Origins

[Ikerous]

yes but my point is "what is the point of reference used to determine how long a week is"

You know how long it takes for the current earth to spin around once? He used that as a reference... he can see the future... lol, i'm so confused where that doesnt make sense

"I understand that you think god could have just said that so that we'd understand "
I dont think he just randomly said it though, i think the time it took him matches up with our current week..

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The way I see it, Angry Lawman, is that we don't know and we probably never will. So why concern ourselves with worrying about it?

The philosophy ya use, by the way, is called Deism, and it's one I agree with. I myself am an athiest semi-deist, in that I'm open to the slight possibility of a sort-of god, but until there's proof he's as fake to me as cardboard shoes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

[Angry Lawyer]

The way I see it, Angry Lawman, is that we don't know and we probably never will. So why concern ourselves with worrying about it?

Exactly. Some choose to believe, some don't. Why worry about it?

*Reads the source*

Holy crap, I'm a Deist! I never knew that!

-Angry Lawyer

 

[CptStern]

You know how long it takes for the current earth to spin around once? He used that as a reference... he can see the future... lol, i'm so confused where that doesnt make sense

"I understand that you think god could have just said that so that we'd understand "
I dont think he just randomly said it though, i think the time it took him matches up with our current week..

but WHY did it take a week if god is omnipotent? The bible says god said "let there be light, and there was light" ...that sounds instant to me ...dont see why it would take a week if it was all instant

 

[Ikerous]

but WHY did it take a week if god is omnipotent? The bible says god said "let there be light, and there was light" ...that sounds instant to me ...dont see why it would take a week if it was all instant

Hell if i know why he did it like that, lol
I was just answering the "if there's no sun to judge how long a day is how would they know how long it took?" question

 

[Angry Lawyer]

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMJ! DEISM PWNS CREATIONIST THINKING!

-Angry Lawyer

 

[short recoil]

Just as food for thought, and something that keeps me awake at night.

If God doesn't exist for the sole reason that something had to have made him, because of cause and effect violations...
Then what came before the big bang? And before that? And before that?

There's always a "Before that". Logic doesn't quite work as well as we believe it to.

Of course, I believe in the Big Bang and the like. Just, God went and set up all of the formulae that caused our universe to come into being, and after that (barring Jesus) hasn't really touched us on Earth. Lots of other species in our infinite Universe need their own Jesuses, after all. We can't be the centre of attention all the time

-Angry Lawyer

The infinity singularity, there has always been something and nothing at exactly the same time.
Our universe has always existed as we move from one possible layout to the next.
We are only concious here because our brains have the ability.
There is no begining, there is no end.
It's the only way it can be.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

The infinity singularity, there has always been something and nothing at exactly the same time.
Our universe has always existed as we move from one possible layout to the next.

You just proved my point. The Universe will always have a "what happened before" and a "what happened next" in it, you can't reach an end. Therefore, stating that God can't exist because there'd have to be something before Him really isn't a valid point.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[staticprimer]

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMJ! DEISM PWNS CREATIONIST THINKING!

-Angry Lawyer

Deism ftw!

 

[Jintor]

Hmm, thinking about it, creationism doesn't necessarily imply a god. Just a creator.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And a sub-highschool understanding of science. :frog:

-Mechagodzilla

 

[JCampbell]

Why are you continually seperating macro and micro evolution?

They are the same process over different scales of time.
It is utterly irrational to accept one and not another without proof of your matrices.

Speciation exists. Speciation continues to exist every day of your miserable life and has existed for the entire span of human history. It has existed long before you were born and it will exist long after you die.

I think you need to define what you mean by speciation. There are typically two claims being made in regards to speciation:

1) That unequivocally *new* genetic information has appeared -- meaningful genetic code that did not previously exist anywhere, in any population of such organisms before.

2) That a new *combination* of otherwise previously observed and documented genetic code has been observed and documented.

In the case of "A" -- How exactly has it been demonstrated --unequivocally --that this "new" genetic information is truly new? To truly 'know' that said genetic information wasn't latently present in even one member of the source population, one would have to truly and exhaustively 'know' the genetic makeup of the entire population. To truly 'know' that said genetic information never existed before, one would have to truly and exhaustively 'know' the genetic makeup of every earthly population even remotely related to the source population. Who exactly is proffering such unequivocal corroboration for their speciation claims, and where exactly is such corroboration documented? In the absence of the same, we are left with "B".

