Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Job 33:6]

I am seeking out any solid evidence for evolutionary geology/paleontology or macroevolution. Ankle-biting is not evidence.



The fossil record doesn't support evolution. It does support a global flood.

Dan

You've demonstrated that you're unable to respond to my posts. With that, there is nothing more to talk about.

When you're ready to respond to my posts, I'll be here. Otherwise, I'm going to be moving on now.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The more and more we discuss this, the more this wild and crazy flood that allegedly built mountains begins to sound like a beach with small waves, or a lake or wetlands. Simple currents covering up foot tracks. Simple currents filling in burrows and washing over nests with eggs in them. Without obstructing the nests but simultaneously having the energy to traverse continents and having the energy to shift the crust across tectonic plates, hundreds of miles.

It doesn't make sense.

You have to understand it before it begins to make sense.

his is supposed to be in the late Mesozoicas well. If we are looking at 600 million years of strata and roughly 540 has already been laid down, this would essentially be toward the very end of the flood.

Are you sure we are not looking at 525 million years of strata, and roughly 465 million years of strata that has already been laid down? Do you not realize how pretentious those outlandish dates sound?

So, you would have to ponder how it is that so much life thrived through 90% of the flood.

Either that, or you have to ponder how layer after layer of fossilized strata, with many perfectly preserved fossils, was gradually laid down over hundreds of millions of years, and with little erosion between the layers:

Dan

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, there is no such thing in the constitution as separation of church and state. That was an ACLU perversion of the first amendment.

Wow. You REALLY do not know anything about your own nation, do you? The separation of church and state exists in the United States. FACT.

Brilliant . . .

Dan

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Ophiolite]

Either that, or you have to ponder how layer after layer of fossilized strata, with many perfectly preserved fossils, was gradually laid down over hundreds of millions of years, and with little erosion between the layers:

There are various forms of unconformity, ranging from pronounced angular uncomformities, such as the classic example of Hutton's Uncomformity down to cryptic unconformities and everything in between. Matching the range of unconformities is the corresponding extent of erosion responsible for the unconformity. Having pondered the matter, studied examples of the research and mapped examples in the field I find no problem. Perhaps if you had considered the matter as deeply and carefully you would be able to set aside your prejudices.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, I have looked. Do you know of any proof of macroevolution?

I suppose that entirely depends on what you mean by "macroevolution".

Regardless, the advice I'd give is the same I'd give anyone. Understanding the evidence for evolution requires understanding the theory itself as well as basic understanding of biology (esp. genetics). Therefore your best bet is self-directed study of those topics. There are umpteen websites for that, books, free courses on the subject; basically, lots of resources at your fingertips. It's just a matter of time and effort.

Welcome to Evolution 101!
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

What does that have to do with macroevolution?

In a lot of cases, it's the use of applied phylogenetics; in other words, the actual common descent relationships of modern species and plugging in data derived from those relationships into genomic analyses.

I find it tragic when one rejects a literal Genesis interpretation in favor of evolution.

Why? Do you think those who reject a literal Genesis are going to Hell or something?

Doesn't it also bother you that accepting a literal Genesis (such as it is) also requires rejecting large swaths of knowledge from every branch of natural science as well some of the social sciences?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Wow. You REALLY do not know anything about your own nation, do you? The separation of church and state exists in the United States. FACT.

You are truly ignorant of the constitution; and the constitution-hating socialists hope you stay that way. From what I have seen you post thus far, they have nothing to worry about.

For the rest of you who have a semblance of understanding of the constitution, the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution, nor has it ever been. It was derived from another phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, in reference to a limitation on the powers of the federal government over religious freedom.

During the 20th century, the phrase "separation of church and state" was usurped into federal "law" by a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court at the best of the constitution-hating ACLU, and then applied to the states and the people, thus turning the establishment clause on its head. Rather than protecting the religious liberties of the states and the people, the first amendment was reinterpreted by the courts to suppress religious liberties.

