No Missing Links?

[LoricaLady]

Evolution is a religion, please go to bed tonight believing that, also please never leave the USA.

Creationism gives lots and lots of people throughout the world many hours of fun, we all love Fox News.
We realise Fox News is damaging for the US but there is nothing we can do about it so we might as well laugh at it.
Believe me we can't wait for your next presidential election in 2016, the Republicans never fail to keep us amuse.

This is a typical type of evolution fan response. It totally evades the issues of science and logic which have been gone over and over. Not one of my Qs was answered or even addressed. In fact it says zip about anything scientific. it doesn't bother to address the issue of evolutionists and other scientists who admit evolution has no evidence. Yet it seems to be presenting an air of intellectual superiority along with sarcasm and completely off topic subjects like about Fox news and the Presidential election.

Not that it matters, but I don't watch Fox news or any t.v. and I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican as I think there is little difference between them. I'm just tossing that out to show you how totally irrelevant your comments were.

 

[RickG]

This is a typical type of evolution fan response. It totally evades the issues of science and logic which have been gone over and over.

May I ask what background you have in any of the biological or earth sciences?

Not one of my Qs was answered or even addressed.

Kind of hard to address a Gish Gallop. But of course that is what a Gish Gallop is all about.

 

[LoricaLady]

May I ask what background you have in any of the biological or earth sciences?



Kind of hard to address a Gish Gallop. But of course that is what a Gish Gallop is all about.

As I said, you are on ignore for verbal abuse. (If anyone else wishes to ask the same questions, with civility, I would be very happy to respond.)

 

[Euler]

As I said, you are on ignore for verbal abuse. (If anyone else wishes to ask the same questions, with civility, I would be very happy to respond.)

Verbal abuse is what you call asking questions? When someone disagrees with you?

Look, I don't share RickG's religious beliefs - a quick glance at my icon would tell that. BUT, I'll stand up for him by saying that, not only is he an expert in his field of the earth sciences, he is also one of the more polite and friendly posters on this forum.

Lady, you got problems.

 

[Euler]

Please now add me to your list of 'ignored'.

 

[LoricaLady]

Verbal abuse is what you call asking questions? When someone disagrees with you?

Look, I don't share RickG's religious beliefs - a quick glance at my icon would tell that. BUT, I'll stand up for him by saying that, not only is he an expert in his field of the earth sciences, he is also one of the more polite and friendly posters on this forum.

Lady, you got problems.

This is the comment, on this string, that I am referring to from RickG:
You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

I am virtually being accused of being a liar and am also being accused of having ignoble motives, motives other than wanting to give my perspective on evolution vs. creation.

If you don't call that verbal abuse, fine by me. I do and that's what counts to me. As I mentioned I have discovered that verbal abuse only escalates in such cases, and I don't have the time for that. Btw, on a Christian forum the verbal abuse is actually much less than on a secular site. But it shouldn't be tolerated, one way or another. If you want to be on ignore, just don't post to me. Simple.

 

[LoricaLady]

EULER And p.s. I will answer the

 

[RickG]

Your statistics on this forum only say you have an interest in geology, not that you are a retired geologist.

So, do I need to go back and fill that in? I have a Master of Science degree from the University of Memphis in Earth Science (1977). That course of study included the areas of Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. With respect to the geology portion specific course study included Sedimentology & Stratigraphy, Petrology, Geochemistry, Dating Methods, Geomorphology, and Pedology. My Masters Thesis was on the "Occurrence and Causes of Continental Glaciation". Professionally, I spent some 25 years as a research chemist and process engineer. I also have also taught geology on an adjunct bases at two local colleges. I am now retired but continue to do independent research, currently on the 8200 and other related climate events with respect to abrupt sea level rise.

Now you were saying.............?

 

[LoricaLady]

EULER And p.s. I will answer the Q about whether or not I have training in earth, or biological, sciences. Well, more than Darwin had! His degree was in theology. I have a masters of science in speech/language pathology where I had to study gross anatomy and neuroanatomy. I have also had the advantage of modern science and for example know that what he called "a simple single cell" is actually more complex than a block of factories and has nano technology machines that make other nano technology machines for various purposes. Like most people in this country I have been exposed to far more information of countless kind than that 19th century armchair theorist could dream of.

