The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[florida2]

Link please?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ution-of-plants.7832911/page-15#post-66056897

You can read from that post on.

I did my very best to remain polite and civil.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ution-of-plants.7832911/page-15#post-66056897

You can read from that post on.

I did my very best to remain polite and civil.

What's this have to do with my post count?

 

[lifepsyop]

Wrong again, none of the articles that I went to were from a well respected peer reviewed journal. In fact many of them were not from the source sited. They were stand alone articles that were put on the internet by some fan of this kook. And pointing out that a nut is a nut is not a baseless accusation. He has no articles of merit. He cannot find any support of his ideas in the world of science. Instead of running a Gish on me why not link his "best" article. If you Gish I will simply point out that is your sin and leave it at that.

Okay, lets pick one of the references to expose your baseless and childish slandering.

Berthault G., Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data, Litol.Polezn.Iskop.2002, vol 37, no.5,pp 509-515 (Lithology and Mineral resources 2002 (fac-similé) (Engl.Transl.), vol.37, no.5, pp442-446), Journal of the Academy of Sciences of Russia.

The Journal of Lithology and Mineral Resources

Lithology and Mineral Resources (Litologiya i poleznye iskopaemye) reviews a wide range of problems related to the formation of sedimentary rocks and ores. Special attention is devoted to comparison of ancient sedimentary rock and ore formation with present-day processes, as the idea of actualism has always constituted one of the bases of the scientific philosophy of lithologists. A major part of the journal is devoted to comparative analysis of sedimentary processes on continents and in oceans, as well as the genetic aspects of the formation of sedimentary and hydrothermal-sedimentary mineral resources. The journal was founded in 1963 by Academician N. M. Strakhov. It will be of interest to lithologists, petrographers, geochemists, mineralogists, ore geologists and metallogenists, as well as to other geologists, ecologists, researchers of experimental and analytical laboratories, and graduate students.

http://link.springer.com/journal/10987


You are barely worth responding to at this point SZ as you've shown a pattern of dishonesty and childish behavior. Don't expect me to waste my time with more of your nonsense.

 

[RickG]

Okay, lets pick one of the references to expose your baseless and childish slandering.

Berthault G., Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data, Litol.Polezn.Iskop.2002, vol 37, no.5,pp 509-515 (Lithology and Mineral resources 2002 (fac-similé) (Engl.Transl.), vol.37, no.5, pp442-446), Journal of the Academy of Sciences of Russia.

The Journal of Lithology and Mineral Resources

Lithology and Mineral Resources (Litologiya i poleznye iskopaemye) reviews a wide range of problems related to the formation of sedimentary rocks and ores. Special attention is devoted to comparison of ancient sedimentary rock and ore formation with present-day processes, as the idea of actualism has always constituted one of the bases of the scientific philosophy of lithologists. A major part of the journal is devoted to comparative analysis of sedimentary processes on continents and in oceans, as well as the genetic aspects of the formation of sedimentary and hydrothermal-sedimentary mineral resources. The journal was founded in 1963 by Academician N. M. Strakhov. It will be of interest to lithologists, petrographers, geochemists, mineralogists, ore geologists and metallogenists, as well as to other geologists, ecologists, researchers of experimental and analytical laboratories, and graduate students.

http://link.springer.com/journal/10987


You are barely worth responding to at this point SZ as you've shown a pattern of dishonesty and childish behavior. Don't expect me to waste my time with more of your nonsense.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to demonstrate with that article. An article published in 2002 showing how Nicolas Stenon's ideas (a naturalist in the 1600's) of superposition were incorrect. Are you suggesting that nothing concerning lithograph, sedimentation, and stratigraphy has been learned since then? Just asking.

 

[lifepsyop]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to demonstrate with that article. An article published in 2002 showing how Nicolas Stenon's ideas (a naturalist in the 1600's) of superposition were incorrect. Are you suggesting that nothing concerning lithograph, sedimentation, and stratigraphy has been learned since then? Just asking.

Nothing. I wouldn't even have posted it but SubductionZone started calling Berthault a "crackpot" with "no scientific merit". SZ has no arguments so he has to attack people.

Anyways, don't worry, I have him on ignore now so I don't have to waste more thread space.

 

[florida2]

What's this have to do with my post count?

SZ's original point was about you lording it over posters with relatively low post counts.

 

[AV1611VET]

SZ's original point was about you lording it over posters with relatively low post counts.

Someone with < 1 posts per day telling me to please not derail another post is like someone going into a hospital about every other day and telling the doctors to make sure they follow protocol.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[JasonClark]

Someone with < 1 posts per day telling me to please not derail another post is like someone going into a hospital about every other day and telling the doctors to make sure they follow protocol.

But you are not a doctor so why do you equate yourself with one?

A post count of over 3 1/4 million tells everyone here way more than they need to know about you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, lets pick one of the references to expose your baseless and childish slandering.

Berthault G., Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data, Litol.Polezn.Iskop.2002, vol 37, no.5,pp 509-515 (Lithology and Mineral resources 2002 (fac-similé) (Engl.Transl.), vol.37, no.5, pp442-446), Journal of the Academy of Sciences of Russia.

The Journal of Lithology and Mineral Resources

Lithology and Mineral Resources (Litologiya i poleznye iskopaemye) reviews a wide range of problems related to the formation of sedimentary rocks and ores. Special attention is devoted to comparison of ancient sedimentary rock and ore formation with present-day processes, as the idea of actualism has always constituted one of the bases of the scientific philosophy of lithologists. A major part of the journal is devoted to comparative analysis of sedimentary processes on continents and in oceans, as well as the genetic aspects of the formation of sedimentary and hydrothermal-sedimentary mineral resources. The journal was founded in 1963 by Academician N. M. Strakhov. It will be of interest to lithologists, petrographers, geochemists, mineralogists, ore geologists and metallogenists, as well as to other geologists, ecologists, researchers of experimental and analytical laboratories, and graduate students.

http://link.springer.com/journal/10987


You are barely worth responding to at this point SZ as you've shown a pattern of dishonesty and childish behavior. Don't expect me to waste my time with more of your nonsense.

