History and Divergent Doctrines

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

Yea,I'm cracked.And you are the one who has no clue as to what we were talking about.What did you think the whole ODDS thing was about?You remember.The Royal flush conversation,among others.Did you think we were talking about evolution,or abiogenesis?

My whole point was about how spontaneous generation isn't possible.And it is the same as evolution as it is the first step.Your trying to seperate them as two seperate theories?They are linked.

YOURS:Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were equivocating abiogenesis and evolution.

MINE:Are you going to pretend they have nothing to do with each other?

YOURS:That's an observation, not a theory. What does it predict? There are still geocentrists.

MINE: Oh! since there are still geocentrists,this mean it was never a theory.It's an observation NOW,but it wasn't always.What does it predict?It is no longer a theory but a fact.Theories predict.This theory predicted many thing we now consider as true.

YOURS:Again, this is an observation, not a theory. What does it predict? There are still flatlanders

MINE:Oh! There are still flatlanders,well that means that never was a theory then.By the way I'm being sarcastic.It is an observation NOW,but not always.When it was a theory it would predict how the sun appears to rise and fall,and how the stars appear to move,and that one could traverse the world and not fall off,among other things.Christopher Columbus trying to sail around the world can be likened to a scientific experiment that would validate such a theory.CAN YOU BE REASONABLE?

TBax wrote:
3 theory:all mankind has a common ancestry.PROVED

YOURS:If this has been proven, in your words, what are we arguing about? Plenty of people don't understand this.

MINE:I'm talking about Adam and EVE,you are talking about monkies.

YOURS:Again, observation. Also, false, if the air in question doesn't contain oxygen.

MINE:Being a bit nit-picky are we?

YOURS:New species isn't evolution?

MINE:NO.If two white people have a black child,that is not evolution.They are all humans.If two pit bulls give birth to a poodle,that is not evolution.They are all dogs.Each according to its kind.Just like the Bible says.

YOURS:I can't actually find this on the site, where did you get it?

MINE:About 8 paragraphs from the bottom.

Your going to talk about rules,and then you call me cracked.Pot,kettle, black.

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

Look at what else I found at that site you directed me to.:

‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’

Predictions unrealized.Theory,or unsubstantiated hypothesis unverified.Yet you still believe.

FFT · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

I found both of those on the first page of the link you showed me.

I found this there also,although not on the first page:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ 1
National Geographic followed the letter from Xu with this statement:
‘Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed.’ 2
As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’ 3
The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’ 4
The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’ 5
-----------------------------------
ALSO FROM THAT SAME SITE SOME SNIPETTS

The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges —

There are thousands of examples of ‘living fossils’.( creatures that remain unchanged for supposedly 500 million years or more)

In that article he reported that discoveries since 1976 had shaken his view of human origins and forced a change in ideas of man’s early ancestors. Dr Pilbeam’s previous views were wrong about tool use replacing canine teeth, evidence for which was totally lacking. He did not believe any longer that he was likely to hit upon the true or correct story of the origin of man. He repeated a number of times that our theories have clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data. Too often they have reflected only what we expected of them.

Why had he changed his position on human origins?
He said it was not due to the discovery of only one particular specimen, but the recovery of various materials made him realize that his previous statements, which had been made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. Because they were based on so little evidence, he began to wonder why he had held them so strongly.

He said that many of the statements made in the field of human origins had ‘very little to do with the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions’. He thought this was true not only of his field but, ‘Much of what is said in other areas, I think, is also highly speculative’.

Are there any Transitional Fossils?
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

--
Hoaxes or wishful thinking.No real proof,or verification.Too the contrary,the fosil record shows Darwins prediction to be false.

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

You have a point that many seperate Abiogenesis from Evolution.But they are linked.Am I incorrect that Darwin came up with both ideas?

How life started is (A). How veriety came about is (B).
Why would some jump to (B) before (A) was ever established as a valid theory?
Without a valid explanation for the start there is no reason to jump to the middle not knowing if the beginning is possible.

Even though I lump Abiogenesis with Evolution,it should have been obvious the thrust of the conversation was about spontaneous generation.Don't you agree?

I would really like to know what you think about this repost:

YOURS:Again, this is an observation, not a theory. What does it predict? There are still flatlanders

MINE:Oh! There are still flatlanders,well that means that never was a theory then.By the way I'm being sarcastic.It is an observation NOW,but not always.When it was a theory it would predict how the sun appears to rise and fall,and how the stars appear to move,and that one could traverse the world and not fall off,among other things.Christopher Columbus trying to sail around the world can be likened to a scientific experiment that would validate such a theory.CAN YOU BE REASONABLE?

Do you think I made a point or not?

FFT · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

YOURS:This is the link I showed you originally. I showed you AIG's Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use to make a point, not because I actually care about what they say. If you want to argue against something you think I believe, you're more likely to find it in the first link, not the second.

MINE :I don't care.What,are you trying to limit me as to where I get information.You provide the link when you think it is usefull to you but when you find out it totally discredits your arguments,you say "I don't care what they have to say".You only care what a site has to say if it agrees with you.Typical.

YOURS:AIG is not an unbiased source for information on what the fossil record shows.

Additionally, Darwin's predictions are irrelevant. The theory's changed as new information has come in. Darwin didn't even know how genetics worked. Remember how theories are disproven or adapted by new information? The theory of evolution has adapted, and doesn't make identical predictions.

MINE:Oh!Yea.Evolutionists sites are totally unbiased.(sarcastic)As that information I showed you said even scientists are not unbiased.They can taint their work to lean in the direction they want it to.
That prediction Darwin made is a logicall conclusion if evolution were true.You said "The theory's changed as new information has come in".Yea,the fossil record does not reflect evolution,the new information shows evolution not to be true.The evolutionists passion won't allow them to accept that.That is not science,that is more like a false religion.The fossil record reflects "everything according to its kind",not changing from one to another.

YOURS:

Wikipedia's abiogenesis article wrote:
Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, had presented an argument that modern organisms had evolved, over immense periods of time, from simpler ancestral forms, suggesting, without actually stating, that at the original point of origin there had existed an ur-organism with no prior ancestor.

At the time, everyone figured such a thing breached the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It doesn't, of course, since the Earth is not a closed system, but that's what they were thinking.

MINE:You lost me.What is "ur-organism",and what is the 2nd law of thermodynamics?Please explain this statement of yours.

YOURS:Sorry, you kept referring to evolution. Please be more clear in the future.

MINE:Yea! Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.Were you really not clear as to what that whole ODDS conversation was about?I included Abiogenesis with Evolution from the beginning when I was showing you how impossible it is for life to come about by chance.You knew exactly what I was talking about.You are being nit picky now,which I believe is to change the subject.They are linked.Reread the past posts.Many are about what it would take for life to arise by chance,how it takes 2000 proteins to make one single cell,and how the odds of life coming about by chance is astonomically impossible.When you read such things,you couldn't figure out I was talking about Abiogenesis.Your adopted great grand father Darwin didn't necessarily seperate the two,why should I.Your playing dumb is rediculous,you knew what I was talking about.

Finally,you are showing yourself even more unreasonable than before.

TBax wrote:
MINE:Oh! There are still flatlanders,well that means that never was a theory then.By the way I'm being sarcastic.It is an observation NOW,but not always.When it was a theory it would predict how the sun appears to rise and fall,and how the stars appear to move,and that one could traverse the world and not fall off,among other things.Christopher Columbus trying to sail around the world can be likened to a scientific experiment that would validate such a theory.CAN YOU BE REASONABLE?

Do you think I made a point or not?

YOUR RESPONCE:Validation is not equivalent to proof, still. Proof is something like 1+1=2 — it's self-evident. All manner of silly but possible explanations can be made for the observations we have, which is why they don't prove anything.

MINE:What is your answer?Did I make a point?Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?Or are you backed into a corner and saying silly things that make no sence because you cannot admit you are wrong?I pick the latter.

Mr.FFT,just how unreasonable can you be?

FFT · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:55 am Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

YOURS:Ah, reason. You know, I can pick out dozens of logical fallacies you've used over the course of this conversation. Which ones have I used?

MINE:Yea.I'm going to listen to someone, who time and again shows himself to be unreasonable,as to what logical fallacies I've used.I am a human, and as such may not be 100% accurate with all things I said.But you,time and again show yourself as unreasonable.There is a difference between making mistakes and refusing to aknowledge a simple truth.

MY QUESTION:Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?

YOUR RESPONCE:Yep

MINE:That is you being totally unreasonable.First you call it an observation which makes it a fact,now since I proved it was a theory-it hasn't been proved to be a sphere?

What is wrong with you?You have renounced reason my friend.

FFT · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

YOURS:You haven't shown that I'm unreasonable. Prove it

MINE:It is no longer suprising you don't understand.I don't expect an unreasonable person to understand anymore.I don't have to show it,you have shown it.
MY QUESTION:Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?

YOUR RESPONCE:Yep

All that's "proven" is that it appears to be a sphere, which is not proof at all.

Yes, I understand the Earth to be effectively spherical. That does not mean it's been proven.

MINE:(You can't see this but I'm shaking my head in amazement)Keep talking.You are solidifing my point.

YOURS:So it may appear to you, but this is because, as has already been demonstrated, you do not understand how science works.

MINE:Yea,I don't know how science works and you can't tell that the earth is round.
"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine

To sum up:Good Lord! Do you really believe the stuff you say?

FFT · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

YOURS:Prove it to someone else here, then.

MINE:I don't need to prove it.You have proved it yourself.
--

MY QUESTION:Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?

YOUR RESPONCE:Yep

--

YOURS:Your point is inconsequential, as you have demonstrated over and over that you do not understand how science works.

MINE:Yea,keep saying that.I don't know how science works and you cannot tell what a fact is.Would an unreasonable person be able to come to a proper conclusion as to wheather I know how science works?I think the answer would be --no.

TBax wrote:
MINE:Yea,I don't know how science works and you can't tell that the earth is round.

YOUR RESPONCE:I think I see the problem here—you can't read very well.

MINE:Hey,your the one who doesn't think it has been proved.

FFT · Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject:

TBax · King of the Jungle Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 1942

FFT,

YOURS:I know perfectly well what a fact is. You're the one stating that science can prove things.

MINE:Are you saying science cannot prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen?

Let me ask you,not just to be sarcastic,but can science prove you have a brain?

I know that sounds bad,but seriously can science prove that, according to you?