• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does the fossil record say?

jarofthoughts

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

Sorry mate, you just lost the last ounce of entertainment value you had.
You are either unwilling or unable to back up any of your claims and statements and that makes you completely uninteresting to debate with.
It is not our job to research your claims for you.
In fact, it is expected of people that they themselves back up their statements.
Right now your credibility is about the same level as people standing on a street corner yelling about lizard people.

Farewell.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
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.

:rolleyes:

7. I believe that man and the earth were created.




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?

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

And how ignorant of the scientific method do you feel?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
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.

Your quotes are copied and pasted verbatim from an unaccredited website. I've already proven this - the odds of you and the person who wrote the ATS post typing out the exact same "original" material, verbatim, punctuation and all, with no slip-ups anywhere, by random chance, are zero. Also, there is a telling font change between the stuff you wrote and the stuff you plagiarized that is caused by copying and pasting. So either you poached it from ATS or both you and the person at ATS poached it from elsewhere. If it's not the website I linked to, feel free to credit your source.

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?
Auto is a Lady, as am I.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
over 20 years ago science STUDENTS cheated OMG evolution help help help :)

it doesnt get any better then that right there!
 

David M

Well-Known Member
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?

Translation - Crap, they caught me repasting garbage from elsewhere, pretend they are the ones at fault because they are "rude" and they don't genuflect before the altar of stupidity that is "creation science". That way I can ignore all the rebuttals that shred my assertions.

Straight out of the creationist playbook.
 
Last edited:

wilsoncole

Active Member
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?
Google this: Historical Geology (1949), p. 52. and see how many times you come up with the same quote. OK?
Besides - the quote is no the side of evolution and no one is seeking to twist it to mean something else, as far as I can tell.
Alceste did it for me. Thanks, Alceste.
She was wrong!
See Reply # 118. I showed where I got my material. Unfortunately, my computer won’t send pictures or I would post a picture of the cover of that magazine I quoted from.
Seems like you would rather believe the worst.
Completely up to you what you want to respond to or not, wilson.
I know that! I show you respect, you show me respect - we’ll get along fine.
Yes, I do, thanks.
You’re quite welcome.
So I gather you don't wish to--or can't--respond to any of my points?
You got what I got , Sir.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Google this: Historical Geology (1949), p. 52. and see how many times you come up with the same quote. OK?
I did. I came up with dozens of creationists, and never a single page from the actual textbook. If you can't supply it, just say so and get it over with, and we can just throw that aged quote out.

She was wrong!
See Reply # 118. I showed where I got my material. Unfortunately, my computer won’t send pictures or I would post a picture of the cover of that magazine I quoted from.
Seems like you would rather believe the worst.
You stole it from a magazine?

I know that! I show you respect, you show me respect - we’ll get along fine.

So you got nothing then? This is no fun--I thought you might actually make an argument.
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
I did. I came up with dozens of creationists, and never a single page from the actual textbook. If you can't supply it, just say so and get it over with, and we can just throw that aged quote out.
You stole it from a magazine?
So you got nothing then? This is no fun--I thought you might actually make an argument.
Argument? For its own sake? I don't play that!
Besides - how can you make an argument when I took away all of your ammunition?
You can't attack me on YEC, creationism is not science, religion in schools, Ten Commandments, 6-day creation, creationism itself, flat earth, earth being the center of the universe and just about all of atheists' favorite targets.
I don't believe any of that baloney, so what can you do?

If you feel like attacking the Bible, I'm ready for you.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Argument? For its own sake? I don't play that!
In that case, you might be happier somewhere else. This is a debate forum.
Besides - how can you make an argument when I took away all of your ammunition?
You can't attack me on YEC, creationism is not science, religion in schools, Ten Commandments, 6-day creation, creationism itself, flat earth, earth being the center of the universe and just about all of atheists' favorite targets.
I don't believe any of that baloney, so what can you do?
None of those are the subject of this thread. This thread is about fossil evidence and evolution. Do you have anything to say on the subject? If not, what are you doing here?

