|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: evolutionary chain | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Sorry but that digression is amusing, but being we covered it on the whale threads, maybe it's not appropiate here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Christian, they can't supply any chains because they have never found any. It's that simple. They can, using their imagination, arrange depictions of creatures to try to show how one could morph into another, but they could probably line up living species and do the same, as far as illustration. The whole thing breaks down, particularly with the whale evo story.
They have no answers for the lack of transitions being showed in the fossil record. The best they have is to claim "fossil rarity" but this is a vague, undefined concept, and is inconsistent with the numbers you have posted showing fossilization is not so rare for families of species as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Thanks for admitting that there are some holes in ToE. Nevertheless, it's a common error to think that if creationism can be disproved or discredited, that somehow ToE is validated. Trying to discredit the Bible or God or creationism does not validate ToE.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 10:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I'm not asking for an unbroken chain but for some sort of honesty from evolutionists. You have, at best, something like a handful of links in a chain that spans 4000 or more links. There is no rational reason why 99.99% of the links are not shown, and yet you still dishonestly suggest that what I asked for is every single link.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yaro, I don't think it's the only evidence for evolution. I admit there is evidence elsewhere.
You misunderstand me. I think the fossil record is well nigh proof against current ToE models, and as such, the other data needs reinterpreting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
For all the lurkers, when confronted with uncomfortable facts, evos generally respond as shraf does above with silly posts and nothing viably substantial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yea, not explaining where my cats' grandparents are buried is sure moving the goalpoasts....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ni, I am looking at a massive grassplains and saying the fact there are a few trees on the savannah does not make it a rain forest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
OK, I am looking at next to no trees over a vast grassland, and you guys swear there's a forest there because there are isolated trees here and there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The problem is the connections don't exist. They don't. You talk about not seeing the forest, and it's true, and that's because the forest isn't there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 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.
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. Some of the lies are: Presenting older forms of people, such as Neanderthals as ape-like when they were not. 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. Using false claims in depicting the so-called ape to human transition. Claiming micro-evolution equals macro-evolution. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Actually, every thing I mentioned is true, and even though evos claim to refute them just as they justified Haeckel's forgeries, anyone can look into the data for themselves and see that things like Haeckel's forgeries are real, that Neanderthals were not subhuman and ape-like, etc,...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Actually, all of those depictions of Neanderthal are excessively ape-like except perhaps one, and represent misrepresentations, and misrepresentations that were clearly known to be false. One must assume the misrepresentations were deliberate since it was known since the 50s that Neanderthals were not the crude subhumans evos claimed to be, but more properly described as a tribe of people that acted very much like other people from just a couple of hundred years ago that lacked modern technology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Haeckel's drawings were used even recently, and probably still are in use. Remember that we are talking about college and high school classes and the evidence they present for evolution. The fact is evos used Haeckel's deceptions to make false claims which they still do today, of things like human gill slits which do not exist and phylotypic stage. This is just one of the lies, of course, that evos put forth as evidence for evolution, but honestly, most of all the remaining stuff are lies as well.
For example, the typical depiction of ape to human contained and probably still contains egregious errors and is unfounded, but evos still use that. Take Ramipithicus, or whatever his name is. He was once listed as a more advanced hominid in the transition, but since other fossils made the dates not work, he is now considered an ape of little significance, and not really transitional. What was the difference? It looks to me like the evos are fudging data, leaping to conclusions, and insisting overstatements are facts. Basically yaro, other than genetics, I have not seen one major evidentiary claim by evolutionists that wasn't riddled with overstatements and deception. This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 01:33 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024