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

[MiamiHeat]

be quiet pickle girl or i'll create a time warp dimension to stick my hand through your monitor and slap that stupid pickle off your face

[baseline bum]

He told me I knew nothing then called me a re - without putting forth any of his own arguments or knowledge on the subject at hand. That's what you call 'provoking' someone. I reacted like anyone would and defended myself.

why don't you go learn to read, read my previous sentences, then realize why I called baseline_scrub a pussy in the first place.

You are a ing re . You have no idea what entropy is, and then make longwinded posts about it. The existence of pieces of like you is proof that either there is no god or that he's a horrible underachiever.

It is very realistic to believe entropy was not helpful in the laying out of those specific genetic sequences, which chemists apparently have nothing to say about.

This line of yours shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of entropy. You confused entropy with energy, which tells anyone with any sense whatsoever that you haven't the slightest clue when you start talking about the second law of thermodynamics. Leave the argument to people like Phenomenaul who are on your side and actually know something.

[Re-Animator]

be quiet pickle girl or i'll create a time warp dimension to stick my hand through your monitor and slap that stupid pickle off your face

This has to be the MiamiHeat troll I am actually laughing!

[baseline bum]

So your own disbelief is based on what grounds???

My disbelief in the existence of a god is based on a disbelief of the supernatural, since there's no evidence supporting it and since I've never felt this faith that the religious seem to possess. There's not the same burden of proof on the skeptic as there is the one on the person making lavish claims, unless you want to call the existence of Russell's Teapot a 50/50 proposition. In philosophy you can correctly come to any conclusion with a valid argument when you have even one unsound premise to base it on, and the existence of god has never been shown in any satisfying way to establish it as a likely sound assumption.

Apart from that, many ideas in the bible sound ridiculous to me. We're created in god's image? That comes off as amazingly arrogant, and it seems much more likely that arrogant man formed god in his own image; how many times have you seen psychos like David Koresh come convince people they're really god?

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, RandomGuy I stumbled acorss that list of creationist "debunkings" a long time ago. if you didn't just copy and paste 90% of your answers, you would know that site's sources are oftentimes creationist sites theyve altered the context from, or experimental research papers simply loaded in circular logic/new findings which nullify certain citations.

Provide one concrete example of the linked website taking a quote from a creationist out of context and/or distorting the underlying meaning of what that creationist claim represents.

I found the representations of creationist claims to be fairly represented.

[RandomGuy]

You are the biggest on this board. Total pussylips between your legs. Also, it absolutely hilarious how face value you take the other's arguments on this board for evolution. You've brought up multiple poster's answers with nothing on your own part. You are worse than the stupidest blind follower - you follow a follower of a follower of a follower instead of attempting to create your own opinion.

Nothing against sexuality, If you're truly a man, you've no doubt experimented with men and liked it because you felt accepted and "part of the gang."

I see you have him in the crushing grip of reason.

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, RandomGuy I stumbled acorss that list of creationist "debunkings" a long time ago. if you didn't just copy and paste 90% of your answers, you would know that site's sources are oftentimes creationist sites theyve altered the context from, or experimental research papers simply loaded in circular logic/new findings which nullify certain citations.

Provide one concrete example of circular logic used to support anything on that website.

[RandomGuy]

Additionally, you lied about the geological column. It is very much used today and often, and anyone with fingertips can google it. Not one evolutionist site will be able to tell you a universally acceptedly-accurate means to how they made it or why they go off of it. You are lying about having debunked my statements on it, flat out. You are lying which makes your non-pasted answers - and your "good intentions for science'' at ude against me - very questionable.

The Geological Column is indeed used to generally date fossils, and indeed was likely used to estimate dates of fossils in the OP.

It is not based on the underlying assumption that evolution is a fact however, and that has been demostrated.

It is based on two assumptions:
1) That older layers are generally buried underneath newer layers.
2) Repeated radiometric dating of rocks and minerals within the layers has provided a fairly accurate method of assigning ages to the different layers.

If your statement about the randomness of the deposits of the layers were accurate, why is it that simpler organisms almost invariably are deeper than more complex organisms?

If the deposits were laid down randomly, how could chance explain why they would be deposited in that manner?

[RandomGuy]

Additionally, you lied about the geological column. It is very much used today and often, and anyone with fingertips can google it. Not one evolutionist site will be able to tell you a universally acceptedly-accurate means to how they made it or why they go off of it.

Evolutionist website that lists a universally acceptedly accurate means as to how they made the geolgoical column and why they go off of it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD103.html

The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

I would further note that the authors specifically cited both the claim, and the "evolutionist" material that they based their statements on.

Claim CD103:
The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.

Source:
Huse, Scott, M., 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, p. 14.

Response:
The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.


The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.
Links:
Ritland, Richard, 1982. Historical development of the current understanding of the geologic column: part II. Origins 9(1): 28-50. http://www.grisda.org/origins/09028.htm

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...ood-gc.html#G2
References:
Ritland, R. 1982. (see above).
Further Reading:
Schneer, Cecil J., n.d. William "Strata" Smith on the web. http://www.unh.edu/esci/wmsmith.html

Young, Davis A., 1988. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Artisan Sales.

Further I would note that you yourself repeated, almost verbatim, the claim given in the quote above.

Please tell me how that creationist claim was either distorted or taken out of context.

[RandomGuy]

Truth is, you've been the more underhanded debater here by far, insulting me initially and being condescending from second 1. Instead of debating, you regurgitated statement after statement demanding "anti-proof", even after being rebuffed multiple times.

1) I have gone out of my way in the majority of my posts to avoid anything approaching condescension.

2) I have asked very basic, logical questions, and avoided as much as humanly possible, any loaded emotional language.

3) I do think you are straight up lying about the amount of time you have spent on a balanced view of this topic, and given your statements about "evolutionists" and the amount of creationist dogma you have attempted to pass off here, I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption.

Prove me wrong.

What do you find accurate about the theory of evolution? What do they get right?

4) Give me one concrete example of me demanding "anti-proof".

You make a lot of statements but can't back anything up.

I make my living evaluating other peoples' statement of facts, and whether those statements are supported by available evidence. You fail rather spectacularly in that regard, in my professional opinion.

[RandomGuy]

christ. all religions, every one of them.

doesnt mean we evolved.

The ultimate existance of God is indeed irrelevant to whether or not we evolved.

Assuming God doesn't exist, and that we didn't evolve, how DID we get here?

Do tell.