Happy Birthday Charles: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

[RandomGuy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090211/sc_livescience/fossilsrevealtruthaboutdarwinstheory

With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.


One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.


As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.


These animals sound wild, but the fossil record - which is far from complete - is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."


At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.


Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.


Mammals, including us

It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
-Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.

Dinosaurs and birds

The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features - teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids - ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.

Fish, frogs, turtles

Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.


-------------------------------

Just because I think mouse is getting bored... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Alex Jones]

Debunking Darwinism #2: The Fossil Record

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2009/02/debunking-darwinism-2-gradualism-and-the-fossil-record.html



4PRNcm8963s


H5sfHz3xyNc

[tlongII]

Debunking Darwinism #2: The Fossil Record

http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2009/02/debunking-darwinism-2-gradualism-and-the-fossil-record.html



4PRNcm8963s


H5sfHz3xyNc

I'll bet you believe 9-11 was a hoax too, right?

[Alex Jones]

I'll bet you believe 9-11 was a hoax too, right?

Only the lies. Like how WTC7 fell at free fall speed and no plane hit it. How Rice , Bush and Rumsfeld claim they had no idea a plane could be used to attack the WTC when in fact years earlier they conducted an exercize with that same WTC attacks?

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline


You see what separates me form yourself i can admit when something doesn't sound right. You can't since your so in deep with your beliefs your ego would not allow you to admit when you may have doubts.

You rather burn in hell than admit thier is a God and you rather put your head in the sand than to ask question about 9/11.

Your weak.

[tlongII]

Not weak. Just not ignorant.

[Lance]

Darwin clones are some of the most ignorant people you will ever meet! :lol

[Obstructed_View]

You see what separates me form yourself i can admit when something doesn't sound right. You can't since your so in deep with your beliefs your ego would not allow you to admit when you may have doubts.

There are hundreds of independent examples of cetaceans with a pelvis, a femur, a tibia, or some combination. Explain it. Everything that's currently alive is a "transitional form". The only reason you can't see it is because your point of view is in the middle of the transition.

I've got all kinds of doubts about everything all the time, and the information around me is in no way tied to my ego, which is why I'm able to learn new things. So now you can educate me.

aaaaannnnddd....go

[Heat Miser]

Will this be a Lame Miami Heat free debate?

[baseline bum]

Which is the worse conspiracy theory: creationism or Bush bombing the WTC?

[velik_m]

:birthday:

[Sec24Row7]

Jesus Christ... people that try to disprove evolution are fucking dense...

[MannyIsGod]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/02/12/just_39_believe_in_evolution.html

People are fucking retarded.

[balli]

What a dumb column. Duh, no matter what transitional "fossils" they've found or find, don't you realize- they were just put there by God to challenge people's faith. You all fail. Prepare for hell.

[mouse]

Jesus Christ... people that try to disprove evolution are fucking dense...


Another Atheist that can't post w/o cursing. Thanks for proving my theory :tu

[Extra Stout]

Young-earth creationist: There are no transitional fossils! You can't find the missing link!

Evolutionist: Here is the transitional fossil.

Young-earth creationist: HA! You just made TWO missing links to fill! I WIN!!

Evolutionist: You are insane.

[Blake]

Only the lies. Like how WTC7 fell at free fall speed and no plane hit it. How Rice , Bush and Rumsfeld claim they had no idea a plane could be used to attack the WTC when in fact years earlier they conducted an exercize with that same WTC attacks?

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline


You see what separates me form yourself i can admit when something doesn't sound right. You can't since your so in deep with your beliefs your ego would not allow you to admit when you may have doubts.

You rather burn in hell than admit thier is a God and you rather put your head in the sand than to ask question about 9/11.

Your weak.

how do you manage to turn every thread into a 9/11 rant?

[balli]

What sucks so bad about the 9/11 shit is that even if it were 100 percent true, WTF do you want me to do about it? Form a posse and head to DC? Create a documentary for the inter-tubes? I mean fuck, George Bush himself could have bombed the towers for all I care. At this point I don't give a damn who did it, I just want to live my fucking life.

[Alex Jones]

At this point I don't give a damn who did it, I just want to live my fucking life.


http://www.realestate.co.nz/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/head-in-the-sand.jpg

[Alex Jones]

how do you manage to turn every thread into a 9/11 rant?


You may want to put down the cheese sandwich for a minute and scroll up to see who first brought up 9/11

in case your to lazy.
I'll bet you believe 9-11 was a hoax too, right?

[clambake]

if god decides it's your time to go, then it was damned convenient.

[Blake]

You may want to put down the cheese sandwich for a minute and scroll up to see who first brought up 9/11

in case your to lazy.

whenever you show up to a thread, how does it always turn into a 9/11 rant?

[Alex Jones]

whenever you show up to a thread, how does it always turn into a 9/11 rant?


Because people like yourself who don't want the truth end up contaminating other topics with your lies, and my job is to expose such fools.

So keep talking your making my job that much easier.

[balli]

http://www.realestate.co.nz/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/head-in-the-sand.jpg

It's not that my head's in the sand. It's that I'm fucking powerless. I don't know who did it? I suspect Bush allowed it, but fuck, what do you want? Seriously, what comes next?

I know what doesn't come next- and that's me wasting my time on a message board, trying to convince a rather small group of stupid Americans of something they're powerless to do anything about anyway.

[Blake]

Because people like yourself who don't want the truth end up contaminating other topics with your lies, and my job is to expose such fools.

So keep talking your making my job that much easier.

where have you told the truth and where have I told lies?

what is your job?

[half a man]

Seriously, what comes next?
I know what doesn't come next- and that's me wasting my time on a message board, trying to convince a rather small group of stupid Americans of something they're powerless to do anything about anyway.

You always do things half ass?

[spurster]

Darwin is by far the greatest scientist of the 19th century. Nobody else's theories from that century gets 1/10 of the attention that evolution does.

[Alex Jones]

Darwin is by far the greatest scientist of the 19th century. Nobody else's theories from that century gets 1/10 of the attention that evolution does.

You must worship the man.

[balli]

I don't understand the reference. The half-assed thing to me seems to be sitting on a message board. If I had real conviction about 9/11, no I wouldn't be so half-assed, I would be in DC with a loaded gun. As it is, I have no real conviction, no chance or interest to gain it and consequentially, I'm not half assed at all. I'm almost entirely impartial.

[Alex Jones]

where have you told the truth

Read my posts you will see.


and where have I told lies?

You said I turned this topic into 9/11 rant when i wasn't the first one to bring up 9/11 you fail to read the whole topic.


what is your job?

Visit my website and see for yourself.

http://www.infowars.com/

[Alex Jones]

I don't understand the reference. The half-assed thing to me seems to be sitting on a message board. If I had real conviction about 9/11, no I wouldn't be so half-assed, I would be in DC with a loaded gun. As it is, I have no real conviction, no chance or interest to gain it and consequentially, I'm not half assed at all. I'm almost entirely impartial.

I can gather form your mini rants your a lost and frustrated young man. I am not sure if your love life is non existent or maybe your soul is worried it may be condemned to hell for defending Satan's messengers.

What ever the case may be you need to go outside feed the goats and come back later when your mind is at ease and not filled with so much hate.

[balli]

What ever the case may be you need to go outside feed the goats and come back later when your mind is at ease and not filled with so much hate.

Hate? lol, because I'm lazzi-faire about subscribing to your 9/11 conspiracies? Give me a fucking break. I've never heard somebody described as hateful because they DIDN'T react to a conspiracy, but that's just me.

[mouse]

Hate? lol, because I'm lazzi-faire about subscribing to your 9/11 conspiracies? Give me a fucking break. I've never heard somebody described as hateful because they DIDN'T react to a conspiracy, but that's just me.


You may not have hate but you do have a tad bit of negative energy that could cloud your judgment and therefore you may miss out on some good intelligent information Alex has to offer.

[balli]

Mouse I just don't understand what I'm supposed to be motivated to do. I'm really not trying to be an asshole, but seriously, let's just say hypothetically I thought 9/11 was a purely American invention. What should I do? What should my first step be? Should I create a new ST account? Write a letter to my congress man? Pray? Load a gun and shoot it? Move to Venezuela? Re-watch Loose Change? Get a bumper sticker? Stand shouting on a street corner? All of the above? I mean, fuck, it's all just moot. I seriously don't know why or how my life should change as a consequence of believing in 9/11 conspiracies... or what purpose it could possibly serve.

[Blake]

Read my posts you will see.

I see a bunch of untruths and stuff brought up by prisonplanet.com


You said I turned this topic into 9/11 rant when i wasn't the first one to bring up 9/11 you fail to read the whole topic.

tlong asked a simple yes or no question.

you were the one that went off on a totally different tangent inserting video.

so yes, you turned it into a 9/11 rant.


Visit my website and see for yourself.

http://www.infowars.com/

is Alex another Mouse troll?

[Alex Jones]

Mouse I just don't understand what I'm supposed to be motivated to do. I'm really not trying to be an asshole, but seriously, let's just say hypothetically I thought 9/11 was a purely American invention. What should I do? What should my first step be? Should I create a new ST account? Write a letter to my congress man? Pray? Load a gun and shoot it? Move to Venezuela? Re-watch Loose Change? Get a bumper sticker? Stand shouting on a street corner? All of the above? I mean, fuck, it's all just moot. I seriously don't know why or how my life should change as a consequence of believing in 9/11 conspiracies... or what purpose it could possibly serve.

If you need an explanation then your not ready for this.Go back to what you do best.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/01/do_schools_matter/head%20in%20sand.gif

[Alex Jones]

I see a bunch of untruths and stuff brought up by prisonplanet.com

Prove its untrue.




tlong asked a simple yes or no question.

you were the one that went off on a totally different tangent inserting video.
so yes, you turned it into a 9/11 rant.

Oh so the shit starter gets a pass and I get insulted for my passion?





is Alex another Mouse troll?

Why would it matter who is who when it comes to the lives lost on 9/11?

get off your mouse fixation and answer the hard questions.

[Blake]

Prove its untrue.

NST reports have done that.


Oh so the shit starter gets a pass and I get insulted for my passion?

tlong definitely lit a small fire but he wasn't ranting.

you threw gas on it and lit up the neighborhood.


Why would it matter who is who when it comes to the lives lost on 9/11?

get off your mouse fixation and answer the hard questions.

I think all the hard questions have already been answered ad nauseum over in the political forum.

[balli]

If you need an explanation then your not ready for this.Go back to what you do best.
Mouse, you're not getting it... I already admitted that at the very least I think Bush allowed it to happen. I mean, I'm such a cynical fucking psycho and if anything I tepidly tend to believe portions of the 9/11 conspiracy. I've been begging you though, for an answer to this question: What am I supposed to do about it? And I'm yet to get a response. What have you done about it? What should I do? I'm seriously asking... and the response I get is a picture of an ostrich and, "if you need and explanation than you're not ready."

Fuck that, I fail to see what you've done in a substantial way, or what I'm supposed to do. Does it involve pipe-bombs? Donations? An all out submission to Alex Jones as a personal God? A personal declaration of war against America? I mean seriously, please explain it to me. Prescribe a course of action my good man!

[z0sa]

Transitional fossils - and evolution - are a joke, and you don't have to believe in Jesus to think this. Evolutionary science is simply one huge circular argument for something they profoundly wish was true.

I pity anyone who believes evolution is science - the earlier video actually spotted on my primary reason for this. Even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex - they could not have been built by successive generations of mutations - even the Miller-Urey experiment has been forgotten due to new information regarding early earth's conditions. One forgets just how backwards science was when Darwin published his theory, and in reality the backbone of the entire theory was disproven long ago.

Besides the fact all of man, and his purposeful intent, has yet to do in his laboratories with all his tools, what according to scientists, nature did all by its lonesome - by chance.

Again, I pity those who believe evolution is science.

[Laker Lanny]

transitional fossils - and evolution - are a joke, and you don't have to believe in jesus to think this. Evolutionary science is simply one huge circular argument for something they profoundly wish was true.

I pity anyone who believes evolution is science - the earlier video actually spotted on my primary reason for this. Even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex - they could not have been built by successive generations of mutations - even the miller-urey experiment has been forgotten due to new information regarding early earth's conditions. One forgets just how backwards science was when darwin published his theory, and in reality the backbone of the entire theory was disproven long ago.

Besides the fact all of man, and his purposeful intent, has yet to do in his laboratories with all his tools, what according to scientists, nature did all by its lonesome - by chance.

Again, i pity those who believe evolution is science.

+ 1

[balli]

I weep for America.

[SpursGirl21]

I weep for America.

+1

Are you single? :toast

[Kermit]

+1

are you single? :toast

wtf?

[balli]

+1

Are you single? :toast
Fuck yes, but tall, dark and handsome. :lol I'm still not convinced you're not mouse, but if not, I'll say it; sup, sup, sup, sup.... mmmmmmmmmmm! How you doin' baby?

wtf?
:lol That's fucking right!

