Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you, my friend!You certainly put up a fight
No, he derails scientific discussion, which appears to be his only purpose for posting here.You certainly put up a fight
QV please:
Look, he is adorable. And I like his one liners.No, he derails scientific discussion, which appears to be his only purpose for posting here.
Staking the position that the current Bible book list is a divine production, a fetish of sorts, the Word of God, is intellectual AND spiritual laziness! It's hiding the talents under a rock. Should Christ return today they would present him with the book as principle and interest. "Here it is, we allowed nothing to be added nor taken away from it."
The train left the station long ago, we will pursue truth wherever it takes us; the material facts of creation via evolution, and the spiritual truths of the Living God as we discern the objective reality of God subjectively.
By the way, according to your Evolutionary priesthood, the completely unfalsifiable story of Abiogenesis is a "material fact" as well. No question IF it happened, only How.
Don't be fooled, there is religious devotion underneath all the lab-coats.
Perhaps, but keep in mind the intent to avoid any scientific discussion. Suppose I went to one of the apologetic forums and posted nothing but comments on evolution. Get the idea?Look, he is adorable. And I like his one liners.
And I like yours too!Look, he is adorable. And I like his one liners.
Naaaah, couldn't be. Didn't you hear? The flood would jumble
Funny how that simple little book says that scoffers will eventually show up denying the flood. Almost like the author knows something that we don't.
How is that a big prediction? What would be the alternative, that everyone believes it?
a few generations ago, man was confident he had discovered the spontaneous generation of complex living things from inorganic matter. He even had direct observable evidence to back it up.
When was this?
Turns out the interpretations of the data were wrong. Luckily, that theory was easy to test with simple experiments.
What theory?
the way, according to your Evolutionary priesthood, the completely unfalsifiable story of Abiogenesis is a "material fact" as well. No question IF it happened, only How.
Life did begin at some point, I don't think anyone can really question that.
Hopefully you would be asked to demonstrate your faith.Suppose I went to one of the apologetic forums and posted nothing but comments on evolution.
Again, an attempt to divert any discussion away from science. Do you have anything of a scientific nature that would contribute to this thread?Hopefully you would be asked to demonstrate your faith.
After all, if I'm expected to demonstrate evidence here, you should be asked to demonstrate faith there.
One liners meant to derail, the very thing he claims he's complaining about.Look, he is adorable. And I like his one liners.
Actually it would have. Amateur sedimentology is not too impressive.
Hopefully you would be asked to demonstrate your faith.
After all, if I'm expected to demonstrate evidence here, you should be asked to demonstrate faith there.
These are both much more on topic than AV's diversion, but they are still a departure from the topic you and I were engaged with. I refer you to my two last posts to you, the first of which deals with your position that evolutionary theory's ability to accommodate different patterns of relationships (to a certain extent) means that the fossil record can't be considered of any relationships:Yea it's pretty difficult to follow the original discussion in these conditions...maybe the sidetracks could be moved to their own thread...
I posted some more material relevant to the OP here:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...fossil-sequence.7880422/page-25#post-68027951
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-deception-of-evolution-and-the-fossil-sequence.7880422/
These are both much more on topic than AV's diversion, but they are still a departure from the topic you and I were engaged with. I refer you to my two last posts to you, the first of which deals with your position that evolutionary theory's ability to accommodate different patterns of relationships (to a certain extent) means that the fossil record can't be considered of any relationships:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...fossil-sequence.7880422/page-20#post-68024686
The second is about the issues of ontogeny and plasticity. Most recently I was trying for to get you to clarify if your desire to move the discussion to sedimentology indicates that you can no longer refute the points I've made unless you can refute conventional geology:
http://www.christianforums.com/posts/68024686/
Funny how that simple little book says that scoffers will eventually show up denying the flood. Almost like the author knows something that we don't.
2 Peter 3:3-6
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Just a few generations ago, man was confident he had discovered the spontaneous generation of complex living things from inorganic matter. He even had direct observable evidence to back it up. Turns out the interpretations of the data were wrong. Luckily, that theory was easy to test with simple experiments. You will not be so lucky with Darwinian mysticism... where Evolution 'theory' is designed to accommodate contradictory data and continuously rearrange itself like pliable jello.
By the way, according to your Evolutionary priesthood, the completely unfalsifiable story of Abiogenesis is a "material fact" as well. No question IF it happened, only How.
