What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

That does not give him the right to an answer. But it DOES give me the right not to answer.
Besides, I was trying to get him to use his faculty of reason.
If he can pick out ANY religion that is not guilty of the listed practices, that is the one true religion.
If he cannot do it, what does that tell you?
See? A matter of simple deduction.

How about those fossils? Isn't it interesting how more modern, complex forms of life are always found in higher, newer rock beds?

 

[Autodidact]

Listen!
I know nothing about the Ashfall fossil beds.
See if you can enlighten me here.
Tell me all about it.
What does it prove to you? If you think it is conclusive proof that creation did not take place, show me how.

I'm all ears; uh! eyes.


BTW: We don't have a clergy.

Well, to disprove your hypothesis, we would first need to know what it is. Could you lay it out please, with some specificity as to time? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

You may have arrived as some very erroneous conclusions. You have no idea what I believe.
It is a mistake to think that I see matters exactly as all the other Bible believers that you have encountered.[/qoote] That's true. Lacking the scientific method, no two creationists believe the same things. Why don't you tell us what YOU thin happened?

 

[Autodidact]

Same old story again...

Creationists demanding justification and evidence for well established scientific theories, all the while providing none of their own to support their claims and "ideas", which by the way is just the same refuted nonsense time and again. Do they have like a training program for these people? :sarcastic

You'd think some of them would wise up eventually and go read a proper textbook at some point...

Actually, it's hard to even get them to say what their ideas are. For example, wilson has yet to share his personal hypothesis for the diversity of species on earth.

 

[Autodidact]

You make me wonder if one asteroid wiped out ALL the dinosaurs, if an asteroid shower killed them all, and if there was a time when only dinosaurs existed on the earth.
Think you can fill me in on that?
What does the "evidence" point to?

And don't allow yourself to be browbeaten by these people who think that flowers and snowflakes and water and insects can make themselves.

I cannot see the intelligence in such concepts.

Th evidence points to the dinosaurs having lived and gone extinct several hundred million years ago.

 

[wilsoncole]

So you think it's o.k. to plagiarize a magazine?
Here, I'll help you out. Make your own argument. If you use someone else's work, give the cite. Got it?

I did! Got it?

 

[Autodidact]

(A) "A purely materialistic philosophy is to me the height of unintelligence. Wise men in all the ages have always seen enough to at least make them reverent."

(B) "There is a divinity that shapes our ends ..."

(Robert A. Millikan ( Nobel Prize in Physics 1923 "for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect" )
W.-E. Loennig: Nobelpreistraeger und ID
biography Robert Andrews Millikan. The Nobel Prize in Physics

What on earth is your point?

 

[wilsoncole]

Th evidence points to the dinosaurs having lived and gone extinct several hundred million years ago.

Can you verify the figures?
What dating methods could possibly do so?

 

[Autodidact]

See Replies # 438, 441 and 447.

(A) "To postulate, as the positive songwriter of the end of the last century and their followers have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. ... The classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and It Amazes me that they were swallowed uncritically and readily Sun, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest. "

(B) "I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God can not be explained away by seeking naive thoughts."
(Sir Ernst Boris Chain Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945, with Sir Alexander Fleming and Lord Florey "for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases" )
W.-E. Loennig: Nobelpreistraeger und ID

Fallacy of the argument from inappropriate and outdated authority, anyone?

Why are you still talking about abiogenesis? Start a thread.
Why do you think a doctor in 1945 would have anything helpful to tell us about the state of knowledge 60 years later?

 

[micrurus]

Can you verify the figures?
What dating methods could possibly do so?

radiometric dating maybe?

 

[Autodidact]

I am just a Bible believer with no expertise in geology.

I told you I know nothing about Ashfall, did I not?

There is no way that fossils and evolution can be properly discussed without involving religion.

Why on earth not?

(B) "I do not understand how the scientific approach alone, as separated from a religious approach, can explain to origin of all things .... In my view the question of origin seems always left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone. "

1. If you don't want to be banned, stop plagiarizing. IT IS AGAINST FORUM RULES.
2. Why are you talking about cosmology in a thread about evolution? Can you not even distinguish one branch of science from another?

 

[Autodidact]

I did! Got it?

NO, you didn't. You are blatantly stealing other people's work without crediting them.