In the case of "B" -- The "new" species has admittedly introduced no new genetic information into the source population's gene pool, but has
manifested a combination of already existing genetic information. Such manifestations add nothing positive to the evolutionary paradigm. If anything, they corroborate the creationary paradigm, which (for the most part) holds that all available genetic information for all kinds of creatures (including a vast wealth of capacity for variation) was present in the original created population.

Now, what do you have saying that this, by all evidence, constant process suddenly began with a magic menagerie of X instant animals at approximately RANDOM GUESS DATE B.C. in the area of BULLSHIT, IOWA?

Your claim that such a date has been arrived to through 'random' guessing truly shows your ignorance of the subject which you dismiss so vehemenently. Furthermore, how can you prove unequivocally that the dates of your "fossil" are correct? Keep in mind that no fewer than 3 unproveable assumptions must be made when using radiocarbon dating:

1.the decay rate of the substance has been constant

2.the initial amount of the given substance was known

3.no outside forces have changed in any way the amount, or purity of the substance to be dated (ie a closed system)

Now, if scientists are able to play at will with the variables mentioned above to arrive at the "correct" dates (only deemed correct if they fit into the evolutionary theory), how can this be considered unequivocal, or even convincing in terms of determining the true age of the earth?

As for their being 'no' evidence pointing towards a young earth, think about the following bits of information.

Evaporites

Similar bands in some huge deposits containing calcium carbonate and calcium sulphate in Texas are also used to argue the case for long ages.17 One explanation says the deposits were formed when the sun evaporated seawater — hence the term ‘evaporite deposits’. Naturally, to make such large deposits in this way would take a long time. However, the high chemical purity of the deposits shows they were not exposed to a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years. Rather, it is more likely that they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity — a hydrothermal deposit.

The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast

The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.11 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.12 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.13 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.

More info on that here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp

Many strata are too tightly bent

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

If that isn't enough:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=302

The only reason to believe in your creationism is your assumption of matrices.
The only reason to believe in your matrices is the assumption of your creationism.
This line of 'reasoning' is called CIRCULAR LOGIC.

The only 'reason' that you've given to dismiss the idea of Creationism is the fact that I cannot define what a species is. Since you're initial response, you've regarded this point as somewhat of a 'red-herring,' falling back on it whenever I present you with a profound argument or compelling piece of information. The bottom line is, this is NOT the only reason to believe in Creationism, and my failure to define what animals are in what matrixes is by no means a disproval of the Creation Theory.

Let's do the circular logic test on evolution, shall we?

The only reason to believe in evolution is the assumption of speciation.
The only reason to believe in speciation is THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION AND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

I see you've resorted to making grandiose claims suggesting that every single thought regarding evolution has been put through rigorous scientific analysis. This is hardly the case, and I invite you, again, to provide compelling evidence for the theory of evolution, aside from saying "well you've been disproven so I don't have to," a statement both incorrect and evasive.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Indeed.

So if you're going to claim that magic created all the animals on Earth in matrices, you had better damn well have proof of magic or proof of matrices or both.

Magic? Still trying to demean my point of view by making fanciful comparisons. The slow degradation of the quality of your posts is evident by the increased amount of profanity and terse judgements. I have already provided you with the topic of baraminology for your convenience to research; but since such research would inevitably render your 'red-herring' nothing more than a baseless accusation, I can see why you have not. Nevertheless, here's a thorough explanation:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

You have proof of NEITHER.

Evolution theory is just speciation extrapolated backwards.

As I demonstrated above, there is a significant difference between speciation, as defined, and your "extrapolation." Again, where has this new genetic information arising been documented?

Your matrices are speciation extrapolated backwards into a big red wall of ghosts.
You assume the wall exists based on a god you assume to exist who uses magic you assume to exist to create an assumedly instant supply of animals that you assume managed to skip over the developmental stages of birth thanks to the assumed magic.

Notice the word ASSUME?

The evidence for a Creator is overwhelming. Do I really need to bring it in here? Or are you going to attempt to refute it by parroting off claims from wiki, a site specializing in nothing and attempting to explain everything?
Again, I can give examples should you request them.

This is summed up by an extremely simple MS Paint chart:

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6868/asimplechart5bd.gif

First, you've assumed that all species are traceable back to a single ancestory. You have neither proven this by the means I initially stated or given compelling evidence (through the fossil record)?

As biochemist Christopher Schwabe wrote:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.

But don't take his word for it:
Scientists Patterson, Williams, and Humphries concluded in their review of the congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies:

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .

Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published, structure or resolution tends to evaporate.

But don't take their words for it.
Consider biologist Carl Woese, who attempted to construct rRNA based phylogenetic trees:

No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.

Of course, you could come up with some way of explaining ANY of the inconsistencies within the standard "phylogenetic tree," None of the explanations would be facts, just stories. But such stories truly render evolution unfalsifiable, as it is impossible to conceive any pattern of organisms or 'grouping' of animals that would discredit the evolutionary model.

You have provided one good bit of evidence against evolution though:
The fact that after all these millions upon millions of years of subtle improvements, then thousands of years of development in scientific process, all we have are people like you throwing it away for a land of make-believe where the world is flat and everything is so easy to understand. Because everything you can't understand must be magic and ghosts.

You've combined the theory of evolution---which was only completely realized once Darwin (and yes, I do know that theories existed before, but they hardly coherent enough to show that they were valid) supposed a palpable mechanism (natural selection)---with the fact of scientific progress, and concluded that I must be wrong? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to seem at all credible.

If you cannot provide valid examples of evidence for evolution (aside from saying that I can't define species), then how can you expect me to even see your point of view? You've clouded it with a smokescreen of baseless accusations and silly pictures, which in reality, are just meant to make it look like you're "winning" the debate to the random readers of these forums.

Since you are so convinced of this "fact" of which Creation is in such obvious rebellion, provide evidence. And don't be so condescending. It has not riled me up, as doubtlessly you have intended it to do. It has not given your posts more substance, which I doubt was the point anyways. It has also made you look like a fool.

I have remained civil. Can you not do the same?

And for those who say Christianity and Evolution are compatible, consider this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp
This is not meant to be a criticism of you, just hopefully an enlightenment as to what exactly you're claiming by saying the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Apos]

Groan. The same old "Gish Gallop" whereby so many different misunderstood and misrepresented subjects are tossed out on the table, all generally full of jargon and concepts that laypeople are unfamiliar with (and usually the creationist is totally unfamiliar with and just copy-pasting) that it's a great labor for a layperson to track down all the lies and gross distortions involved.

Generally, I think it's enough to point at the track record of creationists: check their citations, and you'll find that their quotes are rarely about what they claim they are about. Ask experts about their claims and you'll find they have left out or never even considered huge portions of the subject.

But, hey, whatever, this is always good for a laugh.

But since I'm jumping into this fresh, let's do away with the patented "Gish Gallop" and just focus on one issue and one issue alone: common descent: the idea that all modern life is related via a branching heirarchy. Please present your basic case against it again, laid clear (since I'm not about to read 5 pages of back and forth between others). And then I'll rebut.

 

[Laivasse]

What Apos said.

Plus:

The evidence for a Creator is overwhelming. Do I really need to bring it in here?

It's never too late to start. I thought that's what you were here to do?

I have remained civil. Can you not do the same?

Mecha is abrupt with you because your posts are, frankly, annoying, because you construct your 'arguments' (I hesitate to flatter them with the term) with a bunch of semantic slight of hand which Apos described. Excuse us for not covering our mouths to cough after you blow smoke in our faces.

And for those who say Christianity and Evolution are compatible, consider this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea..._evolution.asp
This is not meant to be a criticism of you, just hopefully an enlightenment as to what exactly you're claiming by saying the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Less an enlightenment that an attempt to turn out the lights. Exactly what I expected it to be - an attempt by insecure and egotistical Christians to try and wrangle others into sharing the same lack of imagination they do. Over and over again, I see the same failure to grasp the concept of 'omnipotence'. Spurious arguments like "If you take evolution to be true, then God must be this", or "if evolution is the case, then God can't be like this" - there is no must or can't for an omnipotent entity. There is no imperative for an omnipotent figure to follow the same laws of cause and effect that govern the rest of the universe. I SMACK YOUR LACK OF IMAGINATION IN THE MOUTH.

I find it quite arrogant for people like that to assume that they know what the Bible is 'about', what it means, and how it should be used, and trying to force that single interpretation on everyone else. So the Bible isn't meant to be allegorical in the slightest even though Jesus was famed for using parables? Whatever. Links like the one above amount to human hubris in the end, written by people who make so bold as to claim to know the nature of God, and trying to crowd out anything that might dent their own view.