As for earth sciences, what kind of degree did Charles Lyell have, the man who came up with the mythical Geologic Column? Well, it was in law. See a double standard here?

I asked for answers to my Qs but didn't get them. Why was I asked such Qs about degrees, instead? What are the implications of such a way of thinking? Is it that I should shut up because I don't have a degree in certain fields even though icons of evolution don't have degrees in them? Am I supposed to think that the rules of science and logic are so out of the reach of people that I can't think for myself and only let those with certain letters after their names do the thinking for me? To any such point of view I offer these letters: b.s., b.s., b.s.

 

[Euler]

This is the comment, on this string, that I am referring to from RickG:
You are talking to one and you are coming across as a very disingenuous person who wants to do nothing more than to see what kind of reactions you can generate from your posts. Good day.

I am virtually being accused of being a liar and am also being accused of having ignoble motives, motives other than wanting to give my perspective on evolution vs. creation.

If you don't call that verbal abuse, fine by me. I do and that's what counts to me. As I mentioned I have discovered that verbal abuse only escalates in such cases, and I don't have the time for that. Btw, on a Christian forum the verbal abuse is actually much less than on a secular site. But it shouldn't be tolerated, one way or another. If you want to be on ignore, just don't post to me. Simple.

If that's what you classify as verbal abuse, then you must feel very ashamed of your own level of communication! Because you have done much worse, right from your first post in this thread. You have made broad, sweeping statements about the motivations behind those who accept evolutionary theory, you have impugned their characters and you have suggested that they deliberately twist the truth to make their case.

Someone else here has mentioned 'projection'. Perhaps a comment that would resonate more clearly with you is the one about a 'plank in the eye'?

 

[Split Rock]

SPLIT ROCK Okay, I'll bite one, very last, time. I can't resist this.

You say "The definition of a fish or tetrapod is entirely subjective." Sorry, friend, but not only is it a waste of time to "debate" with someone who is, well, verbally abusive to creation believers, it is also a waste of time to debate with someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of simple definitions.

That is not what I posted!

I said that where you draw the line between fish and tetrapods on a creature with features of both is subjective... which is why they are called transitional.

You deliberately misquoted me and then you complain about being called a liar and being mistreated here. Talk about irony!

Not one of my Qs was answered or even addressed. .

I addressed several of your points and you even commented on one (by misquoting me). Then you say no one addressed your points while also complain about being called a liar. What should we call it when you make statements like this which are completetly untrue?

 

[LoricaLady]

If that's what you classify as verbal abuse, then you must feel very ashamed of your own level of communication! Because you have done much worse, right from your first post in this thread. You have made broad, sweeping statements about the motivations behind those who accept evolutionary theory, you have impugned their characters and you have suggested that they deliberately twist the truth to make their case.

Someone else here has mentioned 'projection'. Perhaps a comment that would resonate more clearly with you is the one about a 'plank in the eye'?

Yes, I do classify that as verbal abuse and I consider that you are discounting it, even considering it acceptable to virtually accuse someone who is not lying of being a liar. That's fine. Do what you want. You wanted to be on ignore. And you are now on it. Bye!

 

[lasthero]

Thank you for the reminder on what Lyell's first name actually was. You make another valid point. Being a lawyer does not disqualify someone from being science minded and perhaps a better geologist - if truly interested in the truth - than one formally trained. As for his eyesight, you got me there, too, perhaps. Maybe he was far sighted, I don't know, and could see geological formations well from a distance. Or whatever. Maybe not.

What does the state of his eyesight have to do with anything?

The thing he, is never saw a geologic column and yet he acted like a geologic column was gawd's truth scientific fact. If he saw one, kindly give me the documentation for that.

What do you think geologists claim the geologic column is?

 

[lasthero]

Yes, I do classify that as verbal abuse and I consider that you are discounting it, even considering it acceptable to virtually accuse someone who is not lying of being a liar. That's fine. Do what you want. You wanted to be on ignore. And you are now on it. Bye!

