Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part III

There's a new edition, with more crap? OK, then I'm done with my multi-chapter breakdown. There's no point anymore as I have no intention of buying the revised edition and I doubt my annoying benefactor will provide me one.

Still, I wrote 31 blog posts regarding Darwin's Doubt and probably as many words as Meyer himself. I've found dozens of quotemines, many statements that are just flat out wrong and statements that Meyer has used from previous books from a decade ago.

And my mysterious benefactor still absolutely refuses to answer the question, "Why do you take Meyer seriously with all these mistakes?" He also can't point to anywhere in the book that Meyer actually supports intelligent design. He kept asking me to do this chapter and that chapter and every one is more wrong than the last.

At least I can finally say, "BLEEP it. I'm done."

Thanks for the comment, but please no cussing, at least not on page 1, comment 1 when people are still reading. PT is in part an educational resource. I bleeped it.

So if a CI of 0.384 means that there is significant phylogenetic signal. Then a Ci of 0.982 means the data is pretty good. So I guess Floyd was wrong again. The SINE insertion data for primate phylogeny is excellent.

Why is it that creationists are always wrong? Is it just chance? No, they would do better than that even if they guessed every time. So the null hypothesis is robustly rejected and there is no information in any creationist blubbering.

"The need to invoke hypothetical ghost lineages commonly arises when evolutionary biologists attempt to use cladistics to infer ancestors otherwise unattested by the fossil record. The reason for this is that the fossil record often reveals so-called stem groups arising contemporaneously with, or even after, crown groups. Theropod dinosaurs provide a classic example of this problem. They first appear in the fossil record millions of years after the birds that allegedly evolved from them."

Theropods first appeared during the Carnian age of the late Triassic period about 230 million years ago (Ma)

Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution?

Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

Sorry Nick. Won't happen again.

TomS, in the 1st edition, Meyer does make a comment (Chapter 11 I believe) that if evolution can't do it, then design could. There is an actual chapter (but only two! 17 and 18) on ID but they read like a pamphlet put out by ID. Nothing of substance (big shock).

Here's the links for my reviews (some partial) of them. http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/07/09/darwins-doubt-a-review/

”… the RCI and SCI metrics showed impressive left-skewing; the majority of cladograms tested show good congruence between cladistic and stratigraphic information. Cladists and stratigraphers may breathe easy: the cladistic method appears, on the whole, to be finding phylogenies that may be close to the true phylogeny of life, and the sequence of fossils in the rocks is not misleading. … it would be hard to explain why the independent evidence of the stratigraphic occurrence of fossils and the patterns of cladograms should show such striking levels of congruence if the fossil record and the cladistic method were hopelessly misleading.” (Benton and Hitchin 1997, p. 889)

Yes, I would certainly like to hear an alternative explanation. How do creationists explain this pattern? Hydrologic sorting? Really? Coincidence? Really?

This is a robust and statistically highly significant confirmation of an important prediction of the theory of evolution. Is there any viable alternative? Anything? Anything at all? No. Well then consider the case for evolution closed. Creationism loses once and for all. Again.

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

Stephen Meyer's Hopeless Monster?

Please tell me it's not another Twilight sequel.

"Theropod dinosaurs provide a classic example of this problem. They first appear in the fossil record millions of years after the birds that allegedly evolved from them."

Here Meyer is misquoting/misunderstanding an old an erroneous argument by the few paleornithologists (Alan Feduccia, Larry Martin, etc.) who thought birds didn't descend from dinosaurs. The argument was that the most bird-like theropods (e.g. Velociraptor, Deinonychus) lived later than the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx, thus birds couldn't have evolved from them. The "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs" group has about as much understanding of cladistics as creationists do though, in this case confusing ancestor-descendant relationships with common ancestry. No one ever claimed birds evolved from Velociraptor itself, only that Velociraptor and birds had a common ancestor that was itself a theropod dinosaur.

Of course, the 30 million year gap between Archaeopteryx and Deinonychus has closed completely since the 80s when that argument was first used, and now we have so many intermediates that it's hard to know if some complete skeletons are on the bird line or the Velociraptor/Deinonychus line. We even have species that lived before Archaeopteryx that seem pretty close to that common ancestor (e,g, Anchiornis, Aurornis, Eosinopteryx).

In 1999, we found out the Velociraptor/Deinonychus line had feathers, and when the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs group eventually accepted that, they accepted them as relatives of Archaeopteryx and modern birds, and suddenly the then 20 million year gap didn't matter anymore. So not only is Meyer using a terrible argument from a discredited group of scientists, he's using one even they don't believe anymore. It really is like a student scanning literature he doesn't understand.

While I'm here, one relevant thing that wasn't clear in your discussion of Consistency Indices is that when dealing with morphological studies such as the Cambrian 'explosion' examples, the CI is largely an artifact of which characters and taxa the authors chose to include. Sometimes authors will include mostly characters which support their own cladogram, and that results in a 'high' CI. Ideally, authors include characters that support rival hypotheses so that their analyses are actual tests of the strength of each competing cladogram. In these cases, the CI is 'low', but this is a good thing because more of the known data is being tested. In neither of these cases is the CI an actual value that exists in nature though, since we're always finding new species and new characters to add to studies. Now molecular studies on the other hand do have real CIs, since their characters are discrete nucleotide differences in a finite genome (though you'll still get a bit of variation depending on which taxa you use, and of course different parts of the genome have differing levels of noise).

ksplawn said:

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

Trilobites and dinosaurs each had their reign over the seas and land for hundreds of millions of years. Sounds to me like they were the focus of this first half of the marvelous show that is Life on Earth, and we humans (at less than a quarter of a million and already running into some existential problems) are a fleeting, ephemeral afterthought on a trip to the snack bar during the intermission.

The only place where I’ve seen the argument “my gut says that’s a low CI value, therefore cladistics doesn’t support common ancestry” before is from Casey Luskin, Meyer’s “research” assistant for Darwin’s Doubt. Meyer, get a new research assistant! Luskin, get educated before blabbing about technical topics you know nothing about!

Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away?

all that biologists can show is merely “reshuffling information.”

ksplawn said: Trilobites and dinosaurs each had their reign over the seas and land for hundreds of millions of years. Sounds to me like they were the focus of this first half of the marvelous show that is Life on Earth,

Mickey Mortimer said: "Theropod dinosaurs provide a classic example of this problem. They first appear in the fossil record millions of years after the birds that allegedly evolved from them." Here Meyer is misquoting/misunderstanding an old an erroneous argument by the few paleornithologists (Alan Feduccia, Larry Martin, etc.) who thought birds didn't descend from dinosaurs. The argument was that the most bird-like theropods (e.g. Velociraptor, Deinonychus) lived later than the earliest known bird Archaeopteryx, thus birds couldn't have evolved from them. The "Birds Are Not Dinosaurs" group has about as much understanding of cladistics as creationists do though, in this case confusing ancestor-descendant relationships with common ancestry. No one ever claimed birds evolved from Velociraptor itself, only that Velociraptor and birds had a common ancestor that was itself a theropod dinosaur. Of course, the 30 million year gap between Archaeopteryx and Deinonychus has closed completely since the 80s when that argument was first used, and now we have so many intermediates that it's hard to know if some complete skeletons are on the bird line or the Velociraptor/Deinonychus line. We even have species that lived before Archaeopteryx that seem pretty close to that common ancestor (e,g, Anchiornis, Aurornis, Eosinopteryx). In 1999, we found out the Velociraptor/Deinonychus line had feathers, and when the Birds Are Not Dinosaurs group eventually accepted that, they accepted them as relatives of Archaeopteryx and modern birds, and suddenly the then 20 million year gap didn't matter anymore. So not only is Meyer using a terrible argument from a discredited group of scientists, he's using one even they don't believe anymore. It really is like a student scanning literature he doesn't understand. While I'm here, one relevant thing that wasn't clear in your discussion of Consistency Indices is that when dealing with morphological studies such as the Cambrian 'explosion' examples, the CI is largely an artifact of which characters and taxa the authors chose to include. Sometimes authors will include mostly characters which support their own cladogram, and that results in a 'high' CI. Ideally, authors include characters that support rival hypotheses so that their analyses are actual tests of the strength of each competing cladogram. In these cases, the CI is 'low', but this is a good thing because more of the known data is being tested. In neither of these cases is the CI an actual value that exists in nature though, since we're always finding new species and new characters to add to studies. Now molecular studies on the other hand do have real CIs, since their characters are discrete nucleotide differences in a finite genome (though you'll still get a bit of variation depending on which taxa you use, and of course different parts of the genome have differing levels of noise).

The sort of obvious evidence that comes from phylogenetics has forced the more educated line of YECs into a hard-line "COMMON DESIGN COMMON DESIGN THAT'S THE ANSWER" approach, because they know nothing else will work for them. Conveniently, God common designed his way into creating what looks just like an evolutionary tree. No way to falsify that.

While I’m here, one relevant thing that wasn’t clear in your discussion of Consistency Indices is that when dealing with morphological studies such as the Cambrian ‘explosion’ examples, the CI is largely an artifact of which characters and taxa the authors chose to include. Sometimes authors will include mostly characters which support their own cladogram, and that results in a ‘high’ CI. Ideally, authors include characters that support rival hypotheses so that their analyses are actual tests of the strength of each competing cladogram. In these cases, the CI is ‘low’, but this is a good thing because more of the known data is being tested. In neither of these cases is the CI an actual value that exists in nature though, since we’re always finding new species and new characters to add to studies.

Now molecular studies on the other hand do have real CIs, since their characters are discrete nucleotide differences in a finite genome (though you’ll still get a bit of variation depending on which taxa you use, and of course different parts of the genome have differing levels of noise).

“… from a discredited group of scientists,” You might want to think about rephrasing that. Changing their minds when the evidence became utterly convincing, it seems to me they were operating in the best scientific tradition – quite credibly IOW.

david.starling.macmillan said: The sort of obvious evidence that comes from phylogenetics has forced the more educated line of YECs into a hard-line "COMMON DESIGN COMMON DESIGN THAT'S THE ANSWER" approach, because they know nothing else will work for them. Conveniently, God common designed his way into creating what looks just like an evolutionary tree. No way to falsify that.

david.starling.macmillan said: The sort of obvious evidence that comes from phylogenetics has forced the more educated line of YECs into a hard-line "COMMON DESIGN COMMON DESIGN THAT'S THE ANSWER" approach, because they know nothing else will work for them. Conveniently, God common designed his way into creating what looks just like an evolutionary tree. No way to falsify that.

eric said: All of biology and chemistry is just reshuffling atoms.* *Excepting, argubly, nuclear and radiochemistry.

DS said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The sort of obvious evidence that comes from phylogenetics has forced the more educated line of YECs into a hard-line "COMMON DESIGN COMMON DESIGN THAT'S THE ANSWER" approach, because they know nothing else will work for them. Conveniently, God common designed his way into creating what looks just like an evolutionary tree. No way to falsify that.

I must respectfully disagree. I don't think that common design solves the problem at all.

How can one discuss Meyer without cussing? That in itself would be a miracle!

I disagree with Nick's assessment that Meyer exhibits either a poor understanding of the material or mysterious research errors.

