Lines of Evidence

[DerelictJunction]

Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Why do I see a trend here?

I didn't say Christ or you were dishonest, so why would you imply that I did?

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't say Christ ...

Did I say you did?

 

[RickG]

Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Why do I see a trend here?

So you approve of the dishonest misrepresentation of science?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you approve of the dishonest misrepresentation of science?

What was that animal that was recently discovered that made you guys update your software because you thought it was long gone?

Was it that Coelacanth or that Tiktok thing? or something?

Maybe it was smallpox.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Did I say you did?

OK I'll take it slowly for you.
You quoted one word, "dishonesty", and attributed that quote to me.

You then quoted a verse in which Christ was called a deceiver by Jewish leaders.

Then you said you see a trend.

By that you implied that I said you were dishonest and you were comparable with Christ.

I did not call you dishonest, so I wondered why you would imply that. Was it some way of counting coup on this forum as if no one would notice the duplicity?

 

[DerelictJunction]

What was that animal that was recently discovered that made you guys update your software because you thought it was long gone?

Was it that Coelacanth or that Tiktok thing? or something?

Maybe it was smallpox.

Since you are again implying dishonesty among paleontologists, explain how that update should be considered dishonest.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK I'll take it slowly for you.
You quoted one word, "dishonesty", and attributed that quote to me.

You then quoted a verse in which Christ was called a deceiver by Jewish leaders.

Then you said you see a trend.

By that you implied that I said you were dishonest and you were comparable with Christ.

I did not call you dishonest, so I wondered why you would imply that. Was it some way of counting coup on this forum as if no one would notice the duplicity?

Go pout somewhere else, will you please?

If I can't ask a simple question that requires only a number as an answer, that's sad.

This conversation is entering the infantile stage, IMO, and getting out of hand.

The best way I can see is to go to read-only until this inquisition evaporates.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Go pout somewhere else, will you please?

If I can't ask a simple question that requires only a number as an answer, that's sad.

This conversation is entering the infantile stage, IMO, and getting out of hand.

The best way I can see is to go to read-only until this inquisition evaporates.

I thought Christians were required to welcome criticism of their anti-Christian behavior no matter where it came from. Are you losing your fight with the flesh?

 

[FredVB]

So, you found what you expected and rejected it because...... you didn't like it?
What would change your belief? I am guessing that physical evidence would not... yet you still ask for physical evidence... why is that?
Maybe not, but its very close to every graduation. It is a rich fossil record. If you were shown every graduation in a fossil, would that change your mind?
No one is claiming that every graduation is present in the discovered fossil record. For the mammal-reptile transition it is very close, however... that is clearly not enough for you. Taken with all the other evidence, the inference is very clear. I would suggest that you reject this conclusion because of your beliefs and asking for evidence is just a dodge.

I did not see the answers to what I was saying to show the sequences of transitions, so the site wasn't showing it though I was told to look at it to find that.

I don't believe the evidence is there, but if it was I would be forced to choose to think differently and would do a lot of re-examining. Of course I will still learn, I seek doing that all my life.

If there is enough transitions for evolution from kind to kind, from reptiles to mammals as discussed with me, I could expect it represented in fossils with there already being an abundance of fossils that are found. So what is there, that I should see?

It is easy to throw an accusation that another is not willing to look at evidence because of belief already had so securely. You all would already know that I am a Christian believer, and that said would be for my position. It cuts both ways. I have great evidence for belief, from Jesus Christ and what was said, and the resurrected Christ seen after his crucifixion, and the empty tomb and no body ever turning up to disprove it. But any such evidence will be dismissed without real consideration, just as was all that I have said before about the necessary existence that there has to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

What was that animal that was recently discovered that made you guys update your software because you thought it was long gone?

Was it that Coelacanth or that Tiktok thing? or something?

The modern species of coelacanth is not found anywhere in the fossil record. Coelacanth is a taxonomic order of fish that includes over 100 fossil and living species. The fossil species are found in deposits consistent with shallow waters. The modern species live in very deep water where their fossil record is out of our reach. When you see that fossil record go away, and no one knows of a living species, it is very fair to make a tentative conclusion that the group of fish went extinct.

The only thing that had to be reset is the status of the Coelacanth order.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not see the answers to what I was saying to show the sequences of transitions, so the site wasn't showing it though I was told to look at it to find that.

What features would you need to see in a sequence of transitions? If you are willing to plant the goal posts, we would be willing to run towards them. The problem with these discussions is that the creationists refuse to define [what a transitional should look like.

If there is enough transitions for evolution from kind to kind, from reptiles to mammals as discussed with me, I could expect it represented in fossils with there already being an abundance of fossils that are found.

We already have reptile to mammal transitionals. More importantly, why don't we see any mammal to bird transitionals?

The fact of the matter is that ALL of the fossils are consistent with evolution, and that is why the theory is accepted. The theory of evolution correctly predicted that new fossils would fall into the already established nested hierarchy, and they did. Creationism and separate creation can not explain this pattern of shared and derived features. Evolution can.

It is easy to throw an accusation that another is not willing to look at evidence because of belief already had so securely.

The accusation is that no matter what features a fossil has, you will not accept it as being transitional.

 

[AV1611VET]

The modern species of coelacanth is not found anywhere in the fossil record.

That's like saying Windows 8 is not found anywhere in computer museums.

Coelacanth is a taxonomic order of fish that includes over 100 fossil and living species.

Then why was it:

The coelacanths ... were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period.

SOURCE

 

[Loudmouth]

That's like saying Windows 8 is not found anywhere in computer museums.

The creationist argument is equivalent to saying that MSDOS hasn't changed at all over the last 20 years, and then pointing to Windows 8 as the evidence.

Then why was it:


SOURCE

I already explained why.

"The fossil species are found in deposits consistent with shallow waters. The modern species live in very deep water where their fossil record is out of our reach. When you see that fossil record go away, and no one knows of a living species, it is very fair to make a tentative conclusion that the group of fish went extinct."

Deep sea species are among the least understood. Scientists are still finding new species every year.

 

[AV1611VET]

I already explained why.

Do you really think that's an explanation?

You have this animal that scientists say went extinct.

Then one is found, and PR department tacks on the word "modern" to cover up their gaff.

Problem solved.

Said animal is no longer extinct.

Are "modern" Dodo birds flying around anywhere, that you know of?

Why are animals put on the endangered species list, if they have modern equivalents?

 

[RickG]

I already explained why.

And quite well if I am add. The reason he says otherwise is because he ignored your explanation. The explanation he for which he asked. Go figure.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you really think that's an explanation?

You have this animal that scientists say went extinct.

No, we don't. Scientists never knew that Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis were ever alive until recently. Those two species are not found anywhere in the fossil record, so why would they say that they went extinct? Can you find a single reference where any scientist proclaims that the Latimeria genus went extinct?

 

[RickG]

Do you really think that's an explanation?

You have this animal that scientists say went extinct.

Then one is found, and PR department tacks on the word "modern" to cover up their gaff.

That is a direct deliberate degradation of the scientific community, not to mention an exceedingly untrue statement.

I gather you will post an apology?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a direct deliberate degradation of the scientific community, not to mention an exceedingly untrue statement.

I gather you will post an apology?

Here's my apology:

Much of modern science today is antibiblical and is influenced by the muse of science, which is one of Satan's powerful angels.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I can't describe his infrastructure, but if I had to, I would say it goes:

Satan, then his nine muses, then [whatever].

IMO, the tares are (or have now) outgrowing the wheat, and one of scientists' jobs is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

Just my opinion.

Oh, wait.

You wanted an apology.

No thanks.

I'm not going to be hypocritical about this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's my apology:

Much of modern science today is antibiblical and is influenced by the muse of science, which is one of Satan's powerful angels.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I can't describe his infrastructure, but if I had to, I would say it goes:

Satan, then his nine muses, then [whatever].

IMO, the tares are (or have now) outgrowing the wheat, and one of scientists' jobs is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

Just my opinion.

Oh, wait.

You wanted an apology.

No thanks.

I'm not going to by hypocritical about this.

You accuse scientists of purposefully lying. If you are unwilling to show that they are lying, you should at least be man enough to apologize for making the accusation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You accuse scientists of purposefully lying.

No ... I just think they are demonically assisted sometimes.

How do you think Pluto got demoted?

1