What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

What I said is that Coelocanth is a common name for an order of fish, an order can contain many species. In the same way "humming bird" is a common name that covers a number of species of bird.

I know what you said. You're doing it again! You cannot change the words;
Here they are again:
Originally Posted by David M
You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?
WHICH IS IT?
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH YOU !

I really do not understand why you have to resort to dishonesty to make a point.
Maybe they need some embellishment because they are so inadequate - eh?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Then why avoid the question?

You manage to cancel out your question by adding that last phrase:
Since I do not read ALL of Genesis literally, your question is irrelevant.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

I suppose if you have a very liberal definition of what a moose is.

I don't think that a moose needs a definition

That a moose is just a deer.... and on and on. And that the differences in the modern populations are inconsequential.

If these populations are identified as Moose, then Moose they are and will remain Moose.

I don't think God left all these fossils and genetic evidence to trick us and lead us astray.

wa:do

You HAVE been tricked - but not by God.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[David M]

Sorry, Dave. Are you going to lie too? Check again.
Evolutionists on a lying spree or something?

Wrong again. Here are your words. The only lying spree at the moment is not being carried out by those who accept evolution.

In the mating process, the weaker moose is shoved aside and the stronger one gets to mate. But you have shown absolutely nothing that could alter their genetic information; so there is no transformation in the species.

You equated successful mating with altering genetic information.

I know what Darwin proposed as "fittest." He called it "natural selection."

No he didn't. Don't tell lies.

In fact Darwin did not even coin the phrase Survival of the Fittest.

You cannot tell me what I did not understand. Others think like me on this point.
“Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea....As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering..." ( Tom Bethell Harper’s magazine February 1976, pp. 72, 75.)

As Darwin never claimed that this is what helps create an organism Bethell would be demonstrating the same level of ignorance that you do if he had actually said this.

However the original attribution is Tom Bethell, “Darwin’s Mistake,” The Craft of Prose, pp. 311, 314. Yes that single quote spans 4 whole pages. This is a dishonest quote mine that you have copied from some creationist web page.

Goalpost moving is getting quite popular.
"Survival" means something one day, and when seriously challenged, it means something else the next.

No, it means the same thing when it is a metaphor for the same thing. You just fail to understand the complex idea being conveyed by that metaphor.

You do the same things with lots of words. Like "theory." "Empirical evidence" is now "theory." "Theory" is now fact. "Fact" is now "perhaps" or "maybe" or "could be" or "possible". Evidence is no longer proof.

Blatant falsehoods. Just because you are too ignorant to realise the meaning of these words, and too fond of twisting words yourself does not mean other people do not realise they have meaning.

 

[David M]

Seems like deception is deeply ingrained in unbelievers.
Check Reply # 1061
These are my words:
"Theory talking! Do I have to say it again? There is no such thing as luck and there is no alteration in the genetic data. Maybe you can prove that there is. I'd like to see it. So moose remains moose."
What is your purpose in twisting my words?

Wrong again. Firstly these is this:

In the mating process, the weaker moose is shoved aside and the stronger one gets to mate. But you have shown absolutely nothing that could alter their genetic information; so there is no transformation in the species.

And the quote you use above was in direct response to mooses "getting lucky" (i.e having sex) and mating.

This is what you were replying to.

As you know, the moose that loses its bid for mating privileges does not get to pass on its DNA that mating season unless it gets lucky with another lady moose. Its genes have a lower chance of surviving in the species than the moose that does get to mate.

Yes, you wrote that mating should result in changes in genetic information and you did it twice. Someone with an ounce of personal integrity would admit they were wrong (from ignorance or plain error), you can do neither.

You have little defence that your words were being misinterpreted because you claim great experience with the written word, so you should not be using words that you do not mean.

You and your cronies are quite mistaken or deliberately deceitful.

The only deceit taking place here is you denying your own words or trying to twist them to hide your displays of ignorance.

Check Reply # 1009 again. You cannot alter the words. They are as if chiseled in stone.
I did not say "Study of old bones is stupid." I know that such studies pay well.
My exact words:
"Faithin old bones is quite stupid. They cannot provide for you protect you nor save you."

Now let's use the words the way you claimed I did - OK?
"Study of old bones is stupid. They cannot provide for you protect you nor save you."
You can only have faith in something greater than yourself. Something that can provide for you, protect you or save you.

And the "faith" that you decry come directly and unavoidably from the study of old bones, so by calling one stupid you are calling the other stupid .

Dave, don't talk to me about honesty. You are unable to recognize it. That is why you cannot admit that you lied.

You would not know honesty if it bit you on the bum. You cannot admit to the egregious and basic mistakes about evolution and science you make time and again in your posts.

 

[David M]

I know what you said. You're doing it again! You cannot change the words;
Here they are again:
Originally Posted by David M
You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?
WHICH IS IT?
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH YOU !

For someone with so much claimed experience with the written word you evidence the reading comprehension of a 4 year old, you seem unable to grasp the concept of a name being applied to a group being seperate from the names of individual members of that group.

There is no "which". The statement is grammatically and factually correct.