No, Meyer is like a skilled race car driver (making Luskin the crash test dummy. bah dum CHING!). Meyer sees the obstacles to his "thesis" as clearly as orange cones in the road and deftly steers around them.

My favorite assessment of Meyer was made by Marshall who observed that Meyer's work was a "systematic failure of scholarship."

All of those mined quotes in Doubt (and the rebuttal to critics), and all of the quotes with an ellipsis are mined, are skillfully cut and pasted together, sometimes from many pages apart. That's not accidental.

Doc Bill said: All of those mined quotes in Doubt (and the rebuttal to critics), and all of the quotes with an ellipsis are mined, are skillfully cut and pasted together, sometimes from many pages apart. That's not accidental.

eric said:

Doc Bill said: All of those mined quotes in Doubt (and the rebuttal to critics), and all of the quotes with an ellipsis are mined, are skillfully cut and pasted together, sometimes from many pages apart. That's not accidental.

So, you're saying you detect design? :)

OK wait- where is the evidence that natural selection and drift can account for the diversity of Cambrian organisms or any organisms? It isn't in peer-review and it isn't in biology textbooks, so where is it?

The point being is how can Meyer be wrong when there isn't any evidence that demonstrates that he is wrong?

Heck natural selection and drift can't get beyond populations of prokaryotes given populations of prokaryotes. And don't fool yourselves- endosymbiosis = nothing more than "it looks like it coulda been bacteria", and it doesn't explain the nucleus.

BTW Nick, how did you determine that the evolution of new genes was a happenstance event/ via natural selection and/ or drift? You do understand what is being debated, don't you?

So Nick ignores everything ID says and decides to prattle on regardless.

As for common design, we see that every day with building codes and engineering standards. No need to re-invent the wheel every time you want/ need a different organism.

That means the only people who argue against the concept are the same people who are the most ignorant of design venues.

Hi Joe.

I'll remind you that it's not ONE think in ONE paper that shows the evidence for evolution... it's thousands of things in millions of papers.

It's an inference, just like what ID claims to use. However, unlike ID, there is actual evidence that evolution occurs and that earlier populations changed into later populations.

Oh and I'll just add that "If the ID position is true, why does Meyer have to lie so much to support it?" The answer, of course, is that Meyer doesn't actually support the ID position. He attacks a strawman of evolution of his own creation and defends it with misrepresentations of actual science and taking quotes out of context from actual scientists.

Your last statement is the point. ID doesn't SAY anything. It's meaningless. And even if there was a designer... so what? What does that mean to the search for cures for cancer, or pest elimination, or better crops, or anything else that evolution is currently being used to work on and study.

I would really love to hear the ID processes for dealing with cancers.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnwsK3wlP8NWGKEz-zi8I95cJLbCdN-pWQ said: As for common design, we see that every day with building codes and engineering standards. But unlike those thing that we know to be designed, there is no need to start only from an organism that already exists every time you want to design a different organism. That means the only people who argue against the concept of evolution are the same people who are the most ignorant of how evolution works.

As for common design, we see that every day with building codes and engineering standards. No need to re-invent the wheel every time you want/ need a different organism.

Why do terrestrial fliers

Nick,

Has anything changed in the paperback other than adding the new chapter? If so, that would be like adding another deck chair to the Titanic after it had sunk.

And is that chapter available anywhere separate from the book? I would like to see it.

Hey, I've reviewed the original too, and my comments could be found here if anyone is interested. Other reviews, including yours, are reproduced at the same site.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: So why do genetically separated lines reinvent the wheel every time, unless lateral gene transfers occur (that is, in organisms where such transfers are known to occur today)? Why do terrestrial fliers possess wings that have no common design, save the homologies shared by tetrapods? Why do cephalopod eyes develop almost completely differently from vertebrate eyes? That's what always happens, though, they bleat "common design" while never explaining the lack of common design in characters that developed after lines separated.

DS said:

eric said:

Doc Bill said: All of those mined quotes in Doubt (and the rebuttal to critics), and all of the quotes with an ellipsis are mined, are skillfully cut and pasted together, sometimes from many pages apart. That's not accidental.

So, you're saying you detect design? :)

Absolutely. And the motives and methods of the just barely intelligent designer are abundantly clear.

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

“Theropod dinosaurs provide a classic example of this problem. They first appear in the fossil record millions of years after the birds that allegedly evolved from them.”

AKA "If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?"

reshen68 said: "… from a discredited group of scientists," You might want to think about rephrasing that. Changing their minds when the evidence became utterly convincing, it seems to me they were operating in the best scientific tradition – quite credibly IOW.

One simple example: Right after the discovery of Caudipteryx, oviraptorosaurs suddenly became flightless birds, and also were found to possess a host of avian synapomorphies. In the preceding decades, had one single BANDit ever remarked that Oviraptor might be a flightless bird itself? To my knowledge, no, even though all along it had possessed all those avian synapomorphies except one, the feathers (which we now presume to have been present but which were not preserved).

Well, this is like saying that an R^2 showing high correlation between dark clouds and rain isn't an actual value that exists in nature. It's possible that data in one region could show it, and data in another region could not. So yeah, CI is a statement about the data, but this is true of all statistics.

I think even the "low" CI values that might come from an "everything and the kitchen sink" approach to gathering data would still typically be high relative to the concerns creationists have -- since they think tree structure in the data is just made-up fibbing by evolutionists.

One other thing Meyer spends a lot of time on in his new chapter is the alleged subjectivity of character selection and character weighting. I just discussed character selection for Cambrian arthropods above, but on weighting, Legg et al. run their analyses with a bunch of different weighting schemes and get basically the same result. And apparently "weighting choice usually doesn't matter that much for the big picture" is the common result, or so I was told by phylogenetics professors, although of course it can affect details or weak datasets.

all that biologists can show is merely “reshuffling information.”

Jeffrey Shallit said:

all that biologists can show is merely “reshuffling information.”

Meyer hopelessly misunderstands what "information" is. Random reshuffling is one of the easiest ways to generate information (for example, in the Kolmogorov sense). Then again, Meyer makes statements like "Smith's number contains specified information or functional information, whereas Jones's does not; Smith's number has information content, whereas Jones' number has only information-carrying capacity (or Shannon information)" and thinks that this shows his understanding.

Nick Matzke said:

Jeffrey Shallit said:

all that biologists can show is merely “reshuffling information.”

Meyer hopelessly misunderstands what "information" is. Random reshuffling is one of the easiest ways to generate information (for example, in the Kolmogorov sense). Then again, Meyer makes statements like "Smith's number contains specified information or functional information, whereas Jones's does not; Smith's number has information content, whereas Jones' number has only information-carrying capacity (or Shannon information)" and thinks that this shows his understanding.

Are there any real measures of "information content", or really, "meaning content", which is what the creationists really mean when they talk about information?

Meyer hopelessly misunderstands what “information” is.

— Jeffrey Shallit

harold said:

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

No. There can't be. The point of ID is to disguise, yet pander to, YEC fundamentalism. An explanation of what happened that is consistent with YEC would ruin the disguise. An explanation of what happened that is not consistent with YEC would ruin the pandering.

But the "disguise" is already in tatters anyway...

Sometimes other commenters offer the idea that ID advocates may not personally be YEC, that there are "Old Earth Creationists" (somewhere), and so on.

— harold

Frank J said: Maybe some of them (Nelson?) have also offered explanations that are consistent with YEC but not OEC, but I have not come across one in 17 years.

IDers may fear that rank-and-file OECs might go down that “slippery slope,” first conceding common descent, then theistic evolution, if they give too much thought to “what happened when” claims.

John Harshman said: Dembski has to be one or he loses his job; he once expressed doubts and was smacked down.

Jon Fleming said:

John Harshman said: Dembski has to be one or he loses his job; he once expressed doubts and was smacked down.

His contrition wasn't enough, he lost that job. He's a full-time DI flack now.

As you know, IDers occasionally do offer “an explanation of what happened that is not consistent with YEC,” as personal opinions, if not any official ID position

harold said: Of course, one example of any ID type other than Behe ever directly, unequivocally stating that YEC is wrong and not back-tracking will prove my statement here incorrect.

John Harshman said:

harold said: Of course, one example of any ID type other than Behe ever directly, unequivocally stating that YEC is wrong and not back-tracking will prove my statement here incorrect.

Actually, Behe alone would prove your statement incorrect. But Meyer has written an entire book that assumes the standard timeline to be correct (you know, the one the title of this post refers to). How can you possibly spin that into pandering to YEC? Now, I don't have the book handy, but I sure don't recall any weasel-words when it came to the age of the Cambrian explosion and a whole lot else. Meyer's an OEC, clearly.

So Meyer is clearly saying that YEC is wrong; it's just that he doesn't care that it's wrong.

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

By the way, another great rebuttal from Nick. Well done!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said:

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

The typical creationist answer would be the counter-question: "Who are you to decide how God should act? If God didn't do things the way you expect, does that mean he doesn't exist?" Creationists keep on moving the goalposts and evading arguments; it's quite difficult to get them to accept realities.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said: If God didn't do things the way you expect, does that mean he doesn't exist?"

John Harshman said: So Meyer is clearly saying that YEC is wrong; it's just that he doesn't care that it's wrong.

harold said:

John Harshman said: So Meyer is clearly saying that YEC is wrong; it's just that he doesn't care that it's wrong.

That's basically correct. So I defend my basic thesis that ID/creationists pander to YEC, and that any actual strong advocacy for any mainstream science is notably lacking. I think that for someone whose ostensible topic is evolution - albeit denial of evolution - to not care much about the time scale is pretty damning. Time scale is, of course, a fundamental aspect of the theory of evolution. The gist of his comments is that he agrees much more with YEC evolution deniers than with mainstream scientists. And I think "not caring" says a great deal about his personal psychology. I doubt if he's a self-aware con man. I can't prove he isn't, but doubt that. However, it is clear that he's a glib, superficial advocate against evolution, rather than someone who is psychologically capable of thinking clearly about the topic. And that he emphasizes being on the "same side" as YEC evolution deniers.

harold said: And as I noted above, "Cambrian Explosion" is a constant meme from all ID/creationist types. Its use in no way implies strong defense of a scientifically dated age for the Earth.

John Harshman said:

harold said: And as I noted above, "Cambrian Explosion" is a constant meme from all ID/creationist types. Its use in no way implies strong defense of a scientifically dated age for the Earth.

Yes, but whenever a YEC mentions the Cambrian explosion, you can point out that they don't actually believe that any such thing happened, and that if they admitted that such a thing happened, they would also have to admit at least to faunal succession and probably to deep time.

That seems rather advanced reasoning for a YEC. At least I've never seen one try it.

The "Cambrian explosion" talking point from YEC circles is more along these lines:

"There's a sudden appearance of life in the evolutionarily-constructed geologic timescale that the theory of evolution cannot explain. Therefore, either the construction is wrong or the theory is wrong. We say that both are wrong, and we can explain the data by saying 'Global Flood! Global Flood!', so clearly our solution is a better one."

And the reply to that would be to ask just how a global flood would explain this "sudden appearance of life". How would a creationist handle that?

