Dumbed Down Evolution For The Masses

[Compugasm]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Geologic dating employs tautologies and circular reasoning of which both are unacceptable in science.

We're waiting for you to reply to the charge that the bible is ripe with (1)hermeneutics and (2) plurium interrogationums. It's a good thing no-one has ever revised that book since it came out.

[Prometheus]

Merlin -

You are comitting a straw man on the theory of evolution. You attack geology as if the whole theory hangs on it. This is not the case. If the only evidance we had for evolution was geology, the the theory would be as shaky as you say. But that is not the case. And you know it. What makes the evidance from for evolution so powerful is how it has predictive ability acrosses disciplines. If you look at the geology, molecular biology, genetics, anatomy, and behavioral evidance alone, it is only suggestive. But when you put them togather, you have suggestive and indicitive evidance affirming eachother. And all of that cannot be dismissed nearly as easily and one discipline alone.

[MerlinsByte]

We're waiting for you to reply to the charge that the bible is ripe with (1)hermeneutics and (2) plurium interrogationums. It's a good thing no-one has ever revised that book since it came out.

merlin...Ummm what thread was that charge in mr C?....visa?

But when you put them togather, you have suggestive and indicitive evidance affirming eachother. And all of that cannot be dismissed nearly as easily and one discipline alone.

merlin thinks wiggle room...hmmmm wiggle, wiggle , wiggle...yes but I have to start somewhere. Geological dating just came to mind, most of the reasoning of evolution (and by that I mean all evolution from the first life to ourselves) can be shown to be highly suspect, and some of the methods do require a faith in science comparable to religious faith.

[ihaQ]

Merlin, the method of fossil and geological dating that you refer to (carbon if I am correct) is, in relation to evolutionary theory, merely a method of validifying the claim that the earth and biological systems existed prior to genesis. This claim is supported by several other factors, evolution theory intrinsically, comes to mind because of it's validity in the field of biology.

Furthermore, say you're correct, you still have not disproven evolution. Carbon dating is unreliable, so what? Independent proofs are incidental of a claim, as the maxim goes: lack of proof is not proof of lack.

What's so incredibly silly about this is in your first post you claim the fallacy of evolution, and even more outrageously that it takes MORE faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in a given religion (darwinism is founded in more than anecdotal historical evidence that's truthfulness is at the very best, highly questionable) based upon the probability of geological dating inaccuracies! This is by far the worst case (since the statistical probability analogies) against evolution I have ever seen.

EDIT: See Prometheus has already said this, oh well.

[Prometheus]

I am going to withdraw from this discussion. This is pointless. Any of you who respect yourself and your knowledge should do the same. This discussion is going nowhere.

[ihaQ]

Go for it, I know you can!

[Jack]

I'm just sorry Merlins didn't dumb down evolution enough he could grasp it. That's what I get for believing in the impossible. :)

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte re read the thread and post #10 pooey. I dont mind clarifying if you truly dont understand.

No MB, I don't want you to guide me round in circles. You made a claim, now back it up or retract it. Stop your trolling now.

[belverron]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm just sorry Merlins didn't dumb down evolution enough he could grasp it. That's what I get for believing in the impossible. :)

You have to know an area to map it.

[MerlinsByte]

promtheus.... going to withdraw from this discussion. This is pointless. Any of you who respect yourself and your knowledge should do the same. This discussion is going nowhere.

mb replies...Cool , thats one down that can not support his own rebuttal of my thread. more please?

[MerlinsByte]

...ihaQ Merlin, the method of fossil and geological dating that you refer to (carbon if I am correct) is, in relation to evolutionary theory

Radio metric dating/w cross dating may be the most accurate method and I applaud you for one of at least reading my thread. You (for one) have the ability of critical thinking, and abstract thought,(for a secular) which is mandatory for a productive debate.I was calling into question Stratigraphy and the Principles of Relative Dating. It should be obvious that this was what the thread was about.

Most textbooks are written using this dating method as “evidence” for large scale evolution of the species. Also, the bulk of fossil evidence that authenticate (or props up may be a better word) modern evolutionary theory (especially large scale) depend on this technique.

No one can argue that this method isn’t circular and a tautology (a statement which is true by its own definition.) .

As I have said at least 100 times before it seems, I had a career in a science related field, love science, astronomy (even have a telescope, maybe two if the deal goes through this weekend, and consider myself a good amateur astronomer, paleontology, archeology, cosmology, particle physics, all the sciences. Now that does not signify that I blindly accept all current (and usually changes tomorrow) show case theories, including most aspects of evolution of the species and some other aspects of this crippled theory. It is taught as a paradigm, almost a religion, and taught as 100% fact, when in reality it is almost a religion with the faith it requires to believe in its full context and its implications.