 

[wilsoncole]

Actually, it's hard to even get them to say what their ideas are. For example, wilson has yet to share his personal hypothesis for the diversity of species on earth.

People cannot go around creating "personal hypotheses" about the diversity of life and expect them all to be correct. There are things we humans can never know.
I believe all animate objects were created just the way they are.
They all produce after their own kind.
That is indisputable. Just like Genesis says:

"And God went on to say: "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth." And it came to be so. 12　And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. 13　And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day.......​

And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22　With that God blessed them, saying: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth." 23　

​

(Genesis 1:11-23)​

Now you know.
(Wonder why you couldn't figure that one out.)

 

[Autodidact]

Can you verify the figures?

The dinosaurs went extinct between 60-70 million years ago. (Pardon my previous error.) Here is a simple site that lays it out for you.

What dating methods could possibly do so?

Primarily radiometric dating.

 

[Autodidact]

People cannot go around creating "personal hypotheses" about the diversity of life and expect them all to be correct.

Right again. You have just stated that you are wrong.

There are things we humans can never know.

But science is the best way to find out, don't you agree?
What things?

I believe all animate objects were created just the way they are.

You mean, like if I pick up a rock, it has always looked exactly like that? The continents and mountains are exactly where they always were?

They all produce after their own kind.

What is a "kind?"

That is indisputable.

Really: Watch me.
There is no such thing as a kind. You are wrong.
There, I just disputed it.

So you're not even going to state a hypothesis? O.K. you have just given up. You have lost this argument.

 

[wilsoncole]

NO, you didn't. You are blatantly stealing other people's work without crediting them.

'Course I did!
You just were not careful enough to check. Or - you did not understand the abbreviations. Let me show you:
The theory was suggested in the eighteenth century but did not receive general acceptance until the publication of Sir Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1830-1833). In explanation of this idea Lyell pioneered the opinion that all the sedimentary rocks were deposited by extremely slow processes, such as rain washing loose sand down a mountain slope to a river; the river carrying these sediments into the sea. We are told that the sea basin would fill up, the water being pushed over onto the former land area. Then the process starts over again. And thus the continents have seesawed back and forth for countless aeons of time."
(g70 9/22 p. 9)
This is what comes off the books and magazines I have on CD.
The "g" means Awake! magazine, 1970 Sep. 22 issue, page 9)

Stop screaming, go back and check my quotes. Other people use those same sources on their own websites.
Example:
A question for anyone who believed the Flood happened.? - Yahoo! Answers
Check carefully the reply from "the other Paul M."
In most cases, they do not name their source.

I do.

 

[JustWondering2]

Wilson,

Since you didn't answer my last question regarding HOW the Iron in your blood came into existance, how about a simpler one, maybe you can answer this one considering you admit to knowing nothing about ash falls or geology. Please tell me what information your old book tells you about fossils and biology that gives you so much knowedge to call science into question? Exactly what qualifies you to say their wrong? Do you have some kind of a degree in science? No? Gee it shows!!! Ignore-ance is bliss isn't it?

 

[outhouse]

Please do so in another thread, this is one is supposed to be about fossils and evolution.

im sorry but this is on topic for the fact he doesnt believe in fossils only because it goes against his 3000 year old sheep herders manual.

no genesis, fossils simply become acceptable.

most creationist dont have a bit of problem with science and technology, but the second it points out the obvious flaws and fiction they develop partial science block LOL

I personaly know your waisting your time with this one. he has turned evolution into abigenesis and any other sideways off topic method he can imagine so he can dodge reality.

your trying to reason and its not effective. go for his source of creation as theres more holes to effect his thinking

and the others tripping through these stubborn threads

thanks for the bump

 

[wilsoncole]

Wilson,

Since you didn't answer my last question regarding HOW the Iron in your blood came into existance, how about a simpler one, maybe you can answer this one considering you admit to knowing nothing about ash falls or geology. Please tell me what information your old book tells you about fossils and biology that gives you so much knowedge to call science into question? Exactly what qualifies you to say their wrong? Do you have some kind of a degree in science? No? Gee it shows!!! Ignore-ance is bliss isn't it?

Feel better?

 

[JustWondering2]

So you have no answer to either question HUH? No answers in your book?

Never felt better, and you? I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago, I see you have not, too bad.