Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 3:08 AM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,354 Year: 15,390/19,786 Month: 2,113/3,058 Week: 487/404 Day: 2/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 151 of 217 (524098)
09-14-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Arphy
09-14-2009 8:25 AM


Arphy writes:

To Archangel
First up: Want to say that while you are a harsh critic, you are also very good. Keep up the good work.

Thankyou Arphy, I appreciate the kind words of encouragement.

I think there might be a bit of confusion when you use the word "species". New "species" do occur, but as RAZD writes...
So they might be classified as a new species or they may not. However as you correctly pointed out this still doesn't equate to the information increasing evolution where one type or kind (hopefully a better definition) of animal gives rise to a completly different type/kind of animal.

You raise an interesting point of what I consider to be an issue of semantics I think, but I don't want to confuse the changes which take place through what I call rapid adaptation which I believe occurs via mechanisms which exist in the so called junk DNA which have been identified in the genome project, but not explained or defined regarding its value and function.

In other words, we have observed that animals can adapt quickly in response to environmental pressures. This insures the balance in the chain of life and protects niche species from extinction for just that purpose. But none of these creatures which adapt, change into other species/types of creatures in any way. And that is the very crux of what the theory of evolution claims to be what it represents.

Common descent means that from ONE singular genetic ancestor which spontaneously appeared from dead chemicals around 3.5 billion years ago, on an approximately 1 billion year old cooling planet at that time, all forms of life arose into the variety and various "types" of life forms, from every type of plant to every type of insect to every type of animal up to and including humanity evolved from this common ancestor. The singular word which describes this process is macroevolution. In plain and simple english I reject this process as rational.

Every single example which is forwarded by evolutionists in order to defend one example of macroevolution, will invariably, and must ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent other known and accepted laws of science which I showed above by pointing out that absolute genetic changes in alleles have been proven regarding the Pelycodus which allegedly evolved during the Eocene Age 30 to 50 million years ago, when other established sciences prove that such DNA cannot be successfully extracted past 100,000 years.

This leaves us with only one of two options regarding this evidence. Either it is completely fraudulent and the evolutionists are completely lying about this genetically linked evidence regarding fossils which actually existed 30 to 50 million years ago, OR, the genetic DNA has actually been extracted and successfully tested and a familial connection has been observed proving absolutely that these levels of fossil evidence which evolutionists have created this ancient history for, did in fact exist within the period of time which allows for actually harvesting DNA for testing which must have taken place within the past 30,000 to 100,000 years.

Either way this obvious inconsistency doesn't bode well for either the honesty of evolution, or its foundational claims as a study of ancient/old world origins for all life, common descent or random mutations by way of natural selection. I rest my case your honor.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 8:25 AM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:17 PM Archangel has responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 152 of 217 (524100)
09-14-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:21 PM


quote:
Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, which means show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, and then, since we are well past that stage of evolution, go on and show how that amphibian evolved in the reptile and how the reptile evolved into mammals. We'll put the evidence for avian's on hold for now cuz I don't want to stress you out.

There's strong evidence from the fossil record these for most of these transitions.

The embryonic patterns of blood circulation in mammals go through a number of stages that are the same as embryonic blood circulation patterns in earlier groups. Fascinatingly the sequence embryos go through is - fish, amphibian, reptile, then finally mammal.

Genetic analysis shows divergence of these groups on timeframes that align with the fossil record.

'Fossil' genes also indicate common descent. For example tooth genes in birds have been switched on experimentally. For a more recent example, humans have a large number of inactive genes related to the sense of smell. These are still in use by monkey species with which we shared a common ancestor.

When we look at hierarchies developed by comparing genetic markers across different groups then they show common descent. This is done using statistical techniques that are tuned to spot common descent or its absence. Language hierarchies also show up as having common descent, hierarchies of cars for example do not.

When we look at species on isolated islands, we often see 'radiation' of a groups to fill niches usually occupied (on the mainland) by other creatures. These species resemble species found on the nearest mainland, by and large. This fits perfectly with the idea of a founder population establishing itself on the island and then evolving to fill available niches.

When we look at regions that have been separated recently by geographical barries, we find 'young' species that are different enough not to be able to interbreed, but are still very similar.

These are all good evidence for descent with modification.

Of course, God could have done things in exactly this way. We can't rule that out. However, no gap in science has ever been closed by identifying God as the solution. Not a single one. Not only that, but if God did it, he did it in exactly the way evolution would have done it. That's why science, rightly, does not consider special creation as a realistic alternative.