But I digress this thread is about Stratigraphy, and the science that was built upon it.

mb

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Evolutionary theory is very weak and becoming weaker. This can be demonstrated by the tautologies and circular reasoning that is used to provide “evidence” for large scale evolution. This wishful thinking is undeniable with regard to the circularity invoked in dating rock layers.

OK. Let's keep this dumb so and pretend that dating rocks is part of evolutionary biology. I'm looking forward to the asserted circularity.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Today geologists and paleontologists look for wiggle room via catastrophe as a normal occurrence in history. although they usually avoid the word catastrophe.

But my bet is that you are unaware that it is for historical reasons that modern geologists don't use the term much. The discredited theory of catastrophism was discredited over 200 years ago. But modern geologists are very much aware of the theory and the meaning the word carried, so it isn't used too much to avoid confusion. However, just because the word isn't used doesn't mean that geologists deny that catastrophes have happened in the history of the earth. There is the evidence of the comet that struck the Yucatan about 65 million years ago. Around the same time, there was the formation of the Deccan Traps. Of course, it wasn't even recognized until quite recently that Yellowstone Park is a very old caldera of a super volcano. Here's some history from geologist Dr. Arthur N. Strahler in Science and Earth History:

If the catastrophe were a worldwide flood of great proportions, then there could have been several or many floods, each following an interval in which an unique assemblage of life forms enjoyed a period of survival over many generations. This scenario is called catastrophism, and it was developed in detail by a French naturalist, Baron George Cuvier (1769-1832). A zoologist of distinction, Cuvier became an authority on fossils, a paleontologist, that is, and he is often called the "father of paleontology." In the northern part of France, within a region known as the Paris Basin, the land surface is underlaid by sedimentary strata that have been slightly warped into the form of a stack of nested saucers. Erosion has exposed the edges of the saucers to form "cuestas," and it is in those exposures that fossils can be collected. By the early 1800s, the sequence of strata and fossils they contained had been worked out in considerable detail. It is noteworthy that fossils in the lowermost formation are very much unlike modern species and that upward into younger formations fossils show increasing degrees of similarity to modern forms. However, these changes occur in abrupt jumps from one formation to the next rather then continuously within each formation. Cuvier, who was devoutly religious, never doubted that all fossils were of divine creation. It was Cuvier who proposed a series of catastrophic extinctions by sudden floodings of the region by ocean water. Following each extinction, a new set of animals was created. The final extinction was correlated with the Flood of Noah, but this connection was established by an Englishman who translated Cuvier’s works. Catastrophism, Cuvier-style, features heavily in the modern creationist’ arguments, …

At least that gives us some idea of where mb is coming from.

Quote by: MerlinsByte So, many geologists now see rare, short-lived “event” as being the principal contributors to geologic sequences. The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record! What a complete reversal of theory!

That’s just not true. It isn’t a reversal to recognize that there have been volcanic eruptions and global events of great significance. Such catastrophes and their causes have long been studied in paleontology because they caused the 5 great extinction events of the past.

Let’s see if you actually get down to presenting an argument with the evidence that supports it.

Quote by: MerlinsByte The procedure geologists now use to date rocks, and the fossils that they contain is far from ideal and the geologic ranges of fossils are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.

That’s pretty muddled. What, exactly, do you mean? Please give examples from the peer reviewed scientific literature. What procedure? What rocks? What fossils?

Quote by: MerlinsByte Substitute the word revised for made up and you will understand everything you need to know about the current state of affairs in geological dating. Its simply not accurate and probably nothing more than wishful thinking.

Any evidence to support your assertion? What do you understand about geological dating? Why is it not accurate? Please give some specific examples. I don’t see where you used the words “made up” so that I can substitute the word “revised” for them. How will that make me understand? Please explain in detail what the current state of affairs is in geological dating. Please give specific examples. Are you going to present any arguments and actually support it with evidence?

Quote by: MerlinsByte As of today evolution requires far more faith than any religion.

But geological dating is not evolutionary biology. If you are going to discuss geology then do so. Just don’t pretend that you are discussing biology when you do it.

Quote by: MerlinsByte It seems to me , and forgive me Matt, Prometheus, and ricksp, but you have never addressed the specifics in my counter augments to evolution. Allow me to re direct your attention to this very thread.

