Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Jose Fly]

How do you or any person who believes that each strata in the geologic column represents a certain period of time explain polystrate fossils?

Polystrate fossils? Are you serious? You're really digging into the archives of old creationist arguments, aren't you? I mean, geologists figured them out about a century ago!

Sheesh......

 

[JudgeRightly]

Polystrate fossils? Are you serious? You're really digging into the archives of old creationist arguments, aren't you? I mean, geologists figured them out about a century ago!

Sheesh......

So you're saying that all of the fossils that are polystrate were formed rapidly by water or volcanoes?

Hmm, that sounds awfully similar to how the Noachian Flood formed fossils... RAPIDLY!

 

[Jose Fly]

So you're saying that all of the fossils that are polystrate were formed rapidly by water or volcanoes?

Hmm, that sounds awfully similar to how the Noachian Flood formed fossils... RAPIDLY!

I'm saying that you bringing up polystrate fossils in an "Oh yeah? What about this?" manner is positively hilarious.

That you posed it as if it were an actual challenge to answer is testament to your profound ignorance.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm saying that you bringing up polystrate fossils in an "Oh yeah? What about this?" manner is positively hilarious.

That's nice. Perhaps you could address what I said in my previous comment?

That you posed it as if it were an actual challenge to answer is testament to your profound ignorance.

And there's the ad hominem.

Jose, do fossils being formed rapidly sound like millions of years or like a half-a-year-long flood?

 

[Jose Fly]

That's nice. Perhaps you could address what I said in my previous comment?

There's nothing to address. All you did was make an empty assertion.

And there's the ad hominem.

It's not an attack to point out your obvious ignorance. I mean, if you weren't ignorant on the subject, why did you have to ask?

Jose, do fossils being formed rapidly sound like millions of years or like a half-a-year-long flood?

Name a specific specimen and we'll discuss it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There's nothing to address. All you did was make an empty assertion.

I was responding to iouae's post, asking him a question, which he answered, but also wanted other people to answer. And you did. So what's the big deal?

It's not an attack to point out your obvious ignorance.

I'm certainly not ignorant on this subject, Jose. In fact, I had just finished looking up the evolutionists' response to the polystrate fossils before I posted my initial post on the subject.

I mean, if you weren't ignorant on the subject, why did you have to ask?

It's called discussion, Jose. Are you opposed to it?

Name a specific specimen and we'll discuss it.

Polystrates like Spines and Rare Schools of Fossilized Jellyfish: Previously, seven sedimentary layers in Wisconsin had been described as taking a million years to form. And because jellyfish have no skeleton, as Charles Darwin pointed out, it is rare to find them among fossils. But now, reported in the journal Geology, a school of jellyfish fossils have been found throughout those same seven layers. So, polystrate fossils that condense the time of strata deposition from eons to hours or months, include: - Jellyfish in central Wisconsin were not deposited and fossilized over a million years but during a single event quick enough to trap a whole school. (This fossil school, therefore, taken as a unit forms a polystrate fossil.)

So, Jose, if the seven layers of strata (which were previously thought to represent seven different eras) contain Jellyfish throughout those seven layers, and by your own admission (by posting the link), fossils can be formed rapidly, would that be evidence for a half-a-year-long flood? or would it be better fitting of millions of years?

In other words: Does the polystrate fossil of a school of jellyfish better represent a catastrophic flood or seven eras of laid down sediment?

 

[Jose Fly]

I was responding to iouae's post, asking him a question, which he answered, but also wanted other people to answer. And you did. So what's the big deal?

I'm certainly not ignorant on this subject, Jose. In fact, I had just finished looking up the evolutionists' response to the polystrate fossils before I posted my initial post on the subject.

I don't know if you realize this, but that's actually worse for you. Basically what you're saying is that you already knew geologists had explained polystrate fossils, but posed it as if it were a challenge anyways.

What exactly did you think would happen? Did you actually think your challenge would stump anyone?

