New discoveries of 'missing links.'

YoursTrue · Mar 8, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Example: The sand on beaches is brought to the sea in rivers, and sorted and deposited along the shores by near shore currents, and tides.

Speaking of sand, there's lots of it, isn't there. Sometimes the currents and tides carry things to different places. Odd, isn't it?

YoursTrue · Mar 8, 2020

shunyadragon said:
True, sandstone is more porous than shale, but not meaningful to the discussion.

Yes, it is, as I have explained. Tides and floods of any sort can grab items and carry them to other places, some areas (like those with sandstone) as we agreed, are more porous than others, possibly sinking things down further than the original place the bones or artifacts were on. Would you like to contest that? I'm open to hearing your opinion as you are educated in geology. Regardless of this I learned because of your continued battle with me because I am a believer in creation by God also as the giver of life rather than the all-encompassing, embracing scientific endeavor to explain it all without giving credit to a divine intelligence far about mankind's power, it is definitely involved with the explanation of evolution as many scientists believe the evidence shows. More I think about it, the evidence used by evolutionists is filled with doubtful conclusions, such as when and where fossils and tools were found and if the examination of them was accurately analyzed.

Dan From Smithville · Mar 8, 2020

YoursTrue said:
Yes, it is, as I have explained. Tides and floods of any sort can grab items and carry them to other places, some areas (like those with sandstone) as we agreed, are more porous than others, possibly sinking things down further than the original place the bones or artifacts were on. Would you like to contest that? I'm open to hearing your opinion as you are educated in geology. Regardless of this I learned because of your continued battle with me because I am a believer in creation by God also as the giver of life rather than the all-encompassing, embracing scientific endeavor to explain it all without giving credit to a divine intelligence far about mankind's power, it is definitely involved with the explanation of evolution as many scientists believe the evidence shows. More I think about it, the evidence used by evolutionists is filled with doubtful conclusions, such as when and where fossils and tools were found and if the examination of them was accurately analyzed.

Are you claiming that rocks are being carried around by tides and that the more porous rocks will travel further?

Rise · Mar 9, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Still waiting for something meaningful instead of vain attempts at justifying your religious agenda

Logical fallacy, "argument ad nauseam". Continuing to repeat the logical fallacies I've already called you out on, instead of correcting them, doesn't suddenly make your invalid arguments valid just because you persist in repeating them.

Your statement contains again:

"Red Herring". You're trying to distract from having to answer the points I made.

"Appeal to Motive". You're trying to attack what you think my motive is, which has no bearing on the validity of the points I made, in order to avoid having to address my points.

"Argument by Assertion". Merely claiming I haven't made any "meaningful" points doesn't make it true. You would need to demonstrate why you think my points aren't valid or relevant. But doing that would first require that your claim was true, which it isn't. So you couldn't actually prove your claim if you tried.

And you can add to that now "Ad Hominem" because you've devolved into using personal attacks as a substitute for answering the points I made.

SkepticThinker · Mar 9, 2020

YoursTrue said:
It's a "mystery" about the LCA (Last Common Ancestor) among evolutionists as to the separation from greater/lesser apes and human types, including that called Neanderthals leading to current homo sapiens. Soooo -- no one of the human race today knows. I am sure those among evolutionists who like mysteries will be looking for answers, if there are any. Furthermore, I was looking up about lions, because lions and humans are different in MANY WAYS, and from what did they evolve? Again -- surmised, but not known. Are you going to deny this?

Why are you still saying this???

SkepticThinker · Mar 9, 2020

YoursTrue said:
Lions and humans -- come from different branches? I really liked what I learned about the alluvial plains.

Did you not play around with the interactive tree of life app I provided for you?

SkepticThinker · Mar 9, 2020

YoursTrue said:
Speaking of sand, there's lots of it, isn't there. Sometimes the currents and tides carry things to different places. Odd, isn't it?

Not at all.

How does sand form?

SkepticThinker · Mar 9, 2020

Rise said:
Logical fallacy, "argument ad nauseam". Continuing to repeat the logical fallacies I've already called you out on, instead of correcting them, doesn't suddenly make your invalid arguments valid just because you persist in repeating them.

Your statement contains again:

"Red Herring". You're trying to distract from having to answer the points I made.

"Appeal to Motive". You're trying to attack what you think my motive is, which has no bearing on the validity of the points I made, in order to avoid having to address my points.