But you haven’t presented any “counter” augments [sic] to evolution. You made some unsupported assertions about geological dating. No arguments, no evidence.

Quote by: MerlinsByte the intent of this thread was to show that evolutionary proof for large scale change , specifically geological dating , is faulty to the point of being unbelievable.

Then why didn’t you show it? All you have done is to claim that it is true without presenting any evidence. In fact, it is hard to tell what your purpose is. You certainly didn’t discuss large scale change or explain how it is faulty.

Quote by: MerlinsByte I made two points. None of you whiz kids addressed either one.

Perhaps because you actually didn’t make any points. Certainly not the ones that you claim. Your points weren’t addressed because you didn’t make them.

Quote by: MerlinsByte geologic dating employs (1) tautologies and (2) circular reasoning of which both are unacceptable in science.

Nope. There! I have responded to your two points with as much evidence and as many examples and support as you have. Please give examples of the tautologies and circular reasoning. It isn’t enough to claim that they exist.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Your rants included the usual veiled insults and just plain mumbo jumbo but no meat against these two very simple accusations.

But your “simple accusations” contained no meat. Wild assertion based on ignorance doesn’t merit a response.

Quote by: MerlinsByte I’m waiting guys.

Right after you explain what you are talking about, how it is relevant to evolutionary theory, what is the evidence for it, and give some examples. We’re waiting.

Quote by: MerlinsByte In the sciences a theroy [sic] is a leap of faith that is never consistent, a myth (or fairy tale) describing the behaviour of the entire universe, and everything in it, thus originating from a suspect old man, in a history of frauds , lies, smoke and mirrors, and supported by the originators of the lie.

That’s silly. Are you still trying to dumb it down? You’ve already been given one definition of theory. I’ll give you another. A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts of phenomena. Scientific theories have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Not even creationists reject the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity. I have even met creationists on airplanes and they seemed to accept the theories of aerodynamics.

I’m not sure what suspect old man you are talking about. Where did anyone attempt to describe the behavior of the entire universe and everything in it? You claimed to be talking about methods of geologic dating, and then suddenly you switched to evolution (and never made a point or a connection), and now it is some unnamed old man and the entire universe. Did you mean to dumb down the discussion to that extent? Perhaps you are talking about Cuvier who first pointed out the evidence that the Genesis can’t be read literally. Maybe it was Grant or Sedgwick, Darwin’s geology instructor at Edinburgh and Christ’s College who is the suspect old man. Both of them were Anglican clergymen. Perhaps you mean Sir Charles Lyell, who expressed the ideas of geologic uniformitarianism that discredited catastrophism, and influenced Darwin’s concept of geology so much. Darwin even applied Lyell’s ideas during the voyage of the Beagle, even to the extent that Darwin became a leading expert on volcanic and coral islands.

So why don’t you explain what you’re talking about. Empty claims are meaningless, especially when it isn’t even clear what your claims are.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: MerlinsByte mb replies...Cool , thats one down that can not support his own rebuttal of my thread. more please?

I had determined to ignore your inane arguments, they are no longer worth responding to, as everyone here sees how ridiculous they are. But this personal attack is simply childish. You have been soundly defeated for everyone to see in this thread, and all the preceding threads on this issue where your odious presence was felt.

You are childishly throwing rocks at my back as I withdraw from an immature playground shoving match. Learn some dignity.

[MerlinsByte]

BY GALLO ….OK. Let's keep this dumb so and pretend that dating rocks is part of evolutionary biology. I'm looking forward to the asserted circularity..

Merlin…The circularity should be as obvious by now as a fools mate in a game of chess with a rank novice.

But it seems that we and most of the others here (most if not all seem to be secular or athiest, go figure‘) that take issue with each word, perhaps each letter (!) of each word , of anything I write, well, it seems we have a failure to communicate. So I will take you on your word that your intent is not malicious and try to answer to the best of my ability

Fossil bearing rock is part of evolutionary biology because paleobiologists use the dates of the fossil bearing rock to determine the sequence of evolutionary "events" i.e. one stratified layer a fossil may be bird like and in the strata above (the bird like dino) we may find a similar dinosaur like specimen, without bird like attributes. One layer is used to predict and explain the other , as related to the time that they lived /died/went extinct.
(note 1)

So do we agree that the most common dating method is Stratigraphy and Relative Dating? It is one of the oldest (haven't I said this about three times before?)and (trust me) the most common dating method for paleontology and or geology. (note 2)

Pick up any text book and read about geology, or paleontology , and you will find that most of the dating was accomplished by this method first used in the 1800s(note 3)

BY GALLO ….But my bet is that you are unaware that it is for historical reasons that modern geologists don't use the term much. The discredited theory of catastrophism was discredited over 200 years ago.