I think Tom is right. Claiming that a Cambrian explosion" ever happened is hugely problematic for a YEC. First they have to admit that real scientists discovered something real. Next they have to admit that it happened a really long time ago, which is not consistent with YEC. If not, then the scientists were completely wrong, so why are you listening to them in the first place? Third, they have to admit that the time scale over which it happened is also inconsistent with YEC. Fourth, they have to admit that no vertebrates of any kind were produced, so once again, the timing is completely incompatible with any YEC scenario. It is only a problem for evolution if it is completely misrepresented and it is never consistent with YEC. So, one way or the other, they are screed if they ever admit to any kind of a "Cambrian explosion".

John Harshman said: And the reply to that would be to ask just how a global flood would explain this "sudden appearance of life". How would a creationist handle that?

DS said: I think Tom is right. Claiming that a Cambrian explosion" ever happened is hugely problematic for a YEC. First they have to admit that real scientists discovered something real. Next they have to admit that it happened a really long time ago, which is not consistent with YEC. If not, then the scientists were completely wrong, so why are you listening to them in the first place? Third, they have to admit that the time scale over which it happened is also inconsistent with YEC. Fourth, they have to admit that no vertebrates of any kind were produced, so once again, the timing is completely incompatible with any YEC scenario. It is only a problem for evolution if it is completely misrepresented and it is never consistent with YEC. So, one way or the other, they are screed if they ever admit to any kind of a "Cambrian explosion".

david.starling.macmillan said:

John Harshman said: And the reply to that would be to ask just how a global flood would explain this "sudden appearance of life". How would a creationist handle that?

By claiming that in Flood Geology, fossil record depth doesn't represent time, but burial order. Anything lower than the Cambrian is primordially-created, pre-flood rock and therefore naturally lacks fossils of life. The first layer to be laid down was the "really simple" sea life. And stuff. Which is really convenient. They pull out the magic wands of "differential burial" and "escape to higher ground" and "hydrologic sorting" in sequence whenever it's pointed out to them that floods simply don't do the sort of thing they claim they do.

DS said: It is only a problem for evolution if it is completely misrepresented

one way or the other, they are screed [sic] if they ever admit to any kind of a "Cambrian explosion".

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said: [They claim] that in Flood Geology, fossil record depth doesn't represent time, but burial order. Anything lower than the Cambrian is primordially-created, pre-flood rock and therefore naturally lacks fossils of life. The first layer to be laid down was the "really simple" sea life. And stuff. Which is really convenient. They pull out the magic wands of "differential burial" and "escape to higher ground" and "hydrologic sorting" in sequence whenever it's pointed out to them that floods simply don't do the sort of thing they claim they do.

And, of course, such "explanations" violate the Creationist "2nd Law of Thermodynamics", that order can only come from the deliberate act of an intelligent designer. Do you think that they really realize that there are "natural" means of producing order, but somehow manage to suppress that realization when it's inconvenient?

DS said: I think Tom is right. Claiming that a Cambrian explosion" ever happened is hugely problematic for a YEC. First they have to admit that real scientists discovered something real. Next they have to admit that it happened a really long time ago, which is not consistent with YEC. If not, then the scientists were completely wrong, so why are you listening to them in the first place? Third, they have to admit that the time scale over which it happened is also inconsistent with YEC. Fourth, they have to admit that no vertebrates of any kind were produced, so once again, the timing is completely incompatible with any YEC scenario. It is only a problem for evolution if it is completely misrepresented and it is never consistent with YEC. So, one way or the other, they are screed if they ever admit to any kind of a "Cambrian explosion".

david.starling.macmillan said:

John Harshman said: And the reply to that would be to ask just how a global flood would explain this "sudden appearance of life". How would a creationist handle that?

By claiming that in Flood Geology, fossil record depth doesn't represent time, but burial order. Anything lower than the Cambrian is primordially-created, pre-flood rock and therefore naturally lacks fossils of life. The first layer to be laid down was the "really simple" sea life. And stuff. Which is really convenient. They pull out the magic wands of "differential burial" and "escape to higher ground" and "hydrologic sorting" in sequence whenever it's pointed out to them that floods simply don't do the sort of thing they claim they do.

John Harshman said: Are there no post-creation, pre-flood sediments? And a related question: has any creationist ever presented a clear statement of which rocks are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood?

david.starling.macmillan said:

John Harshman said: Are there no post-creation, pre-flood sediments? And a related question: has any creationist ever presented a clear statement of which rocks are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood?

They all disagree wildly. Some will make bold statements, others hem-haw around; they all end up contradicting and disproving each other.

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said: [They claim] that in Flood Geology, fossil record depth doesn't represent time, but burial order. Anything lower than the Cambrian is primordially-created, pre-flood rock and therefore naturally lacks fossils of life. The first layer to be laid down was the "really simple" sea life. And stuff. Which is really convenient. They pull out the magic wands of "differential burial" and "escape to higher ground" and "hydrologic sorting" in sequence whenever it's pointed out to them that floods simply don't do the sort of thing they claim they do.

And, of course, such "explanations" violate the Creationist "2nd Law of Thermodynamics", that order can only come from the deliberate act of an intelligent designer. Do you think that they really realize that there are "natural" means of producing order, but somehow manage to suppress that realization when it's inconvenient?

They would say that the "order" was already there in the divisions of the biosphere in the pre-flood Earth. They envision a single preflood supercontinent, ringed by many miles of tropical marshes and lagoons and reefs, surrounded by an ocean hosting millions of square miles of floating forest. Then, when the Flood started, every burial region (which were subsequently shuffled around the globe by catastrophically rapid plate tectonics) was some layered sequence of those biomes. They simply have no concept of how ordered the geologic column actually is; they think it's mostly chaotic and mixed-up and that any supposed order is just selection bias. I'll get into this in my next couple of posts in the ongoing series, actually.

Scott F said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said: [They claim] that in Flood Geology, fossil record depth doesn't represent time, but burial order. Anything lower than the Cambrian is primordially-created, pre-flood rock and therefore naturally lacks fossils of life. The first layer to be laid down was the "really simple" sea life. And stuff. Which is really convenient. They pull out the magic wands of "differential burial" and "escape to higher ground" and "hydrologic sorting" in sequence whenever it's pointed out to them that floods simply don't do the sort of thing they claim they do.

And, of course, such "explanations" violate the Creationist "2nd Law of Thermodynamics", that order can only come from the deliberate act of an intelligent designer. Do you think that they really realize that there are "natural" means of producing order, but somehow manage to suppress that realization when it's inconvenient?

They would say that the "order" was already there in the divisions of the biosphere in the pre-flood Earth. They envision a single preflood supercontinent, ringed by many miles of tropical marshes and lagoons and reefs, surrounded by an ocean hosting millions of square miles of floating forest. Then, when the Flood started, every burial region (which were subsequently shuffled around the globe by catastrophically rapid plate tectonics) was some layered sequence of those biomes. They simply have no concept of how ordered the geologic column actually is; they think it's mostly chaotic and mixed-up and that any supposed order is just selection bias. I'll get into this in my next couple of posts in the ongoing series, actually.

And the world wide K/T boundary layer with the iridium-enhanced clay layer? And chalk deposits? And salt domes? And the amount of energy required to move continents at a running pace, which would also be enough to melt them? Not only super-evolution, but super-continental drift as well. It would be amusing to know when they think the continents moved: before or after the geologic column was deposited. With the energy levels required, there could not possibly be anything other than basaltic or metamorphic [?] rock. There certainly could not be any unmelted sedimentary stone. Sigh...

John Harshman said:

DS said: I think Tom is right. Claiming that a Cambrian explosion" ever happened is hugely problematic for a YEC. First they have to admit that real scientists discovered something real. Next they have to admit that it happened a really long time ago, which is not consistent with YEC. If not, then the scientists were completely wrong, so why are you listening to them in the first place? Third, they have to admit that the time scale over which it happened is also inconsistent with YEC. Fourth, they have to admit that no vertebrates of any kind were produced, so once again, the timing is completely incompatible with any YEC scenario. It is only a problem for evolution if it is completely misrepresented and it is never consistent with YEC. So, one way or the other, they are screed if they ever admit to any kind of a "Cambrian explosion".

It puzzles me that you think Tom is right and then follow that with a paragraph that seems to exactly contradict his point. Can you explain?

TomS said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said:

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

The typical creationist answer would be the counter-question: "Who are you to decide how God should act? If God didn't do things the way you expect, does that mean he doesn't exist?" Creationists keep on moving the goalposts and evading arguments; it's quite difficult to get them to accept realities.

And I ask, "Who are you to decide how God should act?" I was not saying how I don't think God should act the way He did. What I was asking about the creationist claim to have an explanation of how things happen. It is fair game to say to someone who says that such-and-such accounts for so-and-so: "How did so-and-so happen?" In particular, when the "explanation" says "anything at all is possible for God", then I don't see how you can account for this rather than that. You can't that God had to do this - unless you are deciding how God should act. I was pointing out a number of things that did happen. And you are saying that you have an explanation. I am asking you for your explanation of why God did it. If you didn't claim to have an explanation, then I wouldn't ask you for your explanation. But if you think you know why God did it, then let's hear your explanation why.

eric said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said: If God didn't do things the way you expect, does that mean he doesn't exist?"

In a sense, yes. But I would phrase the answer this way: if God doesn't do things the way your theology tells us he does things, that means your theology is wrong. Which is the cue for all the examples of 'omnibenevolent' Yahweh calling for and committing genocide.

TomS said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/hHXYfJpysYHQ3610gllC7ldTYTqv#37db0 said:

TomS said: Is there any suggestion as to what happened, if it wasn't evolution? Anything about why Intelligent Designers would resort to these contrivances, when they are presumably able to do lots of things? Why bother to design things like trilobites and dinosaurs, only to have them go away? Why make animals one way, and then resort to design to improve on the original idea? What would it look like if we were there when one of the designs were implemented?

The typical creationist answer would be the counter-question: "Who are you to decide how God should act? If God didn't do things the way you expect, does that mean he doesn't exist?" Creationists keep on moving the goalposts and evading arguments; it's quite difficult to get them to accept realities.

And I ask, "Who are you to decide how God should act?" I was not saying how I don't think God should act the way He did. What I was asking about the creationist claim to have an explanation of how things happen. It is fair game to say to someone who says that such-and-such accounts for so-and-so: "How did so-and-so happen?" In particular, when the "explanation" says "anything at all is possible for God", then I don't see how you can account for this rather than that. You can't that God had to do this - unless you are deciding how God should act. I was pointing out a number of things that did happen. And you are saying that you have an explanation. I am asking you for your explanation of why God did it. If you didn't claim to have an explanation, then I wouldn't ask you for your explanation. But if you think you know why God did it, then let's hear your explanation why.

They claim to detect design without knowledge of the methods or limits of the designer? Not to mention the engineer(s) that implemented it?

Funny, I don't know of any way of detecting design without that as background.

Maybe I'm missing something?

Henry J said: They claim to detect design without knowledge of the methods or limits of the designer? Not to mention the engineer(s) that implemented it? Funny, I don't know of any way of detecting design without that as background. Maybe I'm missing something?

What materials, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air, fire, water, and earth, pay obedience and submit to the will of the architect? Cicero, De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) I, 18.9.

Response to the response:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/exactly_a_year_086901.html

PS: LOL...