"Argument by Assertion". Merely claiming I haven't made any "meaningful" points doesn't make it true. You would need to demonstrate why you think my points aren't valid or relevant. But doing that would first require that your claim was true, which it isn't. So you couldn't actually prove your claim if you tried.

And you can add to that now "Ad Hominem" because you've devolved into using personal attacks as a substitute for answering the points I made.

You must be super fun to hang out with at parties.

SkepticThinker · Mar 9, 2020

YoursTrue said:
Yes, it is, as I have explained. Tides and floods of any sort can grab items and carry them to other places, some areas (like those with sandstone) as we agreed, are more porous than others, possibly sinking things down further than the original place the bones or artifacts were on. Would you like to contest that? I'm open to hearing your opinion as you are educated in geology. Regardless of this I learned because of your continued battle with me because I am a believer in creation by God also as the giver of life rather than the all-encompassing, embracing scientific endeavor to explain it all without giving credit to a divine intelligence far about mankind's power, it is definitely involved with the explanation of evolution as many scientists believe the evidence shows. More I think about it, the evidence used by evolutionists is filled with doubtful conclusions, such as when and where fossils and tools were found and if the examination of them was accurately analyzed.

If you can't test for God, then there's no reason to include "him" in scientific explanations.

shunyadragon · Mar 9, 2020

YoursTrue said:
And you're sure of that, even though sand shifts, flooding of many kinds carries along with it vestiges of items to different places, perhaps and likely sinking to various depths not in the original places the organisms died, is that right?

Very very sure of that. My specialty is geomorphology. You have to clarify the bold. because from the perspective of a geologis the above does not make sense.

The layer in the geologic record and today are uniform

I have seen in geologic formations with the coastal, dune and beach deposits just as they are forming today, including shales, siltstones, coal as they are forming today. In the Pennsylvanian Coal bearing formations you have series of cyclic formations sandstone shale and coal.with meandering rivers, lakes, shale beds with drying cracks, raindrops and tracks of small animals like worms in layer after layers. Also, casts of standing trees and their roots in different formations over time.

shunyadragon · Mar 9, 2020

Rise said:
Logical fallacy, "argument ad nauseam". Continuing to repeat the logical fallacies I've already called you out on, instead of correcting them, doesn't suddenly make your invalid arguments valid just because you persist in repeating them.

Your statement contains again:

"Red Herring". You're trying to distract from having to answer the points I made.

"Appeal to Motive". You're trying to attack what you think my motive is, which has no bearing on the validity of the points I made, in order to avoid having to address my points.

"Argument by Assertion". Merely claiming I haven't made any "meaningful" points doesn't make it true. You would need to demonstrate why you think my points aren't valid or relevant. But doing that would first require that your claim was true, which it isn't. So you couldn't actually prove your claim if you tried.

And you can add to that now "Ad Hominem" because you've devolved into using personal attacks as a substitute for answering the points I made.

circular religious arguments par excellence, no science. Science is science without logical fallacies.

YoursTrue · Mar 9, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Very very sure of that. My specialty is geomorphology. You have to clarify the bold. because from the perspective of a geologis the above does not make sense.

The layer in the geologic record and today are uniform

I have seen in geologic formations with the coastal, dune and beach deposits just as they are forming today, including shales, siltstones, coal as they are forming today. In the Pennsylvanian Coal bearing formations you have series of cyclic formations sandstone shale and coal.with meandering rivers, lakes, shale beds with drying cracks, raindrops and tracks of small animals like worms in layer after layers. Also, casts of standing trees and their roots in different formations over time.

I don't know about the geological history of the coal region in PA although it is interesting. And in some state parks you can see the layers in different colors left by water.
So let me ask you this: you are sure that no objects that floated from one area in a flood or runoff drifted below the surface layer of sand or porous ground? When Japan had their tsunami a while back many objects were noted to have floated to sea and drifting. So I looked up tsunami, and here is a (partial) definition of it -- "Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions above or below water all have the potential to generate a tsunami." (Wikipedia) So now it involves also underwater explosions.

YoursTrue · Mar 9, 2020

shunyadragon said:
circular religious arguments par excellence, no science. Science is science without logical fallacies.

The surmises can be mistaken, learned after a new development (discovery) unfolds and affects the proposition of what was held as likely the case. The logic is not infallible.

shunyadragon · Mar 9, 2020

YoursTrue said:
The surmises can be mistaken, learned after a new development (discovery) unfolds and affects the proposition of what was held as likely the case. The logic is not infallible.