It's called discussion, Jose. Are you opposed to it?

Next time do it honestly, rather than trying to play silly little games.

Polystrates like Spines and Rare Schools of Fossilized Jellyfish: Previously, seven sedimentary layers in Wisconsin had been described as taking a million years to form. And because jellyfish have no skeleton, as Charles Darwin pointed out, it is rare to find them among fossils. But now, reported in the journal Geology, a school of jellyfish fossils have been found throughout those same seven layers. So, polystrate fossils that condense the time of strata deposition from eons to hours or months, include: - Jellyfish in central Wisconsin were not deposited and fossilized over a million years but during a single event quick enough to trap a whole school. (This fossil school, therefore, taken as a unit forms a polystrate fossil.)

First, if you're going to copy from KGOV.com, at least give them credit.

Second, if you look at the paper they cite (CLICK HERE) it says nothing about polystrate fossils.

So, Jose, if the seven layers of strata (which were previously thought to represent seven different eras)

Except the paper doesn't say that at all. Instead, it talks of the strata in which the jellyfish fossils were found as being a tidal zone where "many beds were deposited" over time. This is supported by the ripples in the formation (CLICK HERE), which are entirely consistent with a beach/tidal zone environment. And those are the exact types of areas where we see mass die-offs of jellyfish today.

Simply put, KGOV.com has completely misrepresented the paper. Why do you think they did that?

contain Jellyfish throughout those seven layers, and by your own admission (by posting the link), fossils can be formed rapidly, would that be evidence for a half-a-year-long flood? or would it be better fitting of millions of years?

See above. You're being lied to. The only question now is, do you care?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nonsense per your usual. You probably think that Hitler was a "Christian" too.

Maybe originally. But the Nazis had ultimate designs on eliminating religion altogether

Are you claiming the church DID NOT imprison Galileo for his beliefs? If so, you're laughably misinformed. Par for the course for yourself, I suppose

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe originally. But the Nazis had ultimate designs on eliminating religion altogether

Are you claiming the church DID NOT imprison Galileo for his beliefs? If so, you're laughably misinformed. Par for the course for yourself, I suppose

What "the church"?

The organization falsely claiming to represent God....sure..

 

[Greg Jennings]

What "the church"?

The organization falsely claiming to represent God....sure..

So when ISIS attacked and killed innocent people, did you say "those aren't real muslims. They are false representatives of Islam"? I think not.

By the same logic, the Catholic Church represents Christianity. And they imprisoned Galileo for his "heretical" beliefs that were shown to be correct later


Pick up a book, bro. Learn something. ANYTHING

 

[Right Divider]

So when ISIS attacked and killed innocent people, did you say "those aren't real muslims. They are false representatives of Islam"? I think not.

By the same logic, the Catholic Church represents Christianity. And they imprisoned Galileo for his "heretical" beliefs that were shown to be correct later

Pick up a book, bro. Learn something. ANYTHING

You are a tremendously confused person.

And you think that when atheistic evolutionists claim the "high ground" that they and only they can represent "science".

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are a tremendously confused person.

And you think that when atheistic evolutionists claim the "high ground" that they and only they can represent "science".

How am I confused? I've given you facts and questions that you won't answer.


What high ground?

High ground is not scientific. Opinions are not. FACTS are

 

[Silent Hunter]

"Goddidit!!!" as an explanation simply relocates the problem. If the complexity of DNA demands an advanced designer, then something as complex as your personal-preferred-deity should surely require a proportionally advanced designer to explain his existence.

Sounds like you're trying to move the goalposts here.

Nope. I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard you expect of everyone else.

According to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, a rock cannot create itself, and a fire cannot burn forever.

Obviously you're not very familiar with the laws of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created or destroyed. So much for, "Goddidthat!!!"

Therefore the only possible explanation (and please, feel free to provide a fourth explanation, if you can) is that something OUTSIDE of this universe created it. And because that something is outside the universe, it is therefore not bound by this universe's laws.

