|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: evolutionary chain | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
This is a great point Christian! And it's a perfect illustration of how evolution works.
Imagine having a photograph of every person your husband descends from going back 14 generations. How alike do you think their going to be? Now imagine that all you had was the photographs. And you knew they were related somehow. All you would have to go by is the pictures. You would probably not come up with a direct line, but you would come up with a set of possible candidates based on morphological analysis and dating techniques. (test the photographs for age etc.) That's what we got basically. Does that make sense? This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-05-2005 04:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Hey crash, I think hes refering to the bit about geneologies in the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Nice straw man.
No one is claiming a perfect unbroaken chain. Even though you have had this explained to you countless times in countless other threads, you somehow still fail to get it. Further, you never have given an example of what you would accept as a transitional form. People show them to you, you say "thats not what Im looking for", then you never tell them what you ARE looking for. Seems to me you can't and won't be pleased. You are determined to maintain your flawd, non-scientific, beliefs at any cost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I just think when something like 90% of the evidence that should be there is non-existent that it is reasonable to question the model. You to this date refuse to deal with that fact. That's because you think the fossil record is the only evidence available, but you disregard the wealth of genetic evidence and geologic evidence. Compound that with the fact that no one else has put forward a theory that accounts for even a smidge of that evidence, you got yourself a pretty solid item. You don't dispute genetics, why the hell do you dispute the ToE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Those dots don't connect! There is no proof anywhere that those dots were ever connected in any way!
Besides... I don't see a pattern that looks like a whale in there!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
It's an accurate representation to your unreasonable demands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Yea, just asking for data you guys claim you have (but don't) is unreasonable, eh? If you are going to say critics are just talking about "gaps" and state that no one can have "every link", then you are obligated to tell the truth, specifically how many of the theoritical links do you have. You guys act like you have a substantial portion of the evolutionary chain. Just look at the stupid diagram above. But in reality, you don't have enough "links" to even show that they are links. If we look at say, a proposed path of evolution that would take, say, 10,000 links, you have maybe, what 5 potentials? It's laughable. What's laughable is your compleat lack of understanding concerning the ToE. What's laughable is your willfull ignorance, and inability (refusal?) to understand the countless explanations made to you as to why your understanding of ToE is flawed. It's also rather obvious that you are incable of refuting any actual POINTS made to you, so instead of trying to debate you would rather cast insults and gloat about your victory of ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
The problem is the connections don't exist. Wow! You convinced me! Pack-up guys, randmansbare assetionhas just disproved 150 years of science. Man, thank goodness we don't have to see what we don't want to see. Isn't selective knowledge and willfull ignorance nice? I think I'm gonna start beliving in the intelligent pusher next. This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-15-2005 07:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
...taken a college level geology or biology class? Hell, even a descent high-school class (like the one I was lucky to have ) will give you most of this info. But I guess randman wouldn't like that cuz it's high-school, and evolution is a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
The problem is after taking those classes I decided to look into the data for myself and found most of the "evidence" presented in the class was a lie. That's why a thinking person should question evolution. LOL! Somehow I don't think you ever examined anything. No one is lying to you. You want them to be lying so you can fill the gaps with your fancifull ideas about QM and "poofing"
I challenge anyone to really examine what they were taught in school and see if the facts they were taught relative to evolution are genuinely true, and especially over time you will see what evos teach as factual change to the point you recognize it's all based on overstatements, hoaxes, lies, and wishful thinking. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH! This from the man who seriously suggests new animals magicaly apear at the whim of an unseen "designer"! You have failed to show any of the above is true. All you do is dredge up old oudated crap and try and pass it off as modern contraversy. Do you realize how foolish you look?
Presenting older forms of people, such as Neanderthals as ape-like when they were not. HAHAHHAHAHAHAH! Note the dates. Your "ape-like" neandertal was circa 1900. As science advances, things change. Are you gonna say computer science is a bunch of crap because early computers looked like an Apple IIe? Get real.
Using faked drawings to make unproven claims of a phylotypic embryonic stage. Keep in the mind we are not talking of adjustments in theory but the manufacturing of false data and presenting that false data as fact to people in schools. Most students never bother to look into the data for themselves. Oh shut up about this already. Seriously, be quiet. You sound like a fool. Those drawings are over 100 years old and if any text book today presents them as accurate its the fault of the damn text book, not scientists. I for one never even heard of Heakle till I started at the EvC. You creationsts love a bone to pick on, it dosn't even matter how long that bone's been lying around. Got any new tricks up your sleve, cuz I have seen/heard all these before and it's begining to sound like an echo chamber with you.
Using false claims in depicting the so-called ape to human transition. Another baseles assertion, and if you bring up Nebraska man I ask you agian... you got anything recent to yammer about? Cuz last site you posted was claiming the ica stones were real and that Aztec Head Binding was proof of giants. Have you ever botherd to look at the garbage you consider provocative "science"? I mean, Michael Cremo for chrissake!! He ain't even on the same religius plaent as you are.
Claiming micro-evolution equals macro-evolution. ya ya ya... cry me a river. I'm sorry you don't understand evolution. We have all wasted a great deal of time trying to explain it to you and for your 2200+ post count it doesn't really seem you have learned anything.
Lying about the reality of the fossil record, claiming only "gaps" are missing as if the majority of the material is there when that is a gross exagerration, and there are virtually no transitions well-documented between major morphological forms, nor are the vast majority of features for any creature shown in any transition. Right, cuz ya know all these scientists spend all this time slaving away earning Ph.d's so they can lie. Why do you even think it's in their damn interest to lie?. Boy, you must think your so damn special that the scientific comunity would single you out, and invest all this time, effort, and money just to lie to you. Give me a break. Don't you have some UFO's to chase?
Pretty much you name it, and the evos have overstated it. About the strongest evidence they have is genetic, but since it is relatively new, we will see how it holds up over time. It took well over 100 years of denouncing evolutionist's use of faked embryonic drawings before some headway was made there. Maybe the internet can speed that up, but the important thing to remember is the history of using faked pictorials, faked data, and overstatements within the evo camp. Nope, you are being an ass. You are basically calling scientists a bunch of quacks and liers with no justification. And then you come around here and post these pathetic, geocities-style sites, where some numb-nutz who read to much bad sci-fi while on acid, farts out a bunch of nonsense and you expect us to belive it. Lemme ask you something, HAVE YOU EVER BOTHERED TO EXAMINE THE CRAP YOU BELIVE? I don't even know why you bother coming on this board, your so damn hardheaded. Talking to you is like a goddam broken record. Don't bother going to a doctor if you get sick randman, the medical profesion is full of liers, quacks, and hoaxes. After all, they don't even know where the soul is! Give me a break. This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-15-2005 10:57 PM This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-15-2005 10:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024