What it does in the end is effectively weaken whatever piddling argument there is for creationism there is already. Links like that one prove that creationism is not a theory born out of observation and deduction, but out of the fact that unimaginative Christians cannot reconcile evolution with Genesis and so need another theory. This is a superficial need, and makes creationism a superficial 'theory'. You know very well that if there was a little more of an overt reference to evolution in the Bible, you wouldn't even be fighting in creationism's corner. What this amounts to is that you're trying to have a scientific argument - based on faith!! Absurd.

Refrain from telling the rest of us how you think we should think in future.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm sure you pulled that short list of quotes directly off some website you found, correct?
And, of course, you know nothing of their context do you?

The process you are using there is called 'quote mining,' in which creationists take short or one-sentence quotes from various sources and remove any context they might be in in order to misrepresent them.

Real peer-reviewed scientists write entire papers about that sort of thing.

"This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."

- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975),
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

Notice that that quote contains a great deal of context, as well as the book it is from.
Also notice that your quotes are taken from the conclusions of various writings, and contain no mention of evidence or procedure.

Maybe I would trust you, but Patterson, who you cite, has been misquoted by creationists in the past.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

I couldn't help but note the ". . . ." in the middle of his quote either.
Do you even know what words have been cut out of there?

You might note that I only quote articles I have actually read and understood, or that provide sufficient description of the context in bits that are quoted.

And the best part is, they only talk about how they don't know EVERYTHING. Duh.
Remember:

"Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution."

Try not to do this again, ok?


Now, to address your real concerns.

I think you need to define what you mean by speciation.

I already did. Repeatedly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
There is only one speciation. It is divided into three 'types' that are basically identical in meaning:

It is when a single population of similar animals develops into two or more populations of dissimilar animals through adaption to different conditions.

The fact that you asked 'which one' of two choices really says something. The answer, of course, is neither A or B, as speciation encompases both.

I don't have the time or the patience to write the humongeous paper needed to explain the exact concept to you, but luckily there's the internet.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The article notes the entire procedures used in defining speciation and gives proper context.

Since you'll likely get bored with learning, you can just skip to the end and read about how speciation has been substantially proven to occur in flies, plants, bacteria and other types of insect.

Please note that those are only cases where speciation is directly observed, as these organisms each go through multiple generations very quickly. Most other animals do not procreate quickly enough to directly observe speciation. Instead, we rely on historical/paleontological record. An example would be the fairly clear division between neanderthals (which subsequently died out) and ancient humans (which did not).

That just applies to the branching of species though. I've already given proof of beneficial mutations within a same-species population.
This is refered to as adapation, but for the sake of simplicity I've grouped it in with speciation, as it is identical save for the division into seperate species. Speciation is, in turn, the logical result of adaptation under specific conditions.



Now, what you have presented 'disproving' this foundation is a series of what-ifs based on little or nothing but your capacity to imagine. I'll take a page from your playbook and address each what-if in turn. Although I'll keep the obnoxious quote-boxes out:

1 - "In the case of "A" -- How exactly has it been demonstrated --unequivocally --that this "new" genetic information is truly new?"

SCIENTIFIC ANSWER- Since the very basic definition of a species is 'a group that cannot procreate with another', that would mean that any branch species would not be able to pass on any new traits to the core species it departed from.
Any adapted genetic trait that prevents reproduction with the core species must be new by default.

Of course, these are not the only type of 'new' genetic trait that can occur. However, these are the only ones that are proven to the extent of your irrational standards.
Why are these standards irrational? Check the logical flaw:

LOGICAL FLAW - Following that logic, how do we know that these 'new' cars are truely new? Maybe an australopithecus invented the first car long before human history and then subsequently pushed it into a volcano? 'What ifs' are unfalsifiable, and therefore pseudoscience.

2 - "To truly 'know' that said genetic information never existed before, one would have to truly and exhaustively 'know' the genetic makeup of every earthly population even remotely related to the source population."

SCIENTIFIC ANSWER - I've already shown this claim to be scientifically and logically invalid in part 1. There is an additional logic problem here, however:

LOGICAL FLAW - Following that logic, the earth must have been made of magic cheese in 10 000 BC, as to truly 'know' that atoms never existed before, one would have to truly and exhaustively 'know' the atomic makeup of every earthly element even remotely related to reality.

Science tells us, logically, that the past is an earlier version of the present. Things observed to be constant now were logically constant in the past too, unless proven otherwise.
Your 'what if', does not prove otherwise.

3 - "Who exactly is proffering such unequivocal corroboration for their speciation claims, and where exactly is such corroboration documented?"