"Coelacanth is not a species". That means that the word Coelacanth does not apply to a(1) species.
"Its a common name for an entire order of fish". That means that the word Coelacanth describes a group of fish species, not a(1) species but many species.
" 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today". That means that 2 species of fish that fall within the group of fish species collectively called Coelacanths have been indentified as being alive that the momemt.

The 2 species alive today are:

• Latimeria chalumnae
  
• Latimaria menadoensis

Lets try a similar statement, see if you can grasp the concepts here.

You do realise that Humming Bird is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire family of birds and that over 300 species of Humming Birds have been found alive today?

At this point someone with intergrity will admit "Oh yeah you were correct, I didn't understand, my mistake". Somehow I have a feeling that you are not capable of such an admission.

I really do not understand why you have to resort to dishonesty to make a point.
Maybe they need some embellishment because they are so inadequate - eh?

I really do not understand why you have to resort to dishonesty to make a point. Maybe its just to conceal the inadequacies in your knowledge.

 

[wilsoncole]

For someone with so much claimed experience with the written word you evidence the reading comprehension of a 4 year old, you seem unable to grasp the concept of a name being applied to a group being seperate from the names of individual members of that group.

That's not the problem at all. I am not making any claims in this statement - YOU ARE! You contradicted yourself in YOUR statement and you will not admit it.

There is no "which". The statement is grammatically and factually correct.

Still not the problem; You contradicted yourself and you will not admit it.

"Coelacanth is not a species". That means that the word Coelacanth does not apply to a(1) species.
"Its a common name for an entire order of fish". That means that the word Coelacanth describes a group of fish species, not a(1) species but many species.
" 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today". That means that 2 species of fish that fall within the group of fish species collectively called Coelacanths have been indentified as being alive that the momemt.

Still not the problem. Hiding behind wordy explanations won't cut it. You contradicted yourself and you won't admit it.

Lets try a similar statement, see if you can grasp the concepts here.

You do realise that Humming Bird is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire family of birds and that over 300 species of Humming Birds have been found alive today?

Still not the problem. You contradicted yourself and you just won't admit it.

At this point someone with intergrity will admit "Oh yeah you were correct, I didn't understand, my mistake". Somehow I have a feeling that you are not capable of such an admission.

Only one problem - you are NOT correct. I did not contradict myself because I was not making a statement - YOU were. And if I was not making a statement, WHAT WAS MY MISTAKE? See if you can grasp the concept here.
You going to try and dance your way out of that?

OK. Let's do it this way:
"You realise that coelacanth is not a species..........and that 2 species of coelacanth have been found alive today."
The sum of your statement is that, while coelacanth is not a species, 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found.
Your statement is contradictory and you cannot twist your way out ot it, not even with the agility of a hummingbird.

I really do not understand why you have to resort to dishonesty to make a point. Maybe its just to conceal the inadequacies in your knowledge.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Amill]

OK. Let's do it this way:
"You realise that coelacanth is not a species..........and that 2 species of coelacanth have been found alive today."
The sum of your statement is that, while coelacanth is not a species, 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found.
Your statement is contradictory and you cannot twist your way out ot it, not even with the agility of a hummingbird.

Wtf. His statement wasn't contradictory at all.

"You realize that Mammal is not a species............and that many species of mammal have been found alive today."

Is that a contradictory claim? It's not any different than the claim he made. I'm not sure why you're wasting so much time focusing on it. I am actually wondering if you're joking.

 

[David M]

OK. Let's do it this way:
"You realise that coelacanth is not a species..........and that 2 species of coelacanth have been found alive today."

That is a quote-mine. You have deliberately omitted a third of that sentence, which is the part which explicitly explains that Coelacanth is the common name for a group of species.

Its because you didn't know what an order was isn't it. Now that you have been told that it is a taxonomic ranking that contains multiple species all you can do is pretend it was never there.

Ceolacanth is the common name for an Order. Latimeria chalumnae is a species.

The sum of your statement is that, while coelacanth is not a species, 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found.

The sum of my statement is that coelacanth is the common name for a group of species and that 2 species of that group have been found alive. You are quote-mining to reach your invalid interpretation.

Your statement is contradictory and you cannot twist your way out ot it, not even with the agility of a hummingbird.

Bollocks, both coelacanth and humming bird are not "a species", they are names given to a grouping of species. Same as with Lizard, Mammal, Thrush, Frog, Newt, Fish etc etc. It is not a contradiction to say that we have identifiedn many species that are coelacanths, just as we have identified many species that are Hummingbirds, or Lizards, or Frogs etc.

Its funny that you are now reduced to quote mining posts on RF to try and avoid admitting you were wrong. Or maybe its just pathetic, either way your credibility here must be at rock bottom by now.

 

[wilsoncole]

Wtf. His statement wasn't contradictory at all.

"You realize that Mammal is not a species............and that many species of mammal have been found alive today."

Is that a contradictory claim?

YES!

It's not any different than the claim he made. I'm not sure why you're wasting so much time focusing on it. I am actually wondering if you're joking.

Not joking! HE made the claim.
I am giving this man the time so that he can establish, with no uncertainty and in the sight of God and men, what kind of person he REALLY is.