If you feel like attacking the Bible, I'm ready for you.
Why would I want to do that? :shrug:

You seem confused about the subject of this thread.
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
It dates from around 1500BC, and when was the Torah written down?
1513 B.C.E. That precedes the Vedas, even if your figure was true, which it isn't.
Around 1 Billion people are Hindu.
Most of whom groveled in the swamp of illiteracy until recently. The book is no good to people who cannot read. Jews were literate from the time of their nation's inception.
“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.
You cannot prove that and you don’t seem to know anything about the Vedas.
Note these facts:
“Thus, it is significant that of sacred books, the Bible was one of the first to be put into writing. In fact, Moses completed its first section in 1513 B.C.E.

By contrast, according to The Encyclopedia of Religion, the Upanishads, an extension of the Vedas dating from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.E. and compiled in Sanskrit, were “first put into written form in 1656 CE.” But this was not a case of negligence. It was intentional.

Historian Will Durant explains: “The Vedas and the epics were songs that grew with the generations of those that recited them; they were intended not for sight but for sound.” (AW 89 3/22 p. 12)

Here’s some info about the contents of the Vedas:
It was never regarded as sacred scripture but is composed of hymns, passed down orally until the 14th century A.D. when they were written down.

“According to yet another hymn, the gods made the universe from the sacrifice of a cosmic man. “The moon was produced from his mind (manas), the sun (surya) from his eye, .&#12288;.&#12288;. from his head the sky, from his feet the earth.”
From him also came the different castes and animals.

Such explanations, however, did not fully satisfy those rishis who desired to know the truth. Therefore, as they conclude the Vedas, they still wonder:
“Who knows the truth? Who can tell whence and how arose this universe? The [Vedic] gods are later than its beginning: who knows therefore whence comes this creation? Only that god who sees in highest heaven: he only knows whence came this universe, and whether it was made or uncreated. He only knows, or perhaps he knows not.”

The rishis addressed their hymns to such deified natural elements as the sun, sky, wind, and fire. But they did not view any one of these as the supreme deity. Consequently, in the last book of the Rig-Veda, they ask: “What God shall we adore with our oblation?” In other words, which of the 33 gods of the Vedas is the Creator whom we should worship in love and truth?

At the completion of the Vedas, the rishis had not found the true God so as to worship him. They were still seeking him. The Vedas, therefore, are not a revelation of&#12288;God’s truth but are a record of the rishis’ earnest search for it. The quest is now taken up in the Upanishads, the next great body of scriptures of India.”
( Worship God chap. 4 p. 11)

Thus, from 2 different sources, A History Of India and The Encyclopedia Of Religion, that you have learned that the Vedas are not sacred scripture and are not older than the Torah.
Now you can go ahead and produce information disproving that.
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.
That’s YOUR word! Now let’s have the proof.
The Vedas was never under attack by any nation the way the Bible was.
Irrelevant.
Not at all!
“In the years before Christ, the Jews who produced the Hebrew Scriptures (the “Old Testament”) were a relatively small nation.

They dwelt precariously amid powerful political states that were jostling with one another for supremacy. Israel had to fight for its life against a succession of nations, such as the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Edomites.
During a period when the Hebrews were divided into two kingdoms, the cruel Assyrian Empire virtually wiped out the northern kingdom, while the Babylonians destroyed the southern kingdom, taking the people into an exile from which only a remnant returned 70 years later.

There are even reports of attempted genocide against the Israelites. Back in the days of Moses, Pharaoh ordered the murder of all their newborn baby boys. If his order had been observed, the Hebrew people would have been annihilated. (Exodus 1:15-22) Much later, when the Jews came under Persian rule, their enemies plotted to get a law passed intended to exterminate them. (Esther 3:1-15) The failure of this scheme is still celebrated in the Jewish Festival of Purim.

Later still, when the Jews were subject to Syria, King Antiochus&#12288;IV tried very hard to Hellenize the nation, forcing it to follow Greek customs and worship Greek gods. He too failed. Instead of being wiped out or assimilated, the Jews survived while, one after the other, most of the national groups around them disappeared from the world scene. And the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible survived with them.

The Christians, who produced the second part of the Bible (the “New Testament”), were also an oppressed group. Their leader, Jesus, was killed like a common criminal. In the early days after his death, Jewish authorities in Palestine tried to suppress them. When Christianity spread to other lands, the Jews hounded them, trying to hinder their missionary work.—Acts 5:27, 28; 7:58-60; 11:19-21; 13:45; 14:19; 18:5,6.