Frankly, I believe it to be the most destructive usurpation of power in U.S. History to the fabric of our nation and society.

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

You are truly ignorant of the constitution; and the constitution-hating socialists hope you stay that way. From what I have seen you post thus far, they have nothing to worry about.

For the rest of you who have a semblance of understanding of the constitution, the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution, nor has it ever been. It was derived from another phrase first coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, in reference to a limitation on the powers of the federal government over religious freedom.

During the 20th century, the phrase "separation of church and state" was usurped into federal "law" by a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court at the best of the constitution-hating ACLU, and then applied to the states and the people, thus turning the establishment clause on its head. Rather than protecting the religious liberties of the states and the people, the first amendment was reinterpreted by the courts to suppress religious liberties.

Frankly, I believe it to be the most destructive usurpation of power in U.S. History to the fabric of our nation and society.

Dan

What "religious liberties" are being suppressed?

 

[pitabread]

What "religious liberties" are being suppressed?

That's what id like to know. It seems any time anyone complains about suppression of religion, it's usually a result of the government (state, local, whatever) not being allowed to play favorites or otherwise impose a particular religion on anyone. It doesn't stop people from having their own religious faith though.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I suppose that entirely depends on what you mean by "macroevolution".

Regardless, the advice I'd give is the same I'd give anyone. Understanding the evidence for evolution requires understanding the theory itself as well as basic understanding of biology (esp. genetics). Therefore your best bet is self-directed study of those topics. There are umpteen websites for that, books, free courses on the subject; basically, lots of resources at your fingertips. It's just a matter of time and effort.

Welcome to Evolution 101!
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

In a lot of cases, it's the use of applied phylogenetics; in other words, the actual common descent relationships of modern species and plugging in data derived from those relationships into genomic analyses.

Then may I assume you have no evidence of macroevolution? It is not a big deal. No one else does.

Why? Do you think those who reject a literal Genesis are going to Hell or something?

I cannot make that determination; but I do know from personal experience that when children are taught that one part of the Bible is a metaphorical fantasy, it calls into question the remainder of the Bible. That lead to beliefs and doctrines that deny the plain words of Christ, and even question the inerrancy of the Word of God. God's ancient words are not idle words.

Doesn't it also bother you that accepting a literal Genesis (such as it is) also requires rejecting large swaths of knowledge from every branch of natural science as well some of the social sciences?

I believe it to be the other way around. Darwinism has given neither science nor society anything of substance. It is best described as a junk science.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You aren't ready. You're seeking out a weak point I'm a mountain of research, when you're without background knowledge.

Nobody who ever goes through school starts out with paleontology. You first need to brush up on the basics. Rock types , general principals, laws etc.

Then once you're comfortable with fundamentals, you would have to learn of things like structure, the geologic column, you would need familiarity with stratigraphy and geophysics.

Really, no one could ever understand the fossil record without having knowledge of stratigrapjy and structure. And structure further requires an understanding of physics.

Ultimately, if you can't respond to my comments above, you just aren't ready to place judgement on the fossil succession.

Which comment are you referring to? There are many.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

Then may I assume you have no evidence of macroevolution? It is not a big deal. No one else does.

I have no idea how you managed to turn "understanding the evidence for evolution requires understanding evolution and here are some resources for that" into "you have no evidence of macroevolution".

Heck, one of the links you quoted is even entitled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent".

Did you read anything I wrote?

I cannot make that determination; but I do know from personal experience that when children are taught that one part of the Bible is a metaphorical fantasy, it calls into question the remainder of the Bible. That lead to beliefs and doctrines that deny the plain words of Christ, and even question the inerrancy of the Word of God. God's ancient words are not idle words.

If beliefs cannot hold up to investigation of the real world, what does that say about those beliefs?

I believe it to be the other way around. Darwinism has given neither science nor society anything of substance. It is best described as a junk science.