[SpursGirl21]

That is the 3rd time you guys call me a mouse I don't get it. Join my MySpace page. :)

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=427837392

[spurspf]

[QUOTE=z0sa;3105120]Transitional fossils - and evolution - are a joke, and you don't have to believe in Jesus to think this. Evolutionary science is simply one huge circular argument for something they profoundly wish was true.

I pity anyone who believes evolution is science - the earlier video actually spotted on my primary reason for this. Even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex - they could not have been built by successive generations of mutations - even the Miller-Urey experiment has been forgotten due to new information regarding early earth's conditions. One forgets just how backwards science was when Darwin published his theory, and in reality the backbone of the entire theory was disproven long ago.

Besides the fact all of man, and his purposeful intent, has yet to do in his laboratories with all his tools,

I pity those who believe with no EVIDENCE whastover. At least bring me a burning, talking bush. And I don't mean George Bush. He's been burned enough.

[z0sa]

I pity those who believe with no EVIDENCE whastover. At least bring me a burning, talking bush. And I don't mean George Bush. He's been burned enough.

Like I said, you don't have to believe in Jesus or the God of Abraham. But you'd be more scientifically sound (far more in actuality) if you believed something created the Universe. The overwhelming amount of evidence, viewed objectively, points to this.

Besides, evolution has been disproven by evolutionists seeking evidence for their doctrine, not by Creationists who generally are mentally retarded when its comes to real science - they're too busy trying to deny evolution could happen at any stage than to accept something like it exists, which does. It's just nowhere near evolution or even punctuated equilibrium in principle.

[RandomGuy]

Read my posts you will see.



You said I turned this topic into 9/11 rant when i wasn't the first one to bring up 9/11 you fail to read the whole topic.



Visit my website and see for yourself.

http://www.infowars.com/

Don't forget to buy some T-shirts or a coffee mug too.

Nothing says "down with the establishment" or "we're really upset about mass killings" like a coffee mug.

[RandomGuy]

Transitional fossils - and evolution - are a joke, and you don't have to believe in Jesus to think this. Evolutionary science is simply one huge circular argument for something they profoundly wish was true.

I pity anyone who believes evolution is science - the earlier video actually spotted on my primary reason for this. Even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex - they could not have been built by successive generations of mutations - even the Miller-Urey experiment has been forgotten due to new information regarding early earth's conditions. One forgets just how backwards science was when Darwin published his theory, and in reality the backbone of the entire theory was disproven long ago.

Besides the fact all of man, and his purposeful intent, has yet to do in his laboratories with all his tools, what according to scientists, nature did all by its lonesome - by chance.

Again, I pity those who believe evolution is science.

"irreducible complexity" actually doesn't hold up.

Bacterial flagellum? Reducibly complex.

Mitochondria? Reducibly complex.

The problem with pointing to bacteria and saying that mutation can't happen, is that we have decoded the DNA and can see exactly where mutations have changed these things.

Science is finding a hypothesis that best fits the available evidence, and evolutionary theory does just that.

Creationism, in all its forms, doesn't.

Since you say that evolutionary theory is a big circular argument, that is something new.

Can you outline to me how it is circular?

[LockBeard]

I have a very reliable inside source that tells me global warming killed the dinosaurs.

[baseline bum]

Like I said, you don't have to believe in Jesus or the God of Abraham. But you'd be more scientifically sound (far more in actuality) if you believed something created the Universe. The overwhelming amount of evidence, viewed objectively, points to this.

Besides, evolution has been disproven by evolutionists seeking evidence for their doctrine, not by Creationists who generally are mentally retarded when its comes to real science - they're too busy trying to deny evolution could happen at any stage than to accept something like it exists, which does. It's just nowhere near evolution or even punctuated equilibrium in principle.

FUCK! Natural Selection is not about the fucking creation of the universe. Natural Selection is not a game of dice. Fuck your strawman arguments.

[Saved By Zero]

FUCK! Natural Selection is not about the fucking creation of the universe. Natural Selection is not a game of dice. Fuck your strawman arguments.


How come the Atheist on this site cant seem to post without getting upset or cursing?

[mouse]

How come the Atheist on this site cant seem to post without getting upset or cursing?


Do you have a mother? get ready to be told to fuck her.

[tlongII]

Evolution is occuring today. Currently, genetic mutations in humans are occuring at a faster pace than has ever been observed in history.

[z0sa]

"irreducible complexity" actually doesn't hold up.

Bacterial flagellum? Reducibly complex.

Mitochondria? Reducibly complex.

Mitochondria are only reducibly complex when you use the circular argument of evolution as your basis - that Mitochondria "evolved" (long story short) into being an indispensable part of the cell's processes, since they were supposedly single celled organisms themselves that were assimilated into the cell processes. This is simply an observation because mitchondria are the most distinct part of the cell, with its own mini-nucleus. There's no proof that they were ever separate from the cell.


The problem with pointing to bacteria and saying that mutation can't happen, is that we have decoded the DNA and can see exactly where mutations have changed these things.

You bring up DNA, which is evolution's Pandora's Box. There is no answer for the rise and development of DNA's systemic properties nor cataloguing consistencies. Sure you can see where a mutation may have occurred, but where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove it


Science is finding a hypothesis that best fits the available evidence, and evolutionary theory does just that.

Evolution is a theory for a reason: it cannot be proven to exist without subjective reasoning, cannot be studied by the scientific method, in actuality is more philosophical in nature than scientific. Science has pushed evolution onto the evidence, not the opposite.


Creationism, in all its forms, doesn't.

I beg to differ, as intelligent design in its purest form is scientifically sound. The people trying to make adam and eve etc work with science, they're always going to be in the realm of philosophy.


Since you say that evolutionary theory is a big circular argument, that is something new.

Can you outline to me how it is circular?

Geostratographical column, first and foremost - Evolution's Big Madeup Story Since 1859 is the basis of all paleontology.
Transitional forms - none found, yet evolutionists will pin 'transitional form' on anything they can't immediately identify. The ones they get away with because the scientific community turns a blind eye are never in correct geostratographical position.
Carbon Dating is so hit or miss (by hundreds and sometimes thousands of millions of years), they simply select the date which most coincides with the dating object's geostratographical column placement rather than accept carbon dating is too inaccurate to place accurately. There's a well known example of the remains of a cowboy (including clothing and other evidence) being found and carbon dated to being nearly 1.7 billion years old.
There's 15 reasons I read not that long ago and will find again, each with evolutionist cited sources, why the Earth cannot be anywhere near 4.3 billion years old (im not a young earth advocate, but the whole billions of years thing is bullshit).

Just a few things.

[z0sa]

Evolution is occuring today. Currently, genetic mutations in humans are occuring at a faster pace than has ever been observed in history.

Your half right. It's "de-evolution", and it is happening today. It is in fact the opposite of evolution, and is the only proven form of true "evolution." People - and things - are getting less and less able to survive in their environment, which is the true nature of Nature.

This is separate from Adaptation, which does not use genetic mutation and is the closest thing you'll get to true evolution of the species.

[tlongII]

I can see that somebody hasn't heard of radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

[LockBeard]

Your half right. It's "de-evolution", and it is happening today. It is in fact the opposite of evolution, and is the only proven form of true "evolution." People - and things - are getting less and less able to survive in their environment, which is the true nature of Nature.



I don't doubt that for one second :lol

[JoeChalupa]

I'm still evolving as we speak.

[mouse]

I can see that somebody hasn't heard of radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.


If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?

Links to show Radiometric dating has many flaws.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i3/canyon.asp

http://creationwiki.org/KBS_Tuff_shows_the_flaws_of_radiometric_dating



http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=radiometric+dating+flaws&btnG=Google+Search

[mouse]

problems with radiometric

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=problems+with+radiometric&btnG=Google+Search

[baseline bum]

How come the Atheist on this site cant seem to post without getting upset or cursing?

Because you idiots have no idea what evolution means when you paint it as creation.

[tlongII]

Sorry Mouse, but those sites don't disprove squat.

[z0sa]

Because you idiots have no idea what evolution means when you paint it as creation.

If people weren't so blinded by their inherent inhibition for their God or their Science, they'd see God and evolution is actually easily linked AND made purposeful. The two separated are nowhere near what they could do together, but Man will never allow his mind to open that far.

[mouse]

Radiometric shows stalactites to be millions of years old when in fact they were taken out of a London tunnel, disused since its days as an air-raid shelter, 1941-45

you do the math.

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMleTunnelStalactitesM.jpg

[baseline bum]

If people weren't so blinded by their inherent inhibition for their God or their Science, they'd see God and evolution is actually easily linked AND made purposeful. The two separated are nowhere near what they could do together, but Man will never allow his mind to open that far.

Acting like evolution is a a theory of creation is making a massive strawman.

[mouse]

Radiometric and carbon dating are tools used by men to prove how old something is, and how it takes millions of years for something the become petrified, and yet they can't explain how a cowboy boot manufactured around 1950 and found in a creek bed about 1980 near Iraan, Texas, contains a "fossilized" or "petrified" human leg inside, demonstrating that fossils do not take millions of years to form.

I would like TLongII to explain away the limestone cowboy!


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/limestn_cwby453.jpg

[z0sa]

Acting like evolution is a a theory of creation is making a massive strawman.

Try me.

[baseline bum]

Try me.

Evolution is not about creation of life; it's solely about natural selection taking over once life has appeared.

[tlongII]

Snopes it dude.

[z0sa]

Evolution is not about creation of life; it's solely about natural selection taking over once life has appeared.

Without evolution, original life is useless as it cannot evolve.

Who mentioned evolution being a theory of creation? I think the point you're trying to make is that creationism and evolution are incompatible, and that is where you are wrong.

Evolution and Natural Selection are not mutually exclusive, by the way.

[spurster]

Darwin is by far the greatest scientist of the 19th century. Nobody else's theories from that century gets 1/10 of the attention that evolution does.


You must worship the man.

Sure. My Darwin idol is right besides Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

[baseline bum]

Sure. My Darwin idol is right besides Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

No love for Bohr? :(

[Laker Lanny]

Sure. My Darwin idol is right besides Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.


I wonder where all those men will be when your facing judgment day.

[baseline bum]

I wonder where all those men will be when your facing judgment day.

Do you really have to wonder why people give you shit for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day? :lol

[Alex Jones]

Unless these bozos can tell you the real reason why WTC7 fell down due to a small fire i wouldn't be trying to talk about Evolution just yet.

[Laker Lanny]

Do you really have to wonder why people give you shit for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day? :lol


I think its clear where your soul is going to end up.

http://www.duncanlong.com/links/lake.jpg

[baseline bum]

I think its clear where your soul is going to end up.

http://www.duncanlong.com/links/lake.jpg

So is spurster's soul going to hell for accepting evolution too?

[Bigzax]

Do you have a mother? get ready to be told to fuck her.


:lmao

[z0sa]

Do you really have to wonder why people give you shit for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day? :lol

Faith in a higher power = faith in evolution's legitimacy.

Religious Follower: "God is real because I see the world must of been created by something.

Evolutionist: "Evolution is real because all this life must of got here from somewhere besides God."

You're no better or less of a sheep.

[Alex Jones]

So is spurster's soul going to hell for accepting evolution too?

It's not about what you accept, every person has free will to believe in anything they choose.
It's really when you push your beliefs and lies onto others as facts that angers the man upstairs.

And therefore you will answer to him.



http://jabandgrapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/judgement_day.jpg

[Bigzax]

hey, i look skinny in that pic...and where's my goatee...

[baseline bum]

It's not about what you accept, every person has free will to believe in anything they choose.
It's really when you push your beliefs and lies onto others as facts that angers the man upstairs.

And therefore you will answer to him.



http://jabandgrapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/judgement_day.jpg

So spurster should have thrown a disclaimer in before advocating Darwin? LMAO @ someone who posts 9/11 truther propaganda constantly lecturing someone about pushing beliefs and lies on people.

[z0sa]

Sure. My Darwin idol is right besides Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

Darwin's contribution to science is so bloated you do quite the crime categorizing those three (creationist) scientists in the same sentence. Darwin wrote down some observations which all clearly fall into Adaptation, which is perfectly within the scientific method. He never had any conclusive evidence supporting his theory and in fact, wrote a whole section of his infamous Origin of Species devoted to the many problems with his theory, many of which were proven factual a long time ago.

[Alex Jones]

So spurster should have thrown a disclaimer in before advocating Darwin? LMAO @ someone who posts 9/11 truther propaganda constantly lecturing someone about pushing beliefs and lies on people.


I only post facts and tell others to ask questions about 9/11.

You on the other hand can't stand anyone who disagrees with you, so your agenda is to win an argument rather than debate the subject with any form of intelligence.

Then again anyone who thinks they evolved from a fish has an excuse for being simple minded. I used to teach the 3rd grade and therefore I can relate to you and others in this forum.

[baseline bum]

I only post facts and tell others to ask questions about 9/11.

You on the other hand can't stand anyone who disagrees with you, so your agenda is to win an argument rather than debate the subject with any form of intelligence.

Then again anyone who thinks they evolved from a fish has an excuse for being simple minded. I used to teach the 3rd grade and therefore I can relate to you and others in this forum.

