.
Life comes only from life.
That is a FACT!

Sure it can. If you think life can not come to be from non-life then you have some explaining to do. See, you actually AGREE with me that it can but you don't know why. I'll let you figure it out and get back to me to retract your declaration.....

I have no hypothesis and I don't care how.

Do you even know what a hypothesis is? As far as not caring about the (how). I can respect that.....but when you make the kinds of statements you've been making then you are are at odds with most of science. Science is all about the (how).

It does no such thing. What it proposes is impossible. DNA and genetics does not allow it.

Sure it does. Man is genetically related to primates. The GNOME Project has established this already. The fossil record suggest that we are very much alike.

Old bones have no answer either. They offer no hope for life. They only point to death.

Actually this is not true. If it were then the field of forensics would be a waste of time and energy. From the study of "old bones" (Osteology, Anthropology, Dentistry ), we can learn a lot about an animal as well as humans. We can tell where and how they lived as well as being able to tell what types of food the animal/humans ate and ultimately what could have caused the death of an animal/human.

Sin causes death.

See above.

The evidence of death is bones.

See above.

What good has it done the world? What good has it done you? It is worthless as far as solving the world's mushrooming problems are concerned. How can the fossil record stop the global economic free-fall? How can it stem the rising tide of violence? How can it get men to share the world's resources fairly? How can it protect your children from predators and online degradation? How can it stop the waste of warfare?
The Bible has the answers to all of that, the kind of stuff that is killing you and all of your generation.

This debate is about the fossil record. This branch of science (paleontology, anthropology and biology) are not for dealing with social-economical issues. We have threads here at RF setup for that.

I'll give you a Bible answer that you can test:
"You must love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 18:19)
You can test that and see how well it works.

So I take that as a (No)...to the question I asked.

You can allow yourself to be fooled that easily. Not me.
There are no transitional creatures. Never were.

I just showed you....but it's OK. You're just not interested to know that there are. That's fine with me. If you don't care...it's OK.

All living things produce only after their own kind.

You can allow yourself to be fooled that easily. Not me. There is no such thing as "kind". Never were.

 

[wilsoncole]

1) Assume artist.
2) Attribute reality to assumed artist.
3) Proof of artist.

Some of your best scientists have become convinced.
"Robert Jastrow, one of America’s foremost astronomers, wrote on the subject “Have Astronomers Found God?”
Among other things, he stated:
“Theologians are delighted that the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of Genesis—but curiously, astronomers are upset.”

The Big Bang is one of these evidences. It indicates that the universe had a beginning, just like Genesis 1:1 says.

"Regarding these astronomers, Jastrow goes on to say:
“Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.”

Denial takes over, sometimes accompanied by ridicule and abuse.

"Interestingly, Jastrow presents three lines of evidence that point to the fact that some 20 billion years ago there occurred a great explosion resulting in galaxies being driven apart at tremendous speeds, some actually at the rate of 100 million miles an hour!
Too, it has been determined that the farther out these galaxies are the faster they keep receding. He also reports that at first Einstein—and not only Einstein—was very skeptical regarding this “big bang” theory of the origin of the universe, making such observations as:
“To admit such possibilities seems senseless to me.”..... “This circumstance of an expanding universe is irritating.”

However, to Einstein’s credit, later he did acknowledge that the theory made sense to him, even as it now does to ever so many other scientists. Such a view of the origin of the universe, as Jastrow noted, at least agree with the Bible’s statement that there was a beginning to the material universe:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.(Watchtower 81 2/15 p. 3 pub. by JWs)

Now you can proceed to denigrate Jastrow in your usual fashion.

Nobody says he is/was a believer.

Do animals sin?

Nope!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

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....

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.

http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/WebJournals/FOB_4(SI1)IssueInformation.pdf

See the term “peer-reviewed“ on page 1?
See the impressive list of “peers?”
Note the date - only 4 months ago.



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

You can't even be bothered to go and get a definition of the term from an unbiased source. You turn to conservapedia...?

Here is a better understanding of the term without the (obvious bias assertions) displayed in your link.

Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I cited AWAKE! magazine online. You read it. Now you’re saying I quoted it “out of context?” Are you dreaming? Did you not read it?

Change of target. Now it’s the Book.

Nope.

Yep! First, you targeted me and found that I am not so easily broken. Your latest attack is now focused on the Bible and you lie about it.
This is what you wrote:

You promote your book as though it is but it's hardly able to play in the arena of science.