&#8220;. . .for by your words you will be declared righteous, and by your words you will be condemned.&#8221;&#8221; (Matthew 12:37)​

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

Wilson

 

[camanintx]

I know what you said. You're doing it again! You cannot change the words;
Here they are again:
Originally Posted by David M
You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?
WHICH IS IT?
SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH YOU !

I really do not understand why you have to resort to dishonesty to make a point.
Maybe they need some embellishment because they are so inadequate - eh?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

This makes me wonder how well you really understand the english language.

 

[LuisDantas]

One certainly wonders.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You manage to cancel out your question by adding that last phrase:
Since I do not read ALL of Genesis literally, your question is irrelevant.


Wilson

Still avoiding.
Does the fossil record, where you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development, lead to an obvious conclusion that God created life in it's current form?
And if so, can you show us the research leading to this conclusion?

 

[fantome profane]

That's not the problem at all. I am not making any claims in this statement - YOU ARE! You contradicted yourself in YOUR statement and you will not admit it.

Still not the problem; You contradicted yourself and you will not admit it.

Still not the problem. Hiding behind wordy explanations won't cut it. You contradicted yourself and you won't admit it.


Still not the problem. You contradicted yourself and you just won't admit it.


Only one problem - you are NOT correct. I did not contradict myself because I was not making a statement - YOU were. And if I was not making a statement, WHAT WAS MY MISTAKE? See if you can grasp the concept here.
You going to try and dance your way out of that?

OK. Let's do it this way:
"You realise that coelacanth is not a species..........and that 2 species of coelacanth have been found alive today."
The sum of your statement is that, while coelacanth is not a species, 2 SPECIES of coelacanth have been found.
Your statement is contradictory and you cannot twist your way out ot it, not even with the agility of a hummingbird.

I really do not understand why you have to resort to dishonesty to make a point. Maybe its just to conceal the inadequacies in your knowledge.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Are you capable of considering the possibility that you are mistaken?

I think several people have tried to explain to you that you do not understand the statement that you think is contradictory. It is not contradictory. Coelacanth is an “order”, it is not a “species”. That means it is not a single species, it is a category that consists of several species. Several species belong to the order of coelacanth.

Coelacanth is not a single species; it is a category that consists of many species. Two species have been found that belong to the order coelacanth. That is not a contradiction, and there is no dishonesty involved.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think Wilson just crapped all over the chessboard.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't think that a moose needs a definition

It doesn't?
If I call this a moose it's OK then?

If these populations are identified as Moose, then Moose they are and will remain Moose.

So... if it's called a mouse then it is a mouse... so all these things are the same to you?

You HAVE been tricked - but not by God.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Are you saying that something other than god has creative power? :areyoucra

And Coelocanth is a word like deer is.... it's a broad category not a specific thing.

Deer is not a species... its a group of species. There are 45 species of deer.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Still avoiding.
Does the fossil record, where you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development, lead to an obvious conclusion that God created life in it's current form?

I believe the fossil record is imperfect and does not "lead to a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development."
Besides:
The statement is contradictory.
If "God created life in its current form," there would NOT be a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development" in the fossil record. No de-ve-lop-ment of any kind would be evidenced or necessary as all working parts would be in place.

And if so, can you show us the research leading to this conclusion?

No!

Not very smart.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Still avoiding.

Still moving goalposts?

Does the fossil record, where you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development, lead to an obvious conclusion that God created life in it's current form?
And if so, can you show us the research leading to this conclusion?

Maybe you can tell us why you are changing the question.
Eh?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Are you capable of considering the possibility that you are mistaken?

NO! Since I am not making any statement or claims, please point out my mistake.

I think several people have tried to explain to you that you do not understand the statement that you think is contradictory. It is not contradictory. Coelacanth is an “order”, it is not a “species”.

Have I said anything to the contrary?

That means it is not a single species, it is a category that consists of several species. Several species belong to the order of coelacanth.

Fine! No argument here.

Coelacanth is not a single species; it is a category that consists of many species. Two species have been found that belong to the order coelacanth.

Still no argument.

That is not a contradiction,

What isn’t?

and there is no dishonesty involved.

The dishonesty is in the cover-up story.
As I pointed out, I am not disputing his statement about order and species as you seem to think.
Can you show me anything I wrote that indicates a dispute on my part?
So - why the need for any kind of "explanation?" Oh! I see - you're practicing your browbeating techniques - right?
Does not, will not work on me.
HE made the statement, not me. I have not tried to alter it nor reject it - have I?
Nevertheless, I maintain that the statement is contradictory.

"Originally Posted by David M
You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?"

Please tell me how in the world 2 SPECIES of any animal can be found alive when that animal is not a species.

Why you cannot see it is a mystery to me.


&#12288;
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Originally Posted by David M
You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?"

Please tell me how in the world 2 SPECIES of any animal can be found alive when that animal is not a species.

Why you cannot see it is a mystery to me.

He said there are 2 species of coelacanth, as in "two species within the order of coelacanth".

For God's sake, get it through your head. Are you seriously this dense, or are you this desperate to cover up your mistake?