Dumbed Down Evolution For The Masses

[MerlinsByte]

from troup, or camp 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."

Merlin rubs hands together...If you would like to substantiate that I would be happy to clarify. For now I will treat it as ignorance, or the inability to read ,or both.

Most sources that are posted by others are pages and pages of facts, but I usually accept one at ones word and dont resort to demanding sources (I dont think I have ever asked for a source from anyone) and underhanded and oh so vile tactics ; } > and lies(!), well they are lies even if you didn't mean it kiddo. That must mean that you agree with me, but question the sources.

I am not, (and neither does anyone else here, going to candy coat edit and cut and paste a sentence out of each source for you, so you might have to try something new such as actually read something before making a grossly wrong assumption, and putting your foot in your mouth.)

Are you loser # 3? Trust me It would be a joy to see all of the unreasonable (and only the unreasonable) secular/ atheists, hell even the thiests monks gurus and various assorted nuts, cut and run thus showing your (or thier) true colors.

All the sources correlate (pssst' belverron, that means show a relationship) and support one another.
Whap slam dunk.....; } >

[MerlinsByte]

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.

merlin is in pain...Gawd....hep me really, my 13 year old niece understands this but nooooo... not you guys!...I'm going to take up drinking again. I really did expect more from you. Oh well, let down again....

HERE>>>>>if dating the fossil record is wrong how can evolution be right, simple enough?<<<<<<<<<

the dating method (of strata) is >>>>>TA DA<<<. Suspect, you know, its circular and its a taughtology......please say you do understand this.I am in pain now, that should make the first three happy....oh the pain...


ps


THIS IS IT IN A CANDY COATED, CUT AND PASTED, (AGAIN) .... EXCERPT FROM POST #36......."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.)

ONE PARAGRAPH ONE::::::::::: CONCLUSION FROM:::::::: SOMEONE BUT ME::::::AND YES THERE ARE MORE :::::::::::MANY MANY MORE, OH SO MANY::::::::::MORE

[gallo]

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

Why do you find it necessary to continue to insult rather than discuss? You seem to have an ego problem, i.e., low self esteem that makes it necessary for you to pretend that your are superior. Still, no facts or evidence to support your position, only your assertions.

Quote by: MerlinsByte 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.

What's a "secular?" Do you even know the meaning of the word when used as a noun? What does atheism (or "athiesm" as you spell it) have to do with the question? Actually, I took no issue with any word or any letter of each word except when you demonstrated your ignorance of the meaning or the spelling of those words. My actual issue is that you made assertions and didn't support any of them.

Here, let me respond to you with the same level of intelligence that your assertions display. "No, you are wrong."

Quote by: MerlinsByte So I will take you on your word that your intent is not malicious and try to answer to the best of my ability

Of course, I've read the rest of this post so I know that either your intent isn't to respond or that your ability to respond is lacking.

Quote by: MerlinsByte 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.

But that wasn't what you were discussing. Now you are going to change horses in mid-stream because your arguments have been shown to be specious. Your assertions were about geologic dating as evolutionary biology. Now you pretend that you were talking about biology all along. Disingenuous at best. Besides, what is your claim in this case? Please give specific examples. Please describe in detail the "bird like" dinosaur: what characteristics make it bird like? What characteristics make it a dinosaur? Please discuss specific characteristics. I make a similar request about your "similar" dinosaur in a superior stratum: give a specific example. How can it be similar to a bird without birdlike characteristics? What characteristics make it a dinosaur? Again, please describe specific characteristics. You might include discussions of furcula, carina, gastralia, preorbital fenestra, hallux, pubis, articular facets on cervical vertebrae, structure of the tail, teeth, and fibular development.

If you wish to make a point, then make it with facts and specific support for you assertions. Please.

Quote by: MerlinsByte One layer is used to predict and explain the other , as related to the time that they lived /died/went extinct.

Somewhat. As I explained to you before in a previous post that you don't seem to have understood, Cuvier pointed out that fossils from the deepest layers do not resemble modern animals very much, but that they become more and more like living organisms as you get closer to the surface.

Quote by: MerlinsByte So do we agree that the most common dating method is Stratigraphy and Relative Dating?

You don't seem to understand relative dating, especially in light of modern absolute dating methods. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned the basics of that which you discuss before discussing it?

Quote by: MerlinsByte 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.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. The point that you don't seem to understand is that creationists developed relative dating based on guesses as to how long it took to lay down the various geologic strata. Their relative dating was correct when it came to relative ages of various fossils. Those creationists solved the problem of Genesis by proposing several successive creations and floods. In that scenario only the uppermost layer represented the flood of Noah. They were wrong in that hypothesis. However, they were not wrong in the assignment of relatively older ages to fossils that were relatively deeper in the geologic record.