Happy to discuss specifics on any of these.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:21 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Peepul
Member (Idle past 3249 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 153 of 217 (524103)
09-14-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Archangel
09-14-2009 1:00 PM


quote:
Every single example which is forwarded by evolutionists in order to defend one example of macroevolution, will invariably, and must ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent other known and accepted laws of science which I showed above by pointing out that absolute genetic changes in alleles have been proven regarding the Pelycodus which allegedly evolved during the Eocene Age 30 to 50 million years ago, when other established sciences prove that such DNA cannot be successfully extracted past 100,000 years.

Leaving aside your example (RAZD is capable of defending himself on this!), please cite some claims that ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent accepted laws of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 1:00 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 2:02 PM Peepul has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:18 PM Peepul has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 154 of 217 (524111)
09-14-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Peepul
09-14-2009 1:17 PM


Accepted laws of science
I'd like to see a listing of the "accepted laws of science" that evolution fail to follow as well.

I wonder if the "second law of thermal documents"* will be among those cited.

* That is what was claimed, on another website, that evolution violated.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:17 PM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:35 PM Coyote has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 155 of 217 (524115)
09-14-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Peepul
09-14-2009 1:17 PM


Peepul writes:

Leaving aside your example (RAZD is capable of defending himself on this!), please cite some claims that ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent accepted laws of science.

Sorry, I intended to post this with my argument above.In fact, I thought I did.In fact, I went back and checked and I did post this very evidence in my original argument on post 147; just so you know. Anyway, I post this link just for the evidence quoted since I disagree with Talk Origins conclusions on every level of its pro-evolution apologetics. So please don't take my posting of this link as a sign that I either accept or believe anything T.O. offers in defense of evolution. It was important to me to quote a source you would respect regarding how long genetic material is believed by your science to be possible in order to show the obvious inconsistency between what you claim is possible and the conclusions you come to using fictitious results and assumptions.

Extraction of the mitochondrial DNA

After death, DNA starts degrading immediately. It is thought that under the most favorable conditions, some DNA fragments can survive for as long as 50,000 to 100,000 years. The Feldhofer Neandertal fossil, thought to be between 30,000 and 100,000 years old, was therefore pushing the limits for this kind of work. However initial testing of the fossil showed good preservation of amino acids, indicating that it might contain recoverable mtDNA.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

The question remains, if this statement is true, and it definitely is accepted science today, then how was DNA extracted from the Pelycodus going back between 30 and 50 million years ago, which allowed the posted conclusions regarding the claimed genetic changes to be generated? It makes no rational sense at all as my post above clarifies.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Peepul, posted 09-14-2009 1:17 PM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 09-14-2009 2:29 PM Archangel has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 156 of 217 (524119)
09-14-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Archangel
09-14-2009 2:18 PM


Hi Archangel,

I think you are obsessing needlessly over one sentence in RAZD's post. He isn't making any claims about extracting DNA from ancient fossils. He merely talks about allelic distributions in the populations because we know that genetic traits are the basis for heritable morphological variation.

For some reason you have inferred from this one word that RAZD is claiming that there are genetic data on all of these fossil species, he isn't. The evidence he is pointing you to is the distribution of sizes amongst the fossilized lineage of Pelycodus over time. You may well argue that your interpretation is that these are not really related populations, but to quibble over his use of the term allele is to miss the point.

At the moment you seem to be flogging a strawman.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:18 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:55 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 157 of 217 (524121)
09-14-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Coyote
09-14-2009 2:02 PM


Re: Accepted laws of science
Coyote writes:

I'd like to see a listing of the "accepted laws of science" that evolution fail to follow as well.
I wonder if the "second law of thermal documents"* will be among those cited.

* That is what was claimed, on another website, that evolution violated.

How sad that this is the best I can get from you since you're unable to refute my arguments intelligently. That is why so many of you fall back on the condescending and sanctimonious attempts to talk down to us and insult our intelligence.

So tell me Coyote, how's this innorant christian doing? And if I am so ignorant, why aren't I getting any factual refutations from you who self righteously believes you are intellectually superior to me? Methinks you lie to yourself about more than "just" the deceptions which evolution promotes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 2:02 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 3:17 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 158 of 217 (524128)
09-14-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Wounded King
09-14-2009 2:29 PM


Wounded King writes:

Hi Archangel,
I think you are obsessing needlessly over one sentence in RAZD's post. He isn't making any claims about extracting DNA from ancient fossils. He merely talks about allelic distributions in the populations because we know that genetic traits are the basis for heritable morphological variation.

For some reason you have inferred from this one word that RAZD is claiming that there are genetic data on all of these fossil species, he isn't. The evidence he is pointing you to is the distribution of sizes amongst the fossilized lineage of Pelycodus over time. You may well argue that your interpretation is that these are not really related populations, but to quibble over his use of the term allele is to miss the point.

