What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Stealing? Look - I give book, page and paragraph. I will do no more. You can Google the quote for yourself - OK?
Being new here, I am not permitted to direct anyone to a URL - yet.
BTW - You don't seem to know the difference between a quote and a quote-mine.

Well, if you didn't get this quote from some other lying, quote-mining creationist, then I'm sure you will have no difficulty in supplying us with the full context. My library does not contain any circa WW II Geology books but apparently yours does, so I'm sure you will have no difficulty in supplying the full context of this quote. Unless you stole it that is. Then you will be able to show us that it was a true quote, and not a quote mine, and really put me in my place.

My google skills are adequate, but I was not successful in locating the full quote, so I would appreciate it if you would oblige. Thank you.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that man and the earth were created.

then how do you explain neaderthal and all the other homonids that slowly progress backwarsd into primates

 

[Alceste]

Pretty quick on the name-calling, aren’t you? I truly hope that you are prepared to prove that.

Please. It only took five seconds.

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i, page 26

Don't embarrass yourself. When quoting somebody else's material, provide a link. Otherwise, use your own words please.

What if there’s no link and the material was duly credited? What does that make you? Slander is quite serious activity. I didn’t and don’t steal anything.

* Shakes head in disbelief. *

How stupid do you take us to be?

 

[Autodidact]

Mr Auto,
Peer-review and the scientific method are two entirely different things.

And apparently you reject both of them. Scientific method brought us the Theory of Evolution. No science, no evolution. Yes science, yes evolution. End of discussion.

Do you want more proof that the scientific community and its peer-review system is rife with fraud?

As you wish.

BTW - Why try so hard to prove creation is not science?
It is not science, so you can quit now - is that fine with you?

Absolutely. Creationism and science are two different things, and you accept creationism, and reject science.

If we are going to talk, I want you to know some things ahead of time:
1. I do not believe in teaching religion in schools. That should save you some time.
2. I do not believe that the earth was ever flat. More time saved.
3. I do not believe that the earth was created in six 24-hour days.
4. I do not believe that I should try to get laws changed to accomodate religion nor creation.
5. I do not believe that the Ten commandments should be displayed anywhere.
6. I believe that Freedom of speech should act as a deterrent to prohibiting such displays, but I would not agitate for it.
Please do not waste your time trying to convince me of the futility of these activities.
7. I believe that man and the earth were created.
8. I do not believe that the earth ever was the center of the universe.
9. There is no such thing as creationism. Creation is not a philosophy nor a scientific theory.
10. I believe that the 10th commandment is proof of God's existence. You will never be able to figure out how.
11. I do not believe the Bible says that bats are birds and I can prove it.
12. I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself.
13. I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
14. I believe that evolution is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world.

I really don't care what you do or don't believe. This thread is not about you; it's about the fossil record. Have you anything to say on the subject?

There are many others.

Have I made myself clear?

I think so. You choose myth over science. So what is there to discuss? Science gives us evolution; myth gives us Biblical Creationism. I rely on science, and you rely on myth.

I do think you should junk your computer, though, just to be cricket.

 

[David M]

Not true!
Let's see what you know about the Vedas:
1. How old is it?
2. How widely is it read in comparison to the Bible?

It dates from around 1500BC, and when was the Torah written down?

Around 1 Billion people are Hindu.

“It was only in the fourteenth century A.D. that the Veda was written down...” (A History of India, 1978, page 24 P. K. Saratkumar)

Completely untrue and irrelevant. The Rig-Veda was composed before the Torah and survives to this day.

3. This means that for most of the time the Vedas were in existence the people could not read it. The same cannot be said of the Torah.

Yes it can.

4. The Vedas was never under attack by any nation the way the Bible was.

Irrelevant.

 

[outhouse]

the belief in creation is a lack of education in my opinion.

what most people dont realize as we have been through all the arguements and there always the same, there always weak and they never pan out.

 

[outhouse]

Please. It only took five seconds.

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i, page 26

Don't embarrass yourself. When quoting somebody else's material, provide a link. Otherwise, use your own words please.



* Shakes head in disbelief. *

How stupid do you take us to be?

I found that yesterday and figured thats where he was stealing his material.

OMG medical students cheated evolution is a bust

 

[Alceste]

I found that yesterday and figured thats where he was stealing his material.

OMG medical students cheated evolution is a bust

Just goes to show you that when you get used to simply repeating what you're told by your leaders without any reflection or further investigation, you tend to assume everybody else is equally bereft of intellectual curiosity.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh, I have lots of ideas - you'll see. In the meantime, I will point out the flaws in the system as I find them.
You will read them as I write them.
What can you do about that?

Nothing.
But I can shrug and ignore you since you apparently have nothing of use to contribute.
Mate, it's not like you're some kind of wise-man on top of a mountain or anything. We don't -have- to humour you.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You want to argue with Richard Dawkins?
You should check out page 16 of his book "The Selfish Gene." Even you wouldn't believe what he says there!
I suppose you know more about it than he does - huh?

My copy is on loan to a friend so why don't you enlighten me?
I've read most of Dawkins' books and I have never seen him claim that the first single-celled creature formed in a single step. In fact, I am currently reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' in which the subject comes up and it appears as if the former professor is in full agreement with what I told you earlier.

 

[Amill]

14. I believe that evolution is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world.

What would be the purpose of such a fraud? There are quite a lot of scientists who do believe in god and do belong to a religion but also think that the theory of evolution more adequately explains the observations in nature....so it's not as if evolution is part of some anti-religious agenda...so...what exactly do all these people have to gain by perpetrating such a fraud? And if they're all in on it why on earth would they quarrel over the details on such things as avian evolution? Why would they have wasted time debating whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or some kind of reptile?