In the time of Nero, the initially tolerant attitude of the Roman authorities changed. Tacitus boasted of the “exquisite tortures” inflicted on Christians by that vicious emperor, and from his time on, being a Christian was a capital offense.2 In 303&#12288;C.E., Emperor Diocletian acted directly against the Bible. In an effort to stamp out Christianity, he ordered that all Christian Bibles should be burned.

These campaigns of oppression and genocide were a real threat to the Bible’s survival. If the Jews had gone the way of the Philistines and the Moabites or if the efforts of first the Jewish and then the Roman authorities to stamp out Christianity had succeeded, who would have written and preserved the Bible? Happily, the guardians of the Bible—first the Jews and then the Christians—were not wiped out, and the Bible survived.” ( God’s Word chap. 2 pp. 14-17)

On the other hand, the Vedas never experienced a struggle to survive.
The Bible’s survival, therefore, is remarkable - different from any other religious or historical document.
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
Sorry mate, you just lost the last ounce of entertainment value you had.
You are either unwilling or unable to back up any of your claims and statements and that makes you completely uninteresting to debate with.
It is not our job to research your claims for you.
In fact, it is expected of people that they themselves back up their statements.
Right now your credibility is about the same level as people standing on a street corner yelling about lizard people.

Farewell.
'Bye!
(Jar was empty anyway)

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What makes you think you can draw me into a discussion of fossils or evolution?


because this is a thread on fossils :facepalm: it doesnt seem you have any knowledge on the subject at hand.


your ramblings not on this subject may be suited for a different thread.

You have not made a valid point yet on any subject as far as i can tell.
 

ninerbuff

godless wonder
We can't even find "missing" people from recent disappearance who may have met demise and are buried somewhere out on US land. And many times there are hundreds of volunteers to do searches and come up with nothing.
To be a "digger" is probably one of the toughest jobs in science since you have to make some very good guesses at where fossils might be. And there aren't that many of them out there. Let's say you took 10,000 people to dig the whole US alone, how long would that take? Point is we've recently (in the last 250 hundred years) just discovered some fossils. It will take a lot more time to find more and who knows? Maybe the transitional fossil we're looking for will be found. Then what?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
(in the last 250 hundred years) just discovered some fossils

fossil discoverys go back thousands of years.

Maybe the transitional fossil we're looking for will be found

we have many transitional fossils

we dont have a complete line but we do have a good line from ancient homonids to homo sapiens
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
Your quotes are copied and pasted verbatim from an unaccredited website. I've already proven this
You have proven nothing! You have accused me but no proof at all. I have the magazine containing the original article right in front of me and I also have it on a CD disk.
- the odds of you and the person who wrote the ATS post typing out the exact same "original" material, verbatim, punctuation and all, with no slip-ups anywhere, by random chance, are zero.
That's your problem right there! I didn't type anything! I transferred it to a word processor with a Verdana font, by dragging it over then cut and pasted it to this forum. You are nowhere nearly as smart as you imagine yourself to be. I don't give a hoot for your flawed probabilities.
Also, there is a telling font change between the stuff you wrote and the stuff you plagiarized that is caused by copying and pasting.
Whatever your twisted observations, you now know what happened.
So either you poached it from ATS or both you and the person at ATS poached it from elsewhere.
Poach, roach - who cares what you think? The truth always wins!
If it's not the website I linked to, feel free to credit your source.
Already done!
Auto is a Lady, as am I.
Nope!
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
because this is a thread on fossils :facepalm: it doesnt seem you have any knowledge on the subject at hand.


your ramblings not on this subject may be suited for a different thread.

You have not made a valid point yet on any subject as far as i can tell.
Can't tell much - can you?
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
We can't even find "missing" people from recent disappearance who may have met demise and are buried somewhere out on US land. And many times there are hundreds of volunteers to do searches and come up with nothing.
To be a "digger" is probably one of the toughest jobs in science since you have to make some very good guesses at where fossils might be. And there aren't that many of them out there. Let's say you took 10,000 people to dig the whole US alone, how long would that take? Point is we've recently (in the last 250 hundred years) just discovered some fossils. It will take a lot more time to find more and who knows? Maybe the transitional fossil we're looking for will be found. Then what?
Mebbe they won't!
Then what?
You can't force the facts and the artifacts to fit the theory.
 
Top