Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[Tyrathca]

For a start, it provides a mechanism to explain volcanism.

Try staying on topic and reading next time

How about this: While I try to find the details missing from your story, how about you read up on flood dynamics. :up:

Evidence remember? Creationists hate talking about the evidence. They always expect others to get it for them, even for their own ideas.

 

[Stripe]

Try staying on topic and reading next time Evidence remember? Creationists hate talking about the evidence. They always expect others to get it for them, even for their own ideas.

Nope.

The situation has been outlined. There are three things needed to fossilized turtles: sediment, water and cement. To achieve the result in this case, there are issues of timing and water removal.

Darwinists do not have a grip on these things.

 

[Tyrathca]

Nope.

The situation has been outlined. There are three things needed to fossilized turtles: sediment, water and cement. To achieve the result in this case, there are issues of timing and water removal.

Darwinists do not have a grip on these things.

Well excuse me for not trusting your expert opinion on fossil formation. Here I thought we were dealing with evidence...

 

[Stripe]

Well excuse me for not trusting your expert opinion on fossil formation.

These things are necessary: water, cement, sediment.

 

[Tyrathca]

These things are necessary: water, cement, sediment.

Wow you must be a professor with that level of detail and knowledge on the subject!

 

[Stripe]

Wow you must be a professor with that level of detail and knowledge on the subject!

Nope.

A professor would never focus his students so firmly on the fundamentals: water, sediments and cement.

 

[Alate_One]

Wow you must be a professor with that level of detail and knowledge on the subject!

:chuckle:

I don't know about cement at the site but it was once mined for brown coal and oil shale before becoming known for its fossils. one wonders how a relatively small pit area had such resources while the surrounding area did not . . . :think:

Maybe the YECers can answer these:

1. If this happened from an event violent enough to move the continents as fast as racehorses and eject pieces of earth as comets (per Stripe's favorite non-biblical book), how were conditions gentle enough for quite a few turtles to continue mating so that they were buried in multiple layers of sediment?

2. If this fossil bed was caused by a worldwide event, why is this particular spot (The Messel Pit) so special in terms of fossil preservation? It's been named a UNESCO world heritage site.

3. Doesn't it make more sense that there was a volcanic lake - much like lake Nyos in Africa that repeatedly killed organisms, some of which sank into the toxic bottom of the lake and were preserved?

 

[Stripe]

One wonders how a relatively small pit area had such resources while the surrounding area did not.

That you're unwilling to think does not eliminate what is necessary.

To make a fossil, you need three things: water, sediment and cement. Those three things were necessary, and in this case, the deposition had to be swift and the water had to be removed.

Maybe the YECers can answer these:

And maybe Darwinists can keep asking questions while ignoring the evidence to protect their precious religion.

 

[Alate_One]

That you're unwilling to think does not eliminate what is necessary.

To make a fossil, you need three things: water, sediment and cement. Those three things were necessary, and in this case, the deposition had to be swift and the water had to be removed.

If these were formed at the bottom of a lake, as proposed in the original paper, I don't see how your simplistic assessment (which is not how the textbooks describe fossilization) would be any problem.

How "swift" are we talking about in deposition? There's the famous Old Man of the lake in Crater Lake in Washington state. It's a tree that's been floating in the volcanic lake for over 100 years.

And maybe Darwinists can keep asking questions while ignoring the evidence to protect their precious religion.

Or maybe you could stop repeating the lines you've been using for several years now and have an actual conversation about the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

If these were formed at the bottom of a lake, as proposed in the original paper, I don't see how your ... assessment would be any problem.

It's not a problem.

We're glad you've recognized one of the necessary ingredients: Water. You just need two more: sediment and cement.

How "swift" are we talking about in deposition?

They had to be buried and the water removed before any serious decay set in.

There's the famous Old Man of the lake in Crater Lake in Washington state. It's a tree that's been floating in the volcanic lake for over 100 years.

Super. A floating tree. lain:

What would be interesting is if you showed us an "Old Man" in rock.

Then we could have the same discussion: Water, seds, cement, timing.

Or maybe you could stop repeating the lines you've been using for several years now and have an actual conversation about the evidence.

