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

[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."

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 Baugh and his former partner Don Patton assert that the boot contains "fossilized" bone and flesh, but other than the unpublished and unverified C.T. scans, have not provided any rigorous evidence to support these claims.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.

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.

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

[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 cir stantial 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.

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 ing baby just because someone stood up to your bull .

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 cir stantial 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.



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 ing baby just because someone stood up to your bull .

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, Pe io 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 cons ute 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 subs utes 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 cons ute 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 bull 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 bull 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.