Did you not notice that I asked for a well respected peer review journal? The source that you gave is far from well respected. In fact at the time of publishing and for two years after that they had a grand total of zero citations. That meant no one in the world of science thought that that entire journal was even worth mentioning. Not even writers that published at that journal. Finally in 2005 there were a few citations and in 2009 there were a whole whopping 29 citations of this journal, not of this article mind you, but of the entire journal during that year:

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=24485&tip=sid&clean=0

Now I am going to cheat just a little bit and show you what a very well respected journal does. Nature is the name of names in the scientific journal business. In the same time period their citations ranged from roughly 80,000 to 100,000 per year.

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21206&tip=sid&clean=0


But Nature publishes quite a few articles too, so let's make it a bit more even and compare the average number of citations per article that each has. This varies quite a bit more in that same rough time period Nature's citation per article ranged from 10 to 27. That means on the average any one article could be expect to be cited about 18 times. The journal that your article was in had a per article reference rate from 0 to .274 at the most. This measure citations over the last two years so you can look at the history of that journal and can deduct that your article was never cited by anyone.

I am sorry, but you failed the request of finding an article from a well respected peer reviewed journal. Now if you want to discuss what was wrong with his nonsense I would be glad to do that.

And again, watch the personal attacks. I recognize garbage when it is presented. Now I have show that this is not my impression, it is the impression of the world of science as a whole.

 

[AV1611VET]

A post count of over 3 1/4 million tells everyone here way more than they need to know about you.

Wow -- just wow.

 

[RickG]

Someone with < 1 posts per day telling me to please not derail another post is like someone going into a hospital about every other day and telling the doctors to make sure they follow protocol.

Enough said. Now, what scientific information do you have to contribute toward the topic of this thread?

 

[Colter]

And, of course, Jesus played along with it, didn't He?

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Yes, Jesus didn't derive his authority from the scripture.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

I agree that it could cause errors, but I think I have demonstrated that the issue is much less dire than you and others were insisting. Do you agree?

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, that's not really what I was saying. What I mean is this: disputing conventional geology as a means of rebutting the refutation I made for your non-evolutonary interpretation of the Triceratops example (misclassification or ring "species"), implies that you are currently unable to refute the reasoning of those arguments without directly disputing geological interpretation. Is this correct?

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.

I'd still like some clarification. Do you imagine that the flood moved through the area, picked up one morph, deposited it, picked up the next morph, deposited it and so on? Or do you picture the flood moving through the area, sweeping up the range of morphs and then depositing them in the order in which they were encountered? In other words, was each morph suspended and deposited individually or were all the morphs suspended before any were deposited?

Either way your flume video doesn't seem relevant. The stratification seen there is the result of different flow velocities acting on different sized grains. The Triceratops species in question are both effectively the same size and shape, so the mechanism seen in the video would not have any ability to sort them stratigraphically.

ETA: Also, I'm still interested in hearing your response to this:
Fossil assemblage X shows that Australia and Antarctica were at one time attached.

- If Australia had shared assembalge X with North America instead, this would not invalidate the theory of plate tectonics.

- Despite this, assemblage X still provides evidence that Australia was attached to Antarctica and thus that plate tectonics is a real process.

Please tell me which point you disagree with and your reasoning for disagreeing.

 

[crjmurray]

Faith is the belief in things not seen, but that nonetheless must exist because the preponderance of the evidence leaves no choice. Kinda like faith in dark matter, dark energy, big bangs, redshift and evolution, except none of the evidence actually points to anything they say it does, so they actually have more faith than I.

A creation event that's not a creation event, despite the very math itself declaring the miracle thereof.

I've asked this multiple times. What math?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I've asked this multiple times. What math?

I've answered this many times. Every math you have that breaks down at the point where the universe starts or life itself starts. Why, do you believe you have math that actually works to explain those times? If so present it.

 

[crjmurray]

I've answered this many times. Every math you have that breaks down at the point where the universe starts or life itself starts. Why, do you believe you have math that actually works to explain those times? If so present it.

You're the one that stated that math declared something as a miracle. You've stated that math makes evolution impossible in other threads. This implies that you have some math that can back up your claim. I've never seen you present any math that backs up your claim that something is impossible. If you'd like I'll create a thread specifically for mathematical arguments against evolution if you're unable to answer here

 

[dad]

* Cain fears other tribes away from Adam & Eve, because the earth was already populated.

Of course it was populated, that was what God commanded us to do. However, there is no reason to assume Nod was yet populated.

* The Lord agrees, puts a mark on Cain lest anyone find him kill him.

Right, when you live 1000 years, even if you are in another land, you may meet people.

* Cain went to Nod, finds a wife, has a son named Enoch.

Nope. He took his wife I would assume.


15 And the Lord said to him, “Therefore,[b] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

The Family of Cain
16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived

Bingo! He made love to his wife, not found one under a tree in Nod.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And, of course, Jesus played along with it, didn't He?

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Yes, Jesus didn't derive his authority from the scripture.

Just to fulfill (complete) them.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:36-40&version=NIV

 

[Subduction Zone]

.

Someone with < 1 posts per day telling me to please not derail another post is like someone going into a hospital about every other day and telling the doctors to make sure they follow protocol.

Wrong, quality always beats quantity. And since a lot of your posts are simply 1! 2! etc. that is an extremely low quality.