Quote by: MerlinsByte 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

Certainly. And the principle still applies. A fossil found at 1 foot isn't as old as one at 2 feet, and neither is as old as one found at 20 feet. The idea is simple. How is it that you don't seem to grasp it?

Your problem is that several absolute dating methods have been developed that are able to assign dates to some strata. Even more significant is the fact that several methods arrive at very similar dates for the same strata. And surprise, surprise; those dates are in the same order as the relative dating order that was established by the creationists who established the relative dating, except that the dates were much older than imagined. It seems that evolution proceeds at a much slower pace than at first seemed apparent.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin…Bet accepted Gallo…You should know by now not to bet me, you will lose every time I take the bet.

Actually, you were unable or unwilling to support you assertion that you had a science degree. I won that bet. I told you of my qualifications and you scooted away, and now, it seems, you claim victory.

Quote by: MerlinsByte 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...

Essentially what you have said is that I win the bet. You aren't aware of the meaning of the term "catastrophe" in a scientific context. Why should the understanding of the word from the 1600s be relevant to a discussion of modern evolutionary biology? So, please explain the "comebacks" of this discredited theory to us rather than just assert that they have made a come back. Paleontology and evolutionary biology don't deny catastrophic, world wide extinction events - there have been 5 that are apparent from the geologic record. None of them appear to have been a flood (the last was 65 million years ago). So please explain how this is a "comeback", what does that "comeback" mean, and how is that meaningful for cosmology, astronomy, planetology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. Please cite peer reviewed scientific literature. Otherwise you are simply babbling.

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

In agreement with what? You haven't presented anything more than assertions. No evidence and you fail to explain the connection between your assertions. I have yet to see an argument from you. All you seem to do is to make an unsupported assertion and then claim that you have presented "proof." A prime example is that you claim to be a scientist of some kind and have failed to support that claim. My bet is that you will duck out one more time.

By the way, you still have failed to point out the circularity in the dating of rocks. That's what I asked you to do and you couldn't do it.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin rubs hands together...If you would like to substantiate that I would be happy to clarify. For now I will treat it as ignorance, or the inability to read ,or both.

The problem seems to be what you have between your hands. So you would rather duck the question? The question was to point out the basis of your claim for circular reaoning in geologic dating. Rather than answer, you resorted to an ad hominem attack. Because your assertion was unsupported, and therefore doubted, you attack the poser of an honest question as ignorant or illiterate. I therefore assume that you have no valid response to the question.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Most sources that are posted by others are pages and pages of facts, but I usually accept one at ones word and dont resort to demanding sources (I dont think I have ever asked for a source from anyone) and underhanded and oh so vile tactics ; } > and lies(!), well they are lies even if you didn't mean it kiddo. That must mean that you agree with me, but question the sources.

Certainly don't be confused by facts. Please feel free to reject any fact that doesn't fit into your particular small minded world. Never mind that you tried to present sources (and failed) and now you demean sources as underhanded and vile. Well, that explains why you fail to support any of your assertions.

Quote by: MerlinsByte I am not, (and neither does anyone else here, going to candy coat edit and cut and paste a sentence out of each source for you, so you might have to try something new such as actually read something before making a grossly wrong assumption, and putting your foot in your mouth.)

I wonder what the meant. Overall, I think that your do quite well for a non-native speaker of English, but that was nonsense.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Are you loser # 3? Trust me It would be a joy to see all of the unreasonable (and only the unreasonable) secular/ atheists, hell even the thiests monks gurus and various assorted nuts, cut and run thus showing your (or thier) true colors.

Try again. That wasn't English. Did you mean "theist monks" and did you mean "their true colors?"

What is your native language? You are doing quite well for a non-native speaker. I congratulate you.

Quote by: MerlinsByte All the sources correlate (pssst' belverron, that means show a relationship) and support one another. Whap slam dunk.....; } >

Yet again. What does that mean?

[MerlinsByte]

Why do you find it necessary to continue to insult rather than discuss? You seem to have an ego problem, i.e., low self esteem that makes it necessary for you to pretend that your are superior. .

Merlin tirelessly explains…Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make angry, and that should be as obvious as a fools mate!

Heh ,but that's not the real reason. I rarely insult a person (first) I insult a paradigm, usually a scientific one. Sorta like insulting your god, Darwin I would reckon. Then the first "secular"(as in secular humanism, see note one Gallo) or athiest (of which there seems to be several different Ahhhh’ degrees and species of) who replies is the first to get personal, get it?

