Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 204 (259715)
11-14-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mick
11-04-2005 9:10 PM


Have to laugh at that progression...
Sorry but that digression is amusing, but being we covered it on the whale threads, maybe it's not appropiate here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM mick has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 204 (259718)
11-14-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Christian
11-08-2005 6:02 PM


they can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Christian, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 6:54 PM randman has replied
 Message 72 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 12:42 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 204 (259747)
11-14-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 6:54 PM


Re: Evolution has some holes, but there are a lot more in the whole "Noah's Flood" thing
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 6:54 PM wiseman45 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Nighttrain, posted 11-14-2005 10:52 PM randman has not replied
 Message 82 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 10:22 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 73 of 204 (259786)
11-15-2005 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Yaro
11-15-2005 12:42 AM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 12:42 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nwr, posted 11-15-2005 12:57 AM randman has not replied
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 1:04 AM randman has not replied
 Message 76 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 1:33 AM randman has replied
 Message 83 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 10:29 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 77 of 204 (259831)
11-15-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Yaro
11-15-2005 1:33 AM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 1:33 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 2:24 AM randman has not replied
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 10:31 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 204 (259936)
11-15-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by nator
11-15-2005 10:31 AM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
For all the lurkers, when confronted with uncomfortable facts, evos generally respond as shraf does above with silly posts and nothing viably substantial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 10:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 11-15-2005 12:08 PM randman has replied
 Message 108 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 7:21 AM randman has not replied
 Message 109 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 7:23 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 87 of 204 (259943)
11-15-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
11-15-2005 12:08 PM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
Yea, not explaining where my cats' grandparents are buried is sure moving the goalpoasts....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 11-15-2005 12:08 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 12:31 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 204 (259956)
11-15-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Yaro
11-15-2005 12:31 PM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 12:31 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 1:18 PM randman has not replied
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 1:30 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 92 of 204 (259965)
11-15-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
11-15-2005 1:30 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 1:30 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kjsimons, posted 11-15-2005 1:57 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 204 (260001)
11-15-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kjsimons
11-15-2005 1:57 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kjsimons, posted 11-15-2005 1:57 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 6:16 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 204 (260032)
11-15-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
11-15-2005 6:16 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 11-15-2005 6:16 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 7:27 PM randman has not replied
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 8:51 PM randman has not replied
 Message 101 by Thor, posted 11-15-2005 9:02 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 204 (260063)
11-15-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Yaro
11-15-2005 9:35 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 9:35 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 10:51 PM randman has replied
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 11:43 PM randman has replied
 Message 120 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-18-2005 8:53 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 204 (260113)
11-16-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by arachnophilia
11-15-2005 11:43 PM


Re: recycled creationist mumbo-jumbo
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,...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 11:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 11-16-2005 7:43 AM randman has replied
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2005 6:02 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 106 of 204 (260116)
11-16-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Yaro
11-15-2005 10:51 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 10:51 PM Yaro has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 204 (260118)
11-16-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Yaro
11-15-2005 10:51 PM


Re: randman can't do it, Christian
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 10:51 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 7:36 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024