Don't be fooled, there is religious devotion underneath all the lab-coats.
There's a therapeutic reason for all those posts.The way to get to 3,294,578 messages must be by saying nothing often.
You forgot these again:
1.My argument is that the research into plasticity and ontogeny have furnished us with the ability to detect them well enough in the fossil record to correct and avoid many possible errors and that we are therefore justified in making conclusions based on the fossil record. This is not the same as saying that the study of the these two sources of intraspecific variation "removes the possibility that it is causing classification errors".
2.I should point out that our ability to assess approximate age (juvenile, subadult, adult) histologically is sufficiently advanced that we don't necessarily need a large sample size to identify, say, juvenile bone structure.
3.It is logical to assume that there is more to learn about the phenomenon. It is not well-founded to assume that, because our knowledge is incomplete, paleontologists are not capable of making reliable assessments of its presence in the fossil record and are therefore not capable of making reliable assessments based on the fossil record.
4.neither the skull in general nor the teeth in particular displayed plasticity by changing in response to diet and that the fact that even these minor osteological differences did not change suggests that the suite of far more noticeable changes to cranial morphology between T. horridus and T. prorsus is beyond the limits of plasticity.
It would be interesting to carry out such a study, but your personal confidence that your prediction would be vindicated is hardly to be considered support for your position.
Plasticity, as has been noted in the research presented here, is capable of limited change, generally below what we observe between species. It is but a small part of the greater possibilities for change associated with evolutionary processes.
By your continued silence on these matters I take it you have conceded these points.
Obviously. That wasn't the question. Let's rephrase. The fact that you have now turned to contesting the origin of the rock record means that you are otherwise unable to refute the points I've made. So do you concede that, unless you could somehow refute conventional geology, that the stratigraphic segregation I outlined demonstrates that the majority of dinosaur species aren't classified in error? And do you concede that, unless you could somehow refute conventional geology, your attempt to explain the Triceratops of the HCF as ring species is refuted? If so then I would be happy to get into the geology.
Note that in both cases I am not asking you if you accept conventional geology, which you obviously don't.
So you've gone with option B: the Flood could drown all the morphs, suspend them together and then somehow sort them. This makes no sense. How could the same current suspend these populations and yet keep them separate and deposit them all in the same place but ordered from T. horridus-like to T. prorsus-like? That's just not how water deposition works.
What I am more interested in is how he got to 2,000 likes. There is no rule against his counting posts that artificially raise would raise one's post number. It is illegal to make a sock account. It is not possible to "like" yourself. And AV's likes shot up to 2,000 without any explanation and the slowly grew from there. The likes are new and there that growth rate screams fraud. I would not mind but occasionally AV has tried to use both his post numbers to intimidate newbies in the past. Now he may be doing the same with his "like" numbers.The way to get to 3,294,578 messages must be by saying nothing often.
That type of sorting occurs only at deltas. Those leave an observable signature. The geologic column does not have that sort of signature running all the way through it. What we find are assemblages of fossils that follow specific beds. Those simplified sedimentology claims cannot explain this. I tell you what, when they get a peer reviewed article published with their claims then you will have something. Sadly you have been fooled by crackpots.I don't have any fundamental disagreement here. You're assuming some things, but it's nothing I feel the need to argue at this point. I have maintained that ontology or reproductively isolated breeds would be responsible for the greatest level of morphological variation. Plasticity would be a secondary consideration, but still may potentially cause errors in classification.
The "Old-earth" is an over-arching metaphysical model that generally resists potential falsification and is supported by piles of ad-hoc adjustments, much like Evolution in general. 'Conventional geology' has gone through enormous upsets in just the past 50 years, (always repackaged with total confidence in the new model of course). And my inability to refute it does not make it automatically true, nor does it make the hypothesis of rapid deposition of the Hell Creek Formation automatically false. That is a silly dichotomy to propose.
Again, I don't follow your strange picture.
Maybe this will help. Imagine dropping a pile of Triceratops X into the flume, then Y, then Z. This would represent each population's territory gradually being inundated with water. Each group will be transported one after the other and subsequently deposited in a layer of sediment resulting in rapidly form stratified layers.
That the triceratops order seems to show a semblance of a gradual progression would simply be a fortuitous event of how each triceratops breed was deposited. Much of the rock record does not show such seemingly linear progressions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?