:darwinsm:

 

[6days]

So the people who actually work in the field of comparative genomics don't know their own field? When they say it's all entirely based on evolutionary common ancestrywhich allows them to predict genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, they're......lying? Completely ignorant of their own profession?

Jose..... You are still mistaken... and not understanding the articles you are quoting. The researchers say they are using a "statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology". As has been mentioned to you many ....many times; a belief in a common designer or a belief in common ancestry are used to explain the evidence. However, it is the common ancestry belief system which has hindered science at times. And, it is the common ancestor belief system which runs into difficulties finding 'conflicts between morphological data and genetic data'.

A retired veterinarian? So after seeing actual comparative geneticists say that evolutionary common ancestry is the basis for their entire field, your response is "Nuh uh....this retired creationist vet, who's never done one iota of work in comparative genomics, says it isn't"

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is 'rebutted' by attacking the education or character of the person in an attempt to ignore the argument itself.

 

[6days]

If there were set created kinds

Then God said...these seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came. .... So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.....Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind

We would expect to see genetic patterns fall into neat boxes

We would expect a good designer of anything (including created kinds) to use similar designs, performing similar functions, in similar models.

Evidence is interpreted according to which history you choose to believe a) God's Word, or b)man's opinions.

 

[6days]

Doesn't it make more sense that there was a volcanic lake - much like lake Nyos in Africa that repeatedly killed organisms, some of which sank into the toxic bottom of the lake and were preserved?

Nope..... It doesn't make more sense, but that is what you must believe when you reject God's Word. The turtles were killed or trapped almost instantly and preserved in sediment.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose..... You are still mistaken... and not understanding the articles you are quoting. The researchers say they are using a "statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology".

Yup, and I really appreciate you doing what you just did; it really helps to once again illustrate my larger point about how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

See, the part you quoted is from the abstract, the key word there being "part". Here it is in its more complete context The regular part is what you quoted, the bold is what you left out...

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy.​

How about that? You just happened to leave out the parts where they directly state that the entire model is based on evolution. I mean, it's right there in the name of the model (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships), which you oh-so conveniently left out , in addition to all the mentions of phylogenetics (which is just another word for evolutionary relatedness).

I mean....do you get what you just did? After I cited that paper as evidence of evolutionary theory directly contributing to our understanding of the world around us, not to mention how important genetic function is in the world of medical science, you're now saying I'm mistaken? A paper that says "Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function"? You're actually arguing that model isn't at all based on evolution? The one named "Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships"?

Given that you've already claimed I was "mistaken" about the paper, I can only conclude that you are actually making that argument. Now the question is, why? Do you truly believe that model isn't based on evolutionary theory? If you do, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your cognitive skills.

But if you actually do understand how the model is based in evolutionary theory but tried to sneak one in by selectively snipping out the parts of the abstract that mention evolution, hoping no one would notice....then that makes you dishonest, which like I said, illustrates my larger point about advocating creationism.

As has been mentioned to you many ....many times; a belief in a common designer or a belief in common ancestry are used to explain the evidence.

You keep saying that, but as I keep guaranteeing, you'll never actually show any equivalent work under the "creationist model".....because it doesn't exist.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is 'rebutted' by attacking the education or character of the person in an attempt to ignore the argument itself.

Interesting. So which part of what I said was the personal attack? Where I noted that she's a retired veterinarian? That she's a creationist? That she hasn't done work in comparative genomics?

 

[Stripe]

