Will You Go on Record

[Jorge]

Jorge, what caused the formation of Barringer Meteor Create in Arizona?

Beagle "Bozo" Boy opens his pie-hole once again!

Never fear, you remain the standard by which I measure all dishonesty here on TWeb.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Replace Darwinism with Jorgian YECism, and send it right back at'cha.

K%4

More of your "original" thinking, I see.

I'd bet you haven't had an original thought in a 'coon's age.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Punk Eek is an explanation that fits the fossil record where long periods of stasis are interlaced with periods of "rapid" evolution.

What's the Jorgian YEC explanation for these observations?

K54

P.S. FYI, just in case y'all hadn't noticed, Jor's final sentence is an example of his mastery of projection.

You are a ROYAL BORE, Santa Klaus.



Jorge

[jordanriver]

I would bet the farm ten times over - make that one-hundred times over - that if any such thing were to ever happen, (1) it would be covered up or, (2) if it couldn't be covered up then one of the Evo-Faithful would concoct some 'just-so story' to save the day for Evolutionism.

Let us never forget the historical cases where this has already happened, my favorite example being E&G's Punctuated Equilibrium concoction. Nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g that is pulled out of the ground has a snowball's chance in Hell of disproving Evolutionism. As I have said a thousand times before, this isn't about empirical science, this is about ideological belief.

Jorge

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

I predict headline,

'SCIENTISTS RETHINK DATING'
A rock which was assumed to be 'Precambrian' has been misdated according to scientists.
"We know the rock cannot be "Precambrian" because of its traces of bunny rabbit fossilization, and we know mammals did not exist in the Precambrian...
and we know it is not unusual for a mistake to have occurred on that particular rock..."

As one scientist put it, "we date a lot of rocks, and we know, occasionally human error or malfunction will cause an incorrect date, ...and that is why we depend on a consilience of the evidence, the appearance of bunny rabbit fossils helped us to correct the dating on the rock!"

[HMS_Beagle]

buk buk BWAAAAAK! BWAAAAAK! buk buk buk BWAAAAAK!

Jorge, what caused the formation of Barringer Meteor Create in Arizona?

If you don't know just say so, no need to cluck your beak off.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah ... right ... whatever.

I did arrive at a decision: Terror and Roy should be equally ranked.
That decision is the one that best correlates with reality.

Translation: "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, THE KNOWER OF ALL THERE IS!"

And thus, Jorge just shows his real issue is people disagreeing with him and daring to show his assertions are wrong.

[Roy]

So, for the final time, will you go on record as stating what genuine evidence, if any, would be necessary to cause you to rethink your beliefs?

Or will you continue to avoid doing what you request of others?

the word "compelling" is SUFFICIENT.

IF the any evidence convinced me Jesus never ascended to 'Heaven',
then why would I bother with the Bible anymore.

I could just go back to where I left off and assume my 'born-again' event was just some delusion.

Continued avoidance it is then.

Roy

[jordanriver]

Continued avoidance it is then.

Roy

Not how I see it.
it's the same as your "...with the understanding that it's genuine. .."

[klaus54]

Beagle "Bozo" Boy opens his pie-hole once again!

Never fear, you remain the standard by which I measure all dishonesty here on TWeb.

Jorge

What's dishonest about reminding you of a question that you refused to answer in the past?

It's annoying to you of course, but definitely NOT "dishonest".

Does a drooling adherence to a risible Genesis interpretation cause one to misunderstand common words?

If so, it helps to explain lots of wacky Jorgian YEC logic.

K54

[klaus54]

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

I predict headline,

'SCIENTISTS RETHINK DATING'
A rock which was assumed to be 'Precambrian' has been misdated according to scientists.
"We know the rock cannot be "Precambrian" because of its traces of bunny rabbit fossilization, and we know mammals did not exist in the Precambrian...
and we know it is not unusual for a mistake to have occurred on that particular rock..."

As one scientist put it, "we date a lot of rocks, and we know, occasionally human error or malfunction will cause an incorrect date, ...and that is why we depend on a consilience of the evidence, the appearance of bunny rabbit fossils helped us to correct the dating on the rock!"

JR,

Do you have an explanation for why a Cambrian Coney has never be found?

A fortiori, what's the YEC Bible God "History not Science" explanation for no pollen in the geologic column below the Cretaceous? Heck, that's MUCH more likely to be found than a Opossum in the Ordovician.

No need for headlines. YEC Bible-God "History not Science" has been dead-as-doorknob since 1800.

We might as well have tomorrow's headline be "Beauregard's Artillery Bombards Fort Sumter!"

Your Fideist Fantasy thread has been fun though.

K54

[klaus54]

You are a ROYAL BORE, Santa Klaus.



Jorge

And you, Sir, are most entertaining!

YOU are a ROYAL JESTER, as it were.

Dont'cha need to change the projector lamp soon?

K54

[klaus54]

More of your "original" thinking, I see.

I'd bet you haven't had an original thought in a 'coon's age.

Jorge

Just holding the mirror up in front of your projector lens.

Speaking of a 'coon's age -- are you and your YEC Bible-God compadre JR now going to posit a Raccoon in the Roadian?

K54

[shunyadragon]

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

I predict headline,

'SCIENTISTS RETHINK DATING'
A rock which was assumed to be 'Precambrian' has been misdated according to scientists.
"We know the rock cannot be "Precambrian" because of its traces of bunny rabbit fossilization, and we know mammals did not exist in the Precambrian...
and we know it is not unusual for a mistake to have occurred on that particular rock..."

As one scientist put it, "we date a lot of rocks, and we know, occasionally human error or malfunction will cause an incorrect date, ...and that is why we depend on a consilience of the evidence, the appearance of bunny rabbit fossils helped us to correct the dating on the rock!"

Are you serious??? If you are this is the most outrageous ridiculous prediction I have ever seen!!!

[rogue06]

I would bet the farm ten times over - make that one-hundred times over - that if any such thing were to ever happen, (1) it would be covered up or, (2) if it couldn't be covered up then one of the Evo-Faithful would concoct some 'just-so story' to save the day for Evolutionism.

Ah, yes. Deep dark conspiracy theories to silence The TROOTH™

One of the defining attributes that you're supporting a pseudoscience is when you start squawking about plots on the part of the worldwide scientific community to suppress and cover up the results.

You ignore the fact that if some scientist were to discover convincing evidence that evolutionary theory was wrong they would go down as one of the great scientists of their time. They could likely count on a Nobel Prize, all the funding that they could ever desire for whatever project struck their fancy and their pick of associates to assist them. Overturning something that everyone else accepts out of hand is just the sort of thing that scientists dream of.

Let us never forget the historical cases where this has already happened, my favorite example being E&G's Punctuated Equilibrium concoction. Nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g that is pulled out of the ground has a snowball's chance in Hell of disproving Evolutionism. As I have said a thousand times before, this isn't about empirical science, this is about ideological belief.

Could it be due to the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted?:

Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition

Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

By the fourth edition Darwin had added that

"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

So while Darwin definitely generally favored slow and gradual change^[1] it should hardly have come to any surprise that rates of evolutionary change will be different for various organisms.










1. It should be noted that Darwin did not mean "perfectly smooth" when he wrote of gradual change but instead something more akin to "stepwise" -- with a populations of a species accumulating small changes over long periods of time until a new species was born.

[Roy]

Not how I see it.
it's the same as your "...with the understanding that it's genuine. .."

I did not write that.

Roy