What does the fossil record say?

[painted wolf]

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.

You seem to be missing the key part of the statement.

"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?"
Why are you ignoring the key part of the sentence and then claiming that others are being deceitful?

This is a silly argument. Dragging it out only reflects badly.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

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?

Whoa!
Stay cool.
I know what he said. I accept what he said.
You are still "explaining" what you do not need to.

Why is it that you cannot tell me what my mistake is when I have made no statement nor claim?
You're getting all heated up.
Keep this principle in mind:

“As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.” (Proverbs 26:17)
Do you have a quarrel with me?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

NEXTTTTT.......!!!!!!

Let's move on and stay on topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why is it that you cannot tell me what my mistake is when I have made no statement nor claim?

Your claim was that the statement was a contradiction - it was not, only by your misreading of it.

You're getting all heated up.
Keep this principle in mind:

“As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.” (Proverbs 26:17)
Do you have a quarrel with me?

I have a quarrel with anyone who distorts what other people say in order to refuse admitting to a simple mistake, yes. I also have a quarrel with people who refuse to admit their own ignorance of a subject, and instead assert their intellectual superiority in that subject. I also have a quarrel with anyone who favours ignorance instead of facts.

So yes, I most definitely have a quarrel with you with regards to this topic.

 

[fantome profane]

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

Here is your mistake.

You contradicted yourself and you will not admit it.

And you are also mistaken in stating that you did not make a claim. You did make a claim, and you have repeated that claim several times, and that claim that you made is obviously mistaken.

You made the claim that David M had contradicted himself.

You claimed that he contradicted himself. He did not. You are mistaken in your believe that he contradicted himself. And I am wondering if you have the capacity to consider the possibility that you are mistaken in your belief that he contradicted himself. And more generally if you are capable of considering the possibility that you are mistaken about anything.

 

[Krok]

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?

I'll vote for....seriously this dense. The other options don't seem to apply in this case.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

No!

Not very smart.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Still moving goalposts?

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

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Reworded the question in an attempt to get a strait answer.
And it seems from your above reply that your answer is basically no, the fossil record does no support any variation of Creationism.
I guess that is about as close to an answer as we can expect from you.

 

[wilsoncole]

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

Why are you asking me? I am not an authority on such things. You can call it whatever you like.

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

NO!
I wrote: "You have been tricked, but not by God."

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

What did I say that gave you that impression?
Listen, lady,
You are not nearly smart enough to trick me. I am a reasonably careful person who thinks about what I'm saying. As a very good checker player, I have learned to anticipate certain moves of the opponent. Sometimes they surprise me when they are very good.
Point is: I try to apply this attitude when writing things down. I can detect a trick very quickly, so don't try it with me.
So - what did I say that gave you that impression?

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

I won't argue.

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

I could argue about that. It is contradictory. I know what you're trying to say but you are not helping
DEER: (Wikipedia)
"Deer (singular and plural) are the ruminantmammals forming the family Cervidae. Species in the Cervidae family include White-tailed deer, Elk, Moose, Red Deer, Reindeer, Roe and Chital."

They seem to be talking about species of deer. Yet, you tell me it is not a species.
I could offer you some help, if you like.
Tell you what I did:
I wrote down this sentence, just like it is:
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?

and took it to a friend of mine, a researcher at a University biology department without any comment, to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
She was able to spot the contradiction immediately.
Then I took it to another friend, head of a government health department, still without comment and the same question. The contradiction was spotted immediately.
I showed it to my wife - same result. I will continue to show it to others, without comment except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
Why don't you try that? David M could, too - and all the others who tried to browbeat me into total capitulation.
Remember, no comment at all except the same question. You may be able to see what I see.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Look, there's an easy way to determine that you are both incredibly dense and lying through your teeth on this issue, Wilsoncole.

"Potato chips are not a flavour, there are many different flavours of potato chips."

Now, is that contradiction?

Also, I'd just like to point out the whole point of that statement to begin with: Wilsoncole did not know or understand the difference between species, family or genus, and is therefore uninformed on the subject of biology to the extent that his uninformed opinion can be easily discarded as entirely irrelevant to the issue.

 

[outhouse]

you are lost in your own little world

I could argue about that.

no you cannot

 

[wilsoncole]

Your claim was that the statement was a contradiction - it was not, only by your misreading of it.


I have a quarrel with anyone who distorts what other people say in order to refuse admitting to a simple mistake, yes. I also have a quarrel with people who refuse to admit their own ignorance of a subject, and instead assert their intellectual superiority in that subject. I also have a quarrel with anyone who favours ignorance instead of facts.

So yes, I most definitely have a quarrel with you with regards to this topic.

"Intellectual superiority" my foot! I said the statement is contradictory and it is. So - what do you want to do about it?
Just more browbeating?

See Reply # 1108.
Keep this principle in mind also:

“Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.” (Ecclesiastes 7:9)​

​

​

​

“He that is quick to anger will commit foolishness, but the man of thinking abilities is hated.” (Proverbs 14:17)​

“Do not have companionship with anyone given to anger; and with a man having fits of rage you must not enter in, that you may not get familiar with his paths and certainly take a snare for your soul.” (Proverbs 22:24-25)​

“A man given to anger stirs up contention, and anyone disposed to rage has many a transgression.” (Proverbs 29:22)​

“Let anger alone and leave rage; Do not show yourself heated up only to do evil.” (Psalm 37:8)​

Calm down, buddy!​

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Intellectual superiority" my foot! I said the statement is contradictory and it is. So - what do you want to do about it?

