Will You Go on Record

[Roy]

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

You've been told how it would go down. You're just making up fantasies to avoid your shortcomings and justify your prejudice.

Roy

[Jorge]

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

I predict headline,

'SCIENTISTS RETHINK DATING'
A rock which was assumed to be 'Precambrian' has been misdated according to scientists.
"We know the rock cannot be "Precambrian" because of its traces of bunny rabbit fossilization, and we know mammals did not exist in the Precambrian...
and we know it is not unusual for a mistake to have occurred on that particular rock..."

As one scientist put it, "we date a lot of rocks, and we know, occasionally human error or malfunction will cause an incorrect date, ...and that is why we depend on a consilience of the evidence, the appearance of bunny rabbit fossils helped us to correct the dating on the rock!"

Very good, JR -- you definitely have the idea!!!

These people put the 'dis' into dishonesty.
Now try to get them to admit it.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Ah, yes. Deep dark conspiracy theories to silence The TROOTH™

One of the defining attributes that you're supporting a pseudoscience is when you start squawking about plots on the part of the worldwide scientific community to suppress and cover up the results.

You ignore the fact that if some scientist were to discover convincing evidence that evolutionary theory was wrong they would go down as one of the great scientists of their time. They could likely count on a Nobel Prize, all the funding that they could ever desire for whatever project struck their fancy and their pick of associates to assist them. Overturning something that everyone else accepts out of hand is just the sort of thing that scientists dream of.


Could it be due to the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted?:

Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition

Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

By the fourth edition Darwin had added that

"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

So while Darwin definitely generally favored slow and gradual change^[1] it should hardly have come to any surprise that rates of evolutionary change will be different for various organisms.










1. It should be noted that Darwin did not mean "perfectly smooth" when he wrote of gradual change but instead something more akin to "stepwise" -- with a populations of a species accumulating small changes over long periods of time until a new species was born.

Okay ... you've convinced me ... you ARE getting paid by the United Evolutionists of America to lobby and promote their agenda at every opportunity. You probably get paid by the word, hence your output volume. Come on .... 'fess up ... I won't tell.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Jorge and JR,

Maybe you should ask your competent professional YEC "scientists" to investigate Mississippian-Pennsylvania coal specimens for traces of angiosperm debris?

There's been a poop-load of coal studied. It looks really pretty in thin-sections under on a polarizing microscope. There have been lots of masters and Ph.D. theses written on the subject.

Why haven't them there evolutionist scientists found traces of angiosperms in Paleozoic strata? Atheist conspiracy perhaps?

Hmmm...

Oh, BTW -- you two might want to Google "Appalachian Cyclothems" and cogitate on how they are a ponderous problem for YECism.

But above all, don't ever let facts get in the way of your ideology.

We wouldn't want THAT.

K54

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay ... you've convinced me ... you ARE getting paid by the United Evolutionists of America to lobby and promote their agenda at every opportunity. You probably get paid by the word, hence your output volume. Come on .... 'fess up ... I won't tell.

Nothing of substance. Just a giant ad hominem. Par the course for you, isn't it?

[jordanriver]

................. all answered on the understanding that it was genuine.................



................Or will you continue to avoid doing what you request of others?

Roy

and I answer with the understanding that its genuine

like your POST 148

[jordanriver]

Jorge and JR,

Maybe you should ask your competent professional YEC "scientists" ...........

K54

I don't know about YEC scientists.
I know of scientists who also happen to believe Jesus who believed what Moses wrote.

....I don't know how old is universe , and neither do you.

[Roy]

and I answer with the understanding that its genuine

like your POST 148

You didn't answer at all.

Roy

[Roy]

....I don't know how old is universe , and neither do you.

I don't know how many people live in London, either. But I know it's more than six.

Roy

[jordanriver]

Quote Originally Posted by jordanriver View Post

Not how I see it.
it's the same as your "...with the understanding that it's genuine. .."

I did not write that.

Roy

POST 148

[QUOTE]

No, I don't. Nor does anything I have said in this thread indicate any such thing.

I would expect you to be initially skeptical; to demand full details; to wait for further investigation; to withhold judgment until a solid case was made. You could even refuse to accept any evidence until it was confirmed by the pope.

But that's irrelevant here, because the question is not the quality or authenticity of the evidence, but what that evidence consists of.

You asked those accepting evolution to go on record that finding a Cambrian rabbit would cause them to rethink their worldview. Many did, some with qualifications regarding species or number of 'rabbits'.
Not one chose to question the authenticity of the evidence; all answered on the understanding that it was genuine.

But when I ask you to go on record stating what evidence would cause you to rethink your worldview, you start querying whether the evidence is uncompelling, and whether it might be questionable. That's evasion.
FROM POST 148

[klaus54]

I don't know about YEC scientists.
I know of scientists who also happen to believe Jesus who believed what Moses wrote.

....I don't know how old is universe , and neither do you.

Well, I have a pretty good idea.

I also have a pretty good idea that Earth is a sphere which rotates one a day and revolves around the Sun once a year.

But then again I could be wrong.

In a pimply young teen alien living-in-its-mothers-basement "Fake Old Earth and Universe" video game.

But that would violate my personal philosophy of objective reality and rejection of category errors and solipsism.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

You never know.

You and YEC Bible God might be correct.

Whatever "correct" means in YEC Bible-Godism.

K54

[Roy]

POST 148

I know what I wrote. I also know it differed from what you 'quoted'. And now so do you.

Roy

[jordanriver]

I know what I wrote. I also know it differed from what you 'quoted'. And now so do you.

Roy

Yes, from memory I missed "on the" and put "with"

I guess that changed everything

[jordanriver]

Well, I have a pretty good idea.

I also have a pretty good idea that Earth is a sphere which rotates one a day and revolves around the Sun once a year. . . . . . . . .


K54

...you know, God loves you . . . .

. . . . .but I'm beginning to think you're a jerk . . . .

[klaus54]

...you know, God loves you . . . .

. . . . .but I'm beginning to think you're a jerk . . . .

Well, Dear -- sometimes the Truth stings.

And I'm interested in Truth.

I believe nature IS Creation, and logic a la scientific method is the way it is known beyond the aesthetic and faerie tale.

You apparently don't.

If the pursuit of richness of Truth evidenced in the stars and strata and silica makes me a jerk in your eyes, so be it.

But...

I thank God I've graduated beyond the Sundae Skool level of the Fisher-Price My-First-Picture-Bible(tm) version of Genesis.

But you -- you enjoy the Spanish Rice in the insular surrounding of the Baptist church picnic.

The Kool-Aid flows like water there.

K54

P.S. ~cough~ Appalachian cyclothems ~cough~

~cough~ History in the Rocks ~cough~