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT - No proper scientist claims that his research is 'unequivocal'. Scientists tend to keep in mind alternatives in order to combat the danger of unfalsifiability.
Absolutist claims, on the other hand, are a calling card of psuedoscience.

SCIENTIFIC ANSWER - See above article describing observed speciation, if you haven't already.

PRE-EMPTIVE LOGICAL FLAW Just In Case You Try A New 'What If' - Yes, the exact speciation process has 'only' been directly observed in insects, plants and microcelluar organisms (and indirectly observed in other species through historical/paleontological study).

However, the logical precursor to speciation - adaptation - has been seen in many, many more.
The logical extrapolation of these many, many findings is that evolution happens.
If you'd like to defy this logic, you will need evidence.

Now, since your 'A' is proven, I suppose I do not need to deal with 'B' other than say that is a clear contributing factor to adaptation both before and after any speciation event.



Next, you complain about this sentence:
"Now, what do you have saying that this, by all evidence, constant process suddenly began with a magic menagerie of X instant animals at approximately RANDOM GUESS DATE B.C. in the area of BULLSHIT, IOWA?"

I don't believe you fully understood the meaning.
The sentence says, effectively, "When I have all this evidence and logic backing me up, why do you think a 'what if' scenario (the claim of matrices) is an adequate retort?"

I thought the fact that I was mocking the matrices was clear in context, but I guess I should be more plainspoken in the future. Here is the basic summary of my points:

X instant animals - You have failed to provide a number or description of exactly which different animal matrixes god beamed to Earth.

Random Guess Date BC - You have failed to provide any date where this may have occured. Also, the arbitraryness of the matrix scenario (it could conceivably have happened any time before written history) means that any date you choose would have to be random faith or be backed up by imagined evidence that you do not have.

Bullshit, Iowa - You have failed to describe the range or extent of the matrix distribution. Did god drop two of each species in Sudan? Did he disribute a million of each evenly over the globe?

Combined, these mockeries emphasize the level of guesswork and assumption required for matrixes to make even a shred of sense.

Simple enough?

Rather than give evidence of any of these, though, you instead complain that fossil evidence is nearly as unreliable as your guesswork:

4 - "Furthermore, how can you prove unequivocally that the dates of your "fossil" are correct? Keep in mind that no fewer than 3 unproveable assumptions must be made when using radiocarbon dating:

1.the decay rate of the substance has been constant
2.the initial amount of the given substance was known
3.no outside forces have changed in any way the amount, or purity of the substance to be dated (ie a closed system)"

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT - No proper scientist claims that his research is 'unequivocal'. Scientists tend to keep in mind alternatives in order to combat the dangerous pseudoscience of unfalsifiability.
In this case, fossil dates are never dated past unreasonable accuracy. Scientists actually report and calculate the inherent uncertainty to create a logical ballpark figure.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT 2 - You assume scientists only use radiocrabon dating. It is actually only used in cases where the subject is under 60 000 years old. See the Scientific Answer for details.

SCIENTIFIC ANSWER - "Radiocarbon labs generally report an uncertainty, e.g., 3000±30BP indicates a standard deviation of 30 radiocarbon years."
Since you didn't seem to know that, you might want to read up on the subject.
This article, much as you loathe wikipedia, sums up most corrective measures used to ensure reaonable accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
Here's betting you didn't know RCD was conducted so stringently.

The vast majority of fossil evidence, however, is backed up by the layering of surrounding rock, which can rather accurately record dates through the lines and their strata, like a tree's rings. These dates are also ballparked. However, this is more than enough to place the animal within the specific sections of their time period.
The combination of both analyses, where possible, is quite accurate.

LOGICAL FLAW - The scientific answer is more than enough reason to consider fossil dates accurate enough.
If you would like to disprove the entire fields of paleontology and geology, you will need real evidence of systematic error.


"As for their being 'no' evidence pointing towards a young earth, think about the following bits of information."
Young Earth theory? Who brought that up? Stay on topic, please. That's an altogether different kind of crazy.



"The only 'reason' that you've given to dismiss the idea of Creationism is the fact that I cannot define what a species is. Since you're initial response, you've regarded this point as somewhat of a 'red-herring,' falling back on it whenever I present you with a profound argument or compelling piece of information. "

You ASKED ME to focus my argument down to a single point. I chose to focus on your stupid matrices. Durr.
That 'falling back' was my futile attempt at keeping you on your own topic.

