[asking]

In the normal course of discussion there are misunderstandings. One way to be sure you have understood someone is to restate what they have said in your own words. If you have got it right, they feel heard and both parties can move forward.

If someone has got it wrong, it's an opportunity for the other person to clarify. Please clarify whatever it is you feel I misunderstood.

[asking]

Of course you did not post what I said in response to this, pointing out that the tree is inside rock.

I fully understood that the tree was buried in layers of rock. It doesn't appear to me to present any difficulties for macroevolution. If it does for you, we are all happy to hear your views.

Now, I am interested in a discussion on the topic, if anyone still wishes to actually get back on the topic. If not, it might be best for the mods to simply shutdown the thread since it otherwise appears to have come to the end of its useful life.

Either way is fine, Tom.

[Tj3]

In the normal course of discussion there are misunderstandings. One way to be sure you have understood someone is to restate what they have said in your own words. If you have got it right, they feel heard and both parties can move forward.

If someone has got it wrong, it's an opportunity for the other person to clarify. Please clarify whatever it is you feel I misunderstood.

We went through that cycle twice and were starting on the third cycle. Plus, in my previous post, I gave you all the message numbers and the ones where I already gave clarification, and here you are asking me once against for clarification.

How many times must one clarify?

I don't mind a mis-understanding and clarifying, but the person who mis-understood needs to at least read the clarification and respond accordingly to it, and not keep posting the same mis-understanding and asking the other person to repeat their clarification again.

[Tj3]

I fully understood that the tree was buried in layers of rock. It doesn't appear to me to present any difficulties for macroevolution.

But apparently you do not wish to explain how it might have happened.

Originally Posted by Tj3 View Post
Now, I am interested in a discussion on the topic, if anyone still wishes to actually get back on the topic. If not, it might be best for the mods to simply shutdown the thread since it otherwise appears to have come to the end of its useful life.

Either way is fine, Tom.

The choice is not mine. I have expressed my willingness, but judging by the way things are going, unless something changes dramatically in the interaction, it appears to me that the thread is past the point where any value can be derived from it. Since I don't see anyone else expressing a desire to continue, it the absence of same, if it were my call, I'd shut it down.

[Akoue]

But apparently you do not wish to explain how it might have happened.

Would you please explain why you take this to be relevant to the question concerning macroevolution.

[Tj3]

Would you please explain why you take this to be relevant to the question concerning macroevolution.

A tree lives for a few hundred years, maybe. Evolutionists claim that there layers are millions of years in duration. We have a discrepancy between the timeframes. Since asking said that the animals found in the layers provide a records of the millions of years of evolution, the tree trunk may provide may also provide a clue as to how the layers were formed and over what period and thus may provide important information about how to interpret what the fossil layers really tell us.

[asking]

A tree lives for a few hundred years, maybe. Evolutionists claim that there layers are millions of years in duration. We have a discrepancy between the timeframes. Since asking said that the animals found in the layers provide a records of the millions of years of evolution, the tree trunk may provide may also provide a clue as to how the layers were formed and over what period.

I'm not sure what sort of clue you have in mind. Not all the layers are millions of years in duration. They vary considerably. Some layers go down quickly. But really it would make more sense to consult the people who have studied this site. I can think of several ways it might have happened, but without any specific information, it doesn't make sense for me to guess at what happened. None of the alternatives that I can think of is problematic.

[ordinaryguy]

I am beginning to question whether the thread has indeed come to the appropriate time to die.

Well, only the moderators have the power to kill it. Ordinary users like us just get to decide whether to post, or not to post. If nobody posts, it dies of starvation. Otherwise, it lives.

[Tj3]

Your evaluation of what I "wish" is well off the mark.
I did not introduce the example, and can only guess at an explanation for it (which I have), since I know nothing about the particulars of this one tree. If you have something to say about the tree, please do! The way is all open to you.

That is fine - that was the same point I made a few times during the "20 questions". No one is required to answer questions. Perhaps in the future discussing points would be better than the 20 questions approach - I agree.

I may choose to add more input on the tree if I see any desire on here for a real discussion.

[Akoue]

That is fine - that was the same point I made a few times during the "20 questions". No one is required to answer questions. Perhaps in the future discussing points would be better than the 20 questions approach - I agree.

I may choose to add more input on the tree if I see any desire on here for a real discussion.

That's fine. But you introduced the Joggins tree as a counterexample to macroevolution. Unless you clearly articulate how and why it is a counterexample, it's of no more than anecdotal interest. Now you mentioned just now that the placement of the tree "may" raise questions about the dating of the fossils found at Joggins. Perhaps, if you'd like to give teeth to your counterexample, you might develop that "may" into a "does". Short of that, the overwhelming body of evidence (asking mentioned the Grand Canyon as a case in point) favors the standard dating of the fossil record.

[Tj3]

That's fine. But you introduced the Joggins tree as a counterexample to macroevolution. Unless you clearly articulate how and why it is a counterexample, it's of no more than anecdotal interest. Now you mentioned just now that the placement of the tree "may" raise questions about the dating of the fossils found at Joggins. Perhaps, if you'd like to give teeth to your counterexample, you might develop that "may" into a "does". Short of that, the overwhelming body of evidence (asking mentioned the Grand Canyon as a case in point) favors the standard dating of the fossil record.

I see no overwhelming body of evidence, but the onus is on you to articulate that and provide that overwhleming evidence. I have studied that claim and it dioes not hold up under examination. And just making a claim does not make it so.

BTW, I did say that I might discuss it more if I see any desire on here for a serious respectful discussion. We'll see if any materializes.