:lol Yeah, you really stepped up to the plate when Summers called you out and showed many examples of transitional fossils in the god thread, or when I showed natural selection makes logical sense based on exponential functions of the form e^{rt} that model population growth of a species with different mutations, where the one with largest r (r=reproduciton rate) dominates all the others as time gets large.

As I recall, your answer was to post more youtube videos and copy and paste a couple of articles rather than arguing on your own.

[Robert Mruczek]

Baseline 1

Alex 0

[z0sa]

:lol Yeah, you really stepped up to the plate when Summers called you out and showed many examples of transitional fossils in the god thread, or when I showed natural selection makes logical sense based on exponential functions of the form e^{rt} that model population growth of a species with different mutations, where the one with largest r (r=reproduciton rate) dominates all the others as time gets large.

Please link thread with these "transitional fossils", and again, natural selection is not mutually exclusive with evolution.

[baseline bum]

Please link thread with these "transitional fossils", and again, natural selection is not mutually exclusive with evolution.

It was a couple of months ago in the middle of an enormous thread, so I'm not going to search for the post. If you want to, look for a god or evolution thread in The Club that's 60+ pages.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Young-earth creationist: There are no transitional fossils! You can't find the missing link!

Evolutionist: Here is the transitional fossil.

Young-earth creationist: HA! You just made TWO missing links to fill! I WIN!!

Evolutionist: You are insane.

Spot fucking on.

I find it incredibly ironic that, according to various surveys, about 50% of people in the most technologically advanced country in the world still doubt the theory of evolution by natural selection... 10% would be understandable, but 1 in 2?

Also, you don't have to be an athiest to accept evolution - you simply have to understand that the Old Testamanet is not literal, and the earth was not created in 6700BC.

[Horn Tooter]

Pssssssst! you left out the part were you always say you spent 4 years in collage on this very subject! :tu

[Cant_Be_Faded]

hegamboa disproved the existence of fossils older than 3000 years in his high school valedictorian acceptance speech.

[RandomGuy]

Mitochondria are only reducibly complex when you use the circular argument of evolution as your basis - that Mitochondria "evolved" (long story short) into being an indispensable part of the cell's processes, since they were supposedly single celled organisms themselves that were assimilated into the cell processes. This is simply an observation because mitchondria are the most distinct part of the cell, with its own mini-nucleus. There's no proof that they were ever separate from the cell.


Except for the small bit where mitochondrial DNA are seperate and distinct from the rest of the cell.

Evolutionary theory would predict that in the march from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, you would find small clumps of cells that would gain some adaptive benefit from symbiosis.

Lo and behold, when one starts looking around at cells and their make up, we find that both mitochondria and chloroplasts have seperate DNA and a striking similarity in just about every way to independent bacteria.

What would creationist theory predict about these symbiotic relationships? That God made them that way and they look so much like seperate organisms with seperate DNA on purpose just to mess with us?

This isn't circular logic, it is using a theory to make testable predictions about evidence.

[RandomGuy]

You bring up DNA, which is evolution's Pandora's Box. There is no answer for the rise and development of DNA's systemic properties nor cataloguing consistencies. Sure you can see where a mutation may have occurred, but where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove it.

Please show the form of the circular logic.

If you cannot, then you do not understand the term well enough to apply it meaningfully.

[RandomGuy]

Transitional forms - none found, yet evolutionists will pin 'transitional form' on anything they can't immediately identify. The ones they get away with because the scientific community turns a blind eye are never in correct geostratographical position.

They have found so many transitional forms they literaly almost get into fist-fights over whether some of them are reptile-like mammals, or mammal-like reptiles.

To claim that there have been none found is a relatively easy claim to debunk, and it has been rather soundly.

The only way to make this claim at all is to constantly move the goalposts when each new transitional form is discovered.

"You dont' have the transitional form between animal A and animal C,therefore there are no transitional forms."

(scientist goes out and finds animal B, a transitional form between A and C)

"You don't have the transitional form between animal A and B, therefore there are no transitional forms."

(scientist goes out and finds animal A.5, a transitional form between A and B)

"You don't have the transitional form between animal A and A.5, therefore there are no transitional forms."

:rolleyes


A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[7]. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of remains, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were.



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

[z0sa]

Please show the form of the circular logic.

If you cannot, then you do not understand the term well enough to apply it meaningfully.

Geostratographical column. Have fun :tu

[RandomGuy]

Even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex - they could not have been built by successive generations of mutations

Again, moving the goal posts.

"Look this organism is irreducibly complex! It can't be broken down into seperate, functional elements, look at that bacterial flagellum!"

(scientist shows how the proteins and structures of the flagellum can be broken down into seperate, functional elements)

"Look even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex..."

What happens to this statement when science demostrates, yet again, that the earliest, most primitive single celled organisms can be broken down into seperate, functional elements?

They have already shown that simple enzymes can reproduce and, yes, they can mutate, all without actual cell structures.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=68577

I sense another movement of said goalposts...

Enzymes, a sub-part of a cell, simple molecules, can reproduce themselves, therefore even the earliest single-celled organisms are reducibly complex.

[RandomGuy]

Geostratographical column. Have fun :tu

1) The geostratographical column is a teaching tool, not a part of any coherent theory.

and

2) The phrase "geotstratographical column" do not answer the reasonable request:

Please show the form of the circular logic ["where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove it." ]

Once again, you say it is circular logic, I would like to see the logical form of this, so I can verify if the logic is indeed circular.

[LockBeard]

Radiometric and carbon dating are tools used by men to prove how old something is, and how it takes millions of years for something the become petrified, and yet they can't explain how a cowboy boot manufactured around 1950 and found in a creek bed about 1980 near Iraan, Texas, contains a "fossilized" or "petrified" human leg inside, demonstrating that fossils do not take millions of years to form.

I would like TLongII to explain away the limestone cowboy!


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/limestn_cwby453.jpg

Easy, Time-travel.

[RandomGuy]

Here is some help:

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

This shows the logical format of circular logic, just in case you aren't familiar with the term you are using and simply parroting something you read somehwere.

[z0sa]

They have found so many transitional forms they literaly almost get into fist-fights over whether some of them are reptile-like mammals, or mammal-like reptiles.

Good to know there's no chance they are simply stand alone species which died out and went extinct. Score another one for Evolution Being Pushed On The Facts.


To claim that there have been none found is a relatively easy claim to debunk, and it has been rather soundly.

The only way to make this claim at all is to constantly move the goalposts when each new transitional form is discovered.

"You dont' have the transitional form between animal A and animal C,therefore there are no transitional forms."

(scientist goes out and finds animal B, a transitional form between A and C)

"You don't have the transitional form between animal A and B, therefore there are no transitional forms."

(scientist goes out and finds animal A.5, a transitional form between A and B)

"You don't have the transitional form between animal A and A.5, therefore there are no transitional forms."

:rolleyes

Not true. You have a child's view of how the world works - like everything goes exactly like you wish it would. It's a lot more like this:

Scientist goes out and finds D and E, then pushes evolutionary doctrine (his own beliefs - kind of like a creationist who wants to prove God exists) onto the evidence and calls them B and A.5 because they have similarities.

"Hey, most lizards have scales, this amphibian creature with scales must have been a transitional form! And here's the first link between fish and the amphibian even though I found it half way around the world, but the geostratographical column says I'm right!"

Science knows very little, and all evolutionist research is based in this same circular argument that because evolution exists, it must be proven.

[RandomGuy]

Easy, Time-travel.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

Quick cut and paste, quick debunk.


Evidently Baugh acquired the boot during the late 1990's and added it to his collection of other alleged anti-evolutionary objects in his "Creation Evidence Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas. Baugh and his former partner Don Patton assert that the boot contains "fossilized" bone and flesh, but other than the unpublished and unverified C.T. scans, have not provided any rigorous evidence to support these claims. Indeed, if the claims are true, one wonders why they have not demonstrated this by conducting and publishing tests on the composition and geochemical properties of the bones and surrounding matrix. The situation is reminiscent of Patton's claims regarding the "Moab Man" or "Malachite Man" skeleton, which he asserts are thoroughly fossilized, but which this author and others found to be unfossilized, essentially modern bones with little or no mineral replacement.

The quick answer: That isn't a fossilized specimen in the boot. You have to show complete mineral replacement to make the claim, and such evidence has never been presented, despite repeated requests to do so.

[z0sa]

1) The geostratographical column is a teaching tool, not a part of any coherent theory.

I'm not the one to call the theory of evolution coherent, but it is a theory.


2) The phrase "geotstratographical column" do not answer the reasonable request:

geostratographical is the correct spelling. :toast


Please show the form of the circular logic ["where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove it."

Once again, you say it is circular logic, I would like to see the logical form of this, so I can verify if the logic is indeed circular.

I was expecting an argument, which must be based in evolutionary theory, which then must be circular. For the actual argument I had no idea what direction you might have been going in.

[RandomGuy]

Science knows very little, and all evolutionist research is based in this same circular argument that because evolution exists, it must be proven.

That isn't circular logic, that is the empiracal method.

If you have a theory, you go out and find evidence that either proves or disproves the theory.

I gave you the link to show what circular logic actually is. Once again, please show the correct form of circular logic as it applies to evolution.

Otherwise, I will have to assume you are either lying or mistaken when you say that evolution is circular logic, because it is your claim and your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

geostratographical is the correct spelling. :toast

Fretting over typos is the first hallmark of fail. Congrats. :toast

[RandomGuy]

I will ask for a third time. You used a very specific term with a very specific meaning.


Here is some help:

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

This shows the logical format of circular logic, just in case you aren't familiar with the term you are using and simply parroting something you read somehwere.

Please show the form of the circular logic ["where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove it." ]

Once again, you say it is circular logic, I would like to see the logical form of this, so I can verify if the logic is indeed circular.

[z0sa]

That isn't circular logic, that is the empiracal method.

If you have a theory, you go out and find evidence that either proves or disproves the theory.

Evolution isn't science (which was my original point). It will always be a theory because it cannot be studied under the scientific method. It thrives on circumstantial evidence. See, you think face value - trying to prove evolution exists. Let me fill you in:

Scientists simply accept evolution is real, and base their research off its inherent existence. They use methods they would not if they were unsure of evolution's existence, because the methods are based in the fact evolution must exist. The geostratographical column and carbon dating are two well known examples. These are simply rearranged until they fit the evidence.

Evolution is a fact -> research -> evidence found which may or may not support evolution -> cannot be correct, evolution is a fact -> evidence rearranged to fit the theory -> evolution continues to be a fact.

I'm at work but good debate, I'll keep searching for that thread.

[z0sa]

Fretting over typos is the first hallmark of fail. Congrats. :toast

It was a joke obviously.

[RandomGuy]

The geostratographical column and carbon dating are two well known examples.

Teh geotratograpical colum is not part of evlotionary tehory.

That is a strawman argument.

I am still waiting on you to show the precise form of the circular logic that you claim is inherent in evolutionary theory.
If you cannot, then you cannot claim evolutionary theory is based on circular logic, and we MUST conclude you are incorrect when you claim this.

Fourth time I have asked reasonably for this.

[z0sa]

Teh geotratograpical colum is not part of evlotionary tehory.

That is a strawman argument.

I am still waiting on you to show the precise form of the circular logic that you claim is inherent in evolutionary theory.
If you cannot, then you cannot claim evolutionary theory is based on circular logic, and we MUST conclude you are incorrect when you claim this.

Fourth time I have asked reasonably for this.

I've answered your posts, stop acting like a fucking baby just because someone stood up to your bullshit.

Geological column is used in evolutionary THEORY. Look it up yourself. They base all their research on fossils on the inherent fact that life went from simple to complex - Not True.

I answered how its circular with the arrows.

[RandomGuy]

My lunch break is over. Back to work.

I will give you a day or so, to back up your claim of circular logic, because we both know you can't back that claim up, no matter how much time you have.

You parroted something you read somewhere, and have no idea what it actually means, but because it sounds all "sciency" you use it as if just uttering the words furthers your case.

Not only does it NOT further your case, every time you use it without either understanding it or being able to prove that the circular logic exists, you simply provide another brushstroke in the painting that shows you yourself as committing logical fallacies.

Prove me wrong, and show me, in proper logical form, where the circular logic in evolutionary theory is. You have the link, and I am giving you the time.

Step up, or withdraw the claim.

Do anything else, and I will ask you why you are lying to us about it, and be able to show you lying.

[z0sa]

Evolution isn't science (which was my original point). It will always be a theory because it cannot be studied under the scientific method. It thrives on circumstantial evidence. See, you think face value - trying to prove evolution exists. Let me fill you in:

Scientists simply accept evolution is real, and base their research off its inherent existence. They use methods they would not if they were unsure of evolution's existence, because the methods are based in the fact evolution must exist. The geostratographical column and carbon dating are two well known examples. These are simply rearranged until they fit the evidence.

Evolution is a fact -> research -> evidence found which may or may not support evolution -> cannot be correct, evolution is a fact -> evidence rearranged to fit the theory -> evolution continues to be a fact.

I'm at work but good debate, I'll keep searching for that thread.


I'm not the one to call the theory of evolution coherent, but it is a theory.



geostratographical is the correct spelling. :toast



I was expecting an argument, which must be based in evolutionary theory, which then must be circular. For the actual argument I had no idea what direction you might have been going in.


Good to know there's no chance they are simply stand alone species which died out and went extinct. Score another one for Evolution Being Pushed On The Facts.



Not true. You have a child's view of how the world works - like everything goes exactly like you wish it would. It's a lot more like this:

Scientist goes out and finds D and E, then pushes evolutionary doctrine (his own beliefs - kind of like a creationist who wants to prove God exists) onto the evidence and calls them B and A.5 because they have similarities.

"Hey, most lizards have scales, this amphibian creature with scales must have been a transitional form! And here's the first link between fish and the amphibian even though I found it half way around the world, but the geostratographical column says I'm right!"

Science knows very little, and all evolutionist research is based in this same circular argument that because evolution exists, it must be proven.

[RandomGuy]

I've answered your posts, stop acting like a fucking baby just because someone stood up to your bullshit.

Geological column is used in evolutionary THEORY. Look it up yourself. They base all their research on fossils on the inherent fact that life went from simple to complex - Not True.

I answered how its circular with the arrows.


Fallacy: Begging the Question



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.


Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

I don't see any arrows in this explanation.

FAIL.

[z0sa]

My lunch break is over. Back to work.

I will give you a day or so, to back up your claim of circular logic, because we both know you can't back that claim up, no matter how much time you have.

You parroted something you read somewhere, and have no idea what it actually means, but because it sounds all "sciency" you use it as if just uttering the words furthers your case.

Not only does it NOT further your case, every time you use it without either understanding it or being able to prove that the circular logic exists, you simply provide another brushstroke in the painting that shows you yourself as committing logical fallacies.

Prove me wrong, and show me, in proper logical form, where the circular logic in evolutionary theory is. You have the link, and I am giving you the time.

Step up, or withdraw the claim.

Do anything else, and I will ask you why you are lying to us about it, and be able to show you lying.

Prove I'm lying. Basing research in evolution to prove evolution is circular.

[z0sa]

Scientist to another scientist: Evolution must be true, let me show you.
See these rocks? Unproven theory of evolution's other unproven theory of the geological column shows me that these rocks are from the Cambrian era.

Scientist #2:Which means these fish fossilized in the rock can't be right!

Scientist #3: Of course not, that would go against the Law of Evolution.

[RandomGuy]

Prove I'm lying. Basing research in evolution to prove evolution is circular.


Fallacy: Burden of Proof



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."


You have claimed evolution is based on circular logic, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is.

If you cannot prove it is, then we must assume you are incorrect.

If you are incorrect you are either unintentionally mistaken or deliberately misleading.

Only after you have failed to prove that evolutionary theory is based on circular logic can I then set about to prove you are either stupid or a liar.

[z0sa]

Basing evolutionary research on ideas derived from the theory itself is circular.

ie, finding rocks from the cambrian age of 3.5 billion years ago, when the cambrian age (all that it includes or is thought to include) nor that time frame necessarily exist.

[RandomGuy]

Scientist to another scientist: Evolution must be true, let me show you.
See these rocks? Unproven theory of evolution's other unproven theory of the geological column shows me that these rocks are from the Cambrian era.

Scientist #2:Which means these fish fossilized in the rock can't be right!

Scientist #3: Of course not, that would go against the Law of Evolution.

I have already said that the column is not part of the theory.

When you claim it is, then you are deliberately distorting the theory in order to somehow "disprove" the distortion.


Fallacy: Straw Man



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

To prove it that the column is used as anything other than an abstract teaching tool, you would have to produce a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that solely bases the dating of a fossil specimen according to this column.

Go ahead.

Otherwise, we will have to assume that this claim is incorrect as well.

[RandomGuy]

Basing evolutionary research on ideas derived from the theory itself is circular.

No it is not.

That is how theories, be they about gravity, thermodynamics, particle physics or biology are used to make reproducible evidence and predictions about future phenomenon.

You claim it is "circular" based on an erroneous or deliberately misleading undestanding of the term, because you think it somehow disproves evolution, a theory you would not accept no matter how airtight and logical that evidence is.

Meh. At the heart of the whole thing is your further erroneous belief that one must believe in creationism to be a good Christian.

Don't pretend that you have either logic or science on your side, because the thin veil of those false claims is rather obvious to anybody who actually sets aside their dogma to take an honest look at the subject.

[z0sa]

I have already said that the column is not part of the theory.

When you claim it is, then you are deliberately distorting the theory in order to somehow "disprove" the distortion.

Yes it is, have you never read the Origin of Species? I don't need to find a peer reviewed paper, its common knowledge to anyone with a drop of knowledge on the subject.




To prove it that the column is used as anything other than an abstract teaching tool, you would have to produce a scientific, peer-reviewed paper that solely bases the dating of a fossil specimen according to this column.

So you agree it's total bullshit since you're trying to discredit it.


Go ahead.

Otherwise, we will have to assume that this claim is incorrect as well.

The Geostratographical Column is used in the very article the OP posted.

[RandomGuy]

The Geostratographical Column is used in the very article the OP posted.

Please provide a quote from the OP that supports this.

[z0sa]

Please provide a quote from the OP that supports this.

You simply assume it, considering the wide range of dates and animals used. I don't see anything saying where they got the ages from, at any rate.

[RandomGuy]

So you agree [the geostrat. column is] total bullshit since you're trying to discredit it.

Not at all.

It is an abstract teaching tool, no more, no less.

No one who supports evolutionary theory has ever based any research paper on it.

When I first heard about this strawman, I went out and tried to find it anywhere in any biology or related website or scientific paper. The only place I really found anything even approaching it was in a slide for a basic science course.

Where I did find it talked about ad infinitum was creationist websites, which all played up the importance of what was essentially a teaching tool, in order to lamely attempt to show how silly evolution was, in a rather obvious strawman argument.

Meh.

[RandomGuy]

The Geostratographical Column is used in the very article the OP posted.

Please provide a quote from the OP that supports this.


You simply assume it, considering the wide range of dates and animals used. I don't see anything saying where they got the ages from, at any rate.

Translation:

"I'm talking out of my ass, and trying to cover for it."

S'ok, we all pretty much know that already, but thanks for manning up to it.

[RandomGuy]

Yes it is, have you never read the Origin of Species? I don't need to find a peer reviewed paper, its common knowledge to anyone with a drop of knowledge on the subject.

Then you should know that our understanding of evolutionary processes has advanced a bit since 1859.

Not everything that Darwin postulated about the specific mechanisms of evolution in his book panned out with more evidence, and the theory has since been refined and more data has been added to support it.

That is the way real science works.

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting.

Please show that evolutionary theory is based on circular logic by providing, in correct form, the statement of circular logic specific to evolutionary theory.

Sixth time I have asked you to support your claim.

If you cannot support it, we must assume your claim was false, and that evolutionary theory is not based on circular logic.

I have given you the specific logical format that the statement must use, with a short tutorial on the logical fallacy you claim.

[z0sa]

Please provide a quote from the OP that supports this.



Translation:

"I'm talking out of my ass, and trying to cover for it."

S'ok, we all pretty much know that already, but thanks for manning up to it.

Prove where I'm talking out of my ass. All you've done is skirt around the subject and accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. I answered your questions with real, concrete answers.


In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted — clearly circular reasoning.

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

[z0sa]

Still waiting.

Please show that evolutionary theory is based on circular logic by providing, in correct form, the statement of circular logic specific to evolutionary theory.

Sixth time I have asked you to support your claim.

If you cannot support it, we must assume your claim was false, and that evolutionary theory is not based on circular logic.

I have given you the specific logical format that the statement must use, with a short tutorial on the logical fallacy you claim.

You're like a jackass going "hee-haw." I answered that question long ago. Adhering to some standard means nothing to me. I only want the truth. If the truth was in evolution, I would be there.

[z0sa]

Never heard of the Geological Column?


he geologic time scale is a chronologic schema (or idealized model) relating stratigraphy to time that is used by geologists and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of Earth.

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

Looks like that article does use the Geological Column.

[RandomGuy]

Adhering to some standard means nothing to me.

So let me see if I have this correctly:

You just tried to debunk evolution using a term that you obviously do not understand.

"Evolution is based on circular logic, but don't ask me to show how."

The standard, widely accepted rules of actual logic are "some standard [that] means nothing" to you, but you still try to use them.

:nope

That isn't the way science works.

You make a claim, you back it up with evidence.

"The OP mentions the geological column"

"it does, can you show me where?"

"Um, no. But here is a completely different article on another website that sort of talks about it..."

:rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Never heard of the Geological Column?



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

Now you are trying. Hooray.

Please explain how this supports your thesis.

[RandomGuy]

Now you are trying. Hooray.

Please explain how this supports your thesis.

I can provide a quick primer on how to develop a thesis if needed.

[z0sa]

So let me see if I have this correctly:

You just tried to debunk evolution using a term that you obviously do not understand.

"Evolution is based on circular logic, but don't ask me to show how."

The standard, widely accepted rules of actual logic are "some standard [that] means nothing" to you, but you still try to use them.

:nope

That isn't the way science works.

You make a claim, you back it up with evidence.

"The OP mentions the geological column"

"it does, can you show me where?"

"Um, no. But here is a completely different article on another website that sort of talks about it..."

:rolleyes


Never heard of the Geological Column?



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

Looks like that article does use the Geological Column.

:td you're being an asshole, nothing more nothing less.

[RandomGuy]

:td you're being an asshole, nothing more nothing less.

If by "asshole" you mean a guy who won't let you make claims without adequately supporting them, then yes, I suppose I am.

How unreasonable of me.

[RandomGuy]

No love for Bohr? :(

Props for Bohr.

[RandomGuy]

Evolutionist: "Evolution is real because all this life must of got here from somewhere besides God."

FAIL.

Evolution does not prove, nor does it disprove God. The existence of the process of evolution does not imply there is no God, merely that the most literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and a lot of other creation myths outside of Christianity are not supported by available evidence.

This is another strawman argument, based on a distortion of the theory.

You can belittle distortions all day, but in the end if you cannot use what a theory actually says, you have not proven it to be an unacceptable explanation of observed phenomena.

[RandomGuy]

stratigraphy
Stratigraphy is a method of dating fossils by observing how deeply a fossil is buried. Sedimentary rock layers (strata) are formed episodically as earth is deposited horizontally over time. Newer layers are formed on top of older layers, pressurizing them into rocks. Paleontologists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the stratum containing the fossil was formed. Generally, deeper rocks and fossils are older than fossils found above them.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geology/rocks/glossary/indexs.shtml

this is what z0sa is inexpertly trying to say is some kind of proof that evolution is based on circular logic.

It is indeed a real branch of geology, and is indeed used to estimate the age of fossils.

(Btw there is no word "geostratigraphical".)

[RandomGuy]

:lol Yeah, you really stepped up to the plate when Summers called you out and showed many examples of transitional fossils in the god thread, or when I showed natural selection makes logical sense based on exponential functions of the form e^{rt} that model population growth of a species with different mutations, where the one with largest r (r=reproduciton rate) dominates all the others as time gets large.

As I recall, your answer was to post more youtube videos and copy and paste a couple of articles rather than arguing on your own.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112981

Good luck finding it in all the 68+ pages tho'.

[z0sa]

FAIL.

Evolution does not prove, nor does it disprove God. The existence of the process of evolution does not imply there is no God, merely that the most literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and a lot of other creation myths outside of Christianity are not supported by available evidence.

This is another strawman argument, based on a distortion of the theory.

You can belittle distortions all day, but in the end if you cannot use what a theory actually says, you have not proven it to be an unacceptable explanation of observed phenomena.

Its not an argument, its a mentality. But :lol at the idea scientists do research with the idea "God may have done this," which is exactly what you are implying.

If you cared to read my posts you'd understand I said a similar idea, but Man isn't open minded enough to say God(s) put evolution in as a sort of way to keep things rolling since he's not going to be around anymore. You can't intelligently call someone's post FAIL when they already beat you to the exact point you were making. I am not your fundamental Christian creationist bro :hat

Why don't you take a stand as opposed to just trying to discredit me? Everything I have posted is factual and can be backed up with very little research by someone with an open mind. Denying every word I say does nothing for the discussion, but that's not the idea. I am no liar, and wish not to deceive people.

[z0sa]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112981

Good luck finding it in all the 68+ pages tho'.

TY :tu

[spurspf]

Hey RG, have you seen NOVA'S, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Great, great documentary. Proves how all the ID guys are really Creationists. After 6 weeks of a federal trial, a conservative republican judge appointed by Bush, rules that intelligent design is not science. My favorite point from it was that creationists assume that anything that does not support evolution somehow supports creationism. A logical fallacy. Go hit up PBS, you'll love it.

[Steve Perry]

Easy, Time-travel.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Everything I have posted is factual and can be backed up with very little research

Except for the claim that evolution is based on circular logic, or that the OP has anything to do with a "geostratigraphical column", whatever you think that is.