From the response to the response:

"It's like the note from the doctor or your mom that gets you out of school on the day of the big test. You may be home watching reruns on TV, but meanwhile in the classroom the test goes on. The questions it asks still matter, and eventually you'll be called on to answer them."

I could not have said it better myself. The creationists skipped class, (all classes apparently), and yet they still blubber on about things you know nothing about. They have already been called to answer for their lies and they have already been found wanting.

John Harshman said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

John Harshman said: Are there no post-creation, pre-flood sediments? And a related question: has any creationist ever presented a clear statement of which rocks are pre-flood, flood, and post-flood?

They all disagree wildly. Some will make bold statements, others hem-haw around; they all end up contradicting and disproving each other.

Can you provide some references to concrete hypotheses?

Scott F said:

david.starling.macmillan said: They envision a single preflood supercontinent, ringed by many miles of tropical marshes and lagoons and reefs, surrounded by an ocean hosting millions of square miles of floating forest. Then, when the Flood started, every burial region (which were subsequently shuffled around the globe by catastrophically rapid plate tectonics) was some layered sequence of those biomes. They simply have no concept of how ordered the geologic column actually is; they think it's mostly chaotic and mixed-up and that any supposed order is just selection bias. I'll get into this in my next couple of posts in the ongoing series, actually.

And the world wide K/T boundary layer with the iridium-enhanced clay layer? And chalk deposits? And salt domes?

And the amount of energy required to move continents at a running pace, which would also be enough to melt them? Not only super-evolution, but super-continental drift as well. It would be amusing to know when they think the continents moved: before or after the geologic column was deposited. With the energy levels required, there could not possibly be anything other than basaltic or metamorphic [?] rock. There certainly could not be any unmelted sedimentary stone.

TomS said: I don't think many people have any idea of the mass of data backing up, for example, the geological time-line. Museums have a limited amount of space, and are dealing with a population with a limited attention span, to exhibit, say, the changes in some invertebrate group over many millions of years. I don't know that many people would be interested in seeing fossil rain drop impressions.

For serious scholarly scientific work WHAT is there here for a YEC to get grips on?
Its all about comparing critters on details of the body.
From a common design model it would be expected /predicted that everything be in a continuum of the use of basic plans in biology.!
Its a error, however sincere, to INSTEAD say these likeness of parts ONLY could be because of common descent.
Its just a line of reasoning and thats all it is. Even if it was true.

Robert Byers said: For serious scholarly scientific work WHAT is there here for a YEC to get grips on? Its all about comparing critters on details of the body. From a common design model it would be expected /predicted that everything be in a continuum of the use of basic plans in biology.! Its a error, however sincere, to INSTEAD say these likeness of parts ONLY could be because of common descent. Its just a line of reasoning and thats all it is. Even if it was true.

Its all about comparing critters on details of the body.

Well all Booby has to do is provide an explanation that explains the observed pattern better than the theory of common descent. Until then he can be ignored. Absolutely no one is ever going to be fooled by his mindless blubbering. And if they are, they deserve to be.

DS said: Well all Booby has to do is provide an explanation that explains the observed pattern better than the theory of common descent. Until then he can be ignored. Absolutely no one is ever going to be fooled by his mindless blubbering. And if they are, they deserve to be.

I was referring specifically to the congruence between stratigraphy and phylogeny. but sure, you actually need to explain nested genetic hierarchies and all of the other evidence better than the theory of evolution as well. Bobby boy has never even attempted this, let alone succeeded. That is why he should be ignored. He doesn't even know the name of the game. never mind the rules. He couldn't play even if he wanted to. You would have thought that he would have at least read the post in order to know what he was disagreeing with, but to him I guess that disagreement is really all that matters. After all, he didn't watch the Cosmos series either.

TomS said:

DS said: Well all Booby has to do is provide an explanation that explains the observed pattern better than the theory of common descent. Until then he can be ignored. Absolutely no one is ever going to be fooled by his mindless blubbering. And if they are, they deserve to be.

We can be more liberal. No one(*) has as yet provided an account of what happened, when and where and how, which account does not include common descent(**), yet explains some of the major features of the world of life, such as the nested hierarchy ("tree of life"). Once we get yet such an account, then we can compare that account with evolutionary biology: Does it explain as much? Does it do a better job of explaining what it does explain? What sort of evidence can we look for to distinguish that account? What sort of research program does it suggest? (*) To be complete, there is the account known as the Omphalos hypothesis, which says that the world was created at its beginning with all the appearances of having had a history. (**) There are theories of common descent which differ in the mechanism: Random variation with natural selection; Elan vital, Inheritance of acquired traits; Symbiosis; Neutral variation; Divine direction; and others.

Robert Byers said: Oh no. There is no evidence in a tree of lifew for evolution. If so how? All you are doing is looking at like traits and saying thats the evidence for evolutin because HOW ELSE could it happen.?! Its just guessing. Its just saying that because everything has eyeballs then its proof we came from common descent with a original eyeball creature. In fact God would also make eyeballs aplenty on a common design. Creationism easily predicts biology trees . In any case neither is biological scientific evidence but only lines of reasoning using very basic data points.

Robert Byers said: Oh no. There is no evidence in a tree of lifew for evolution. If so how? All you are doing is looking at like traits and saying thats the evidence for evolutin because HOW ELSE could it happen.?! Its just guessing. Its just saying that because everything has eyeballs then its proof we came from common descent with a original eyeball creature. In fact God would also make eyeballs aplenty on a common design. Creationism easily predicts biology trees . In any case neither is biological scientific evidence but only lines of reasoning using very basic data points.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

DS said: Well all Booby has to do is provide an explanation that explains the observed pattern better than the theory of common descent. Until then he can be ignored. Absolutely no one is ever going to be fooled by his mindless blubbering. And if they are, they deserve to be.

We can be more liberal. No one(*) has as yet provided an account of what happened, when and where and how, which account does not include common descent(**), yet explains some of the major features of the world of life, such as the nested hierarchy ("tree of life"). Once we get yet such an account, then we can compare that account with evolutionary biology: Does it explain as much? Does it do a better job of explaining what it does explain? What sort of evidence can we look for to distinguish that account? What sort of research program does it suggest? (*) To be complete, there is the account known as the Omphalos hypothesis, which says that the world was created at its beginning with all the appearances of having had a history. (**) There are theories of common descent which differ in the mechanism: Random variation with natural selection; Elan vital, Inheritance of acquired traits; Symbiosis; Neutral variation; Divine direction; and others.

Oh no. There is no evidence in a tree of lifew for evolution. If so how? All you are doing is looking at like traits and saying thats the evidence for evolutin because HOW ELSE could it happen.?! Its just guessing. Its just saying that because everything has eyeballs then its proof we came from common descent with a original eyeball creature. In fact God would also make eyeballs aplenty on a common design. Creationism easily predicts biology trees . In any case neither is biological scientific evidence but only lines of reasoning using very basic data points.

TomS said: I was asking for an account for the undoubted fact that life as we know forms a specified complex pattern, the "tree of life" - an account which does not involve common descent - and I recognize that Omphalism is one such account - so either those are the only choices or somebody can suggest another

But all we got was “it’s just guessing” and “only lines of reasoning”.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

DS said: Well all Booby has to do is provide an explanation that explains the observed pattern better than the theory of common descent. Until then he can be ignored. Absolutely no one is ever going to be fooled by his mindless blubbering. And if they are, they deserve to be.

We can be more liberal. No one(*) has as yet provided an account of what happened, when and where and how, which account does not include common descent(**), yet explains some of the major features of the world of life, such as the nested hierarchy ("tree of life"). Once we get yet such an account, then we can compare that account with evolutionary biology: Does it explain as much? Does it do a better job of explaining what it does explain? What sort of evidence can we look for to distinguish that account? What sort of research program does it suggest? (*) To be complete, there is the account known as the Omphalos hypothesis, which says that the world was created at its beginning with all the appearances of having had a history. (**) There are theories of common descent which differ in the mechanism: Random variation with natural selection; Elan vital, Inheritance of acquired traits; Symbiosis; Neutral variation; Divine direction; and others.

Oh no. There is no evidence in a tree of lifew for evolution. If so how? All you are doing is looking at like traits and saying thats the evidence for evolutin because HOW ELSE could it happen.?! Its just guessing. Its just saying that because everything has eyeballs then its proof we came from common descent with a original eyeball creature. In fact God would also make eyeballs aplenty on a common design. Creationism easily predicts biology trees . In any case neither is biological scientific evidence but only lines of reasoning using very basic data points.

I was asking for an account for the undoubted fact that life as we know forms a specified complex pattern, the "tree of life" - an account which does not involve common descent - and I recognize that Omphalism is one such account - so either those are the only choices or somebody can suggest another Given that this is a specified (that is to say, it makes the prediction that all life that we discover, whether extinct or extant, will find its place in the pattern) and complex (a lot more complex than an eye or a flagellum), it is worthwhile to look for an account other than chance (or "that's the way it is", or "supernatural agency could account for anything"). You say that evolutionary biology is just guessing. I disagree, but even just guessing is better than nothing at all. (For one thing, "guessing" is a first step in standard Baconian science.) Right now, I'd just like to know if it isn't evolution or Omphalos, what is it? I am asking for a scenario of what happened and when. I'd like to know what it was like when the first cattle appeared - was there a whole herd, with cows and their calves, with memories of how to find a watering hole, chewing their cud, swatting away flies? I'd like to know when the first eyes appeared and what things were like then for those animals that suddenly got this great sense, so that they could better escape their predators, find their food, recognize potential mates: was there a population explosion? Whatever. Just present a scenario. I won't object if you say that God did it. I just want to know what it is that God did. Oh, I just might be tempted to ask if, because God made humans on the "common plan" as chimps and other apes (rather than, say, with eyes like insects or octopuses or potatoes), is that because of (1) chance (God's ways being indistinguishable from chance) (2) constraints on what God could do, or might do (3) a "common purpose" for humans, chimps, and other apes. But let's not worry about that right now. First of all, what happened?

So that would be a no. You still have no idea how to explain the observed pattern. Got it. Piss off.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

DS said: Well all Booby has to do is provide an explanation that explains the observed pattern better than the theory of common descent. Until then he can be ignored. Absolutely no one is ever going to be fooled by his mindless blubbering. And if they are, they deserve to be.

We can be more liberal. No one(*) has as yet provided an account of what happened, when and where and how, which account does not include common descent(**), yet explains some of the major features of the world of life, such as the nested hierarchy ("tree of life"). Once we get yet such an account, then we can compare that account with evolutionary biology: Does it explain as much? Does it do a better job of explaining what it does explain? What sort of evidence can we look for to distinguish that account? What sort of research program does it suggest? (*) To be complete, there is the account known as the Omphalos hypothesis, which says that the world was created at its beginning with all the appearances of having had a history. (**) There are theories of common descent which differ in the mechanism: Random variation with natural selection; Elan vital, Inheritance of acquired traits; Symbiosis; Neutral variation; Divine direction; and others.

Oh no. There is no evidence in a tree of lifew for evolution. If so how? All you are doing is looking at like traits and saying thats the evidence for evolutin because HOW ELSE could it happen.?! Its just guessing. Its just saying that because everything has eyeballs then its proof we came from common descent with a original eyeball creature. In fact God would also make eyeballs aplenty on a common design. Creationism easily predicts biology trees . In any case neither is biological scientific evidence but only lines of reasoning using very basic data points.