[Akoue]

I see no overwhelming body of evidence, but the onus is on you to articulate that and provide that overwhleming evidence. I have studied that claim and it dioes not hold up under examination. And just making a claim does not make it so.

BTW, I did say that I might discuss it more if I see any desire on here for a serious respectful discussion. We'll see if any materializes.

If you find the fact that I don't see how Joggins is a counterexample to macroevolution as a lack of seriousness or respect, so be it. But I don't. And it's up to the person who proposes a counterexample to demonstrate that it is in fact a counterexample.

[Tj3]

If you find the fact that I don't see how Joggins is a counterexample to macroevolution as a lack of seriousness or respect, so be it. But I don't. And it's up to the person who proposes a counterexample to demonstrate that it is in fact a counterexample.

Just as it is up to you / asking to prove that there is "overwhelming evidence for your position. In a serious and sincere discussion, both sides present their positions, and they discuss respectfully. Just telling me that I have to do it, but your side requires no evidence is not a serious discussion.

I have been asking on several threads for evidence of macroevolution, but it seems that you want me to simply accept your position without the same examination. It does not work that way.

Let's see if there is any interest in a serious discussion.

[inthebox]

Solution To Darwin's Dilemma Of 1859

Notice that they found MICROBE fossils preCambrian, but never have fossils of how distinct animal body plans came about.

Nice try but still no explanation for the Cambrian "biological big bang"

Fossils are a red herring, a diversion, because it does not explain the genetic changes needed to explain how we have common ancetors with apes, dogs, mammals, invertebrates.

Maybe in Darwin's, pre cell bioolgy, days it might be acceptable to assume that similar shapes is proof of common ancestry, but by that same criteria, movie theaters, planes, and homes have the same common ancestor because they all have seats in their interior.


The science of cell, molecular, genetics, biochemistry , makes the proposition that we are products of chance mutations and a couple billion years, unrealistic.


Meteorites Delivered The 'Seeds' Of Earth's Left-hand Life, Experts Argue

How is it that we only have functional left handed amino acids?
... more story telling and speculation [ are these scientific ? ]

How did our dna "know" to only code for left handed amino acids?

------------------------------------------------

The Bible tells us things we know to be true:

Don't kill
Don't commit adultery
Love each other
etc.





G&P

[Akoue]

Just as it is up to you / asking to prove that there is "overwhelming evidence for your position. In a serious and sincere discussion, both sides present their positions, and they discuss respectfully. Just telling me that I have to do it, but your side requires no evidence is not a serious discussion.

I have been asking on several threads for evidence of macroevolution, but it seems that you want me to simply accept your position without the same examination. It does not work that way.

Let's see if there is any interest in a serious discussion.

Okey-dokey. I'm going to pay no attention to Joggins. If you could have made a case for its relevance I'm guessing you would have done so by now. Now, I've said before that the academic scientific community favors macroevolution, a claim which asking has seconded. The only counterexample you have so far provided to this claim is the Discovery Institute, the scientific credentials of which have been publicly vitiated over the space of several years now. And, as I have also said, the view that asking and I favor is public and well-known; yours is not. If you continue to dissemble, I am going to conclude that it is because you have made claims which you are aware you are unable to support.

This is how I'll make up my mind. Others can do as seems appropriate for them.

[ordinaryguy]

A tree lives for a few hundred years, maybe. Evolutionists claim that there layers are millions of years in duration. We have a discrepancy between the timeframes. Since asking said that the animals found in the layers provide a records of the millions of years of evolution, the tree trunk may provide may also provide a clue as to how the layers were formed and over what period of time and thus may provide important information about how to interpret what the fossil layers really tell us.

So in your view, what DO the "fossil layers really tell us"? Do they tell us, for example, that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all the life forms represented there have lived and died within that span of time? Or that Noah's flood is what killed the dinosaurs? Or that God created fossils and rocks that only appear to be very old as a test of our faith in the Bible?

I would like to know what you think they "really tell us". You've been emphatic about what you think they DON'T tell us (macro-evolution occurred), but you still haven't said what you think they DO tell us.

[Tj3]

Okey-dokey. I'm going to pay no attention to Joggins.

And I'll pay no attention to your unvalidated claims.

I notice that you only accept what those scientists say that you agree with, and reject those who disagree with you. I listen to all scientific evidence no matter where it comes from and I examine it objectively.

Others can decide which produces the most objective conclusion.

[Tj3]

So in your view, what DO the "fossil layers really tell us"?

I have already responded to that a few times. I said that the fossil record is a huge topic and anyone who tells you that all fossils are the same and all formed the same way has not studied the topic in detail or is oversimplifying. Entre books, indeed volumes of books have been written in response to that question, so if you wish to discuss what the fossil record says, we need to be more specific.

Since I have already answered the question, why don't you take this opportunity to tell us what you think and why?

[Akoue]

And I'll pay no attention to your unvalidated claims.

I notice that you only accept what those scientists say that you agree with, and reject those who disagree with you. I listen to all scientific evidence no matter where it comes from and I examine it objectively.

Others can decide which produces the most objective conclusion.

You've been asked by asking and by me to provide the names of "leading scientists" (the phrase is one you've used repeatedly) who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute and who reject macroevolution. You've yet to do so, so I am guessing you don't know of any. If I'm mistaken and you do, by all means bring them forward.

[arcura]

Akoue,
I have not seen ANY cases where asking has purposely mis-represented Tom Smith.
Have you?
If so please show me where.
Peace and kindness,
Fred