Yes logic is indeed fallible.It is not logic Logic is dependent on accepting the the premises, and not dependent on evidence. The knowledge of science is based on objective verifiable evidence, and simply changes over time with new discoveries and research. It is a never ending story.

YoursTrue · Mar 9, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Yes logic is indeed fallible.It is not logic Logic is dependent on accepting the the premises, and not dependent on evidence. The knowledge of science is based on objective verifiable evidence, and simply changes over time with new discoveries and research. It is a never ending story.

Mankind will never know start to finish. "God is great, and we know him not; The number of his years is unsearchable." Job 36:26

shunyadragon · Mar 10, 2020

YoursTrue said:
Mankind will never know start to finish. "God is great, and we know him not; The number of his years is unsearchable." Job 36:26

Quoting the Bible is nice and gives you comfort, but does not address the issue of science and the physical reality of the our existence.

Science will never know the ultimate start or finish and never claims to know. It what is in between that science measures and develops theories and hypothesis to explain based on the objective verifiable evidence, and yes I would agree with you on the time issue, because even though we know the age of our universe our physical existence may be infinite and eternal, and yes we do not know the age of our physical existence, but nonetheless a quote from the Bible is not meaningful concerning what we know about time.

SkepticThinker · Mar 10, 2020

YoursTrue said:
Mankind will never know start to finish. "God is great, and we know him not; The number of his years is unsearchable." Job 36:26

People a thousand years ago probably used that verse as well. And look how much we've learned since then. Look how much we've learned in just the last couple of decades.
:shrug:

Rise · Mar 10, 2020

shunyadragon said:
circular religious arguments par excellence, no science. Science is science without logical fallacies.

You've just committed the logical fallacy of argument by assertion twice.

1. Merely asserting my argument is circular doesn't make it so. You have given no arguments to justify your claim by showing with examples and logical why you think my argument is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

This also makes you guilty of accusing me of doing what you've already been shown to do. I gave valid arguments showing why your argument actually is circular (Showing that you assert it's a proven transition fossil because evolution is true, and then trying to prove evolution is true by pointing to a proven transition fossil as evidence of evolution being true), and you haven't been able to refute my points.

2. Merely asserting that your claims are "science", and also asserting "science" is always true by default, doesn't make it true. You need to be able to defend your claims against valid arguments brought against them if you want to be able to continue claiming your position is true. You haven't attempted to do that.

You are also continuing to be guilty of the logical fallacy of "Red Herring". You are trying to distract from having to answer my argument against your claim: Which is that you have no evidence to conclude this is a transition fossil. It's just your assumption.

shunyadragon · Mar 10, 2020

Rise said:
You've just committed the logical fallacy of argument by assertion twice.

1. Merely asserting my argument is circular doesn't make it so. You have given no arguments to justify your claim by showing with examples and logical why you think my argument is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

This also makes you guilty of accusing me of doing what you've already been shown to do. I gave valid arguments showing why your argument actually is circular (Showing that you assert it's a proven transition fossil because evolution is true, and then trying to prove evolution is true by pointing to a proven transition fossil as evidence of evolution being true), and you haven't been able to refute my points.

2. Merely asserting that your claims are "science", and also asserting "science" is always true by default, doesn't make it true. You need to be able to defend your claims against valid arguments brought against them if you want to be able to continue claiming your position is true. You haven't attempted to do that.

You are also continuing to be guilty of the logical fallacy of "Red Herring". You are trying to distract from having to answer my argument against your claim: Which is that you have no evidence to conclude this is a transition fossil. It's just your assumption.

circular religious arguments par excellence, no science. Science is science without logical fallacies.

No distraction here only facts of science based on objective verifiable evidence.

YoursTrue · Mar 10, 2020

shunyadragon said:
Quoting the Bible is nice and gives you comfort, but does not address the issue of science and the physical reality of the our existence.

Science will never know the ultimate start or finish and never claims to know. It what is in between that science measures and develops theories and hypothesis to explain based on the objective verifiable evidence, and yes I would agree with you on the time issue, because even though we know the age of our universe our physical existence may be infinite and eternal, and yes we do not know the age of our physical existence, but nonetheless a quote from the Bible is not meaningful concerning what we know about time.

Here's a good one about counting time: (things change)
Ancient Shell Has Revealed Exactly How Much Shorter Days Were 70 Million Years Ago

New discoveries of 'missing links.'

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

shunyadragon

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

shunyadragon

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)