I get insulted so I give it back to them. Hey, it’s the open theist christian way! Think crusaders or knights templars. I will defend myself and its an eye for an eye ... 7 time more, or, much more. And I usually go easy on you, so quit sniveling. So here it is in very simple terms. It is the tone that you set in your replies gallo. It seems as if I must take the time to type out even the gross basics. But if we can get an understanding, and maybe a dialogue, it may be worth it.

[/quote]this is getting tiresome...by gallo...What's a "secular?" Do you even know the meaning of the word when used as a noun? What does atheism (or "atheism" as you spell it) have to do with the question? Actually, I took no issue with any word or any letter of each word except when you demonstrated your ignorance of the meaning or the spelling of those words. My actual issue is that you made assertions and didn't support any of them. Here, let me respond to you with the same level of intelligence that your assertions display. "No, you are wrong."[quote]

merlin writes.....see note one (again gallo), and get used to the spelling and grammar I’m not getting paid for this and in the cut and paste hell of Microsoft works and AOL write mail it’s a wonder that anything comes’ out correct, got it? And there is some sticky shit in my key pad, must be some of that primordial soup that the seculars/atheists and evolutionary biofools claim we come from huh?

Of course, I've read the rest of this post so I know that either your intent isn't to respond or that your ability to respond is lacking.

Merlin writes...re read my reply Gallo, you didn’t understand simple text.

Certainly. And the principle still applies. A fossil found at 1 foot isn't as old as one at 2 feet, and neither is as old as one found at 20 feet. The idea is simple. How is it that you don't seem to grasp it?

Merlin…..Allow me to clarify….this is a example , see post 36

(1)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.)

(2)"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." (Anger, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist,, vol. 100, 1983, p. 425.)

OK jeeze in the above discussion, one scientist is saying you date fossils by strata and the other is saying that you date rocks from fossils circular no?

when I provide sources you MUST read them gallo, not scan them read them. RE READ my post # 36. If you cannot determine that the sources in post 36 indicate circular reasoning and therefore tautologies, something is wrong with your ability to reason in any capacity. Friend, it is as simple as that. If we cannot agree on the first tiny bit of published facts then this is going to be very difficult.

its 2am gotta snug with my basset hound .... he sure is purty, I promise to address the rest of your insult...er post in the later AM

mb

ps Gallo, after this post If you will agree not to be malicious or insulting or use your selective memory, and, you are well aware of what I am speaking of, I will agree to the above. It does us no good to use 3/4s (or more) of our posts in posturing, and Im sure the other members tire of it also.This invitation goes out to everyone that feels that I have insulted them ....NOT.....!!!! no really i was kidding I will be a good boy.

this does not apply to insulting dumb ideas in new threads and posts but I will agree not to get personal.

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

by merlin I am not, (and neither does anyone else here, going to candy coat edit and cut and paste a sentence out of each source for you, so you might have to try something new such as actually read something before making a grossly wrong assumption, and putting your foot in your mouth.)

re write, and translation

Yes, you must be able to read and comprehend the written word. I dont have the time or inclination to hold you by the hand and sound out the words for you. Deal with it.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

come on bogie (i am talking to the bassat not you gallo) its time for some shut eye.....anyone read the new book a case for the creator? very good read easy, general readership friendly, you secular/athiests should educate yourselves and check it out.

[RickSp]

And round and round he goes, reminding us one and all why responding to MB is such a waste of time. The issue of to what degree the geological record can be accurately dated has relatively little to do with the theory of evolution, but as long as the pagan wizard can rock back and forth in the corner chanting "circular and a taughtology [sic]" he seems happy.

All of this is akin to claiming that physics collapsing because meteorologists cannot predict tomorrow's weather with a high standard of accuracy. But it matters not. He will rant on regardless, spewing invective and blather. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Jack]

Dear Isherwood, you out of all the rest are the most ill equipped for a battle of wits

When I commented on your lack of ability to grasp evolution, at least I supplied examples and quoted some of your own statements.
So if you're going to insult me could you at least be clever enough to back up your comment?
And just so you know, this is a debate forum, not a battle of wits. If that's your intention, you're in the wrong forum. I believe uninformedegomaniacs.com is still accepting applications.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte (1)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.) (2)"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.) OK jeeze in the above discussion, one scientist is saying you date fossils by strata and the other is saying that you date rocks from fossils circular no? when I provide sources you MUST read them gallo, not scan them read them. RE READ my post # 36. If you cannot determine that the sources in post 36 indicate circular reasoning and therefore taughologies, something is wrong with your abilty to reason in any capacity. Friend, it is as simple as that. If we cannot agree on the first tiny bit of published facts then this is going to be very difficult. its 2am gotta snug with my basset hound .... he sure is purty, I promise to address the rest of your insult...er post in the later AM mb

I explained it to you in great detail. If you fail to understand because of your scientific illiteracy, then I can do nothing more. Please, if you wish to discuss science, go and learn something about science.