I was asking for an account for the undoubted fact that life as we know forms a specified complex pattern, the "tree of life" - an account which does not involve common descent - and I recognize that Omphalism is one such account - so either those are the only choices or somebody can suggest another Given that this is a specified (that is to say, it makes the prediction that all life that we discover, whether extinct or extant, will find its place in the pattern) and complex (a lot more complex than an eye or a flagellum), it is worthwhile to look for an account other than chance (or "that's the way it is", or "supernatural agency could account for anything"). You say that evolutionary biology is just guessing. I disagree, but even just guessing is better than nothing at all. (For one thing, "guessing" is a first step in standard Baconian science.) Right now, I'd just like to know if it isn't evolution or Omphalos, what is it? I am asking for a scenario of what happened and when. I'd like to know what it was like when the first cattle appeared - was there a whole herd, with cows and their calves, with memories of how to find a watering hole, chewing their cud, swatting away flies? I'd like to know when the first eyes appeared and what things were like then for those animals that suddenly got this great sense, so that they could better escape their predators, find their food, recognize potential mates: was there a population explosion? Whatever. Just present a scenario. I won't object if you say that God did it. I just want to know what it is that God did. Oh, I just might be tempted to ask if, because God made humans on the "common plan" as chimps and other apes (rather than, say, with eyes like insects or octopuses or potatoes), is that because of (1) chance (God's ways being indistinguishable from chance) (2) constraints on what God could do, or might do (3) a "common purpose" for humans, chimps, and other apes. But let's not worry about that right now. First of all, what happened?

God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

Robert Byers said: God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

It is interesting that what anyone can do (and it isn't only our correspondent, but the same for the most "sophisticated" deniers of evolution) is complain about evolution. I'm not making an unrealistic request: If not evolution, then what? Read any book about "Intelligent Design", or any essay about "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" and you see they cannot go far without mentioning evolution. Without evolution to complain about, they have, literally, nothing to say.

Byers is always very delicately balanced. Reading him is to walk a fine line between outrage, hilarity and pity. One is almost persuaded, in places, that that is the effect he actually intends; and if it is, I can only congratulate a writer of genius, engaged in the production of high art.

Dave Luckett said: Byers is always very delicately balanced. Reading him is to walk a fine line between outrage, hilarity and pity. One is almost persuaded, in places, that that is the effect he actually intends; and if it is, I can only congratulate a writer of genius, engaged in the production of high art.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

It is interesting that what anyone can do (and it isn't only our correspondent, but the same for the most "sophisticated" deniers of evolution) is complain about evolution. I'm not making an unrealistic request: If not evolution, then what? Read any book about "Intelligent Design", or any essay about "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" and you see they cannot go far without mentioning evolution. Without evolution to complain about, they have, literally, nothing to say.

Your incessant whining and idiotic mumbling is making creationism the target. Thats the big error that is coming to a end in our time. other mechanisms and biological boundaries will in the future define the issues. biological change is real and evolution is real. it was welcomed centuries ago and it didn't have anything to do with Genesis. It is founded on biological scientific investigation and on valid lines of reasoning from basic biological data points and also a series of other biological subjects like fossils, biogeography, genetics, etc etc. All pure investigation of biological processes. Therefore evolution is a scientific theory and a well supported hypothesis. Creationism, on the other hand, is nothing but an ancient myth with no evidence to support it. It is completely non-biological. It is subatomic and unproven. If it didn't have the theory of evolution to complain about, it would have nothing to do.

booby,

every time you post without addressing the main issue of this thread you expose the fact that you are wrong and you know you are wrong. keep it up booby keep exposing yourself its hilarious

oh and booby, we know that you don't think that fossils are "biological" (even though it has been pointed out to you that they still have DNA) And we know that you think that genetics is "atomic and unproven" (that one is still good for a laugh) but how in the name of all that is unholy so you figure that "BIOgeography" is "non-biological"??? maybe you are the one who is "non-biological" are you a prototype robot?

Prototype robot? What are the specifications for this, uh, robot?

Henry J said: Prototype robot? What are the specifications for this, uh, robot?

A Moron for Jesus said: No pure investigation of biological processes however. Therefore evolution is not a scientific theory but a unsupported hypothesis.

DS said: booby, every time you post without addressing the main issue of this thread you expose the fact that you are wrong and you know you are wrong. keep it up booby keep exposing yourself its hilarious

TomS said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

It is interesting that what anyone can do (and it isn't only our correspondent, but the same for the most "sophisticated" deniers of evolution) is complain about evolution. I'm not making an unrealistic request: If not evolution, then what? Read any book about "Intelligent Design", or any essay about "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" and you see they cannot go far without mentioning evolution. Without evolution to complain about, they have, literally, nothing to say.

What is your account of what happens in the world of life that makes it have this variety? And this question is directed only to this poster, but anyone else. (I have a couple of suggestions, if anyone would like a hint.)

It is, of course, no use asking Byers questions, because he doesn't think about things he doesn't think about. But "biology (having) mechanisms to change itself" and evolution are different, how?

(I can think of one way - evolution has natural selection to explain why "biology" changes itself, and divine creation doesn't have an explanation for it. But that's about it.)

So with one part of his mind Byers knows that living things evolve, and with another, he knows they don't, and he can't see a problem with this.

This is your mind on fundamentalist religion.

But to be fair, his present mental state may have been a pre-existing condition. He was then easy prey for those who promulgate fundamentalist religion. In this sense he might be like one of those zombie caterpillars whose bodies and minds are taken over by a virus such that they are no longer responsible for their own actions. Fairness requires we consider this possibility.

Perhaps he simply can't help himself in his present state.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

It is interesting that what anyone can do (and it isn't only our correspondent, but the same for the most "sophisticated" deniers of evolution) is complain about evolution. I'm not making an unrealistic request: If not evolution, then what? Read any book about "Intelligent Design", or any essay about "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" and you see they cannot go far without mentioning evolution. Without evolution to complain about, they have, literally, nothing to say.

What is your account of what happens in the world of life that makes it have this variety? And this question is directed only to this poster, but anyone else. (I have a couple of suggestions, if anyone would like a hint.)

There was originally a perfect creation with kinds of biology. After the fall, unrelated to the creator, biology had the innate mechanisms to maintain itself and thus much was changed. after the flood biology still had mechanisms to change itself and too some extent did. People are the example of innate mechanisms to change our looks very quickly with no evolution needed.

prongs said: But to be fair, his present mental state may have been a pre-existing condition. He was then easy prey for those who promulgate fundamentalist religion. In this sense he might be like one of those zombie caterpillars whose bodies and minds are taken over by a virus such that they are no longer responsible for their own actions. Fairness requires we consider this possibility. Perhaps he simply can't help himself in his present state.

I have a question for Robert.

Let's pretend that I walk into a forest that I've never been in before. I have a chain saw. I find a tree that I don't like the looks of, and I cut it down.

Robert: How old was that tree when I cut it down? How could I estimate the age of the tree?

Another simple question for Robert:

The Pythagorean Theorem is just a line of reasoning. Every mathematical proof is just a line of reasoning.

Should we stop teaching mathematics, because it is "just a line of reasoning"? If not, why not?

david.starling.macmillan said:

John Harshman said: And the reply to that would be to ask just how a global flood would explain this "sudden appearance of life". How would a creationist handle that?

By claiming that in Flood Geology, fossil record depth doesn't represent time, but burial order. Anything lower than the Cambrian is primordially-created, pre-flood rock and therefore naturally lacks fossils of life. The first layer to be laid down was the "really simple" sea life. And stuff. Which is really convenient. They pull out the magic wands of "differential burial" and "escape to higher ground" and "hydrologic sorting" in sequence whenever it's pointed out to them that floods simply don't do the sort of thing they claim they do.

Scott F said: There are pollen grains in every strata where we find fossils of land animals. There are the fossils of ferns and plant leaves in every strata.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: God created biology in kinds. Its excellent that biology is off the same rack. All biology shows that common design is a fundamental law in biology. Just like laws in physics. Every connection you bring up showing traits alike between different creatures will fit fine with common design. Common descent is based only on a guess for why same creatures are alike in traits despite being different in other ways. Its just a line of reasoning. There is NO evidence in trees or nests of biology for how they came to be that way. Yet evolutionists intellectually carelessly presumed this likeness hasd only one option. Common descent. then they thought this conclusion counted as biological scientific evidence. There is no bio sci evidence for evolution. I've never seen any on the Pandas thumb. EVER. Its just optical illusions of bio sci.

It is interesting that what anyone can do (and it isn't only our correspondent, but the same for the most "sophisticated" deniers of evolution) is complain about evolution. I'm not making an unrealistic request: If not evolution, then what? Read any book about "Intelligent Design", or any essay about "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" and you see they cannot go far without mentioning evolution. Without evolution to complain about, they have, literally, nothing to say.

What is your account of what happens in the world of life that makes it have this variety? And this question is directed only to this poster, but anyone else. (I have a couple of suggestions, if anyone would like a hint.)

There was originally a perfect creation with kinds of biology. After the fall, unrelated to the creator, biology had the innate mechanisms to maintain itself and thus much was changed. after the flood biology still had mechanisms to change itself and too some extent did. People are the example of innate mechanisms to change our looks very quickly with no evolution needed.

Let's just try to concentrate on one part of this: "There was originally a perfect creation with kinds of biology." What does that mean? In particular, did that few-days old creation (I am assuming that you mean that, although you did say that) have the appearance of having a prior existence, as if there were animals with signs of having been born, with knowledge that was like that acquired by experience, that there was water in various stages of the water-cycle (water in lakes and rivers, rivers with channels and deltas, humidity in the atmosphere, maybe even clouds, oceans with salt)? When the cattle-kind was created, was it like the evolutionary common ancestor of the bovids, or were there several distinct species and genera of bovids: cattle, antelopes, sheep, goats, gazelles, bisons, buffalos?

Scott F said: Another simple question for Robert: The Pythagorean Theorem is just a line of reasoning. Every mathematical proof is just a line of reasoning. Should we stop teaching mathematics, because it is "just a line of reasoning"? If not, why not?

thats right booby biology isnt really science it doesnt start with hypothesis and then apply a methodology to establish confidence its only lines of reasoning from raw data, no experiments, no tests of any hypothesis, nothing like that. because of course no biologist is a real scientist. they all just become stupid when trying to do biology because they all want it to be true.

so booby, i guessing you have never read an article in a scientific journal or ever read any biology of an kind. so how would you know? all you have is a line of reasoning not based on raw data. what you have described is exactly what you have done, not biology. but then you already admitted that when you refused to answer the question about the observed pattern now didnt you? not my fault, urines.

Robert Byers said: YEs. on creation week all was created and done and ready for living. What cattle were and in what kinds is not known. I don't see the problem here. Everything was as if a artist today made a painting of a fully functioning plains and forests.

Does anyone else find it amusing that booby chooses a thread about a rigorous statistical test of a hypothesis to claim that biology contains no hypothesis testing? Does anyone else find it amusing that he choose the thread where the predictions of the theory were dramatically confirmed, using multiple independent lines of evidence, to claim that there is no methodology to confirm conclusions? Does anyone think that this guy can even read, let alone develop a "line of reasoning"? The evidence would seem to confirm that he is incapable of anything but rote parroting.