God created this universe, therefore He is not bound by the first and second laws of thermodynamics. His existence does not require a cause...

Isn't it convenient how creationists isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence?

... whereas (JudgeRightly believes) this universe does (have a cause) as it could not have come into existence naturally.

... and you know this because of your religious belief and not because you have any actual knowledge.

Investigation of nature tells us that very complex systems exist that are not conscious and therefore cannot intend things, and nonetheless still manage to achieve complex, ordered results.

Now, I know you said "of nature" in that paragraph, but let's look at something not in nature, say, a grandfather clock.

A Grandfather clock is a very complex system that exists that is not conscious and therefore cannot intend things, and nonetheless still manages to achieve complex, ordered results.

The only difference between a grandfather clock and examples from nature is that the grandfather clock is not from nature.

That doesn't mean that both weren't designed... We know that a grandfather clock was designed, yet you say that something with the same description that's in nature can't be designed because it's in nature.

That's not a very good argument.

Now let's look at any kind of living cell...

A _____ cell is a very complex system that exists that is not conscious and therefore cannot intend things, and nonetheless still manages to achieve complex, ordered results.

So what's the difference? A grandfather Clock was designed by humans, obviously, but let's say you discovered one in nature, and didn't know what it was, or how it functioned, yet there it was tick-tocking away like nobody's business. Would you instantly think, "OH, that must have evolved, because it couldn't have been designed!"? Or would you think, "Wow, that's some pretty great design for it to be tick-tocking away like that, and have a complex ordered result that even gives the time of day!"?

You came across some "naturally occurring tick-tocking thing" in the woods and instantly realized it gives the time of day? Talk about something, "That's not a very good argument".

A quartz crystal oscillates at a very precise frequency (tick-tocking) and doing so without conscious intent, yet can be used to operate a very accurate clock.

"Appeal to nature" much?

When creationists develop a means of testing "something OUTSIDE of this universe" there's not much else available to "appeal" to.

We know that such complex systems can arise from simple components, the behavior of which is determined by their basic physical properties. So if we know that complexity can arise from simple components, and that complexity can be achieved without conscious intent, then it stands to reason that a molecule like DNA could have arisen in such a scenario.

"Simple components"? You call molecular legs "simple"?

Isn't the "leg" composed of simpler components and those components of even simpler components?

Let me ask you something:

How many living organisms come out of a freshly dead corpse? NONE! You have all the right ingredients for life, and yet no new life arises. And yet you expect life to have arisen from atoms and molecules that had no particular order or arrangement?

Who said atoms and molecules have no order and arrangement? Surely you've heard of chemistry?

The details of how life began on this planet are as of yet unknown. Surely, whatever they are, they are probably amazing and not at all intuitive. So appealing to incredulity is more than a little out of place in such a discussion.

"As of yet unknown"?

If you have the details of how life began on Earth I'm sure the Nobel Committee would be highly interested.

What happened to following the evidence wherever it leads instead of trying to fit the evidence to evolution/naturalism/big bang/etc.?

It's a good thing science didn't stop looking for the cause of thunder and lightning at, "Goddidit!!!"

Unlike creationists, scientists who really want to understand (the origin of life) aren't ready to throw their collective hands up in the air and declare, "Goddidit!!!", because life is something not completely understood. If our understanding were controlled by creationists, we might as well still believe the source of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!".

Yeah? So?

I always like how you ask a question and avoid the answer that was there all the time...

Unlike creationists, scientists who really want to understand (the origin of life) aren't ready to throw their collective hands up in the air and declare, "Goddidit!!!", because life is something not completely understood. If our understanding were controlled by creationists, we might as well still believe the source of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!".

So the many Fathers of Modern Sciences that were Christian don't count because they, as Kepler put it, "thought God's thoughts after Him"?

You seem to be trying to dumb down the God of the Bible to make Him seem impotent, all while Creationists (yes, through scientific advancements) show Him to be infinitely creative and powerful.

A frequently cited but apocryphal interaction between Pierre-Simon Laplace and Napoleon purportedly concerns the existence of God. A typical version is provided by Rouse Ball:

Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, "I had no need of that hypothesis." Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, "Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things."

For creationists, "Goddidit!!!" is where the "evidence" will always lead because, "Goddidit!!!" is the easiest way to solve a difficult problem.

Wrong again.

Then why have you stopped your exploration of, life, the universe, and everything at, "Goddidit!!!"?

While it's possible (and even likely) that some Christians who don't get too deep into the sciences would say "God did it" and leave it at that, those who are truly interested in exploring creation would look to see how it was done.

It's easy to tell you are the former and not the latter.

Johannes Kepler is an excellent example of this.

I'll take the word of Pierre-Simon Laplace over an astrologer any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[6days]

The first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created or destroyed. So much for, "Goddidthat!!!"

So then you agree, that the cause (Cause) must have existed eternally?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Only a creationists could get...

So then you agree, that the cause (Cause) must have existed eternally?

... from...

The first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created or destroyed. So much for, "Goddidthat!!!"

If matter can't be created what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity? Obviously the "first law" says matter has existed forever, in one form or another.

Someone told 6days that the first law of thermodynamics contained no mention of his-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity; 6days, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, "Monsieur Silent Hunter, they tell me you quoted from a universal law on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." Silent Hunter, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, "I had no need of that hypothesis." 6days, greatly annoyed, told this reply to Barbarian, who exclaimed, "Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.

 

[6days]

Obviously the "first law" says matter has existed forever, in one form or another.

We are agreeing... the cause existed eternally.
The next step is to look for evidence if the cause, or creation of everything may have been some type of intelligence.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Amazing! Only a creationists could get...

We are agreeing... the cause existed eternally.
The next step is to look for evidence if the cause, or creation of everything may have been some type of intelligence.

... from...

If matter can't be created what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity? Obviously the "first law" says matter has existed forever, in one form or another.

... and...

The first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created or destroyed. So much for, "Goddidthat!!!"

Seriously, 6days, answer the question, what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

We are agreeing... the cause existed eternally.
The next step is to look for evidence if the cause, or creation of everything may have been some type of intelligence.

You're a classic case of the creationist habit of, "Here's my conclusion, what 'evidence' can I find to support it?", instead of the scientific approach of, "Here's the evidence, what conclusions can I draw from it?".

6days, you're stupid-on-steroids.

 

[6days]

Seriously, 6days, answer the question, what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

You are a little too afraid of the God of the Bible (my personal-preferred-concept-of-deity). I had not mentioned Him.


What I said is that "We are agreeing... the cause existed eternally.

The next step is to look for evidence if the cause, or creation of everything may have been some type of intelligence."

 

[Silent Hunter]

Seriously, 6days, answer the question, what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

You are a little too afraid of the God of the Bible (my personal-preferred-concept-of-deity).

I'm not particularly afraid of something you can't prove exists.

You are a little too afraid of the God of the Bible (my personal-preferred-concept-of-deity). I had not mentioned Him.

Do you have a different "deity" in mind?

What I said is that "We are agreeing... the cause existed eternally.

Which part of, "If MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed) what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity" (or any deity for that matter) are you having difficulty understanding?

6days, are you stupid-on-steroids or are you just a moron?

The next step is to look for evidence if the cause, or creation of everything may have been some type of intelligence."

You're a classic case of the creationist habit of, "Here's my conclusion, what 'evidence' can I find to support it?", instead of the scientific approach of, "Here's the evidence, what conclusions can I draw from it?".

6days, just answer the question you've avoided twice so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

 

[6days]

Which part of, "If MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed) what need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity" (or any deity for that matter) are you having difficulty understanding?

Same thing as before... we are agreeing that the cause of everything is something which exists eternally.

6days, are you stupid-on-steroids or are you just a moron?

Well.... my wife thinks I am a sweetie-pie, so your question is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma