Missing link was a lie

[Tomatoman]

mpok to dad:

what year did you get your biology degree?

That made me smile. Dad doesn't know any science. He has a vague suspicion that science taught in schools after the age of 13 is increasingly contrary to the bible, but really has no idea what that science is. As for university level science you may as well be talking Chinese to him. When presented with scientific evidence you can almost see his eyes glazing over and brain freezing up. Then, as if there is some sort of primitive default setting that takes over when his brain short-circuits, he starts repeating 'science is lies', 'prove it' and 'the bible is true because it's the bible' over and over and over, seemingly under the misapprehension that what he's saying has some relevance to the posts he's responding to. He really doesn't know enough to know how much he doesn't know.

 

[Orogeny]

You know, consol, you making hate posts isn't any more constructive than Dad's 'fingers in the ears' technique. Care to contribute?

 

[Tomatoman]

consol?

 

[Orogeny]

Or whatever you'd like to be called. Point remains.

 

[mpok1519]

Eh, saying how Dad's responses don't contribute does contribue IMO.

 

[Orogeny]

I think that is self-evident.

Ugh. Enough. This whole page has been non-contribution.

 

[mpok1519]

The thread itself doesn't really contribute; Infact it kind of takes away from any scientiic contribution to life itself.

 

[Tomatoman]

Orogeny:

Or whatever you'd like to be called. Point remains.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I'm far more interested in what calling me 'consol' is all about. I've checked and there does indeed appear to be a member called consol, who I can only assume you had differences with. I assure you that I'm not consol, and might add, in a gently way I hope, that you seeing this consol person in posts where he isn't might not be a good sign.

Anyway, back to dissecting dad.

 

[Orogeny]

Your attitude and posting style are very similar to that of member consol, who stopped posting shortly before your account was made. You've also expressed (IIRC) that you are from the UK, where consol was from. If I'm not mistaken, I'm not the first member to think you are a consol 2nd account. If this is false, I apologize.

 

[dad]

Oh, yeah, this pretty much renders your claim of being reasonable null and void.

Only where "reasonable" is defined as needing to be able to be totally wrong. I can see where that would be the scared criteria of so called science, it is totally wrong. However, such foolishness does not apply to all things. Thankfully.

 

[dad]

Lizards are made of bones and meat. Are they mammals? No. These are calcitic cyanobacterial structures, but they are not stromatolites. Your fail continues. If you think these are the same as stromatolies, guess what, if you can't pony up for stuff here and now, where does that leave your credibility for multiples of imaniry states!!? Pony up.

Well, these thingies are here right now, and not understood. Yet they are similar to the long gone thingies you refer too, that you insinuate you do understand.

Tell us a bit about them, then, let's see you in action. ..You asked for it.

 

[sandwiches]

Only where "reasonable" is defined as needing to be able to be totally wrong. I can see where that would be the scared criteria of so called science, it is totally wrong. However, such foolishness does not apply to all things. Thankfully.

A reasonable person accepts the possibility of their knowledge or beliefs being incorrect. If you're incapable or unwilling to accept both, you're not a reasonable person.

 

[Orogeny]

Well, these thingies are here right now, and not understood.

So what? How does that make them the same as stromatolites? You've introduced an organism that wasn't even remotely part of the conversation to try to make a point, which you ultimately failed at. If you'd like to discuss stromatolites, I'm more than happy to do so.

Yet they are similar to the long gone thingies you refer too, that you insinuate you do understand.Tell us a bit about them, then, let's see you in action. ..You asked for it.

In what ways are these organisms similar to stromatolites, and how does that make them relavent to the current converstation? Also, stromatolites are not 'long gone thingies'. They still exist. Looks like you fail again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite#Modern_occurrence

 

[dad]

Claiming that "slow evolution" is unproven, is in no way a proof for rapid evolution.

Likewise you admitting you have no idea what you are talking about, in knowing whether it was slow or fast evolving, in no way proof of slow evolution.
You merely admit you do not know. That leaves a lot of room for the bible to be right, after all.

So, I ask you again: show me how the fossil record sustains rapid evolution.

So, I ask you again: show me how the fossil record doesn't sustain rapid evolution??? Otherwise, you are out of the debate on the sidelines, and unable to comment on what God said about it

 

[Split Rock]

Only where "reasonable" is defined as needing to be able to be totally wrong. I can see where that would be the scared criteria of so called science, it is totally wrong. However, such foolishness does not apply to all things. Thankfully.

It certainly seems to be the "scared criteria" of so-called "God's Little Echo." You cannot admit to the possibility of being wrong. That is what makes you unreasonable, dad.

Still waiting for you to "pony up," btw.

 

[dad]

A reasonable person accepts the possibility of their knowledge or beliefs being incorrect. If you're incapable or unwilling to accept both, you're not a reasonable person.

Who wrote that silly rule?? Says WHO?? God is correct, always was. Science, as incorrect as it is, can only have correctness envy. So?

You ought to try the real science and real knowledge sometime. Rock solid stuff.

 

[sandwiches]

Likewise you admitting you have no idea what you are talking about, in knowing whether it was slow or fast evolving, in no way proof of slow evolution.
You merely admit you do not know. That leaves a lot of room for the bible to be right, after all.

Or whatever other holy books there are out there. Don't forget those, champ

So, I ask you again: show me how the fossil record doesn't sustain rapid evolution??? Otherwise, you are out of the debate on the sidelines, and unable to comment on what God said about it

There can be relatively rapid evolution of only a few generations. If you're talking about a monkey being born with wings or something similar, then that's not just rapid evolution, that's not evolution at all.

 

[sandwiches]

Who wrote that silly rule?? Says WHO?? God is correct, always was.

How do you know?

 

[Nostromo]

That leaves a lot of room for the bible to be right, after all.

"Oh look, a gap, let's see if my god fits."

 

[dad]

The evidence concerning pillow lava has been presented to you over and over. I'm not going to play your game and repeat it here.

I think that you are dreaming. No one needs evidence for pillow lava. What we were looking at was pillow lava formed pre split, if any could be found. All that was offered was an Aussie formation, and no details, when pressed, were forthcoming.

Microbialites are not stromatolites, dad. Do you even read the stuff you cite?

They are similar, and one actually exists. Do you read the claims of some posters? If stromatolites are so well known, why did the poster not discuss it?

It is an ad hoc way of reconciling your narrow-minded interpretation of scripture with reality. There was a time when you virtually admitted this. Now you are so full of yourself that you no longer can.

No, you are dreaming. You seem to confuse reality of the future and past with the present reality. In no way can you demonstrate that they are the same, as far as laws, and physics, and forces, and etc go.