I find it amusing that booby thinks that his mindless strings of words are anything but simple-minded gibberish.

I mean, he's too stupid even for almost any creationists to back up or encourage, like third-graders wondering at the incompetence of a first-grader.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: I find it amusing that booby thinks that his mindless strings of words are anything but simple-minded gibberish. I mean, he's too stupid even for almost any creationists to back up or encourage, like third-graders wondering at the incompetence of a first-grader. Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: Off thread but not my fault.

Tree huggers would be standing with signs declaring the age of the dead tree.

seriously the age would be judged by counting rings etc. That would be the evidence for the age in a modern environment.

yes that math thing is a logical deduction from accepted presumptions in numbers and their meanings. Its a line of reasoning. math is not like science however.

science is about a hunch/hypothesis and then a methodology to establish confidence in some conclusion.

Evolution tries to say its a science but its really just lines of reasoning from raw data.

Evolution has never had applied to it scientific methodology because its so desired and persuasive based on the surface of it to those who want it to be true.

DS said: Does anyone else find it amusing that booby chooses a thread about a rigorous statistical test of a hypothesis to claim that biology contains no hypothesis testing? Does anyone else find it amusing that he choose the thread where the predictions of the theory were dramatically confirmed, using multiple independent lines of evidence, to claim that there is no methodology to confirm conclusions? Does anyone think that this guy can even read, let alone develop a "line of reasoning"? The evidence would seem to confirm that he is incapable of anything but rote parroting.

Robert Byers said: seriously the age [of the tree] would be judged by counting rings etc. That would be the evidence for the age in a modern environment.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: seriously the age [of the tree] would be judged by counting rings etc. That would be the evidence for the age in a modern environment.

Okay. Let's go with that. You would count the tree rings. Let's say that you didn't cut the tree down, but instead you found a whole tree already lying on the ground when you arrived. How old was the tree when it fell down? How could you tell?

Scott F
I saw the iNNER fish show and no science was demonstrated in the connecting of these fossils.

A modern envirorment allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings. JUst as people lived hundreds of years but thier bodies didn't decay like ours quickly and so no accurate age count could come by looking at bones for them if they were found.

science is a methodology to raise the standard of investigation and so confidence in its conclusions.
Its not like math at all. its not mere lines of reasoning from raw data.
All investigation of everybody everyday is just raw data and reasoning. Yet it is not scientific investigation. A cut above.
Science is about a high and direct attention to the subject.
So in evolution it must be about biology processes and results and this from careful observation or careful analysis of data collected.
its not mere data gathering and reasoning and poof a hypothesis becomes a theory.
its a more intelligent and exhaustive investigation or don't call the conclusion a theory.
Evolution never had applied to it scientific biological standards.
it was just a hunch and raw data and lines of reasoning from and too the raw data.
thats why it must lean on geology, biogeography, genetics, morphology, etc etc to make its case.
there is no BIOLOGICAL scientific evidence for processes and results as evolutionary biology says and calls itself a theory.

Robert Byers said: Scott F I saw the iNNER fish show and no science was demonstrated in the connecting of these fossils.

A modern envirorment allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings. JUst as people lived hundreds of years but thier bodies didn't decay like ours quickly and so no accurate age count could come by looking at bones for them if they were found.

science is a methodology to raise the standard of investigation and so confidence in its conclusions. Its not like math at all. its not mere lines of reasoning from raw data. All investigation of everybody everyday is just raw data and reasoning. Yet it is not scientific investigation. A cut above. Science is about a high and direct attention to the subject.

So in evolution it must be about biology processes and results and this from careful observation or careful analysis of data collected.

its not mere data gathering and reasoning and poof a hypothesis becomes a theory.

its a more intelligent and exhaustive investigation or don't call the conclusion a theory. Evolution never had applied to it scientific biological standards.

it was just a hunch and raw data and lines of reasoning from and too the raw data. thats why it must lean on geology, biogeography, genetics, morphology, etc etc to make its case.

there is no BIOLOGICAL scientific evidence for processes and results as evolutionary biology says and calls itself a theory.

Robert Byers said: Scott F I saw the iNNER fish show and no science was demonstrated in the connecting of these fossils.

A modern envirorment allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings. JUst as people lived hundreds of years but thier bodies didn't decay like ours quickly and so no accurate age count could come by looking at bones for them if they were found.

science is a methodology to raise the standard of investigation and so confidence in its conclusions. Its not like math at all. its not mere lines of reasoning from raw data. All investigation of everybody everyday is just raw data and reasoning. Yet it is not scientific investigation. A cut above. Science is about a high and direct attention to the subject. So in evolution it must be about biology processes and results and this from careful observation or careful analysis of data collected. its not mere data gathering and reasoning and poof a hypothesis becomes a theory. its a more intelligent and exhaustive investigation or don't call the conclusion a theory. Evolution never had applied to it scientific biological standards. it was just a hunch and raw data and lines of reasoning from and too the raw data. thats why it must lean on geology, biogeography, genetics, morphology, etc etc to make its case. there is no BIOLOGICAL scientific evidence for processes and results as evolutionary biology says and calls itself a theory.

Oh, by the way, here are some theories, and I ask about why they are called theories:

*the theory of flight
*the theory of antennas
*the theory of the Earth
*the theory of sound
*the theory of AC circuits
*the atomic theory of matter
*the germ theory of disease
*the theory of the novel

Robert Byers said: A modern envirorment allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings.

Never underestimate the power of the human mind to deny reality. Evidence? You can always explain that away, just use silly word games. Arguments that shred your position, just parrot them back and accuse others of the same poor logic that you are using. Experts, they are all just deluded fools out to get you, so they can all be ignored. You were caught in a lie or proven to be completely wrong? Just repeat your assertions until people get fed up and go away.

See, booby has yet to actually address the topic of this thread. He has no explanation whatsoever for the correlation between phylogeny and stratigraphy. But what does he do? Does he admit he was wrong? Does he admit that there is biological evidence" Does he concede that this is a rigorous statistical test of a scientific hypothesis? No, he just ignores all of that and blubbers on and on about imaginary crap like the magic flood or the magic fall. And in so doing, he demonstrates exactly the same thing he accuses other of.

Somewhere, some time, someone pointed out that booby has no biological evidence for any of his crazy ideas. Ever since then, all he can do is parrot the same line back at anyone he disagrees with. Never mind that it is complete and total idiocy to try to claim that fossils and genetics are not biological, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that he can close his eyes and scream it as loud as he can. To him that probably makes it real. Pity the fool.

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said: A modern envirorment allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings.

So Robert, how many rings can a tree have before the number ceases to be a reliable way of establishing its age? How old would a tree with 6000 rings actually be? What was the ring structure in the trees Noah used? And how many rings did the trees in Eden have on the morning of Day 7?

TomS said: Oh, by the way, here are some theories, and I ask about why they are called theories: *the theory of flight *the theory of antennas *the theory of the Earth *the theory of sound *the theory of AC circuits *the atomic theory of matter *the germ theory of disease *the theory of the novel

Robert Byers said:

Dave Lovell said:

Robert Byers said: A modern envirorment allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings.

So Robert, how many rings can a tree have before the number ceases to be a reliable way of establishing its age? How old would a tree with 6000 rings actually be? What was the ring structure in the trees Noah used? And how many rings did the trees in Eden have on the morning of Day 7?

The trees again!!! I said that in a previous healthy and so different environment, growth is not judged by yearly growth. they could grow so well that numerous and more rings could be made. in a pre flood world or maybe a while after. If trees were made by God then no rings at creation week.

Robert Byers said:

TomS said: Oh, by the way, here are some theories, and I ask about why they are called theories: *the theory of flight *the theory of antennas *the theory of the Earth *the theory of sound *the theory of AC circuits *the atomic theory of matter *the germ theory of disease *the theory of the novel

'The novel" anyways. These are true theories of science. Yet evolution is not in thier league. Genetics, biogeography, morphology , are not biological evidence for biological processes. They are all moment instances of biological data only. evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution. Yet there is no biological scientific evidence. That is THERE is no careful studious attention to biological evidence for biological processes. There is just data points and lines of reasoning . Creationists can use the same data points for creationist conclusions. yet also not doing sci bio investigation. Science is real and biology is real. Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process. Truly evolutionism is based on connecting the dots yet claiming it has tested the inbete=ween the dots to prove the dots are connected and how they were. Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

Still no explanation booby? Just keep spouting lines of reasoning about trees then.

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

I have to amusingly agree with Robert on this one. Using data to draw connections and hypothesize mechanisms is, in fact, what scientists often do. One person's bug is another person's feature, I guess.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Right again. Science is mostly data combined with lines of reasoning.

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Well, except for those pesky fossils of processes...

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

So, to be a science theory, creationism must show the process by which God created?

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

I have to amusingly agree with Robert on this one. Using data to draw connections and hypothesize mechanisms is, in fact, what scientists often do. One person's bug is another person's feature, I guess.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Right again. Science is mostly data combined with lines of reasoning.

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Well, except for those pesky fossils of processes...

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

So, to be a science theory, creationism must show the process by which God created?

Creationism has the same problem as the others. its difficult to do science on past and gone processes and results. We do as much or as little as anyone however. However its evolutionism that CLAIMS to be a scientific theory. in fact its a unsupported hypothesis still. It trys to use non biological evidences to make a biological scientific case for evolution. Thats why they fail to persuade people. Fossils, genetics, morphology, biogeography, are all snapshot data points. they don't demonstrate biological scientific evidence for evolution. There is no such evidence as its untrue and couldn't possibly have the higher standard of evidence called science. They connect the dots and persuade themselves they are doing science like physics folks etc. They ain't.

So when creationists try to use any of this evidence, you are going to tell them that it is "non-biological" and that they can't prove anything that way, aren't you booby? You are going to tell creationists who make nonsensical arguments about tree rings that it's all just a line of reasoning aren't you booby? You aren't going to be complete hypocrite and apply some kind of idiotic double standard now are you booby? That's what I thought. Piss off.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

I have to amusingly agree with Robert on this one. Using data to draw connections and hypothesize mechanisms is, in fact, what scientists often do. One person's bug is another person's feature, I guess.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Right again. Science is mostly data combined with lines of reasoning.

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Well, except for those pesky fossils of processes...

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

So, to be a science theory, creationism must show the process by which God created?

Creationism has the same problem as the others. its difficult to do science on past and gone processes and results. We do as much or as little as anyone however. However its evolutionism that CLAIMS to be a scientific theory. in fact its a unsupported hypothesis still. It trys to use non biological evidences to make a biological scientific case for evolution. Thats why they fail to persuade people. Fossils, genetics, morphology, biogeography, are all snapshot data points. they don't demonstrate biological scientific evidence for evolution. There is no such evidence as its untrue and couldn't possibly have the higher standard of evidence called science. They connect the dots and persuade themselves they are doing science like physics folks etc. They ain't.

Have you got any alternative to the ToE, Robert Byers? Do you have any theory which explains both sickle cell anemia and acquired immunity to antibiotics in bacteria? Do you have some explanation which works for both blind cave fish and those peppered moths? No, of course you do not. All you have is stupid, stupid, stupid denial.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

I have to amusingly agree with Robert on this one. Using data to draw connections and hypothesize mechanisms is, in fact, what scientists often do. One person's bug is another person's feature, I guess.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Right again. Science is mostly data combined with lines of reasoning.

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Well, except for those pesky fossils of processes...

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

So, to be a science theory, creationism must show the process by which God created?

Creationism has the same problem as the others. its difficult to do science on past and gone processes and results. We do as much or as little as anyone however. However its evolutionism that CLAIMS to be a scientific theory. in fact its a unsupported hypothesis still. It trys to use non biological evidences to make a biological scientific case for evolution. Thats why they fail to persuade people. Fossils, genetics, morphology, biogeography, are all snapshot data points. they don't demonstrate biological scientific evidence for evolution. There is no such evidence as its untrue and couldn't possibly have the higher standard of evidence called science. They connect the dots and persuade themselves they are doing science like physics folks etc. They ain't.

Have you got any alternative to the ToE, Robert Byers? Do you have any theory which explains both sickle cell anemia and acquired immunity to antibiotics in bacteria? Do you have some explanation which works for both blind cave fish and those peppered moths? No, of course you do not. All you have is stupid, stupid, stupid denial.

These are trivial details relative to the glory of biology. Anyways its up to your side to demonstrate evolution is a biological scientific theory and in doing that DO a damn good job of making your case for a unlikely option. To beat up evolution we don't have to have a alternative. We do. however creationists are in effect doing ACCURATE peer review on these crazy lazy summer day ideas.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

I have to amusingly agree with Robert on this one. Using data to draw connections and hypothesize mechanisms is, in fact, what scientists often do. One person's bug is another person's feature, I guess.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Right again. Science is mostly data combined with lines of reasoning.

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Well, except for those pesky fossils of processes...

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

So, to be a science theory, creationism must show the process by which God created?

Creationism has the same problem as the others. its difficult to do science on past and gone processes and results. We do as much or as little as anyone however. However its evolutionism that CLAIMS to be a scientific theory. in fact its a unsupported hypothesis still. It trys to use non biological evidences to make a biological scientific case for evolution. Thats why they fail to persuade people. Fossils, genetics, morphology, biogeography, are all snapshot data points. they don't demonstrate biological scientific evidence for evolution. There is no such evidence as its untrue and couldn't possibly have the higher standard of evidence called science. They connect the dots and persuade themselves they are doing science like physics folks etc. They ain't.

Have you got any alternative to the ToE, Robert Byers? Do you have any theory which explains both sickle cell anemia and acquired immunity to antibiotics in bacteria? Do you have some explanation which works for both blind cave fish and those peppered moths? No, of course you do not. All you have is stupid, stupid, stupid denial.

These are trivial details relative to the glory of biology. Anyways its up to your side to demonstrate evolution is a biological scientific theory and in doing that DO a damn good job of making your case for a unlikely option. To beat up evolution we don't have to have a alternative. We do. however creationists are in effect doing ACCURATE peer review on these crazy lazy summer day ideas.

Robert Byers said: We do.

Mike Elzinga said:

Robert Byers said: We do.

Sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing but jealous kvetching and mooning of all passersby who have good ideas is not called science.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: evolutionists simply use this data and DRAW connections and hypothesis mechanism called evolution.

I have to amusingly agree with Robert on this one. Using data to draw connections and hypothesize mechanisms is, in fact, what scientists often do. One person's bug is another person's feature, I guess.

There is just data points and lines of reasoning .

Right again. Science is mostly data combined with lines of reasoning.

Fossils,morphology, genes are only a snapshot in time and show nothing of process or trails of origins by biological process.

Well, except for those pesky fossils of processes...

Indeed even if true it would be hard to show process however to be a science theory one must pay the price.

So, to be a science theory, creationism must show the process by which God created?

Creationism has the same problem as the others. its difficult to do science on past and gone processes and results. We do as much or as little as anyone however. However its evolutionism that CLAIMS to be a scientific theory. in fact its a unsupported hypothesis still. It trys to use non biological evidences to make a biological scientific case for evolution. Thats why they fail to persuade people. Fossils, genetics, morphology, biogeography, are all snapshot data points. they don't demonstrate biological scientific evidence for evolution. There is no such evidence as its untrue and couldn't possibly have the higher standard of evidence called science. They connect the dots and persuade themselves they are doing science like physics folks etc. They ain't.

Have you got any alternative to the ToE, Robert Byers? Do you have any theory which explains both sickle cell anemia and acquired immunity to antibiotics in bacteria? Do you have some explanation which works for both blind cave fish and those peppered moths? No, of course you do not. All you have is stupid, stupid, stupid denial.

These are trivial details relative to the glory of biology. Anyways its up to your side to demonstrate evolution is a biological scientific theory and in doing that DO a damn good job of making your case for a unlikely option. To beat up evolution we don't have to have a alternative. We do. however creationists are in effect doing ACCURATE peer review on these crazy lazy summer day ideas.

You see, Robert Byers, the ToE does explain why the beaks of the finches change size on the Galapagos, and, using the same mechanism, explains sickle cell anemia. The mechanism also explains blind cave fish. It also explains acquired bacteriological immunity to antibiotics, and it explains a million other facts about the real world of living things. All are explained by the same Theory of Evolution. The theory works. That is why we say it is an accomplishment of scientific genius, Robert Byers. Of course, you cannot grasp the magnitude of that accomplishment, and you certainly can offer nothing to rival it. All you have are your empty denials, useless, futile, laughable.

Keep it up booby. This is hilarious. A perfect glimpse into the deluded creationist mind.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said: You see, Robert Byers, the ToE does explain why the beaks of the finches change size on the Galapagos, and, using the same mechanism, explains sickle cell anemia. The mechanism also explains blind cave fish. It also explains acquired bacteriological immunity to antibiotics, and it explains a million other facts about the real world of living things. All are explained by the same Theory of Evolution. The theory works. That is why we say it is an accomplishment of scientific genius, Robert Byers. Of course, you cannot grasp the magnitude of that accomplishment, and you certainly can offer nothing to rival it. All you have are your empty denials, useless, futile, laughable.

You are picking favourite few cases that show minor natural selection if that. Yet evolution lives on mutations to turn bugs into buffalos. Fish into people with fishy ideas. creationism welcomes and redicts natural selection can do minor things. It could only be this way in nature. Yet its trivial. Its not evidence for the great claims of evolutionism. Its a grand flop of a hunch. These days are seeing it come undone by two attacking forces. genesis creationists , who are more organized and powerful then ever, and smaller iD researchers full of degrees behind their names and who can reach educated audiences by books etc etc. I don't think evolution will last 15 years at most.

Robert Byers said: You are picking favourite few cases that show minor natural selection if that.

Yet evolution lives on mutations to turn bugs into buffalos.

Fish into people with fishy ideas.

creationism welcomes and redicts natural selection can do minor things. It could only be this way in nature. Yet its trivial.

Its not evidence for the great claims of evolutionism.

Its a grand flop of a hunch.

These days are seeing it come undone by two attacking forces. genesis creationists , who are more organized and powerful then ever,

and smaller iD researchers full of degrees behind their names and who can reach educated audiences by books etc etc.

I don't think evolution will last 15 years at most.

PA Poland said: And now, THE standard creationut delusion :

I don't think evolution will last 15 years at most.

Creationuts have been saying that for over 150 years ! They were always certain that 'evolution is on its last legs !!!!' or 'evolution will fall within 10 years !!1!1!!' They were wrong then, they are wrong now, and will BE wrong in the future - unless, of course, they can get off their bibles (or their self-presented laurels) and find actual EVIDENCE that magical creatorism is right and every scientist who has ever studied evolution is wrong ...

Robert Byers said: Scott F I saw the iNNER fish show and no science was demonstrated in the connecting of these fossils.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: seriously the age [of the tree] would be judged by counting rings etc. That would be the evidence for the age in a modern environment.

Okay. Let's go with that. You would count the tree rings. Let's say that you didn't cut the tree down, but instead you found a whole tree already lying on the ground when you arrived. How old was the tree when it fell down? How could you tell?

What with the tree stuff?? If its on the ground then its decay is the clues.

A modern envirorment [sic] allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings.

PA Poland said: They were wrong then, they are wrong now, and will BE wrong in the future - unless, of course, they can get off their bibles (or their self-presented laurels) and find actual EVIDENCE that magical creatorism is right and every scientist who has ever studied evolution is wrong ...

I love it when creobots predict the immanent demise of the TOE. They never seem to get that it is probably the most well supported theory in modern science.

I would bet that the theory of gravity will be overturned before evolution is.

booby wrote:

"A modern envirorment [sic] allows tree rings to tell the tale. However a different environment, pre flood or post flood for a while, could have massive greater growth that would not be recorded accurately by yearly rings."

What's the matter booby, no midnight dump last night? Are you constipated? Well, while your stool softener works, how about answering a few questions? I know you are allergic to them, but just give it a try anyway.

What is a tree ring? How does it form? In what type of environment would the number of tree rings per year vary? How are the rings from different trees correlated? How are they put together to create a continuous record of history? How is this record tested using independent data sets?

You do know that the formation of tree rings is a biological process don't you? you do know that we can observe their formation, right now, in real time, right before your very eyes don't you? You do know that your make believe scenario is nothing but a faulty line of reasoning with no biological evidence don't you? So, is you is or is you ain't just a lying hypocrite? I will take your non response as an affirmative answer.

To my knowledge, Robert has never explained what he considers to be "biological evidence". All he's ever done is to say that Science never uses "biological evidence". Genetics, bio-geographical diversity or distribution, metabolism, reproduction, development, none of these things meet Robert's definition of "biological evidence". It seems to simply be a mystery, especially to him.

Scott F said: To my knowledge, Robert has never explained what he considers to be "biological evidence". All he's ever done is to say that Science never uses "biological evidence". Genetics, bio-geographical diversity or distribution, metabolism, reproduction, development, none of these things meet Robert's definition of "biological evidence". It seems to simply be a mystery, especially to him.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: Scott F I saw the iNNER fish show and no science was demonstrated in the connecting of these fossils.