Yup, and I really appreciate you doing what you just did; it really helps to once again illustrate my larger point about how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly. See, the part you quoted is from the abstract, the key word there being "part". Here it is in its more complete context The regular part is what you quoted, the bold is what you left out...[indent][B]We present a[/B] statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. [B]Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy.[/B] [/indent]How about that? You just happened :rolleyes: to leave out the parts where they directly state that the entire model is based on evolution. I mean, it's right there [B][I]in the name of the model[/I][/B] ([B]Statistical Inference of Function [U]Through Evolutionary Relationships[/U][/B]), which you oh-so conveniently left out :rolleyes:, in addition to all the mentions of phylogenetics ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree"]which is just another word for evolutionary relatedness[/URL]).I mean....do you get what you just did? After I cited that paper as evidence of evolutionary theory directly contributing to our understanding of the world around us, not to mention how important genetic function is in the world of medical science, you're now saying [B][I]I'm[/I][/B] mistaken? A paper that says "[I]Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function[/I]"? You're actually arguing [B][I]that model[/I][/B] isn't at all based on evolution? The one named "Statistical Inference of Function [B][U]Through Evolutionary Relationships[/U][/B]"?Given that you've already claimed I was "mistaken" about the paper, I can only conclude that you [I]are[/I] actually making that argument. Now the question is, why? Do you truly believe that model [B][I]isn't[/I][/B] based on evolutionary theory? If you do, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your cognitive skills. But if you actually [I][B]do[/B][/I] understand how the model [B][I]is[/I][/B] based in evolutionary theory but tried to sneak one in by selectively snipping out the parts of the abstract that mention evolution, hoping no one would notice....then that makes you dishonest, which like I said, illustrates my larger point about advocating creationism. You keep [I]saying[/I] that, but as I keep guaranteeing, you'll never actually [I]show[/I] any equivalent work under the "creationist model".....because it doesn't exist. Interesting. So which part of what I said was the personal attack? Where I noted that she's a retired veterinarian? That she's a creationist? That she hasn't done work in comparative genomics?

Darwinists hate discussing the evidence.

 

[6days]

How about that? You just happened to leave out the parts where they directly state that the entire model is based on evolution. I mean, it's right there in the name of the model (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships), which you oh-so conveniently left out , in addition to all the mentions of phylogenetics (which is just another word for evolutionary relatedness).

You are still mistaken Jose. You are not understanding the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretation'. Evidence is the homology discussed in the articles. Interpretation is based on two opposing belief systems....or, two different histories.

The turtles fossilized while 'doing it', is the evidence. The interpretation of evidence based on God's Word is the best and most logical explanation

 

[Jose Fly]

You are still mistaken Jose. You are not understanding the difference between 'evidence' and 'interpretation'. Evidence is the homology discussed in the articles. Interpretation is based on two opposing belief systems....or, two different histories.

So again the question is, are you really that ignorant of this subject, or are you once again dishonestly trying to misrepresent their work?

Here's a tip....their work isn't "interpretation", it's application. They applied their model of evolutionary relatedness to the genetic data, and even when "the data are sparse or noisy" it identified genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

Understand? They applied evolutionary theory and came back with extremely useful results.

Also, you didn't answer: Which part of what I said about Lightner was the personal attack? Where I noted that she's a retired veterinarian? That she's a creationist? That she hasn't done work in comparative genomics?

 

[Alate_One]

Then God said...these seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came. .... So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.....Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind
We would expect a good designer of anything (including created kinds) to use similar designs, performing similar functions, in similar models.

But that isn't what we see. We don't see a bunch of identical or even highly similar parts used over and over, we see a pattern of similarity and differences that grade into one another and don't necessarily follow the pattern of "similar functions". If you look at the DNA of a whale shark and that of a humpback whale, they're not very much alike. Both are large filter feeders living in the ocean. Superficially they look a lot alike, and they have similar lifestyles. Why isn't their DNA more the same if "common design" explains DNA similarities?

Why is the DNA of rats and mice so different from one another when they have such similar appearances and similar lifestyles?

Why are rats and mice most similar to other rodents, like beavers that have vastly different lifestyles from rats and mice? Why is a raccoon dog's DNA most similar to other dogs than the raccoon which it resembles?

Evidence is interpreted according to which history you choose to believe a) God's Word, or b)man's opinions.

And this is your problem. you make a thread about evidence, pretending it supports your interpretation. But when confronted you revert to the "I believe God's word says X therefore I'm right". Why bother with evidence at all?

 

[Stripe]

The evidence has been presented. Typically, the Darwinists do everything in their power to avoid it.

 

[George Affleck]

All this is predicated on the 'belief' that the nine pairs of turtles were actually in the process of mating which is impossible to prove. It is not remarkable to find turtles of opposite sex together. Two of the nine pairs are not touching each other and some of the others are not aligned correctly. Best guesses are fine if we are prepared to leave it at that; but apparently that doesn't sell very well and the evolutionary paradigm must be protected at all cost.

For all we know they were tripping over each other trying to get away from the silt that was quickly enveloping them. If anything, finding so many male and female pairs should simply tell us that they were all overtaken in one event during turtle mating season.