 

[wilsoncole]

Please. It only took five seconds.

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i, page 26

Don't embarrass yourself. When quoting somebody else's material, provide a link. Otherwise, use your own words please.

* Shakes head in disbelief. *

How stupid do you take us to be?

You really wouldn't want to know that!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Isn't it amazing that wilsoncole's "evidence of peer review fraud" is also evidence that peer review reveled the frauds?

Or that he has yet to provide any objective evidence in support of YEC?


No, not that amazing at all.
Predictable.

 

[wilsoncole]

Well, if you didn't get this quote from some other lying, quote-mining creationist, then I'm sure you will have no difficulty in supplying us with the full context. My library does not contain any circa WW II Geology books but apparently yours does, so I'm sure you will have no difficulty in supplying the full context of this quote. Unless you stole it that is. Then you will be able to show us that it was a true quote, and not a quote mine, and really put me in my place.

My google skills are adequate, but I was not successful in locating the full quote, so I would appreciate it if you would oblige. Thank you.

Listen - you cannot order me around. You cannot address me like you would a dog and expect me to lick your hand. Your attitude is arrogant, nasty, haughty and disrespectful. Accusing people of stealing and lying and being unable to prove it, is not conducive to peaceful discussions. There is nothing you can say to me on religion that I have not heard before.
All of my quotes are duly credited. Go ahead and check them out.

If you think I plagiarized anything, you have to prove it or let it be.

If we are going to have any future discussion, it has to be amicable or I will not respond to anything else you say to me.

Do you read me - Sir?

 

[wilsoncole]

then how do you explain neaderthal and all the other homonids that slowly progress backwarsd into primates

Largely imagination and artists' impressions.

 

[wilsoncole]

My copy is on loan to a friend so why don't you enlighten me?
I've read most of Dawkins' books and I have never seen him claim that the first single-celled creature formed in a single step. In fact, I am currently reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' in which the subject comes up and it appears as if the former professor is in full agreement with what I told you earlier.

Enlighten you?
Not my job, man!
Take your time - You'll see what I mean.

 

[wilsoncole]

Isn't it amazing that wilsoncole's "evidence of peer review fraud" is also evidence that peer review reveled the frauds?

Or that he has yet to provide any objective evidence in support of YEC?


No, not that amazing at all.
Predictable.

Why should I?
I never made the claim. I don't believe in YEC.
I tried to save you the time by informing you in advance.
See Reply # 100.

 

[wilsoncole]

Please. It only took five seconds.
Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i, page 26
Don't embarrass yourself. When quoting somebody else's material, provide a link. Otherwise, use your own words please.
* Shakes head in disbelief. *
How stupid do you take us to be?

Well - I never laid eyes on that website. But you’re wrong!
The embarrassment is yours!
Now go back to Reply # 42. You will notice this at the end of the article: (AW g90 1/22 p. 7)
That’s Awake! 1990, Jan. 22nd issue, page 7.
Seems like whoever placed that on your link failed to give credit to the original writers like I did.

This is what the first page looks like:
FRAUD in Science
It Makes the Headlines
"Ethics in Science"
"A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science."—Science, July 7, 1989.

"Do Scientists Cheat?"
"After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg."—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.

"Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat"
"It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature."—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.

"A Nation of Liars? Scientists Falsify Research"
"A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers."—U.S.News & World Report, February 23, 1987.

"NIH Sees Plagiarism in Vision Paper"
"Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; . . . NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings."—Science, July 14, 1989.

"'Permissive Behaviour' Breeds Fraud in the Laboratory"
"Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money."—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.

"Researchers Roll Back the Frontiers of Fraud"
"Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be

Awake! January 22, 1990 3


Now - how stupid do you feel?

 

[Amill]

You say you don't trust the peer review system but when you provide examples why you use some articles from peer review journals as evidence? Explain? Do you trust peer review journals when it supports your views?

Largely imagination and artists' impressions.

Neanderthals never existed?

I also ask again

14. I believe that evolution is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world.

What would be the purpose of such a fraud? There are quite a lot of scientists who do believe in god and do belong to a religion but also think that the theory of evolution more adequately explains the observations in nature....so it's not as if evolution is part of some anti-religious agenda...so...what exactly do all these people have to gain by perpetrating such a fraud? And if they're all in on it why on earth would they quarrel over the details on such things as avian evolution? Why would they have wasted time debating whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or some kind of reptile? Who cares if it's either a mammal-like reptile or a reptile-like mammal? Is it a bear-dog or a dog-bear?

 

[Autodidact]

Listen - you cannot order me around. You cannot address me like you would a dog and expect me to lick your hand. Your attitude is arrogant, nasty, haughty and disrespectful. Accusing people of stealing and lying and being unable to prove it, is not conducive to peaceful discussions. There is nothing you can say to me on religion that I have not heard before.
All of my quotes are duly credited. Go ahead and check them out.

I'm sorry, I'm unable to find a copy of this 1949 book, either in print or on line. Would you be so kind as to do so? Thanks.

You gave a quote. I can't find the context, after having tried. Can you? If not, why not? If you didn't get this quote from someone else, you must have the full book. It's either one or the other. Either you got the snippet from someone else, or you have the full work. Which is it?

If you think I plagiarized anything, you have to prove it or let it be.

Alceste did it for me. Thanks, Alceste.

If we are going to have any future discussion, it has to be amicable or I will not respond to anything else you say to me.

Completely up to you what you want to respond to or not, wilson.

Do you read me - Sir?

Yes, I do, thanks.

So I gather you don't wish to--or can't--respond to any of my points?