Hi Robert, Let me summarize the 4 steps that I think Science involves. First, form an hypothesis and (most importantly), define a test that will either support, or disconfirm your hypothesis. Second, conduct the test you have proposed. That is, go gather some real world data. Third, analyze the data you have gathered, apply "a line of reasoning", and decide whether the data supports your hypothesis, or not. Fourth, and most importantly, revise your hypothesis based on the data and analysis. Please note Step #3 carefully: Apply "a line of reasoning" to the data that was gathered. This is a crucial, critical part of any process of Science. It is taught in any class in Science, from the first Science class in grade school, to the most advanced post doctoral program. It is also something that you denigrate, abhor, and do not believe in. That is your loss. But I digress. Back to Your Inner Fish. Nei Shubin and his compatriots proposed an hypothesis. Based on what the Theory of Evolution told them, on what the Theory of Geology told them about the rocks on the surface of the Earth, Shubin (et al) proposed an hypothesis. If the Theories of Evolution and Geology were correct, then they believed that if they went looking in this particular valley in a remote part of the world that no one else had explored, they might find certain kinds of fossils that would show transitional features between fish and land vertebrates. Second, they conducted the experiment. They went to this valley, and went looking for the fossils that their Hypothesis said that they might find. They found lots of fossils. They found one good one in particular. Third, they analyzed all of the data that they had gathered during their experiment. That is, they carefully analyzed all of the fossils, and all of the other trace evidence that they found in the rocks. And lo, they discovered that the fossils that they had found matched almost exactly with the kinds of fossils that they thought they might find. Fourth? Well, the show kind of stops there. I didn't read the book (let alone the scientific papers), so I don't know what other conclusions they may have reached. But what is clear is that the data they found supported their original hypothesis. Now, Robert, here's the thing. The entire show was about this event, this Scientific process: 1) Hypothesis; 2) Experiment; 3) Analysis; 4) Revision. This is how "historical science" works. 1) If my hunch is correct, then if I go look at "X", then I expect to find "Y". 2) I go to "X", and I find "Y". 3) I analyze "Y" for additional data. 4) Having found "Y" where I expected to find "Y", I conclude that my hunch was correct. It's called, "Forensic Science". (See? It's got the word "Science" right there in the name. Pretty cool, huh?) So, Robert. What part of the TV show did you sleep through? First, if you don't like my description of the Scientific Process, tell us in your own words what you believe the Scientific Process should be. Then, tell us how what Shubin did does not conform to your definition of the Scientific Process. You say that there is no "scientific" evidence for Evolution. How is what Shubin did *not* science, and how is the Tiktaalik fossil not "evidence"?

If the fossil record showed every parent giving birth to every child, and that child giving birth to its children - all the way from Homo Sapiens back to our ancestral fish, unbroken - would you accept that as 'proof' of evolution?

Would that convince you? (This is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying such a complete fossil record exists. I'm just asking the question, would that be enough evidence for you to say, yes evolution is true?)

Tell us oh wise one of the late night dumps, exactly what does creationism predict that has been confirmed? Exactly how many fossils has it predicted or discovered? Exactly how is confirming a prediction not testing a hypothesis? Exactly how do you explain the existence of this intermediate form? Exactly why do you think that you can just claim that it isn't a test of a hypothesis when every real scientist, including the ones who discovered the fossil, know that it is? Here is a hint for you booby, if the predictions were not true they would not have found the fossil! That is what we call predictive power. You got none. You lose. A creationist did not "hypothesis" the existence of the fish, a creationist did not find it. and no creationist can explain it. Common design doesn't explain it. Hydrologic sorting doesn't explain it. Creationism is nothing but lies and ignorance.

Exactly why can't you explain the correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny? This is dramatic confirmation of the "geologic deposition" that you have no explanation for. This is a rigorous statistical test of a hypothesis, you can't claim it isn't. Exactly what would it take for you to accept the obvious fact that evolution is real and realize that all you have is ignorance and stubborn denial? Evolution explains this, creationism does not. You lose again.

How about those tree rings booby? FIgured out what they are yet? Have you figured out that the only way to get more rings per year is to have more SEASONS per year? Have you got any evidence that there were more seasons per year before the magic flood, or after? Even anything from the bible? If this were somehow miraculously true, what predictions would you make about other things you would expect to find? Has anyone found any of them? Do you have any predictive power at all? No you don't, never did, never will. Just keep spouting ignorant nonsense booby. This is your brain on creationism.

All you have is a faulty line of reasoning. You have no biological evidence. You lose.

The test was NOT on a hypothesis that creatures evolved but rather the test was on a hypothesis that there was , in fossil form, a intermediate between two important types of creatures.

prongs said: If the fossil record showed every parent giving birth to every child, and that child giving birth to its children - all the way from Homo Sapiens back to our ancestral fish, unbroken - would you accept that as 'proof' of evolution? Would that convince you? (This is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying such a complete fossil record exists. I'm just asking the question, would that be enough evidence for you to say, yes evolution is true?)

Gods you're dumb, Byers.

That paper of yours was pitiful.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

The test was NOT on a hypothesis that creatures evolved but rather the test was on a hypothesis that there was , in fossil form, a intermediate between two important types of creatures.

Just so. But Robert the unfaithful hypocrite believes that a child that has genes like those of his parents actually is the result of a process of combining genes from both parents into the zygote, when it could have been the result of a miracle (actually, dumbass Robert might believe it's just a miracle, who knows how stupid he goes?). Sure, this is just Robert the moron who knows nothing but pseudoscientific tripe, but of course he's really doing nothing that the supposedly more sophisticated dolts of ID do. Basically, we have huge numbers of data points that fit together intelligently if evolution occurred naturally (or, to bring up a nonsense IDiot possibility, an intelligently-guided evolution that just looks like it's natural--no difference to our ability to know, hence the superfluous intelligence is discarded for our conclusions), but it all could have been done by magic instead, ergo, teach the controversy. Robert's just too dull to write as if introducing fictions as "possibilities" is anything but a science stopper. Everyone here knows (or should) that there are endless logical possibilities that could confound science, which is why we stick with known cause-effect processes for science--like reproduction. Robert and the IDiots all do the same, until it's a matter of origins, at which point we're supposed to suddenly bring in "causes" whose effects and controls aren't the least bit known, and pretend to infer the effects we see from basically an infinite set of effects. Too stupid to consider, except that so many people think that it makes sense, through ignorance, stupidity, or prior (unwarranted) assumptions. Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: I don't know what your [sic] talking about.

Robert Byers said:

prongs said: If the fossil record showed every parent giving birth to every child, and that child giving birth to its children - all the way from Homo Sapiens back to our ancestral fish, unbroken - would you accept that as 'proof' of evolution? Would that convince you? (This is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying such a complete fossil record exists. I'm just asking the question, would that be enough evidence for you to say, yes evolution is true?)

It would be evidence. Yet its not in question that they are in descent. Giving birth is proof of connection. In the fossil record stuff evolutionists use there is no evidence of descent. Only a claim of descent. No proof.

Robert Byers said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

The test was NOT on a hypothesis that creatures evolved but rather the test was on a hypothesis that there was , in fossil form, a intermediate between two important types of creatures.

Just so. But Robert the unfaithful hypocrite believes that a child that has genes like those of his parents actually is the result of a process of combining genes from both parents into the zygote, when it could have been the result of a miracle (actually, dumbass Robert might believe it's just a miracle, who knows how stupid he goes?). Sure, this is just Robert the moron who knows nothing but pseudoscientific tripe, but of course he's really doing nothing that the supposedly more sophisticated dolts of ID do. Basically, we have huge numbers of data points that fit together intelligently if evolution occurred naturally (or, to bring up a nonsense IDiot possibility, an intelligently-guided evolution that just looks like it's natural--no difference to our ability to know, hence the superfluous intelligence is discarded for our conclusions), but it all could have been done by magic instead, ergo, teach the controversy. Robert's just too dull to write as if introducing fictions as "possibilities" is anything but a science stopper. Everyone here knows (or should) that there are endless logical possibilities that could confound science, which is why we stick with known cause-effect processes for science--like reproduction. Robert and the IDiots all do the same, until it's a matter of origins, at which point we're supposed to suddenly bring in "causes" whose effects and controls aren't the least bit known, and pretend to infer the effects we see from basically an infinite set of effects. Too stupid to consider, except that so many people think that it makes sense, through ignorance, stupidity, or prior (unwarranted) assumptions. Glen Davidson

I don't know what your talking about.

I'm saying using fossils as biological scientific evidence for evolution MUST be done right. These cases are not testing a evolution hypothesis/theory as they think. They are only 'testing" a prediction of descent.

Yet what they find is not evidence for evolution but only a option that evolution took place. Its not bio sci evidence at all.

One can't falsify their test because their only option was that such fossils with like traits with others IS evidence of evolution.

its a trap of thinking.

Its not a test of evolutionary biology. Its only a test of a prediction of intermediates. YET other options nullify this discovered fossil and so disallow it as evidence of evolution from a scientific stance. also from a biological stance.

No biology going on here but connecting rock pictures.

Its not a accurate understanding of scientific methodology which exists to avoid wrong conclusions in important things.

Robert Byers said:

prongs said: If the fossil record showed every parent giving birth to every child, and that child giving birth to its children - all the way from Homo Sapiens back to our ancestral fish, unbroken - would you accept that as 'proof' of evolution? Would that convince you? (This is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying such a complete fossil record exists. I'm just asking the question, would that be enough evidence for you to say, yes evolution is true?)

It would be evidence. Yet its not in question that they are in descent. Giving birth is proof of connection. In the fossil record stuff evolutionists use there is no evidence of descent. Only a claim of descent. No proof.

"It would be evidence."

"Yet its not in question that they are in descent."

"Giving birth is proof of connection."

"In the fossil record stuff evolutionists use there is no evidence of descent."

"Only a claim of descent."

"No proof."

prongs said: If the Bible said evolution was true, would you accept it?

prongs said:

Robert Byers said:

prongs said: If the fossil record showed every parent giving birth to every child, and that child giving birth to its children - all the way from Homo Sapiens back to our ancestral fish, unbroken - would you accept that as 'proof' of evolution? Would that convince you? (This is a hypothetical question. I'm not saying such a complete fossil record exists. I'm just asking the question, would that be enough evidence for you to say, yes evolution is true?)

It would be evidence. Yet its not in question that they are in descent. Giving birth is proof of connection. In the fossil record stuff evolutionists use there is no evidence of descent. Only a claim of descent. No proof.

An unusual answer.

"It would be evidence."

It would be more than evidence. It would be proof, but you couldn't bring yourself to say it.

"Yet its not in question that they are in descent."

I suppose you are referring to my hypothetical example.

"Giving birth is proof of connection."

So you understand this much.

"In the fossil record stuff evolutionists use there is no evidence of descent."

Yes there is - in my hypothetical example there is proof of descent. But now you are switching to the real fossil record. There are indeed some rare fossils of mothers giving birth, but not in an unbroken chain. The real evidence of descent is that fossils in rock layers all around the world, above other fossils below, are the descendants of some of those fossils below. How else could the fossils get into different layers? (Remember, deeper layers are older than shallower layers.)

"Only a claim of descent."

I presumed you would accept my hypothetical example as proof of evolution, and you sort of agree, but couldn't bring yourself to say it. So you switched to the real fossil record where descent is understood by every genuine geologist - and everyone else except stubborn creationists.

"No proof."

My next question was going to be, "What evidence would you accept?" You have answered that question already. No evidence would convince you. Only if the Bible said evolution was true - only then would you accept evolution. If the Bible said evolution was true, would you accept it? Thanks for you answer.

Robert Byers said: ...the deposition of fossils is easily explained as in the same year by segregated flows in water.

Geology is study of things in the ground.

Fossils are in the ground.

Duh.

Geology and biology are both about things on the same planet, made of the same types of atoms and molecules, interacting with each other, and both producing evidence that is relevant to both subjects.

Gods you're dumb, Byers.

Why was my last comment moved to the hither regions? It was just a plain answer!
Is that a hint or something.

I have replied to Robert's post at the Bathroom Wall.

Robert Byers said: Why was my last comment moved to the hither regions? It was just a plain answer! Is that a hint or something.