So you get to be as rude as you like, but the moment someone gets a little uppity with you, you're offended?

Rick was extremely polite to you. I'd even go so far as to say overly polite, because you've been consistently rude since you came in here.

 

[LoricaLady]

So, do I need to go back and fill that in? I have a Master of Science degree from the University of Memphis in Earth Science (1977). That course of study included the areas of Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. With respect to the geology portion specific course study included Sedimentology & Stratigraphy, Petrology, Geochemistry, Dating Methods, Geomorphology, and Pedology. My Masters Thesis was on the "Occurrence and Causes of Continental Glaciation". Professionally, I spent some 25 years as a research chemist and process engineer. I also have also taught geology on an adjunct bases at two local colleges. I am now retired but continue to do independent research, currently on the 8200 and other related climate events with respect to abrupt sea level rise.

Now you were saying.............?

So, you still virtually accused me of being a liar and of only wanting to cause trouble. I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm trying to help people quit being deceived, as I myself once was! Oh, but you use the presuming omniscience logical fallacy to tell me what my motives are. (Did you ever study logical fallacies in college? Rhetorical Q but if not start Googling and learn how to not just believe what they told you, but analyze it with critical thinking.)

As I correctly stated you used verbal abuse and verbal abuse, I have seen, tends to escalate. You also never answered my Qs. So what if you have that experience? Fine for you but I know that doesn't change the fact that there is no ev-i-dence that ambulocetus turned into a whale (ditto all their transitions), and that such thinking is based on the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy.

I also know there are world famous evolutionists who have said there is really no evidence for transitional forms. But I don't need their opinions. I see the data. I see no data showing how we could possibly know that amublocetus ever had a single descendant that was significantly different from itself, much less that it is related to the other so called transitional whale fossils. It's a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and I'm not falling for it, neither are more and more people.

I hope and pray some day you will see the truth and do what some other science trained people have done - use your training to help people see through the smoke and mirrors of evolution.

in the meantime I hope you will not post to me anymore. I don't have time for verbal abuse from people, and their friends, who take a dismissive and insulting attitude toward it.

 

[Split Rock]

Whatever geologic columns there may be, and they are few and far between on a vast planet, if any, what we characteristically see is jumbled life forms.
The quotes I gave at about page 3, in purple, show evolutionary scientists admitting to a lack of true scientific practices in supporting such an idea. As I have said over and over there are so called pre Cambrian life forms on all mountain tops, and other "earlier" forms to be found even in people's yards.

From what I have heard one can find "Jurrasic" dinosaur bones overflowing in the mountains of Montana.

Yeal, I know there are all kinds spins and excuses for these "disconformities", like upwards thrust of the mountains, etc. etc. But, since they have no evidence for any baseline whatsoever before the "thrust", or for the "thrust" itself, we're just seeing the usual - presumptions based on Darwinian...faith....presented as scientific fact.

Just because they report a geologic column, that doesn't mean there really is one because as I also said, they say things like "The strata are out of place in this one", i.e. there ain't any geologic column.

I love the way you contradict yourself:
"Whatever geologic columns there may be, and they are few and far between..."
followed by:
"Just because they report a geologic column, that doesn't mean there really is one because as I also said, they say things like "The strata are out of place in this one", i.e. there ain't any geologic column."
Thanks for providing yet another example of throwing mud against the wall and hoping something sticks.

Also I like how you dismiss disconformaties and up thrusts (which you obviosuly did read about) as "spins and excuses." So, if there is an explanation where it is obvious from the strata that there was an up lifting, you dismiss it out of hand. Then you claim that three centuries of geological study are all lies. I suppose erosion (whcih exposes older rocks near the surface) is all lies too?

I also noticed you ignored my post showing most of the geological column you claim doesn't exist is here in North Dakota... and that the geologcial column was esablished before evolution was. Like I said, the evidence means nothing to you.

I've studied evolutionary lit for years alongside of creation science information. My conclusion is that evolution is, indeed, a kind of religion, certainly not science.

You clearly have done some reading, but you did so only after concluding that YEC is God's Truth. Thanks for once again proving my point.

BTW. For all your talk about "data" I haven't seen you provide a shread of evidence to back up YECism. Not one. Why is that?

 

[Split Rock]

in the meantime I hope you will not post to me anymore. I don't have time for verbal abuse from people, and their friends, who take a dismissive and insulting attitude toward it.

When are you going to take the beam out from your own eye?
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
-Matthew 7:5

 

[Euler]

Yes, I do classify that as verbal abuse and I consider that you are discounting it, even considering it acceptable to virtually accuse someone who is not lying of being a liar. That's fine. Do what you want. You wanted to be on ignore. And you are now on it. Bye!

Great! Now, would you care to correct the lie you told about Split Rock's comments?

 

[LoricaLady]

Great! Now, would you care to correct the lie you told about Split Rock's comments?

I have come back just now to see if, in fact, I was wrong in what I said about Split Rock's comment. I confess I have been reading and typing probably too quickly. I don't know what I'll find when I go back, but will apologize if I was wrong, and also make a comment on his use of the word "subjective."

In the meantime there is you. Like RickG, your friend, you are quick to accuse me of being a liar, w/o even the benefit of the doubt that maybe I just made a mistake (don't know yet.) You haven't addressed the Qs I asked. When I showed how I was accused of lying you were dismissive and, while insulting me, got nice and preachy. All you've done, that I can see, is show hostility to me. That is typical of those who defend evolution. They don't get scientific. They just get personally nasty. I don't have time for that. BYE!

 

[LoricaLady]

SPLIT ROCK As I stated, verbal abuse continues and escalates, as you have demonstrated in accusing me of lying about one of your posts.

Here is your quote: Whether you call it a fish or a tetrapod is entirely subjective... that is why it is called a tranistional, or a "fishapod" by many

First, if it is "entirely subjective" what kind of science is that? 2nd you say "by many." Isn't that a tacit admission that not all scientists agree at all that Tik is a "fishapod"? 3rd, it is not at all subjective! Ichtyhologists, even some evolutionists, identify Tiktaalik as being a fish. As I stated earlier, it looks very much like other lobe finned fish living today. Convince yourself it is a "fishapod" if you want to but it's not. It's a fish. Period. A lobe finned fish. It matches the definition of "fish" that I quoted for you. It is limbless, had fins and scales, and lived in the water, for ex. It not only does not have the 4 legs of a tetrapod, it doesn't have even a hint of a single toe.

Oh, and be sure to look for a toe starting to form on a fish in the countless billions of fossils to be seen out there. Now that would be real evidence of a transition, but alas, no such thing exists. Funny isn't it, how we are told evolution is the norm yet, we see all those fish out there in the ocean, in countless numbers and countless varieties and they are all, everyone of them, staying fish? Howz come we can't find even one that's turning into a tetrapod with little feetsies? (And don't tell me "walking cat fish". It is a 100% fish with 100% fins. It just uses its fins in novel ways, like a flying fish.)

I never said, as you implied, that there are no differences from one generation to another. I asked you, and I ask you now (only rhetorically!) to tell what data there is to show that Tik ever had any descendants significantly different from itself, any data to show it is related to other whale "transitions." There is none. Of course you danced around that Q and never answered it with any data whatsoever.

If you will be honest with yourself you will admit that. You admitted we can't know for sure about ambulocetus if I remember correctly. Well, good for you. Using exactly the same reasoning skills, you should be able to figure out that we can't know anything for sure about Tik's descendants either, or about the descendants of any so called transitions. Yet, you are being told, not maybe, but as a scientific fact, that Tik turned into a tetrapod. That should bother you. If it doesn't, sorry, I tried to show you the truth, but everyone wants to shoot the messenger here.

The reason I didn't respond to your later "answers" to my Qs is because I had already told you that, due to your verbal abuse, I was putting you on ignore. Your statement quoted here is another reason to put you on ignore, as I said earlier. I still pray for you to learn to think. That's all I have to say to you.

So long...and thanks for the fish stories. (You did make me laugh with that, related, line.)