Merlin…Bet accepted Gallo…You should know by now not to bet me, you will lose every time I take the bet. However, or ,tally ho , onward or whatever,… I am not aware of how old catastrophism is , but I do know a it was an accepted scientific theory in the 1600s and I was aware that it was discredited , but has had several comebacks , as recently as 1997 see note 4, and now it has risen like a b grade horror movie ZOMBIE and reanimated prop up the undead theory of evolution, AGAIN, and again and again.. lets kill it for good along with the ever changing theory of evoultion...

Ahhhh‘…are we in agreement so far, Gallo ( and others?)....

N O T E S......... SOURCES..........N O T E S...........SOURCES....; } >


Note 1. (Cutler, Alan H., and Karl W. Plessa, "Fossils out of Sequence: Computer Simulations and Strategies for Dealing with Stratigraphic Disorder," Palaios, vol. 5, 1990, p. 227.)
Note 2 (Stanley, Steven M., Warron O. Addicott, and Kiyotaka Chinzei, "Lyellian Curves in Paleontology: Possibilities and Limitations," Geology, vol. 8, 1980, p. 422.)Note 3(Glenco, Biology Textbook, 1994, pp. 306-307.)
Note(s) 3&4.…http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc042597.html……….and…..(4) CONTROVERSY--CATASTROPHISM AND EVOLUTIONJo 1997, Lawrencehttp://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc101498.html

[ihaQ]

How does the relationship between evolutionary paleontology and evolutionary biology imply circular reasoning?

[MerlinsByte]

How does the relationship between evolutionary paleontology and evolutionary biology imply circular reasoning?

merlin writes...Ok ,I've said this before but I will re word it and try to clarify it.

Many evolutionists admit that circularity is undeniable when dating rock layers. (Some of the following quotes are as cited in Morris, 1997 and Snelling, 1990).

Now pay attention because these quotes are a illustration of circular reasoning in action

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
example one

(Welles, Samuel Paul, "Paleontology," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15)(pg 85)….note(1) "Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them."

(Pg364)."Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."

Merlin round and round we go, where we stop who fkn knows?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Often, the layers of rock can be dated by the types of fossils they contain…. Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the location of their fossils within the sedimentary rock layers." (Glenco, Biology Textbook, 1994, pp. 306-307.)

Merlin…Getting dizzy yet?

"No paleontologist worthy of the name would ever date his fossils by the strata in which they are found. It is almost the first thing I teach my first-year students. Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." (Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist,, vol. 100, 1983, p. 425.)

Merlin ….I’ve got to sit down its not circular its spherical because its round any way you view it

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" (Azar, Larry, "Biologists, Help!" Bioscience, vol. 28, 1998, pp. 714.)

Merlin hep me I'm falling’ really does anyone not see this is a tautology and circular reasoning?
I don't like showing my cards before the draw, but sometimes its necessary to get the riff raff to fold their crapp hands.


One member has folded any more ?


mb


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

[belverron]

I love how none of his sources support his thesis. They support random facts he would be utilizing if he were making a point.

[Jack]

It amazes me that some people cannot understand that their opinions are simply too weak and disjointed to even come close to discrediting evolutionary theory. Considering all the scientists over the years who have written intelligent and heavily-referenced papers on the topic, one or two people who come along with speculations that cannot be tested and are not supported by any group of independent scientists are hardly a threat to the theory.
And Merlin, get off your ego trip. You take too much unjustified pride in "driving off" the opposition. It does not mean victory for your premise when others get tired of trying to debate intelligently with you. I know of no army who would take on a lone gunman crazily challenging them to come and fight. They'd laugh and walk away. As we have.

[ihaQ]

Alright, there are individuals in the paleontology who either differ from certain means means of geological dating or disagree with them, I understand this. But what I want to know is how this relates to circular reasoning employed by evolutionists. Confusion and/or disagreement are grounds for being skeptical of certain ideas put forward in a community, but nowhere imply circular reasoning. Perhaps if you could directly present how circular reasoning is used when considering evolutionary theory true instead of giving me a motherfucking data printout this debate could become a little more progressive.

[MerlinsByte]

As we have (took our toys and went home)

That's two losers, more? Dear Isherwood, you out of all the rest are the most ill equipped for a battle of wits, so I forgive you and will accommodate your retreat, and so 'tis I that refuses to mount a challenge of wits against a defenseless man (read you).