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

[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 ac ulation 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.



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..."

[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.



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..."

Never heard of the Geological Column?



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

Looks like that article does use the Geological Column.

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

[RandomGuy]

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/geo...y/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]

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 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

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

[spurspf]

Hey RG, have you seen NOVA'S, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Great, great do entary. 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.

[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 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 do entary. 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.

[Alex Jones]

Intelligent design is obviously not science,.

Then what do you call this?



and this?





Are you saying this 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.