Ancient Fossil looks like Today's Acorn Worms

[Garland-Green]

Ancient Fossil looks like Today's Acorn Worms

[Working link April 3rd 2016. Please notify us of broken links and inaccurate content.]  

[Ratsah]

Cool article  

[Aquatic_blue]

Wow surprised that's interesting.  

[Aporeia]

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.  

[Garland-Green]

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/  

[Aporeia]

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.  

[Aquatic_blue]

False Dichotomy

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.

In the end, does it truly matter? These people give it their all to express Creationism through science and I believe they do a good job at it and they try to do it for God. smile

Don't we all realize that God created the Earth and everything in it? That's what's the most important 3nodding  

[Aporeia]

Aquatic_blue

False Dichotomy

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.

In the end, does it truly matter? These people give it their all to express Creationism through science and I believe they do a good job at it and they try to do it for God. smile

Don't we all realize that God created the Earth and everything in it? That's what's the most important 3nodding

I'm more ashamed of people for lying, and putting a huge stumbling block in place for people who don't take well to *********. It's a waste of time, money and effort. All of that could surely be channeled in a more productive manner.  

[Garland-Green]

False Dichotomy

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.

Quote:

The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.

Then what are the mechanisms of evolution? How does evolution select which specie will evolve and which will remain the same? What guides evolution?
There are no assumptions involved in the theory of evolution?
It is all provable fact?

Quote:

Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology.

Pointing out assumptions is not bad. It is not different from what you are doing, the only thing different is the vantage point.

You believe in Jesus, and that he died for our sins. I have been able to deduce that much reading your posts. How does millions of years of death before the fall figure in to it? How does death enter into the equation? Was there a fall in your opinion? If there wasn't a fall then why do we need Jesus? Is death natural?  

[Aporeia]

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.

Quote:

The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.

Then what are the mechanisms of evolution? How does evolution select which specie will evolve and which will remain the same? What guides evolution?
There are no assumptions involved in the theory of evolution?
It is all provable fact?Evolution is guided by random chance in relation to pragmatism. It doesn't matter if a creature is particularly highly evolved, or complex. What determines its survival is merely what works. If this creature is similar to an acorn worm, then our present day acorn worms are a descendant of said species. Likely, they are not identical, but phenotypal traits (visible ones) are remarkably similar.

With evolutionary mechanics, things don't progress homogeneously, they speciate in pockets. If this worm speciated, it likely did it several times, and in several different ways. This early worm could very well be the descendant of many types of worm, not merely the acorn worm.

The reason why this similar acorn worm still exists is simple: because it could survive. Only a very small portion of the worms did speciate, it is an individual thing, not a group process. The acorn worm exists to this day because those that did not speciate (or did lightly) never went extinct.

This is a rarity, but is not unheard of. Current day sharks are a similar case. Some of the sharks we have today are remarkably similar to the ones from hundreds of millions of years ago. We have more diverse species now, but sharks like the Great White were so successful at surviving that they never went extinct, and so had very minimal changes over time.

The mechanics themselves are very solid and proven. It is a natural law that happens even in nature to this day, although its effects are, as always, small. It's the same set of mechanics that causes albino cats to suffer early deaths (they're easily spotted, and bad at hiding), while black cats (obviously hard to see at night) have a very high survival rate. THE MECHANICS ARE A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Application of those mechanics are where all of the assumptions fall into place. Just because X happened doesn't mean it is because of Y reason. These assumptions are recognized in the scientific community, and are often hotly debated for years until strong evidence for one school of thought sways the other.

Quote:

Quote:

Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology.

Pointing out assumptions is not bad. It is not different from what you are doing, the only thing different is the vantage point.

There is a difference in direction and application of force. When you want to deconstruct an argument, you don't point at the fringes, you point at the pillars that hold it up.

Quote:

You believe in Jesus, and that he died for our sins. I have been able to deduce that much reading your posts. How does millions of years of death before the fall figure in to it? How does death enter into the equation? Was there a fall in your opinion? If there wasn't a fall then why do we need Jesus? Is death natural?