Except that this isn't true. As already described, the theory of evolution has modern application. Heck, there are even biotech and other companies which have patented techniques based on it. For example, here's a patent by DuPont for using evolutionary techniques (i.e. phylogenetics) for identifying micro-organisms for modifying the properties of crude oil. Here's another using phylogenetics for identification of genetic sequences related to diseases and/or resistance to disease.

So when I see claims that evolution isn't useful and meanwhile there are real world companies filing patents based on evolution, there is clearly a disconnect somewhere. Either you know something they don't or they know something you don't. Which do you think it is?

 

[Job 33:6]

You have to understand it before it begins to make sense.



Are you sure we are not looking at 525 million years of strata, and roughly 465 million years of strata that has already been laid down? Do you not realize how pretentious those outlandish dates sound?



Either that, or you have to ponder how layer after layer of fossilized strata, with many perfectly preserved fossils, was gradually laid down over hundreds of millions of years, and with little erosion between the layers:

Dan

This again isn't a response. You're changing the subject to avoid responding to the questions posted.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There are various forms of unconformity, ranging from pronounced angular uncomformities, such as the classic example of Hutton's Uncomformity down to cryptic unconformities and everything in between. Matching the range of unconformities is the corresponding extent of erosion responsible for the unconformity. Having pondered the matter, studied examples of the research and mapped examples in the field I find no problem. Perhaps if you had considered the matter as deeply and carefully you would be able to set aside your prejudices.

Humor me. Take a careful look at some of the rock layers of the Grand Canyon, each millions of years thick (or, tens of millions), according to the evolution model:

1. Tapeats Sandstone
2. Shale
3. Muav Limestone
4. Redwall Limestone
5. Supai Group (sandstone, siltstone, etc.)
6. Hermit Formation (siltstone, mudstone, etc.)
7. Coconino Sandstone

Think about it? All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?

That is beyond illogical. Rapid layering by a world-wide flood is the only reasonable explanation for that layering, and for those fossils, many of which under the best of initial conditions would require rapid covering in deep sediment to prevent bio-destruction.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What "religious liberties" are being suppressed?

The religious liberties that are being suppressed are those the people of this nation had for over 150 years until the Supreme Court took them away.

The SC court ruling that usurped that power from the states and the people was "Emerson v. Board of Education", 1947.

For over 150 years the states encouraged prayer in public schools without the slightest suspicion there was anything unconstitutional about it. Those were the days when you could go on vacation without locking your house, and for the life of a car without locking its doors.

Prayer in schools was not unconstitutional then, and it is not unconstitutional now, no matter what a few un-elected judges say. The bottom line is, the citizenry of the U.S. is currently living under judicial tyranny, enforced by the power of the sword.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I have no idea how you managed to turn "understanding the evidence for evolution requires understanding evolution and here are some resources for that" into "you have no evidence of macroevolution".

Heck, one of the links you quoted is even entitled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent".

Did you read anything I wrote?

I did not find a single piece of evidence for macroevolution in that link (that is, the myriad of links), even though it claims there are over 29. Perhaps you will point one out for me.

If beliefs cannot hold up to investigation of the real world, what does that say about those beliefs?

Macroevolution doesn't hold up to investigation. Is that an example of what you are referring to?

Except that this isn't true. As already described, the theory of evolution has modern application. Heck, there are even biotech and other companies which have patented techniques based on it. For example, here's a patent by DuPont for using evolutionary techniques (i.e. phylogenetics) for identifying micro-organisms for modifying the properties of crude oil. Here's another using phylogenetics for identification of genetic sequences related to diseases and/or resistance to disease.

That's it? Microevolution? What is the probability of those discoveries if Darwinism never existed? After all, the knowledge of microevolution preceded Darwin.

So when I see claims that evolution isn't useful and meanwhile there are real world companies filing patents based on evolution, there is clearly a disconnect somewhere. Either you know something they don't or they know something you don't. Which do you think it is?