Of course, once I proved that you couldn't define your most basic terms, thus invalidating your argument, you started unfocusing the entire thing all over again. Talk about a failed attempt to divide and conquer me.

"The bottom line is, this is NOT the only reason to believe in Creationism, and my failure to define what animals are in what matrixes is by no means a disproval of the Creation Theory."

Here's some capslock for you: I CANNOT DISPROVE AN UNFALSIFIABLE WHAT-IF SCENARIO.
HOWEVER, I HAVE PROVEN THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND IT IS THEREFORE PSEUDOSCIENCE.
PSEUDOSCIENCE IS NOT WORTHY OF DEBATE.

Now honestly, what about that do you not comprehend? Tell me what. For god's sake, your entire argument is a based on this one huge 'what-if'. You accept that it is a 'what-if'. YOU HAVE ADMITTED YOUR ENTIRE POINT IS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC AND YET YOU WILL NOT STOP WRITING.

I hate to use capslock, and anyone who knows me knows that. But I HAVE REPEATED MYSELF FAR TOO MUCH IN THIS RESPECT.

Ooo, 'baraminology'. Too bad even self-professed 'barminologists' can't find a concensus on defining it. You certainly haven't presented your particular take on things.

'Baraminology', by the way, is basically just another word for speciation. The logical extreme of 'baraminology' is called evolution. All you did was change one word.
I bet you don't have any facts to disprove my theory of strevolution.

But that doesn't even matter because the observable process of speciation already discounted 'baraminology' outright.
'Kinds' are clearly not absolute.
That was a waste of my time.



"Magic? Still trying to demean my point of view by making fanciful comparisons."
"Magic, (noun):
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural.
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=magic

God is supernatural, unless you'd like to prove he's scientific.
No wait, you can't because he's UNFALSIFIABLE. :O

"I see you've resorted to making grandiose claims suggesting that every single thought regarding evolution has been put through rigorous scientific analysis."

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT - I did not claim this at all. What I DID claim in that quote is that scientific procedure has been continually improved ever since the capacity for rational though existed.

Scientific procedure, when used correctly (e.g. WITHOUT PSUEDOSCIENCE) , shows us that evolution is the most likely scenario BY FAR.

I've listed logical examples and often basic proofs of Evolution, Speciation, Adaptation, Beneficial Mutation, Paleontology, Occam's Razor, Mathematics and nearly the grade-school basics of what constitutes scientific understanding and logical thought.
Yet every post you make, it's the same "o yu have no proof" bullshit.

Deal with those, then tell me I have 'no proof'.

Now, there's a list of my proof, so what have you presented?
Matrices? Pseudoscience.
Baraminology? Disproven.
God? Pseudoscience.
'What-ifs'? Pseudoscience.
Quotes? Decontextualized beyond recognition and otherwise saying the truistic statement 'we don't know everything yet'.
Criticism of RCD? Unfounded.
Criticism of Speciation? Unfounded. Also psuedoscience and straw men.
Criticism of wikipedia? Unfounded.

So really, what's left?

(Conclusion in next post.)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"First, you've assumed that all species are traceable back to a single ancestory. You have neither proven this by the means I initially stated or given compelling evidence (through the fossil record)?"

OCCAM'S RAZOR - The only alternative explanations are less likely or entirely unlikely:
-The matrices/god origin(s)? - pseudoscience, again.
-Two or more independant natural ancestors? - Less likely than one, so the possibility should be ignored until proof is given to the contrary.
-Other? - Unknown?

"The evidence for a Creator is overwhelming. Do I really need to bring it in here?"
Anything you can say about god is inherently pseudoscience.
Your argument needs some sort of support in order to function, but god's obviously not going to cut it.

"You've combined the theory of evolution---which was only completely realized once Darwin (and yes, I do know that theories existed before, but they hardly coherent enough to show that they were valid) supposed a palpable mechanism (natural selection)---with the fact of scientific progress, and concluded that I must be wrong? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to seem at all credible."

STRAW MAN - I did not 'combine' evolution with progress. Evolution is inherent to scientific progress.
Just like how creationism is inherent to pseudoscientific progress.

LOGICAL FLAW - This is the second time in one post that you have claimed my conclusions are based on 'only one thing'. Each time, you have claimed a different thing!
Bipolar disorder maybe?

STRAW MAN 2 - This one's not even a real basis of my conclusion!