[Jack]

I think we're being played. No one could be this consistantly obtuse. I'm going to start taking everything Merlin posts as a joke, because it is funny. He's got us believing he's serious, despite all the hints he's dropped that he's being way over-the-top.
Cool, Merlin...you had me fooled for a while.

[MerlinsByte]

by gallo...addons mine.....But that wasn't what you were discussing. Now you are going to change horses in mid-stream because your arguments have been shown to be specious. Your assertions were about geologic dating as evolutionary biology. Now you pretend that you were talking about biology all along.merlin cuts for brevity and mysanity... ::::::::::::::::::off topic you misunderstood gallo:::::::::::: ::::::::::; I might then again i might not talk about fake bird/dino fossils from china::::::::, and fibular development. you wish to make a point, then make it with facts and specific support for you assertions

merlin yawns...bogie yawns...Damn, am I having a night mare? You dont know what an analogy is do you Gallo......? I was illustrating by analogy that scientists use strata to date rock. And then reverse themselves and use fossil to date strata. Damn. The type of fossil was not relevant in this analogy. Not relevant a tal', but whoosh, it flew right over your head didn't it? poor gallo.

Read this , dont read over it r e a d i t... Rocks are dated by strata AND fossils. lets say scientists # 1 dates the rock by the fossils in the strata. The scientist # 2 dates the rocks by which layer said rock was in by fossils. How can you do both? This is called circular reasoning. All the sources I provided show examples of this. Get it?

read on and its past my and bogies bed time ...but I will help you understand anyway

"There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. ... And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Eldridge, Niles, Time Frames, 1985, p. 52)"

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." (Rastall, R. H., "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica

If you cannot see the correlation of what my the topic of my thread then you are not trying to understand. The only other explanation is that your ability to think with any clarity is ummm' challenged, and compromised by your hate for the truth.

And this is my thread, it was about circular reasoning in the dating of rock and fossils, so lets stay on topic.Every other subject will be reserved for a separate thread.

its 4am on the right coast, do you know where your puppies are?

[MerlinsByte]

And round and round he goes, reminding us one and all why responding to MB is such a waste of time. The issue of to what degree the geological record can be accurately dated has relatively little to do with the theory of evolution, but as long as the pagan wizard can rock back and forth in the corner chanting "circular and a taughtology [sic]" he seems happy.

merlin writes...It is entertaining up to a point, amusing even. But after a few pages of educating the usual suspects in the basics, it gets a little old, sorta' like, trying to teach to a infant. Not easy. And dont make me look up your errors of basic grammer Rick, get a life. You fail to counter any of my claims in my original thread so you cling to your empty beliefs and hope to God that you aren't living a lie, hint you are living a lie....and with the new right coming with cowboy bush leading the way, it will put you, and yours down on the mat for the count. Yes, I love big G for saying that he thinks ID should be taught along with the fairy tale of evolution. Get used to it its going to happen. And then teaching you guys the error of your ways will be even more entertaining. nite nite rick.

; } > mb


oh sic back to ya

[Matt W]

*laughs* And you'll be the laughing stock of the western world, mb. That will be most entertaining...

[Sean]

7-day suspension for Merlin...this is hardly debate heh...

[Starboy]

Quote by: 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.

I placed Merlin on my ignore list long ago.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

I can't say Im a big fan of banning/ignoring people, but he was getting pretty annoying.

I prefer cowboy modding where public derision, scorn, and biting flames are the punishment for stupidity, and not banning, but I guess we are all supposed to be more warm and fuzzy here.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I can't say Im a big fan of banning/ignoring people, but he was getting pretty annoying. I prefer cowboy modding where public derision, scorn, and biting flames are the punishment for stupidity, and not banning, but I guess we are all supposed to be more warm and fuzzy here.

Now, now. We shall not take moderation into our own hands. That is for the volconvo authorities.

Starboy

[Chris]

Quote by: Sean 7-day suspension for Merlin...this is hardly debate heh...

Quite a long 7 days eh? kind of like the 7 days it took to create the earth?

[Pooeypants]

He was permanently IP banned for threatening Sean.