As a matter of conjecture, here's one of my views of how this whole situation pans out.

First off, there was no "fall." The early genesis stories are simply that: stories. I do not see there being a need for a fall. Perhaps you can call this arrogance, but my point on the matter is that we are responsible for no one but ourselves. I am not damned because of the sins of some naked caveman and his lying tot of a wife. My sins are my own, and no one else's. I am the source of my own destruction, and the source of my downfall before God. No one else is responsible for what happens to me. I do not believe in the notion of original sin, but I believe we are all, by default, separate from God, no different than any animal. I believe God reached out to us at some point in far history, but that this was not enough. I believe Jesus and his sacrifice are made more meaningful, in this respect. We are not given what was once meant for us, we are given what we never deserved, a place with the creator.

I have other competing thoughts on the matter, and I am not sold on any one in particular, but I find this to be the one most befitting of information I have at hand.  

[Aquatic_blue]

False Dichotomy

Aquatic_blue

False Dichotomy

Garland-Green

False Dichotomy

I'm not sure if I find websites like this funny or depressing. It's just a bunch of pseudointellectuals making unstable arguments about subjects they don't actually study.

It pains me to see how logic just gets thrown out the window.

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.

In the end, does it truly matter? These people give it their all to express Creationism through science and I believe they do a good job at it and they try to do it for God. smile

Don't we all realize that God created the Earth and everything in it? That's what's the most important 3nodding

I'm more ashamed of people for lying, and putting a huge stumbling block in place for people who don't take well to *********. It's a waste of time, money and effort. All of that could surely be channeled in a more productive manner.

You have been given a warning due to breaking our rule of being polite and friendly to other members. Such language will not be tolerated.

To review the guild rules, please refer to the Guild Rules & Guidelines thread here:

Guild Rules & Guidelines

Thank you and God bless.  

[Aporeia]

Aquatic_blue

False Dichotomy

Aquatic_blue

False Dichotomy

Garland-Green

Fallacious statment. Most of the people at ICR are scientists,
and they study these subjects. That you don't agree with their conclusions doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Here is a list of their science team:
http://www.icr.org/research/team/

Quote:

Can evolution try to explain fossils of creatures that went "virtually unchanged" for hundreds of millions of supposed years? Yes it can, but not without imaginative stories to address the question of why mutations and natural selection were somehow absent over the vast time scales the stories require.

This quote suggests 3 distinct but additive possibilities:

• The writer of the article has poor deductive reasoning skills.
  
• The writer of the article has a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanics.
  
• The writer of the article is factually retarded.
  

Not only is there an astounding assumption that the fossilized creature is identical (as opposed to similar) to modern day Acorn Worms, but there's an utter lack of care for what is actual scientific method. Unproven assumptions are made to poke holes in what is an established science, and stupid conclusive quips are made instead any language that would suggest thoughtful conjecture.

This website, along with countless others, is riddled with propagantastic filth. Every other article is making broad assumptions to poke tiny holes in astronomy, biology, and geology. If it isn't making a misuse of deductive reasoning there, it's flaunting articles about how so and so ___ proves creationism. Every article I click on is full of inflammatory "them or us" designations.

Honestly, the more I look, the more I'm offended as a peer.

In the end, does it truly matter? These people give it their all to express Creationism through science and I believe they do a good job at it and they try to do it for God. smile

Don't we all realize that God created the Earth and everything in it? That's what's the most important 3nodding

I'm more ashamed of people for lying, and putting a huge stumbling block in place for people who don't take well to *********. It's a waste of time, money and effort. All of that could surely be channeled in a more productive manner.

You have been given a warning due to breaking our rule of being polite and friendly to other members. Such language will not be tolerated.

To review the guild rules, please refer to the Guild Rules & Guidelines thread here:

Guild Rules & Guidelines

Thank you and God bless.

If that's considered foul language, then where do we draw the lines. Do you even know what I said behind all the asterisks?