What I've done for several pages now: point out that's it's not a contradiction and repeatedly explain it to you in the hope that at some point you might be able to remove your head from your arse and admit your mistake.

Also, you said earlier that you "never made any statements or claims", and now you admit that you you "said the statement is contradictory". This, unless you are illiterate or otherwise somehow unable to process the fact, is obviously a claim. So, are you now going to admit to both of your errors?

Just more browbeating?

Speaking of "beating":

See Reply # 1108.
Keep this principle in mind also:

&#8220;Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.&#8221; (Ecclesiastes 7:9)​

Where have I been offended?

​

​

​

&#8220;He that is quick to anger will commit foolishness, but the man of thinking abilities is hated.&#8221; (Proverbs 14:17)​

There's a difference between anger and frustration at someone continuing to display arrogance in the face of their own provable ignorance.

Now, I'll ask again:

"Potato chips are not a flavour, there are many different flavours of potato chips."

Are you going to continue in the pursuit of your delusion and assert that the above sentence is a contradiction, or are you going to apologize to David M and admit to your error?

And, again, the point is and always has been that you don't know anything about taxonomy.

 

[wilsoncole]

Reworded the question in an attempt to get a strait answer.
And it seems from your above reply that your answer is basically no, the fossil record does no support any variation of Creationism.
I guess that is about as close to an answer as we can expect from you.

Who you kidd'n'?
You changed the question!
And
What are you doing?
Let's just deal with this one first - OK?

Originally Posted by wilsoncole
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.

No!

Not very smart.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Do you agree?

 

[David M]

I wrote down this sentence, just like it is:
Originally Posted by David M

and took it to a friend of mine, a researcher at a University biology department without any comment, to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
She was able to spot the contradiction immediately.
Then I took it to another friend, head of a government health department, still without comment and the same question. The contradiction was spotted immediately.
I showed it to my wife - same result. I will continue to show it to others, without comment except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
Why don't you try that? David M could, too - and all the others who tried to browbeat me into total capitulation.
Remember, no comment at all except the same question. You may be able to see what I see.

Trying for an Argument from authority I see.

Its already been countered by the multiple people on this board who have told you its not a contradiction and even explained why its not.

Your desparation not to accept that you are mistaken is now laughable.

 

[painted wolf]

and took it to a friend of mine, a researcher at a University biology department without any comment, to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
She was able to spot the contradiction immediately.
Then I took it to another friend, head of a government health department, still without comment and the same question. The contradiction was spotted immediately.
I showed it to my wife - same result. I will continue to show it to others, without comment except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
Why don't you try that? David M could, too - and all the others who tried to browbeat me into total capitulation.
Remember, no comment at all except the same question. You may be able to see what I see.

POE! This is such over the top justification/rationalization/face saving that it not only jumps the shark, it's over the moon.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmortalFlame
Look, there's an easy way to determine that you are both incredibly dense and lying through your teeth on this issue, Wilsoncole.

"Potatoes are not a flavour, there are many different flavours of potatoes." (Emphasis mine)
Now, is that contradiction?[/QUOTE]

Put that way,
YES!

Also, I'd just like to point out the whole point of that statement to begin with: Wilsoncole did not know or understand the difference between species, family or genus, and is therefore uninformed on the subject of biology to the extent that his uninformed opinion can be easily discarded as entirely irrelevant to the issue.

So why not be kind to yourself and cease and desist from participation in this discussion?
Are you chained here?

Try this:
I wrote down this sentence, just like it is:

Originally Posted by David M
Quote:
"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?"

and took it to a friend of mine, a researcher at a University biology department without any comment, except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
She was able to spot the contradiction immediately.
Then I took it to another friend, head of a government health department, still without comment and the same question. The contradiction was spotted immediately.
I showed it to my wife - same result.

I will continue to show it to others, without comment except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
Why don't you try that?

David M could, too - and all the others who tried to browbeat me into total capitulation.
Remember, no comment at all except the same question. You may be able to see what I see.

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

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Trying for an Argument from authority I see.

Its already been countered by the multiple people on this board who have told you its not a contradiction and even explained why its not.

Your desparation not to accept that you are mistaken is now laughable.

So you gonna try it?
With someone who has not seen this board?
And try to be honest. (?)

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

POE! This is such over the top justification/rationalization/face saving that it not only jumps the shark, it's over the moon.

wa:do

Browbeating isn't working.

What is right is right. And you do believe in standing up for what you think is right - don't you?

So do I!

Why don't you take my suggestion?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[camanintx]

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.

Please tell me how in the world 2 shades of any color can be found when that color is not a shade.

Your failure to grasp the relationship between order and species is a mystery to me. Here's an idea for you. If you are going to try to argue against something, try understanding it first.

 

[painted wolf]

Browbeating isn't working.

What is right is right. And you do believe in standing up for what you think is right - don't you?

So do I!

Why don't you take my suggestion?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Because I believe that admitting when I'm wrong is as important as standing up for what I think is right.... it's part of it in fact.

I'm not trying to browbeat you... I'm trying to explain why I think you made a mistake. I think it's unusual the lengths you have gone to defend what is ultimately a trivial matter.

If your honor demands you be correct in this instance so badly, then there is little that can be done.

We can only learn what we can from this incident and move on.

wa:do