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

[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- -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.

[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!!

[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- -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 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!

[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 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!

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!

[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?

[RandomGuy]

If evolution is true, why do ancient single cell organisms have genomes much larger than humans?

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/feat...ing_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

[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

Please leave the condescension aside. It serves little purpose.

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

[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.

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?