[RandomGuy]

Its not an argument, its a mentality. But :lol at the idea scientists do research with the idea "God may have done this," which is exactly what you are implying.

No, I didn't even imply that, and dare you to reason out the implication.

Scientists do research to describe physical phenomena.

The ultimate cause of those phenomena is a question for theologans, and maybe quantum physics, depending on who you ask.

Your erroneous assumption that proving evolution is somehow an attempt to disprove God shows little more than your seeming inability to understand the underlying issues in a way that is meaningful.

The fact that you have shown no critical thinking ability in any of your posts merely underscores that seeming inability. Regurgiation is not comprehension.

I don't need to "discredit" you, you are doing a bang-up job all by yourself.

[Alex Jones]

Please lets keep this debate at least half way with intelligent facts by not bringing up the Geological Column, whats next we talk about the Flux Capacitor?

[RandomGuy]

Hey RG, have you seen NOVA'S, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Great, great documentary. Proves how all the ID guys are really Creationists. After 6 weeks of a federal trial, a conservative republican judge appointed by Bush, rules that intelligent design is not science. My favorite point from it was that creationists assume that anything that does not support evolution somehow supports creationism. A logical fallacy. Go hit up PBS, you'll love it.

The "God in the gaps" line of reasoning.

Intelligent design is obviously not science, and anybody who is reasonably fair with the issue would come to the same conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

Please lets keep this debate at least half way with intelligent facts by not bringing up the Geological Column, whats next we talk about the Flux Capacitor?

Please go back to hawking coffee cups and key rings on your website. :lol

[Alex Jones]

Intelligent design is obviously not science,.

Then what do you call this?

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/6167529196441518.JPG

and this?

http://www.businessfacilities.com/blog/uploaded_images/GEengine-763893.jpg



Are you saying this shit just evolved? Looks like someone with intelligence designed it to me.

[z0sa]

Except for the claim that evolution is based on circular logic, or that the OP has anything to do with a "geostratigraphical column", whatever you think that is.

Where did the ages of those creatures in the OP come from then?

[johnsmith.]

Please go back to hawking coffee cups and key rings on your website. :lol

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Then what do you call this?

[picture of a microchip]


and this?

[picture of a jet engine]


Are you saying this shit just evolved? Looks like someone with intelligence designed it to me.

Neither microchips, nor jet engines evolved in the biological sense.

Oddly enough, they did do an experiment with programmable microchips that showed evolution in action, though.

The experimental task was to use programmable microchips to distinguish between two tones.

A group of microchips was set up with all switches totally randomly set with a one-step program.

The chips then were made to distinguish between the two tones, and unsurprisingly, didn't do that very well at all.

The ones out of the group that did it best, were made into the templates for the next version of the program, and so on. The next generation used the best step from the first generation and added a second randomly determined step/value.

Each new generation added a new step to the program completely at random and the new programs were rated as to their ability to distinguish the two tones.

The researcher said he expected it to take about 400 steps to be able to do that, and some of his chips managed to do it in just 200 or so.

Oddly enough, the chips were very specific to their environment, because they would only work at certain temperatures and other minute variations would cause the chips program to fail.

[RandomGuy]

http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun/evolvingaconscio1453

fascintating article.


Because evolution has found solutions to extremely difficult problems in the natural world (bats that use their hearing to navigate in the dark, for example), computer scientists have tried to enlist evolution to solve difficult computational problems, using genetic algorithms.

These algorithms start by encoding a potential solution to a given problem as a string of 0’s and 1’s, the computer equivalent of describing the potential solution as a series of yes or no answers to tens or hundreds or thousands of simple questions. This bit string becomes the artificial chromosome of the solution to be evolved. The genetic algorithm generates numerous slight variations of the bit string, and then these individuals are tested to see which perform best under some fitness scale.

The game is more like animal husbandry than evolution because the computer scientist running the genetic algorithm knows exactly what he or she wants to accomplish eventually. (For instance, if a genetic algorithm is used to solve a scheduling problem, the measure of fitness might be how quickly tasks are completed in each individual’s final version of the schedule.) The bit strings that score highest on the designated fitness test are mated in a way that is loosely inspired by how chromosomes combine in sexual reproduction, with parts of each bit string combining to produce the bit string of the offspring. Mutations are added for good luck in the next generation.

These new offspring are tested and the best are mated, and on it goes. The process might be repeated for thousands of generations, until the problem is solved. Genetic algorithms have been used successfully in designing communication networks, and better turbines, and even in solving some mathematical problems that seemed otherwise intractable.


oopsies. Evolutionary processes actually do build things. ;)

[Horn Tooter]

This guy is smart^ :tu

[spurspf]

Are you saying man didn't create a computer chip or an airplane engine?

[RandomGuy]

Where did the ages of those creatures in the OP come from then?

Good question. Perhaps you can find out and explain the process to me.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Laugh if you will, but nothing says "i'm really upset about mass murder" like an "Infowars" keychain, or "the government really is out to get us" like a "9-11 truth" coffee mug.

These people are making a tidy profit from this.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate scam for an evil conspiracy? Set up an emotionally charged 9-11 truth website and sell t-shirts, dvd's and crap to the suckers who believe in that and use the money to pay for the next false-flag operation?

:lmao

[The Power Hour.]

Wouldn't that be the ultimate scam for an evil conspiracy? Set up an emotionally charged 9-11 truth website and sell t-shirts, dvd's and crap to the suckers who believe in that and use the money to pay for the next false-flag operation?


Bush took advantage of the American people for over 8 years nothing new.

[z0sa]

All from the OP proving they used the Geological Column to place the periods these animals lived in - without even citing the column as their source, thus proving Science uses the column so often it does not even need to be explained to the casual reader.


In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica.



Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago).


The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene [epoch/era] of Egypt.


A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago.

The last one is particularly bad for your case. They don't even mention an era on that, and for the whole article simply require the dimwitted to believe them at face value on everything.

RandomGuy stated the article had nothing to do with the Column, when in fact all the fossils' ages are based on that very thing. It's such common knowledge they fail to even mention the entire Column once as their source, though they use it as proof of ages.

BTW, using something there is no proof for (the Column) as the primary means of dating and classifying these fossils because an unproven theory says to do so, is what you call circular reasoning.

[RandomGuy]

All from the OP proving they used the Geological Column to place the periods these animals lived in - without even citing the column as their source, thus proving Science uses the column so often it does not even need to be explained to the casual reader.

The last one is particularly bad for your case. They don't even mention an era on that, and for the whole article simply require the dimwitted to believe them at face value on everything.

RandomGuy stated the article had nothing to do with the Column, when in fact all the fossils' ages are based on that very thing. It's such common knowledge they fail to even mention the entire Column once as their source, though they use it as proof of ages.

BTW, using something there is no proof for (the Column) as the primary means of dating and classifying these fossils because an unproven theory says to do so, is what you call circular reasoning.

Closer, but still not quite there, padawan.

Define what you are talking about when you say "column" because we need to be clear as to what exactly we are talking about.

[The Power Hour.]

The Geologic Column was invented by Charles Lyell in the early 1800's. He came up the this http://evolution-facts.org/images/ev-cr-...
This was made around 100 years before radiometric dating was invented and is still how scientists date fossils today. It is anyone’s guess in how he knew how old the layers of the earth were. This site describes how scientists really date fossils http://www.eadshome.com/Fossils.htm
they use circular reasoning to date fossils. Why the layers cannot be millions of years apart. One obvious reason is the layers are tightly compact and if they were millions of years apart don't you think you would see erosion. (Where is the dirt coming from?) Here is another website that proves the layers are not millions of years apart http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geological...

[The Power Hour.]

L-Ocz43XbR0

[z0sa]

Closer, but still not quite there, padawan.

Define what you are talking about when you say "column" because we need to be clear as to what exactly we are talking about.

The various layers of earth beneathe us. And I hate Star Wars, call me cadet if you're continuing down the disrespectful route.

[RandomGuy]

The various layers of earth beneathe us. And I hate Star Wars, call me cadet if you're continuing down the disrespectful route.


jackass   Show Spelled Pronunciation [jak-as] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1. someone who hates Star Wars
2. a contemptibly foolish or stupid person; dolt; blockhead; ass.


j/k, mostly. Star Wars was THE movie for people my age.

Anyhoo

[RandomGuy]

[A geologic column is the] various layers of earth beneathe us.

So, we are talking Geology then.

I thought we were talking about evolution, the process by which organic life forms gradually change and adapt over time, that's actually biology.

or to be more precise:

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

Which branch of science is "not science" again?

Geology?
Genetics?
Biology?
Paleontology?
Physics?

That seems to be an awful lot of scientists who don't know what circular logic is.

[RandomGuy]

All from the OP proving they used the Geological Column to place the periods these animals lived in - without even citing the column as their source, thus proving Science uses the column so often it does not even need to be explained to the casual reader.

The last one is particularly bad for your case. They don't even mention an era on that, and for the whole article simply require the dimwitted to believe them at face value on everything.

RandomGuy stated the article had nothing to do with the Column, when in fact all the fossils' ages are based on that very thing. It's such common knowledge they fail to even mention the entire Column once as their source, though they use it as proof of ages.

BTW, using something there is no proof for (the Column) as the primary means of dating and classifying these fossils because an unproven theory says to do so, is what you call circular reasoning.

Let me help you on this, because you keep using that phrase "circular reasoning" without actually understanding it.

One of Mouse's website does the legwork for you and provides the circular reasoning in the correct format:

" The fossil is dated by the rock layer it is in. The rock layer is dated by the fossil that is in it."

"Evolution was assumed when the column was built. Now the column supports evolution!"

Both of these are indeed circular logic.

The problem with the argument is that neither is really representative of how geology works.

In essence, this is yet another strawman argument put forth by creationists, eager to seize on something that they don't quite understand.

I can ask a few simple questions, and get to the bottom of this, I will start with my next post.

[RandomGuy]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

[tlongII]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

True!

This is fun...

[The Power Hour.]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.


It depends what section of your head were these rocks located?

[The Power Hour.]

Take a guess how old this fossil is.


http://www.strangescience.net/pics/chinafossil.jpg

[The Power Hour.]

Since this forum has a plethora of Paleontologist you guys can surly tell me how old this fossil is, I will even give you a 10 million year cushion.



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2095/2213111001_84089bd425.jpg?v=0

[RandomGuy]

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.


True!

This is fun...

Correct, but I need z0sa to answer this one definitively, so we can have a mutually agreed on priniciple in order to proceed.

I make the assumption that z0sa is intellectually honest until proven otherwise, as opposed to mouse in all of his profiles, who is clearly not

[The Power Hour.]

.
I make the assumption that z0sa is intellectually honest until proven otherwise, as opposed to mouse in all of his profiles, who is clearly not


Translation: I rather pick on a young not so educated in these matters poster than to go head to head with a person who will prove me wrong, and may cause me some unwanted embarrassment.

I will accept your surrender and I will try to refrain from anymore questions that may be to complicated for you, and your ape related friend MiamiHeat.

[z0sa]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.

False. The Geological Column doesn't actually exist .. the entire premise of my argument with you. Essentially ALL fossils are out of place in the geological column, one of the original problems that Darwin brought up. He felt that further research would prove the theory. All it has proven is that you can't meaningfully date fossils or the strata they are in using the "deeper/older to less deep/younger" theory, as much sense as it seems to make.

In reality, though I'm no Biblical scholar, the Flood fits much better than the "deeper/older" logic according to the natural evidence. The strata are too displaced and one level or "age" of rock may be linked with rock around the world because surrounding strata do not fit evolutionary doctrine. Combined with the surprisingly few mineral deposits and lack of erosion considering earth's supposed 4.3 billion year age, the Flood has a much stronger argument than most give it credit.

Again, let me make it clear I'm not a creationist. I don't take the Biblical accounts as any sort of literal meaning generally, but the Flood is one that rests on plenty of natural scientific evidence.

[RandomGuy]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.



False.

So when we dig down beneath modern streets, and find, say, 18th centrury houses, dig further and find medieval castles, then dig down farther, to say, find Roman forts, we cannot assume that the Roman forts are older than the Medieval castles, or the 18th century houses.

If we cannot assume that deeper objects are older, then we should assume the opposite? The Roman fort is newer than the medieval castle, and the medieval castle is newer than the 18th century houses?

Is this correct?

or, are the layers randomly placed? The medieval castle was newer than the 18th century houses that was newer than the Roman fort.

I guess if we assume time isn't linear, we open up all sorts of possibilities, but that is another conversation entirely. I think we can both agree that time is linear for all but the most abstract purposes. Something happened first, then other events followed.

Let me know what the appropriate conclusion is, so we can find some starting ground. I am still trying to understand what it is you are saying.

[RandomGuy]

Translation: I rather pick on a young not so educated in these matters poster than to go head to head with a person who will prove me wrong, and may cause me some unwanted embarrassment.

I will accept your surrender and I will try to refrain from anymore questions that may be to complicated for you, and your ape related friend MiamiHeat.

Feel free to interject points you think are relevant, but it is obvious to anybody reading through this that you don't understand the science of the things you copy and paste. The fact that you have little grasp on either common sense or reality is reason enough for me to not bother responding to your points very seriously. If you want to inflate your ego and pretend you are "educated" in something other than paranoid conspiracies and pseudo-science, I gave up trying to puncture that titanium dogma long ago.

I say this without any acrimony. I wish you personally well, and have some fondness for you as a person.

[The Power Hour.]

I hate to break to you but, you believing you evolved from a fish doesn't really make you look any smarter than a man who claims he saw Bigfoot. But you have your beliefs I have mine.

As far as your theory on what age something is by when it was buried by another time period like a castle found to be buried underneath a roman courthouse and then a Dinosaur found underneath a log cabin and so on is not a bad example to try and make your point.

The problem is if just one fossil from the so called fossil chart is out of place then the chart is bogus.

You can't say you have a room full of virgins if one of the females turns out to be Linda Lovelace. You have to say you have a room full of women at best.

So if you and I know the Fossil chart has been proven wrong time and time again why are you still using it as a tool in your debates?

[RandomGuy]

I hate to break to you but, you believing you evolved from a fish doesn't really make you look any smarter than a man who claims he saw Bigfoot. But you have your beliefs I have mine.

Your problem is that you either are smart enough or aren't willing to know when you are being lied to and mislead into believe illogical things.

The 9-11 truth and creationist websites lie to you constantly. I consistantly show you how you are being lied to, but because of your dogmatic belief in these things, I become the liar, because I dare to question your deeply held beliefs.

Not all of those lies are the intentional, "I'm-going-to-deliberately-go-out-and-make-shit-up." type of lies, mind you.

Quite a few of them simply stem from imperfect understanding of science, making them honest mistakes.

But no few of the other lies are lies of omission, where only half or a portion of the truth is presented. These are the quotes taken out of context, and misapplied according to the beliefs of the website. These are the lies that people who want to believe find the most compelling, because in the rush to reinforce beliefs these types of lies ring true enough to provide some cloak of credibility to the overall dogma.

These lies of omission are the most dishonest and dangerous for this reason.

[Tenacious D]

^ This guy is highly educated I would never disagree with him. :wow

[Alex Jones]

The 9-11 truth and creationist websites lie to you constantly. I consistantly show you how you are being lied to,

It's on now biooch!! :wakeup

[The Power Hour.]

Your problem is that you either are smart enough or aren't willing to know when you are being lied to and mislead into believe illogical things.

The 9-11 truth and creationist websites lie to you constantly. I consistantly show you how you are being lied to, but because of your dogmatic belief in these things, I become the liar, because I dare to question your deeply held beliefs.

Not all of those lies are the intentional, "I'm-going-to-deliberately-go-out-and-make-shit-up." type of lies, mind you.

Quite a few of them simply stem from imperfect understanding of science, making them honest mistakes.

But no few of the other lies are lies of omission, where only half or a portion of the truth is presented. These are the quotes taken out of context, and misapplied according to the beliefs of the website. These are the lies that people who want to believe find the most compelling, because in the rush to reinforce beliefs these types of lies ring true enough to provide some cloak of credibility to the overall dogma.

These lies of omission are the most dishonest and dangerous for this reason.


I can see your points! And pardon me if I need time to get over the shock that someone in this forum can actually disagree with someone else without having to saying Fuck or moron!

ok you say I am being lied to, and i think your being lied to so lets point out each lie and lets try and find out the source of the misleading information.

you go first!
:wakeup

[mouse]

man I would love to chime in but I am all out of weed I will lurk if that is ok?

[baseline bum]

I can see your points! And pardon me if I need time to get over the shock that someone in this forum can actually disagree with someone else without having to saying Fuck or moron!

ok you say I am being lied to, and i think your being lied to so lets point out each lie and lets try and find out the source of the misleading information.

you go first!
:wakeup

You play the victim card more than anyone I've ever seen on the internet. You constantly rag on Ruff for going to school as if your education from youtube is superior.

[Brian Adams]

^ Your sharp you cut like a knife! :tu

[Last Comic Standing]

You play the victim card more than anyone I've ever seen on the internet.


he is right mouse!! we are the real victims here! you at least get to have sex with your mother and not feel guilty your just following orders!

[z0sa]

If evolution is true, why do ancient single cell organisms have genomes much larger than humans? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma)

[RandomGuy]

If evolution is true, why do ancient single cell organisms have genomes much larger than humans? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma)




True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.



False.

So when we dig down beneath modern streets, and find, say, 18th centrury houses, dig further and find medieval castles, then dig down farther, to say, find Roman forts, we cannot assume that the Roman forts are older than the Medieval castles, or the 18th century houses.

If we cannot assume that deeper objects are older, then we should assume the opposite? The Roman fort is newer than the medieval castle, and the medieval castle is newer than the 18th century houses?

Is this correct?

or, are the layers randomly placed? The medieval castle was newer than the 18th century houses that was newer than the Roman fort.

I guess if we assume time isn't linear, we open up all sorts of possibilities, but that is another conversation entirely. I think we can both agree that time is linear for all but the most abstract purposes. Something happened first, then other events followed.

Let me know what the appropriate conclusion is, so we can find some starting ground. I am still trying to understand what it is you are saying.


---------------------------------------

I asked you first. Answer my question about what the appropriate conclusion is, and I will answer your question.

[RandomGuy]

The theory of evolution does predict that since all forms of life stem from a previous ancestor form, and that coding for every form is done through DNA, we should be able to examine DNA from any species, and determine similarities and grouping based on genetic similarities.

This is precisely what we are finding.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40012/title/Computing_Evolution_

Genetic evidence works especially well in grouping organisms, because in many life forms, we see identical "junk" (long strings of identical gene sequences) that get mixed in with working genes.

[z0sa]

Your analogy of houses does not work with the scientific evidence. Did you simply not read my post? You are seriously lacking some critical thinking on this one.

Oh, and if you really want open evolution's Black Box, go right ahead. i will gladly prove why DNA could never have come from chance, including debunking your "RNA World" theory, which BTW is harder for nature to pull off by chance than DNA.

DNA is by far the best evidence I have against evolution and abiogenesis, again please continue like you honestly know what you're talking about :toast

[z0sa]

The theory of evolution does predict that since all forms of life stem from a previous ancestor form, and that coding for every form is done through DNA, we should be able to examine DNA from any species, and determine similarities and grouping based on genetic similarities.

How does the protozoan from the Cambrian age and the dawn of life have a genome many times larger than a human?


Genetic evidence works especially well in grouping organisms, because in many life forms, we see identical "junk" (long strings of identical gene sequences) that get mixed in with working genes.

You are very much wrong. "Long stretches of identical gene sequence" does not accurately descrivbe Junk DNA oncesoever. Try again and this time, keep it factual and don't be a two-face. You base your beliefs in science, so deal with it when the facts imply something different than your beliefs.

[z0sa]

True or false:

Generally, deeper rocks and objects are older than rocks and objects found above them.




So when we dig down beneath modern streets, and find, say, 18th centrury houses, dig further and find medieval castles, then dig down farther, to say, find Roman forts, we cannot assume that the Roman forts are older than the Medieval castles, or the 18th century houses.

If we cannot assume that deeper objects are older, then we should assume the opposite? The Roman fort is newer than the medieval castle, and the medieval castle is newer than the 18th century houses?

Is this correct?

or, are the layers randomly placed? The medieval castle was newer than the 18th century houses that was newer than the Roman fort.

I guess if we assume time isn't linear, we open up all sorts of possibilities, but that is another conversation entirely. I think we can both agree that time is linear for all but the most abstract purposes. Something happened first, then other events followed.

Let me know what the appropriate conclusion is, so we can find some starting ground. I am still trying to understand what it is you are saying.


---------------------------------------

I asked you first. Answer my question about what the appropriate conclusion is, and I will answer your question.


False. The Geological Column doesn't actually exist .. the entire premise of my argument with you. Essentially ALL fossils are out of place in the geological column, one of the original problems that Darwin brought up. He felt that further research would prove the theory. All it has proven is that you can't meaningfully date fossils or the strata they are in using the "deeper/older to less deep/younger" theory, as much sense as it seems to make.

In reality, though I'm no Biblical scholar, the Flood fits much better than the "deeper/older" logic according to the natural evidence. The strata are too displaced and one level or "age" of rock may be linked with rock around the world because surrounding strata do not fit evolutionary doctrine. Combined with the surprisingly few mineral deposits and lack of erosion considering earth's supposed 4.3 billion year age, the Flood has a much stronger argument than most give it credit.

Again, let me make it clear I'm not a creationist. I don't take the Biblical accounts as any sort of literal meaning generally, but the Flood is one that rests on plenty of natural scientific evidence.

I clearly answered once. You just can't stand a real argument, can you? You just want to make statements and believe they can't be proven wrong. When someone answers in a different way than you planned, you simply regurgitate the same questions and when your opposition states they've answered, you accuse THEM of regurgitation.

First off, I am waiting for you to recant on your Geological Column denial. It is clearly used in science, and broadly.

Second, you must meet the debate in the middle. I am not going to use your standards to argue with you, I'm going to use mine. If you cannot handle this, steer clear of the discussion.

BTW, houses and such occur by intelligent design, so using that analogy denotes a creator.

[RandomGuy]

Data:

You select a site near your house and start digging a fair sized pit.

As you go down, you notice that the layers of soil and rock seem to have different colors and are composed of different minerals. You make note of them, and for labeling purposes, you call those layers, in order of shallowest to deepest:
F
G
H
I

You then select a site 50 miles from the first site, and again start digging making careful note of what you see. You note that several of the layers are identical in depth and composition to your first dig. For labeling purposes, you call these new layers in order of shallowest to deepest:
G
H
I
J

You then select a third site, 100 miles from the first site, and again start digging making careful note of what you see. You note that several of the layers are identical in depth and composition to your first dig. For labeling purposes, you call these new layers in order of shallowest to deepest:
E
F
G
H
I
J

You then select a fourth site, 300 miles from the first site, and again start digging making careful note of what you see. You note that some of the layers are identical in depth and composition to your first dig. For labeling purposes, you call these new layers in order of shallowest to deepest:
H
I
J
K
L

You enlist the aid of friends, and repeat this digging operation, and note the following from sites over the course of years, and encompassing an area that catalogs the entire continent you are on, and make the following observations, with all layers starting from the shallowest to the deepest.

Data point #5 layers:
E
F
G
H

Data point #6 layers:
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

Data point #7 layers
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Data point #8 layers:
C
D
E
F
Data point #9
A
B
C
D
E
F

Data point #10
K
L
M
N

Etc.
In all, you and your friends dig 1,000 holes. You find distinct layers A through P.

In about 1/2% of these digs you find some layers are jumbled, but in the remaining 99% of these digs:
A, when present is always on top of B,
B, when present, is always on top of C
C, when present, is always on top of D
D, when present, is always on top of E
E, when present, is always on top of F
F, when present, is always on top of G
G, when present, is always on top of H
H, when present, is always on top of I
I, when present, is always on top of J
J, when present, is always on top of K
K, when present, is always on top of L
L, when present, is always on top of M
M, when present, is always on top of N
N, when present, is always on top of O
O, when present, is always on top of P

In none of your digs did you EVER find all 16 layers.

Making only the assumption that older layers are deeper, what is the oldest layer?

[z0sa]

Data:

You select a site near your house and start digging a fair sized pit.

As you go down, you notice that the layers of soil and rock seem to have different colors and are composed of different minerals. You make note of them, and for labeling purposes, you call those layers, in order of shallowest to deepest:
F
G
H
I

You then select a site 50 miles from the first site, and again start digging making careful note of what you see. You note that several of the layers are identical in depth and composition to your first dig. For labeling purposes, you call these new layers in order of shallowest to deepest:
G
H
I
J

You then select a third site, 100 miles from the first site, and again start digging making careful note of what you see. You note that several of the layers are identical in depth and composition to your first dig. For labeling purposes, you call these new layers in order of shallowest to deepest:
E
F
G
H
I
J

You then select a fourth site, 300 miles from the first site, and again start digging making careful note of what you see. You note that some of the layers are identical in depth and composition to your first dig. For labeling purposes, you call these new layers in order of shallowest to deepest:
H
I
J
K
L

You enlist the aid of friends, and repeat this digging operation, and note the following from sites over the course of years, and encompassing an area that catalogs the entire continent you are on, and make the following observations, with all layers starting from the shallowest to the deepest.

Data point #5 layers:
E
F
G
H

Data point #6 layers:
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

Data point #7 layers
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

Data point #8 layers:
C
D
E
F
Data point #9
A
B
C
D
E
F

Data point #10
K
L
M
N

Etc.
In all, you and your friends dig 1,000 holes. You find distinct layers A through P.

In about 1/2% of these digs you find some layers are jumbled, but in the remaining 99% of these digs:
A, when present is always on top of B,
B, when present, is always on top of C
C, when present, is always on top of D
D, when present, is always on top of E
E, when present, is always on top of F
F, when present, is always on top of G
G, when present, is always on top of H
H, when present, is always on top of I
I, when present, is always on top of J
J, when present, is always on top of K
K, when present, is always on top of L
L, when present, is always on top of M
M, when present, is always on top of N
N, when present, is always on top of O
O, when present, is always on top of P

In none of your digs did you EVER find all 16 layers.

Making only the assumption that older layers are deeper, what is the oldest layer?

Prove that anywhere this exists.

I'll make it easier: prove 25% of those exist anywhere you dig in the world - no matter where you start, A - O.

[RandomGuy]

I clearly answered once.

You did indeed answer a question.

I then asked a follow up question to clarify what assumption you would find agreeable.

You say that it is false to assume that deeper layers of earth are older.

I then asked what it was reasonable to assume:

The age of the layers are distributed randomly.
The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.

Please tell me what the correct starting assumption is, so we can continue our discussion of the geologic column.

[RandomGuy]

Prove that anywhere this exists.

I'll make it easier: prove 25% of those exist anywhere you dig in the world - no matter where you start, A - O.

I stated rather explicitly that in none of the collected data points were all catalogued layers present.


In none of your digs did you EVER find all 16 layers.

Why should I prove something that I don't claim? I merely noted the summary of the 1000 observations.

I made ONLY the assumption that older layers were deeper.

Now answer the question, using this as the only starting assumption, and the previously given data, what would the oldest layer be?

[RandomGuy]

Your analogy of houses does not work with the scientific evidence. Did you simply not read my post? You are seriously lacking some critical thinking on this one.

Oh, and if you really want open evolution's Black Box, go right ahead. i will gladly prove why DNA could never have come from chance, including debunking your "RNA World" theory, which BTW is harder for nature to pull off by chance than DNA.

DNA is by far the best evidence I have against evolution and abiogenesis, again please continue like you honestly know what you're talking about :toast

Please leave the condescension aside. It serves little purpose.

Unless you want me to simply call you padawan from here out. :p:

[z0sa]

You did indeed answer a question.

I then asked a follow up question to clarify what a reasonable, logical assumption.

You say that it is false to assume that deeper layers of earth are older.

I then asked what it was reasonable to assume:

The age of the layers are distributed randomly.
The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.

Please tell me what the correct starting assumption is, so we can continue our discussion of the geologic column.

I clearly answered this. If you cannot infer the meaning from my answer, that is your problem, not mine.

Once again I will repeat, and this time I will debunk your hypothesis of "A-P": The age of Layer P is not exclusive to layer O nor Q. The fossils and rock types in layer P may not even be the same age, and certainly you cannot date the rocks/fossilsnor accurately predict then descrive any evolutionary chain in Layer P off Layer O or Layer Q, since neither can be trusted to be older and younger than P.

[z0sa]

Please leave the condescension aside. It serves little purpose.

Unless you want me to simply call you padawan from here out. :p:

You honestly must not have much knowledge on the subject of DNA to believe it does not reasonably infer intelligent design.

[RandomGuy]

I then asked a follow up question to clarify what a reasonable, logical assumption.

You say that it is false to assume that deeper layers of earth are older.

I then asked what it was reasonable to assume:

The age of the layers are distributed randomly.
The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.

Please tell me what the correct starting assumption is, so we can continue our discussion of the geologic column.



I clearly answered this. If you cannot infer the meaning from my answer, that is your problem, not mine.

I apologize then. It is indeed my problem that I did not understand your answer.

Could you please do me the favor of repeating your answer clearly, so that I may understand it?

[z0sa]

I stated rather explicitly that in none of the collected data points were all catalogued layers present.

Excuse me, then, for denying your hypothesis is possible nor believing in an unscientific assumption's logic. If you cannot prove 25% of your hypothesis is correct, then why should anyone believe it as scientific fact?



Why should I prove something that I don't claim? I merely noted the summary of the 1000 observations.

I made ONLY the assumption that older layers were deeper.

Now answer the question, using this as the only starting assumption, and the previously given data, what would the oldest layer be?

Assuming older layers are deeper is ignoring scientific fact.

Let me be clear: it is scientific common knowledge catastrophes caused strata to be dislodged and displaced. This is why strata from around the world are linked, instead of simply digging straight down or even near to most locations.

[RandomGuy]

Once again I will repeat, and this time I will debunk your hypothesis of "A-P":

I made no hypothesis. I merely asked a question, i.e. what is the oldest layer, based only on assumption that older things are deeper than newer things, and the provided data.

Once more the only assumption is:

Older layers aredeeper than newer ones.



In about 1/2% of these digs you find some layers are jumbled, but in the remaining 99% of these digs:
A, when present is always on top of B,
B, when present, is always on top of C
C, when present, is always on top of D
D, when present, is always on top of E
E, when present, is always on top of F
F, when present, is always on top of G
G, when present, is always on top of H
H, when present, is always on top of I
I, when present, is always on top of J
J, when present, is always on top of K
K, when present, is always on top of L
L, when present, is always on top of M
M, when present, is always on top of N
N, when present, is always on top of O
O, when present, is always on top of P

In none of your digs did you EVER find all 16 layers.

Making only the assumption that older layers are deeper, what is the oldest layer?

[z0sa]

I made no hypothesis. I merely asked a question, i.e. what is the oldest layer, based only on assumption that older things are deeper than newer things, and the provided data.

Once more the only assumption is:

Older layers aredeeper than newer ones.

I thought it was obvious that your assumption is incorrect.

[biological clock]

Two great minds in a interesting debate, To bad only one can be right.

[RandomGuy]

I thought it was obvious that your assumption is incorrect.

It is apparently not obvious to me what the correct starting assumption should be then if older layers cannot be assumed to be generally deeper than new ones. My apologies.

What then is the correct starting assumption, ruling out the assumption that deeper layers are generally older than shallow ones.


The age of the layers are distributed randomly.

or

The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.

[z0sa]

The age of the layers are distributed randomly.

or

The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.


I clearly answered this. If you cannot infer the meaning from my answer, that is your problem, not mine.

[RandomGuy]

Two great minds in a interesting debate, To bad only one can be right.

Not really.

It is entirely possible for both of us to be right. An intelligent designer could use the process of evolution to create humans.

The two theories are not inherently mutually exclusive. It is only when one adds specific religious dogma of biblical literalism and a young universe that they become mutually exclusive.

Since z0sa has stated he is not a biblical literalist, we can avoid that rather messy theological arguement and stick to science and logic.

[z0sa]

Not really.

It is entirely possible for both of us to be right. An intelligent designer could use the process of evolution to create humans.

The two theories are not inherently mutually exclusive. It is only when one adds specific religious dogma of biblical literalism and a young universe that they become mutually exclusive.

Since z0sa has stated he is not a biblical literalist, we can avoid that rather messy theological arguement and stick to science and logic.

My exact thoughts.

[z0sa]

RandomGuy: If the Geological Column is based on the theory the deeper you go, the older the strata and rocks will be, and this is simply not true, how can scientists base their assumptions of life's ages on it?

This is the biggest piece of evidence against evolution there is, IMO, besides DNA of course. The Natural record does not point meaningfully towards science's primary theory on Nature.

[RandomGuy]

I clearly answered this. If you cannot infer the meaning from my answer, that is your problem, not mine.

It is apparently not obvious to me what the correct starting assumption should be then if older layers cannot be assumed to be generally deeper than new ones. My apologies.

What then is the correct starting assumption, ruling out the assumption that deeper layers are generally older than shallow ones.


The age of the layers are distributed randomly.

or

The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.

I am truly very sorry that I am unable to understand your previous answer. I could not find where you had answered the question.

If you are really committed to critical thinking, no small part of the generally accepted principles of critical thinking requires intellectual honesty and fairness.

I have fairly apologized for not being able to answer your question, and asked that you please clarify it for me.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy: If the Geological Column is based on the theory the deeper you go, the older the strata and rocks will be, and this is simply not true, how can scientists base their assumptions of life's ages on it?

This is the most intelligent question you have asked so far.

The answer is:

They cannot.

IF the starting assumption that deeper layers tend to be older is false then you cannot base any reliable conclusions on that.

Note that it is a starting assumption, NOT a theory. Theories are composed of starting assumptions, observed data and reasonable predictions based on those starting assumptions and reasonable data.

[z0sa]

Layers are completely random no matter where you look on earth. If you could find 25% of the assumed layers on top of each other in correct Column form, it'd be one of the biggest geological discoveries ever. Layers simply do not go top to bottom, ever.

[RandomGuy]

Which leads us back to the question:


What then is the correct starting assumption, ruling out the assumption that deeper layers are generally older than shallow ones.

The age of the layers are distributed randomly.

or

The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.

To be fair I left out one additional possibility:

The layers are all the same age.

(begin edit)

z0sa has now made the starting assumption that the layers are randomly distributed. We can proceed to examine if this is more reasonable that what the geologic column is based on.

[RandomGuy]

Layers are completely random no matter where you look on earth. If you could find 25% of the assumed layers scientists use to date these epochs and ultimately the fossilized life, it'd be one of the biggest geological discoveries ever. Layers simply do not go top to bottom, ever.

No scientist has ever claimed they do. This is a strawman logical fallacy by the way.

You cannot disprove the geologic column by distorting what it is then showing the distortion to be incorrect.

If layers of soil are completely random no matter where you look on earth, then how do you explain the tens of thousand of observations over the course of hundreds of years that almost without variation find certain layers above certain other layers?

If the distribution was truly random, then we would expect a normal distribution of layers together. This is not what we have observed. That is the scientific fact.

[z0sa]

Dude, CMON. If the layers themselves are in random arrangements, their ages must also be random. They cannot all be the same, we have seen strata change pretty remarkably within recording history from natural disaster.

It's balancing an equation. You have one of those as your avathingy, I assume you are aware of how they work.

[z0sa]

No scientist has ever claimed they do. This is a strawman logical fallacy by the way.

You cannot disprove the geologic column by distorting what it is then showing the distortion to be incorrect.

If layers of soil are completely random no matter where you look on earth, then how do you explain the tens of thousand of observations over the course of hundreds of years that almost without variation find certain layers above certain other layers?

If the distribution was truly random, then we would expect a normal distribution of layers together. This is not what we have observed. That is the scientific fact.

The layers' arrangements come from natural catastrophe throughout history, which is why some small sets (much less than even 25%) are "in order". I want you to do some deduction here: if science has no chance of proving that the layers were ever in any order of ages, what does this mean for the Geological Column and its methodology of assigning ages by surrounding strata?

[RandomGuy]

Dude, CMON. If the layers themselves are in random arrangements, their ages must also be random. They cannot all be the same, we have seen strata change pretty remarkably within recording history from natural disaster.


Then, going back to my previous example, the observed order of the layers, were they distributed randomly, would have produced data points similar to:

D
H
A
B
P
C

OR


B
O
H
I
E

The odds that 995 observations of the layers would produce data points that show the same order of layers approaches zero.

Since we have not observed in tens of thousands of digs, and over the course of 200+ years of observations that the layers are indeed randomly distributed, we can only assume that there is some order to it.

THAT is scientific fact.

[RandomGuy]

The layers' arrangements come from natural catastrophe throughout history, which is why some small sets (much less than even 25%) are "in order". I want you to do some deduction here: if science has no chance of proving that the layers were ever in any order of ages, what does this mean for the Geological Column and its methodology of assigning ages by surrounding strata?

It would mean that basing dating on the geologic column would be erroneous and pointless.

The starting assumption that layers are consistantly put down in a specific order is supported by available evidence, and not only by a little evidence, but by hundreds of years worth of data from thousands of people and from sites that cover the explored world.

[z0sa]

Then, going back to my previous example, the observed order of the layers, were they distributed randomly, would have produced data points similar to:

D
H
A
B
P
C

OR


B
O
H
I
E

The odds that 995 observations of the layers would produce data points that show the same order of layers approaches zero.

Since we have not observed in tens of thousands of digs, and over the course of 200+ years of observations that the layers are indeed randomly distributed, we can only assume that there is some order to it.

THAT is scientific fact.

That is not factual at all.

There is zero facts proving there ever was an original rock or strata which was built up on originally. I would highly doubt there is even 25% of a single supereon in any one stratum or pile of strata.. you cannot reasonably deduce there ever was, and THAT is scientific fact.

Since it is impossible to deduce the ages from the strata since it displaced; since it impossible to deduce the ages or evolutions of the creatures in the strata if you have no idea which strata came before another; since The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) clearly goes against evolutionary "policy" concerning the origin of life (thus meaning geologists cannot reasonably say simple life came before more complex lifeforms), it is safe to assume one cannot trust the fossil record for more than it is: the remains of plants and animals. You cannot infer ages of any animal or plant from it, which is a very strong argument against transitional forms.


Since we have not observed in tens of thousands of digs, and over the course of 200+ years of observations that the layers are indeed randomly distributed, we can only assume that there is some order to it.

How so? Order does not come from randomness - the original argument against evolution. In order for order to exist, design is imminent.

[RandomGuy]

The odds that 995 observations of the layers would produce data points that show the same order of layers approaches zero.

Since we have not observed in tens of thousands of digs, and over the course of 200+ years of observations that the layers are indeed randomly distributed, we can only assume that there is some order to it.

THAT is scientific fact.

Since we have ruled out the starting assumption that the layers are indeed randomly distributed as being not supported by available evidence, and we know that the layers are in a specific order, we can then limit ourselves to examining one other possibility for a starting assumption:

Deeper layers are newer.

For this to be the case, we would have to discover ruins from the 18th and 19th century beneath Roman villas and shops, and Ming dynasty forts beneath Chou dynasty trading posts.

This also is not supported by available observations.

That makes the starting assumption that older layers are deeper than newer ones the ONLY starting assumption that is supported by our observations.

This is how science works.

[RandomGuy]

since The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) clearly goes against evolutionary "policy" concerning the origin of life

That is incorrect.

You don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics says, how can you state that it goes against the theory of evolution?

[RandomGuy]

Here is my main problem:

You have sucked up all of this propaganda from creationist websites and not asked yourself ONE hugely important question:

"Are the people posting this telling me the truth?"

It is rather obvious, based on your continual factually incorrect statements that you have assumed that these websites are telling you the truth about "evolution" and science.

Is it logical to assume that scientists who believe in evolution are the only ones lying?
Creationists certainly have as much motivation to lie, if not more so. It is logical to admit at least the possibility.

[RandomGuy]

Order does not come from randomness

Another incorrect statement.

If I were to draw the numbers 1 through 5 from a hat long enough, I would eventually get the following ORDERLY PATTERN:

1,2,3,4,5.

It would be highly improbable, but it would indeed be order from randomness.

[z0sa]

Since we have ruled out the starting assumption that the layers are indeed randomly distributed as being not supported by available evidence, and we know that the layers are in a specific order, we can then limit ourselves to examining one other possibility for a starting assumption:

Deeper layers are newer.

Now you're understanding.


For this to be the case, we would have to discover ruins from the 18th and 19th century beneath Roman villas and shops, and Ming dynasty forts beneath Chou dynasty trading posts.

This also is not supported by available observations.

Those things are within the tiniest fragment of earth's supposed timeframe, buddy. You created your own straw man.

If your analogy was based on the 200+ years of observation and digging you speak of, it would go something like this:

1) All the houses are in random orders, with no evidence they were ever in a set order.

2) The houses are arranged in pieces and are sometimes connected together with other houses. This occurred from natural disasters destroying the houses and flinging them all around together over and over for billions of years.

3) During time, creatures died in these houses and their bones were fossilized into walls. As the houses were destroyed and put together again by natural disaster, the bones continue to fossilize until discovered. When discovered, the bones are in a brand new house than the one they died in, except for the piece of wall they took their final breath on.

Since the house obviously is composed of different pieces (the different types of rocks and rock formations which fossils are found in) than when the fossil 's wall first came around, how can you assume the wall's age based on the house itself? You cannot deduce what time period any piece of the house came from without using circular reasoning.


That makes the starting assumption that older layers are deeper than newer ones the ONLY starting assumption that is supported by our observations.

This is how science works.

Show me some proof. When going back eons of time, it is simply common sense to know you can't base anything off rock formations or combinations. They have been jumbled up so many times its impossible to say "this rock is deeper, it must be older."

[z0sa]

Another incorrect statement.

If I were to draw the numbers 1 through 5 from a hat long enough, I would eventually get the following ORDERLY PATTERN:

1,2,3,4,5.

It would be highly improbable, but it would indeed be order from randomness.

:lol you actually compare drawing five numbers out of a hat to the statistical impossibilities of life coming about by random means? That analogy is better wasted on the willing follower of deception, not the factual discussion we have going on here.

[z0sa]

Here is my main problem:

You have sucked up all of this propaganda from creationist websites and not asked yourself ONE hugely important question:

"Are the people posting this telling me the truth?"

It is rather obvious, based on your continual factually incorrect statements that you have assumed that these websites are telling you the truth about "evolution" and science.

Is it logical to assume that scientists who believe in evolution are the only ones lying?
Creationists certainly have as much motivation to lie, if not more so. It is logical to admit at least the possibility.


I have never visited one creationist website in my life without a specific thing in mind. I don't believe in science to save your soul, I want the facts, and those websites only tell one side of the story just as evolution does.

In other words, I only compare two sides of an argument together, and decide on my own which is more sound.

[RandomGuy]

In other words, I only compare two sides of an argument together, and decide on my own which is more sound.

Not from what I have seen. You have never put the creationist websites' claims up to any scrutiny.

If you had, you would not have continually said things that were factually incorrect.

[z0sa]

That is incorrect.

You don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics says, how can you state that it goes against the theory of evolution?

I will bet you $1 right now, I will pm paypal account you can send it to, that entropy is one of the reasons the necessary ingredients for the first cell could not have formed.

[z0sa]

Not from what I have seen. You have never put the creationist websites' claims up to any scrutiny.

If you had, you would not have continually said things that were factually incorrect.

As in?

It's hard to accept, I know - I, too, had a hard time believing scientists could have deceived me so long. Take a deep breath now that you know evolution's "proof" is often deeply rooted in circular reasonings, like the Geological Column.

[RandomGuy]

Show me some proof. When going back eons of time, it is simply common sense to know you can't base anything off rock formations or combinations. They have been jumbled up so many times its impossible to say "this rock is deeper, it must be older."

If they have been jumbled up so many times then the layers would indeed appear to be in random order.

They are not in random order according to just about every excavation humankind has done.

You cannot keep claiming that without doing your own digs and showing that everyone else is lying when they report seeing the same layers in the same order consistantly world wide.

[RandomGuy]

As in?


The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) clearly goes against evolutionary "policy" concerning the origin of life

For starters.

That is verifyably false, and easily so.

[z0sa]

Not from what I have seen. You have never put the creationist websites' claims up to any scrutiny.

If you had, you would not have continually said things that were factually incorrect.


For starters.

That is verifyably false, and easily so.

So you're betting that $1?

[z0sa]

"Whenever an adequate amount of energy flows through a system of objects, it tends to scatter them." This is essentially what the second law dictates, which means in order for abiogenesis in the "RNA World" to occur, the ingredients for the first cell must have been in a near-exact sort of order within a cell membrane in an unreasonably short amount of time, before the very energy needed to create the cell destroyed it. This is a proven error with the RNA World theory, because more heat speeds up entropy.

[RandomGuy]

So you're betting that $1?

Sure.

Go for it.

Let's get a few things down as what would constituted winning this bet:

1) state clearly the 2nd law of thermodynamics, sourced from at least 2 neutral websites.
2) state clearly how this applies to the theory of evolution, using sound, non- fallacious logic.

You will, I have no doubt, attempt to weasel your way out of this, but I have stated that you have not done any independent verification of the creationist claim that evolution somehow violates this law.

All I have to do to prove that you have not, is to win this bet, because this is one of the easiest creationist lies to debunk, and took me all of 2 seconds using google to find, even though I already know the answer.

Anybody who had truly and honestly subjected creationist claims to ANY scrutiny could have found how the creationists were lying about this in short order.

[RandomGuy]

"Whenever an adequate amount of energy flows through a system of objects, it tends to scatter them." This is essentially what the second law dictates, which means in order for abiogenesis in the "RNA World" to occur, the ingredients for the first cell must have been in a near-exact sort of order within a cell membrane in an unreasonably short amount of time, before the very energy needed to create the cell destroyed it. This is a proven error with the RNA World theory, because more heat speeds up entropy.

I do not accept your definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Please give me a proper defintion from at least two independent websites.

I will accept any website from a physics or chemistry tutoring-type website.

[tlongII]

RandomGuy > z0sa

[z0sa]

I do not accept your definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Please give me a proper defintion from at least two independent websites.

I will accept any website from a physics or chemistry tutoring-type website.

:lmao find your own research and prove me wrong. You owe me $1.

BTW, that statement in quotes is from an article I read and are the words of Professor Frank Lambert, you know from http://www.secondlaw.com/ the OFFICIAL Second Law site.

Here's some more proof you owe me $1 from the official site of Second Law:


Look at the direction that energy flows in any happening or process or event. That is the first step to understanding what the second law of thermodynamics is and what it applies to.

Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.

(Later we'll come back to those two tricky words "spontaneously" and "tends".) That's it, the big idea. The perfect illustration is: A hot frying pan cools down when it is taken off the kitchen stove. Its thermal energy ("heat") flows out to the cooler room air. The opposite never happens.


The big deal is that all types of energy spread out like the energy in that hot pan does (unless somehow they're hindered from doing so) They don't tend to stay concentrated in a small space; they flow toward becoming dispersed if they can -- like electricity in a battery or a power line or lightning, wind from a high pressure weather system or air compressed in a tire, all heated objects, loud sounds, water or boulders that are high up on a mountain, your car's kinetic energy when you take your foot off the gas. All these different kinds of energy spread out if there's a way they can do so.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao find your own research and prove me wrong. You owe me $1.

BTW, that statement in quotes is from an article I read and are the words of Professor Frank Lambert, you know from http://www.secondlaw.com/ the OFFICIAL Second Law site.

Here's some more proof you owe me $1 from the official site of Second Law (as soon as Im off the phone)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=second+law+of+thermodynamics+evolution&btnG=Search

[RandomGuy]

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html


Many fundamentalist Christians see the theory of evolution as a threat to their faith, evidently because it is not explicitly included in Genesis. (They also misunderstand the scientific application of the word "theory" that the chemist uses in discussing atomic theory or the kinetic molecular theory of gases, ideas as unquestioned by all chemists as evolution is by professional biologists.) This is tragic because it cuts off sincere individuals who are not scientists from understanding the powerful relevance of one of the most important concepts in all of science.

Most disquieting to chemists who are interested in thermodynamics are the misleading statements about the second law and chemistry that creationist spokespeople have made. A few emphases from previous pages in the present Web site and from www.secondlaw.com that bear on this unfortunate situation are developed below. At the end of this page are superior links to presentations of the second law of thermodynamics and its irrelevance to creationists’ arguments against evolution.

[RandomGuy]

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

[RandomGuy]

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

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

[RandomGuy]

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

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

wikipedia

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

[RandomGuy]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4

Second Law: Entropy
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.

Entropy: a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed.
Entropy: a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work.
Entropy: a measure of the disorder of a system.
Entropy: a measure of the multiplicity of a system.

Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state.

[RandomGuy]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html#c1

Goes on to show that the earth is not an isolated system.

It is constantly getting new energy input into it by the sun.
-------------------------------------

Energy and Order in Biological Systems
The concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. If so, how do biological systems develop and maintain such a high degree of order? Is this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/workorder.gif


Order can be produced with an expenditure of energy, and the order associated with life on the earth is produced with the aid of energy from the sun.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/imgbio/cplast.gif

For example, plants use energy from the sun in tiny energy factories called chloroplasts. Using chlorophyll in the process called photosynthesis, they convert the sun's energy into storable form in ordered sugar molecules. In this way, carbon and water in a more disordered state are combined to form the more ordered sugar molecules.

In animal systems there are also small structures within the cells called mitochondria which use the energy stored in sugar molecules from food to form more highly ordered structures.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=second+law+of+thermodynamics+evolution&btnG=Search


Results 1 - 10 of about 224,000 for 2nd law of thermodynamics evolution. (0.19 seconds)


A couple seconds to type in the search, less than a second to get the results and 5 minutes to show exactly how creationists are lying.

I posted enough infrormation here from independent websites that have nothing to do with "evolution".

Sorry, kid.

You did nothing but show me exactly how you are lying when you say you subjected creationist claims to any scrutiny whatsoever.

[RandomGuy]

In other words, I only compare two sides of an argument together, and decide on my own which is more sound.

:lmao

[z0sa]

Cells are isolated systems.

Try again.

[z0sa]

All 5 of those posts, debunked by four words ^

[z0sa]

:lmao

You have yet to prove one single thing I said is nonfactual.

So far I've stated:

A: scientists use circular logic to support evolution, especially the Geostratographical Column, which is used to date and classify species and evolutionary forms as seen fit by the original theory.

B: scientists have never been able to recreate first life in the lab despite a purpose, an intent, and the tools/elements to do so, contrary to nature which has no purpose nor intent, and uses only the tools/elements available.

C: the Second Law demonstrates synthesis of many different compounds into a surviving independent cell capable of replication is not supported by nature's orderly mannerism.

[z0sa]

RandomGuy = another intellectual who loves to prove people wrong and make them feel stupid.

You should see you can be wrong, too, in this discussion, like I have believed this entire time. You've simply done nothing to convince me differently of my current beliefs.

[z0sa]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ntropy.html#c1

Goes on to show that the earth is not an isolated system.

It is constantly getting new energy input into it by the sun.

This is an argument against your theory, not for it.

[baseline bum]

Cells are isolated systems.

Try again.

:lmao

A cell on earth is not an isolated system.

:pctoss

You don't understand evolution at all. You don't understand the second law at all. You grossly misrepresent both. You're the religious equivalent of a truther.