Microevolution is not Darwinism, but rather is something Darwin co-opted so that at least one part of his theory would be provable. [/sarcasm, but barely]

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This again isn't a response. You're changing the subject to avoid responding to the questions posted.

Please list your questions.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

I did not find a single piece of evidence for macroevolution in that link (that is, the myriad of links), even though it claims there are over 29. Perhaps you will point one out for me.

This is why I re-iterate that understanding the evidence which supports evolution first requires understanding of both the theory of evolution and some background knowledge of biology as a whole. If you don't have the latter, then the former won't make sense to you.

Therefore I again recommend doing the legwork to build a knowledge base so you can understand the material at hand:

Welcome to Evolution 101!
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

For the record I have no vested interest in trying to convince you of any of this and won't hold your hand in doing so. It's up to you to make the effort yourself. If you're interested, that is.

Macroevolution doesn't hold up to investigation. Is that an example of what you are referring to?

I'm referring to the fact that adopting a literalistic view of Genesis (i.e. modern YECism) requires rejecting findings in biology, geology, physics, astronomy/cosmology, history and anthropology.

That's it? Microevolution? What is the probability of those discoveries if Darwinism never existed? After all, the knowledge of microevolution preceded Darwin.

I don't think you actually looked at the links, especially since the latter involves primate phylogenies (specifically the evolutionary relationships between humans and other primates).

It's also worth noting that phylogenetics doesn't really make a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's all about evolutionary hereditary relationships, whether it's looking at the evolutionary history of a pathogen that's evolved for a few months or doing comparative genomics analysis of livestock using phylogenetic data of mammalian taxa that evolved over millions of years.

It's all the same science.

Microevolution is not Darwinism, but rather is something Darwin co-opted so that at least one part of his theory would be provable. [/sarcasm, but barely]

I have no idea what you mean by "Darwinism" then. Darwinism generally refers to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It's an outdated term as modern evolutionary theory has come along way since.

 

[Job 33:6]

Post #454 @Bible Research Tools

"And the tracks were present within these regional deposits and within a megasequence. So...how do you think that is possible?"

Your one response was "The megasequences did not flood entire continents, but were regional depositions. "

On the contrary though, massive sections of the geologic column are prevelant all throughout the andes, indicating that, if deposited by a flood, these regions must have been inundated.

https://res.mdpi.com/geosciences/ge...loy/html/images/geosciences-03-00262-g004.png

 

[Job 33:6]

Indeed, fracturing throughout the andes, in many cases post dates the mesozoic.

This indicates that these layers were actually deposited. They hardened, and then were later thrust faulted via brittle deformation.

Ill stop here. Its probably best to take this one step at a time so you do not miss a point, @Bible Research Tools

Do you agree with the above statement that fracturing, brittle deformation and motion of strata in say...the serrania iguembe, the bororigua fault, the mandiyuti fault, the caipipendi failt, and the mandeyapecua fault, all post date deposition of cretaceous and mesozoic strata (based on the image above of a cross section in the andes of bolivia)?

Ill give you a hint. The faults must have post dated the strata, else the strata wouldnt be faulted.

So lets jump to the chase here, much of the uplift of the andes mountains, didnt occur until after the formation of features such as that of the dinosaur dance floor, so there is no reason to believe that dinosaurs were running to higher ground. Now, of course this idea of dinosaurs outrunning a wave with so much energy it could pass over and entire continent, sounds utterly crazy to begin with. So, its not so hard to imagine that such a concept as dinosaurs running for higher ground, is completely made up.

Lastly, im just going to share this next one for future use.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is why I re-iterate that understanding the evidence which supports evolution first requires understanding of both the theory of evolution and some background knowledge of biology as a whole. If you don't have the latter, then the former won't make sense to you.

Therefore I again recommend doing the legwork to build a knowledge base so you can understand the material at hand:

@Bible Research Tools

I strongly agree with this. Though there is much to cover.