Which book are you talking about?

Your position is that a designer, you call it Jehovah, is the originator of life as we know it. If not then I stand corrected and you'll have to let me know what you mean by designer. In the ID group they don't normally use "God" as the main designer. Some in the group of ID supporters posit an "alien" life form as being responsible for life on our planet. You seem to fall more in the "creationist" category.

I don’t care about any ID group. Which book are you talking about?

That book is far above any science textbook you ever heard of because it gives a reason for morality, the purpose and sanctity of life, making a success of marriage and family responsibility, honesty in business dealings and in life, love of God and fellow humans, proper care of earth and its animal inhabitants, how to achieve real and lasting peace in a world of violence, the correct use of knowledge (wisdom,) unerring prophecy and the future of humanity and the earth, none of which seems to be important to you.

Some of these things are important to me but most are equally as important to a Buddhist as well. To me all religions are on equal footing.....but hey, I digressed....none of this has to to with the fossil record…

This answer is a blanket condemnation of religion which is totally irrelevant.
Which of these things are important to you and how can the fossil record help you to achieve them?

Scripture has a problem. It has no answers for fossils and the diversity of life on this planet.

Yet, it has outlasted all other forms of knowledge or schools of learning and will continue to do so. It also contains the answers to all the situations mentioned above and has been the source of comfort to millions of people the world over.
How is the fossil record helping the people in stricken Japan? What suggestions does it have for the future of nuclear energy?
ON THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS, THE FOSSIL RECORD IS USELESS! But is does promote and support your religion (evolution) so, you hang on for dear life.
You also wrote:

Your book is unable to shed light on the diversity of life on the planet

You are targeting a book. I ask you again: Which book are you talking about?

There is no such thing as abiogenesis.
Life comes only from life.
That is a FACT!

Sure it can.

Are you saying that life can emerge from non-living materials unaided?

If you think life can not come to be from non-life then you have some explaining to do.

You are some kind of joker! I have some explaining to do for what I think? What are you? Thought - police?

See, you actually AGREE with me that it can but you don't know why.

I agree with you? What brings you to that conclusion?

I'll let you figure it out and get back to me to retract your declaration..…

Don’t hold your breath.
Your “fossil record.”
I ask you again

What good has it done the world? What good has it done you? It is worthless as far as solving the world's mushrooming problems are concerned. How can the fossil record stop the global economic free-fall? How can it stem the rising tide of violence? How can it get men to share the world's resources fairly? How can it protect your children from predators and online degradation? How can it stop the waste of warfare?
The Bible has the answers to all of that, the kind of stuff that is killing you and all of your generation.
I'll give you a Bible answer that you can test:
"You must love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 18:19)
You can test that and see how well it works.

Actually this is not true. If it were then the field of forensics would be a waste of time and energy. From the study of "old bones" (Osteology, Anthropology, Dentistry ), we can learn a lot about an animal as well as humans. We can tell where and how they lived as well as being able to tell what types of food the animal/humans ate and ultimately what could have caused the death of an animal/human.

None of this has anything to do with the fossil record, so, who you kiddn’?

This debate is about the fossil record.

Yet - you target me and the Bible.

This branch of science (paleontology, anthropology and biology) are not for dealing with social-economical issues. We have threads here at RF setup for that.

Then stop targeting me and the Bible on this thread. OK? As long as you do, I will respond to it.

So I take that as a (No)...to the question I asked.

Which question is that?

You can allow yourself to be fooled that easily. Not me. There is no such thing as "kind". Never were.

So when can we expect dogs to give birth to eagles?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson

 

[Jose Fly]

Wilson,

Again:

So Wilson, since you clearly have no desire to subject your empty assertion about fossils to any sort of scrutiny, perhaps you can explain something for me. You've claimed that evolutionary transitions are totally lacking in the fossil record. How exactly do you know? Have you studied fossil specimens? Do you regularly peruse the relevant scientific journals? Do you attend conferences and symposiums and discuss the fossil record with professionals? Have you taken relevant undergraduate or graduate level courses?

Tell me Wilson, how did you come to be such an expert in paleontology that you feel qualified to speak as an authority about it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

None of this has anything to do with the fossil record, so, who you kiddn’?

Speaking of the fossil record...

Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence that humanity, life and the Earth are the creation of a supernatural being?

So when can we expect dogs to give birth to eagles?

:foot: