Evolution? How?

This is really pathetic. You tell us you will deny yourself knowledge because you don't like the way someone speaks to you. It's like saying my history teacher was rude so I don't want to learn history.

You go after knowledge for knowledge sake. You don't judge knowledge based on someones behavior. What you have offered us is another whiny excuse to remain ignorant. Ignorance is what creationism thrives on. It's its bread and butter.

Cicerone,

I did not ask you to be accountable for Setanta. As far as Wolf and Timber, I mispelled their names. TUP is a completely different poster. I will not answer to that poster's name.

Feel free to call me by any derivative of my screen name or by my real name--Erick.

I will not answer to the name TUP. If you would like to pick up any discussion with me in the future I ask that you abide by my requests to not be referred to as TUP or any other poster I am not. Not calling me TUP is a simple request, and my requests for you to do such are over.



The.........

Xingu,


Did you bother to pay attention to the fact that I concluded to agree with Wolf and Timber?



The.........

Yeah - a buncha impatience and irritation come into play there. Personally, I find it a challenge to remember to respect the questioner when the questition is ludicrous. There'd be no reason for such impatience and irritation if those forwarding the ID-iot proposition would merely present informed, reasoned, evidence-based, academically valid, intellectually honest questions, objections, and alternatives as opposed to incessently employing petition principii, argumentum ad absurdam, argumentum ad ignorantum, sophistry, equivocation, rationalization, and outright fabrication.

Oh, and as long as we're doing petulant pedantry, its "timber", not "Timber" ... I favor it all lower case, if you would, please.

timber,

Happy to oblige.

timber, I believe TUP missed the rest of your message. LOL

rl. You want me to agree that maybe all the animals didnt fossilize? of course thats the case. Maybe only a small percentage didnt leave fossils. However your argument has been "They didnt leave any fossils, therefore they DID exist" .
That entire argument is beyond silly.
Are you arguing that weve still got alot to find? OK Ill agree. However, I think what we have found is quite compelling , absent any pre conceived religious POV.
When did woolly mammoths appear in the world, in your estimation? Give me a time line?

Xingu,

This statement,

"Contrary to what has been taught for decades, dinosaurs inhabited a pre-Flood world populated with plants and animals very much like todays."

Was the thesis of the article. If I write an article about the weight of rocks on the moons surface, does that mean I am using that article to try to prove to you that life on Mars is impossible. The point of this article was not to prove evolution wrong; the point of this article was to point out that scientists came to a new conclusion about dinosaurs diets.


The only thing it suggests near to that is that such a discovery will require evolutionists to redefine their time line.


The.......


The..........

undone--The article starts with "In a pre-flood world..." That is absurd religious mythology that has been disemboweled by all the evidence in geology. THERE WAS NEVER A WORLDWIDE FLOOD! .
When we accept crap like that, can elves and unicorns be far behind?

Let's keep in mind that we are not discussing whether or not any particular organism ever[/u] existed.

All of the creatures we are discussing have fossil remains (or we wouldn't know about them and wouldn't be able to discuss them) and we both agree (I think) that they DID exist AT SOME POINT.

The issue is how long before and how long after the time period that we know they existed in. [/i]

I leave open the possibility that they existed all the way back to the beginning , including mammoths.

Just because we have not found fossils for X, Y or Z in a certain strata at a given location on the globe does not prove that they did not exist ANYWHERE at the time that strata was formed.

It only proves that they MAY NOT have been fossilized in that locale at that point (Also keep in mind they MAY HAVE. All digs are limited in scope geographically. What lies buried a few feet , a few yards or a few miles from the point that HAS been dug up is simply 'unknown' not 'nonexistent' until we dig there.)

If I have a 10 acre farm and excavate 100 sq feet of it to put in a cistern, can I tell you with certainty that there are no fossils on my farm? Not at all.

Arguments from silence, based on our admittedly limited knowledge of what is actually out there, is not good practice.

Yeah we know that you don't believe in a single worldwide flood.

But apparently you do believe in as many as 5-10 mega catastrophes that wiped out the vast majority of living creatures that you think existed at those points.

Were any of the catastrophes worldwide in scope? (It would seem some of them would have to be to wipe out, as you have said, in some cases as much as 90% of the existing species at that point.)

As we have discussed before, nearly every locale in the world shows evidence of having been underwater at some point. Your main argument against this being a 'worldwide' flood seems to be that you don't think the dates coincide.

As often as dates have to be reworked (as I'm sure you'll admit) , that seems a rather tentative basis for saying that they COULD NOT have coincided.

What ever happened to the world-wide flood of Noah? He gathered all the animals....

No actually he didn't gather all the animals. Most of them died.

Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead........

And you shall bring into the ark two of every kind of every living thing of all flesh, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Two of every kind shall come to you to keep them alive; of birds after their kind, and of beasts after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind.'You shall take with you every clean animal by sevens, the male and female. And take two of the animals that are not clean, the male and female. Also take of the birds of the air by sevens, the male and the female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.' (Gen. 7:2-3)

And exactly how did Noah store all that food and water for all those animals? But more seriously, how did Noah and his family find "every creeping thing of the earth?"

The Noah story is too absurd to seriously debate.

edgar, Most of us realize that, but I'm trying to get him to admit it based on the bible - not from some personal rationalizations that doesn't even resemble the "good" book. .

Why can't any of you simply believe in miracles?

That the causality of a phenomonon might be undetermined in no way entails the causality be paranormal, particularly given the overall contraindication of the existence of the paranormal. Miracles, magic, myth ... nought but assorted insubsantial fabrics woven of the same illusory thread.

rl.
I dont . The difference between us is that you have no evidence to back up anything, whereas I have some really nice circu,stantial evidence from a number of bases.
We have no evidence of , eg, mammoths, until around the Pleiocene. At which time we can make a mammoth fossil abundance plot. Lots and lots of them through the few milluion years. Then they go extinct,(which we know is the case because we havent seen any around lately). Your discussion that "you hold open the possibility that they go back to the beginning" Thats when? the Cambrian base? or the Vendean (with evidence of pre-hard shelled animals? I wonder what the mammoths ate when their were only algae around.

Your story really needs a lot of dispensation with logic and evidence. (Thats ok, I think Ive gotten you to admit clearly what you believe happened, and Im not going to dwell on it further. (To make your position factual, you need to have a world that isnt too old, that would make your evidence free assertions at least a bit more logical)

. I dont ACCEPT a worldwide flood because there is not any stratigraphic evidence for it. As far as the mass extinctions, we have evidence of extreme vulcanism, bolide impact, extreme dips in oxygen levels that correspond to the compression of Rhodinia, however, we have NO EVIDENCE for a worldwide flood. PS. With the evidence for mass extinctions, we have some really goodcollateral evidence from reconstructed Malenkovitch cycles , or axial precession, radiological data, and geomagnetic data that fits and brackets the time bands when these worldwide mass extinctions occured.
As far as numbers of species wiped out during a mass extinction, it is really quite easy to see the sediments before and after the event.For example, in the Pewrmian, were pretty sure that extreme vulcanism played a part because the major victims were sea creatures. The reason is that, from 3 massive flood basalt vents, we can do the stoichiometric analyses of the remnants of oceanic ions. There was a huge excess of Sulphate in the sediments just at and post the end of the Pewrmian. Also the oxygen isotopes favor a conclusion that the seas were quite warm and ice free. This led to a fairly decent conclusion that thes eas were acidic. H2So3 and SO4. pH limits for trilobites were exceeded and they died, many other sea creatures died. The land animals that lived apparently all had some adaptation benefit that we can still only guess at.

But to all of this, your strongest argument is that you "believe" that mammoths lived and died for a long period, without a trace. If they lived in the Permian (when all the "mammals were terapsid reptiles" , we dont see a single mammoth, horse (all of the species, cats bats etc etc)

Ill leave the argument go and wont repond further on this point. Im satisfied that were going to continue to not see eye to eye. Anyway, its not important what you "believe". Its important what we can prove.