Caps, again, since you seem to miss the point very easily:

MATRICES ARE PSEUDOSCIENCE BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, AND YOUR DEFENSES OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE ARE NO MORE VALID.
THESE FALLACIES ARE THE ELEMENTAL BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT.
EVOLUTION (FOR WHICH I HAVE PROVIDED MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF REAL EVIDENCE) IS THEREFORE MUCH MORE LIKELY.
THUS, YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT GO AROUND HONESTLY CLAIMING TO BE SCIENTIFIC, LET ALONE MORE SCIENTIFIC THAN EVOLUTION.



Now, what about this do you not comprehend?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Remind me never to join a debating club with you in it. I don't have time to read all that!

 

[kirovman]

Remind me never to join a debating club with you in it. I don't have time to read all that!

lol.

MechGodzilla does indeed produce virtually irrefutable arguements.

I didn't know all that much about carbon-dating (except for the actually detail about decay processes), but knowing about the scientific process, the fact that having carbon-dating and geological layers dating in agreement with each other is a strong indicator that the fossil dating techniques are accurate. And that's only to name 2 processes of dating.

 

[Kmack]

mecha, that last post was very impressive, i actually learned some new stuff and may actually use some of it in an upcoming college thesis :thumbs: thanks m8


MATRICES ARE PSEUDOSCIENCE BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, AND YOUR DEFENSES OF THE PSEUDOSCIENCE ARE NO MORE VALID.
THESE FALLACIES ARE THE ELEMENTAL BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT.
EVOLUTION (FOR WHICH I HAVE PROVIDED MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF REAL EVIDENCE) IS THEREFORE MUCH MORE LIKELY.
THUS, YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT GO AROUND HONESTLY CLAIMING TO BE SCIENTIFIC, LET ALONE MORE SCIENTIFIC THAN EVOLUTION.

having read both sides of the argument in it's entirity, I'm afraid unless your (somewhat less skilled) opponent acknowledges this he can never even make an attempt to sway myself or the readers, let alone you.

again, very impressive

btw, decontextualization of quotes as the basis of an argument is just short of flat out lying. in some cases it is worse.

 

[Apos]

I didn't know all that much about carbon-dating (except for the actually detail about decay processes), but knowing about the scientific process, the fact that having carbon-dating and geological layers dating in agreement with each other is a strong indicator that the fossil dating techniques are accurate. And that's only to name 2 processes of dating.

And this is what's truly so frustrating about creationists. In their efforts to distort and mislead people about things like radio-active dating, they basically spread ignorance about subjects that are very complicated and fascinating: where someone could have learned something new, they just end up hearing that radio-carbon dating is some incredibly simplistic proceedure subject to unbeliebably obvious flaws.

But always ask yourself this: if a method like RC dating was so obviously and head-slappingly flawed as to be glaringly obvious to a layperson, why do scientific experts take it seriously? After all, it's not like you win any points in science for defending lousy ideas. And there's just no way the story could be as simple as the creationists make it out to be: after all, there are whole JOURNALS devoted to article after article debating the efficacy of this or that technique, the exact values for the range of error, picking at every weakness, pulling apart every assumption and testing them. People like JCampbell want you to believe that scientists really do just make assumptions and leave them alone, unquestioned. But nothing could be further from the truth: those assumptions are always ruthlessly tested to the best of anyone's ability. JCampbell wants you to believe that when questions are raised, no one ever tries to answer them. That may be the case for creationists: they are not really trying to discover anything concrete or specific about the world, simply to attack what they see as a threat to their belief system. But it's not true for scientists: for them, it isn't enough to raise questions, because they want answers. And they actually go the next step and try to test and discover those answers.

The reason I like science is that when scientists speak, you come out knowing exactly what they've said. They are _specific_, sometimes maddenigly so.

JCampbell accuses scientists of simply accepting, without question, the idea that decay rates have remained constant, with the implication that they accept this all as some planned part of an evolutionist conspiracy. But the reality is that this idea is hardly a carefully massaged assumption: scientists have thought long and hard and tested everything they can to conclude that the decay rates cannot have varied much at all over the history of the universe. And, of course, they are _specific_ about it. They'll tell you exactly how much it could have potentially varied before we'd expect to see this or that in nature. They've examined quantum mechanics, which developed without any interest in evolution, and yet confirms the idea that decay rates should be consistent.

And of course, the real joke here is that this is what scientists do just to figure out if decay rates are constant across a very small range of variation within which it could potentially have varied without being obvious.

And yet, for the dates creationists defend, it would have been ridiculously obvious. For radioactive isotopes to have decayed fast enough in the past to account for the findings and yet still be consistent with a young earth, so much radiation would have had to have been shooting out of every rock on the planet that it would have eradicated all life and left unmistakable traces everywhere: almost a litteral 24/7 ongoing shotgun blast of radiation! It's no wonder scientists barely even bother paying any attention to the claims of young earth creationists.

In regards to radioactive dating, there is so much to learn, and it's so fascinating that we've barely touched the surface here. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you read some introductory article (usually all that's necessary to read to see that creationists are full of it) you've learned the real meat of the subject. People spend their entire lives studying this stuff in amazingly technical detail. We probably haven't even mentioned the neatest form of error-correction in radioactive dating methods: that of isochron anaylsis (whereby different isotopes cross check each other, and any tampering or contamination immediately shows up in the anaylsis).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Remind me never to join a debating club with you in it. I don't have time to read all that!

I actually wasn't great at debate club. I have two provincial silver medals, but I was mostly coasting under the abilities of my best friend/team partner. He went on to become World Champion 2004 (or '05?).
My achiles heel is poor public speaking skills. I always fumble when I have to give a speech.
Luckily, the internet provides no such impediment.

I didn't know all that much about carbon-dating (except for the actually detail about decay processes), but knowing about the scientific process, the fact that having carbon-dating and geological layers dating in agreement with each other is a strong indicator that the fossil dating techniques are accurate. And that's only to name 2 processes of dating.

And it's that layperson opinion that JCampbell was trying to exploit. Creationists like JC feed on the general public because he's laughably bad at science.

If JCammy's argument is really as flawless as he says it is, then holy shit do we have a Baby Genius in the house!
Go get this infallible scientific process peer-reviewed you whacky chap!

But he won't get it peer reviewed because I know, and you know, and he UNDOUBTEDLY knows that real scientists would laugh his pseudoscientific crap right out of the building.
He can't fool the smartest people, so instead he's trying to prey on the 'stupid people' in the videogame forum.

Too bad we're not so stupid as he had hoped.

Too bad I know all about RCD. I've spent most of my formative years studying paleontology. I went to highschool and learned taxonomy.
Experience on the politics forum here has made me a veritable expert at dealing with illogical nonsense and baseless claims.
I've read books detailing exactly how entire populations are manipulated through deciet.
I've read history, so I know about Lysenkoism, Eugenics, Flat Earth and the Crusades.
I know how pseudoscience has been used to stupefy the masses while the masters cement themselves, be they of church or of state.
I've spoken with enough christians here that I honestly suspect I know more about the bible than many/most of them.

If I hadn't specifically studied for this little discussion, JC might have been able to fool me too.
He feeds off lesser ignorance to fuel his own.

And the best part is that the sites he quotes are written by people far more knowledgeable in the subject than him. Far more than you or I.
They have apparently spent their lives studying evolution.
So why, so blatantly, do they rely on the same pathetically flawed pseudoscience as JCammy here?
The only conclusion I can make is that they are just more evolved versions of him. He feeds off the ignorance of children and the creationists feed off his.
They've seen the facts, and if they know anything about science, they know they are either flat-out wrong or logically invalid.
So what do they do? More research?

No, they open a website and get all their unreviewed and unregulated claptrap distributed undiluted to every christian on the internet.
They don't talk to other scientists. They sell books to people who already agree with them.
If they can't be smart, or right, they can at least be popular.
And just look at how JC has been fooled into rejecting his highschool education (assuming he has one) and becoming their pseudoscience-spewing drone.

But what he did not account for is the fact that the internet spreads information just as well as disinformation. And he's picked the wrong people to **** with.

Yet even after getting his ass handed to him here, and even after he finally realizes that and gives up, he's just going to move on to another forum and hope he can find even less-informed people to coerce.
I suggest a Powerpuff Girls fanforum. Get 'em while they're young and stupid, eh JC?
Get ID into highschool, or even elementary school if you can. Preschool? The soil, not the sky, is the limit.

So if you can't be smart, you can at least be popular.
I'm sure ~~Bubblez237~~ would love to hear all about how big and scientifically valid you are.

Way to aim low and come up short.

 

[JCampbell]

Check your PM's, Ikerious.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wait, that all?

 

[CptStern]

Check your PM's, Ikerious.

hehehe Ikerious ..I-Kerious ..I-curious


...I.P Frealy

 

[JCampbell]

hehehe Ikerious ..I-Kerious ..I-curious


...I.P Frealy

Heh...didn't actually catch onto that.