At the moment you seem to be flogging a strawman.

Balderdash and poppycock on all counts regarding your shallow, flimsy and irrational defense of RAZD's post. By what standard of evolutionist truth were alleles extracted as evidence for the claims he made if no allele changes were actually observed by extracting them and testing them in a laboratory?

You can't have it both ways WK, but that is precisely how you evo's like to have it. Either your science is consistent and works within the boundaries of known scientific laws, or else we are being sold an absolutely fictitious bill of goods which RAZD's link which tells a very pretty story about the alleged documentation of 40 million years of Pelycodus evolution, but is in fact a blatant and fraudulent fairy tale based on no science what so ever. How can I be the one in error when all I am doing is interpreting RAZD's evidence for precisely what it says?

Only in evolutionary science do you people have the audacity to twist and squirm and claim it is I who is creating a strawman just because I am holding RAZD to a literal interpretation of what his words stated was evidence for his claims regarding the Pelycodus. How else do you suggest I interpret this but literally according to his own words?

[RAZD SAID:] Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.
What you see is a series of snap shots of a species population, covering many generations, with a gradual trend to larger individuals over time, eventually reaching the point where the largest end population, Pelycodus jarrovi (before being clasified as Notharctus venticolis) is several times larger than the original population Pelycodus ralstoni. In between these two on the main branch are arbitrary speciation classifications made because the population had changed traits sufficiently to warrant this. At no time is there a gap where the smallest new population is larger than the largest previous population, just that the distribution of alleles for size shifts gradually to larger and larger individuals within the population.

Also visible are three branches, where the population divided into non-interbreeding daughter populations, each descended from a common ancestor population, as show by the lines. These are non-arbitrary speciation events, as the population divided and separated to the point where interbreeding no longer occurred. The first two branches apparently became extinct, but the third branch, Pelycodus frugivorus developed into a parallel population distinct from Notharctus venticolis.

This is descent with modification. The time lapse between the bottom and the top of this graphic covers about five million years.

As is quite obvious, much is stated here as proven fact, yet nothing is factually proven at all. It is nothing more than a well written story written with authority as if it is actually science when it isn't science at all. At this point I want to see evidence that the fossil chain referred to actually exists at all.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Wounded King, posted 09-14-2009 2:29 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-14-2009 3:50 PM Archangel has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 159 of 217 (524135)
09-14-2009 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Archangel
09-14-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Accepted laws of science
So tell me Coyote, how's this innorant christian doing? And if I am so ignorant, why aren't I getting any factual refutations from you who self righteously believes you are intellectually superior to me? Methinks you lie to yourself about more than "just" the deceptions which evolution promotes.

At religious apologetics you're doing well. You are doing what most religious apologists do--hand waving away any evidence that doesn't fit your religious belief. What RAZD posted is mainstream science, and all you have done is make some quibbles about extracting DNA millions of years into the past. That's a bunch of meaningless nonsense--what, can't you refute his post?

At science--well, don't give up your day job.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:35 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 2963 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 160 of 217 (524148)
09-14-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Archangel
09-14-2009 2:55 PM


quote:
or else we are being sold an absolutely fictitious bill of goods which RAZD's link which tells a very pretty story about the alleged documentation of 40 million years of Pelycodus evolution, but is in fact a blatant and fraudulent fairy tale based on no science what so ever

The splitting of the population into different clusters based on size is what is evidence of the speciation event.

RAZD's saying with reference to alleles that the change is gradual. He is assuming that size in Pelicodus was determined genetically. This seems to be what you're objecting to as an assumption. Do you in fact object to this? Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that an extinct organism had genes? or that it's unreasonable to assume that its size was under genetic control? Or both?

By the way, this is very much a side issue - the evidence is the change in size distribution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:55 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 4:59 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 161 of 217 (524163)
09-14-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Richard Townsend
09-14-2009 3:50 PM


Coyote writes:

At religious apologetics you're doing well. You are doing what most religious apologists do--hand waving away any evidence that doesn't fit your religious belief. What RAZD posted is mainstream science, and all you have done is make some quibbles about extracting DNA millions of years into the past. That's a bunch of meaningless nonsense--what, can't you refute his post?
At science--well, don't give up your day job.

You have it wrong again Coyote, but you seem to be pretty consistent at that around here. I haven't hand waved away any evidence which doesn't fit my world view. What I did was confront the evidence as offered and revealed the dishonest inconsistency which it attempts to spoon feed us. The evidence claims directly that it was arrived at through genetic testing which proved a change in alleles on fossils between 30 and 50 million years old, when evolution science also claims that this is impossible to accomplish on fossils older that 100,000 years old.

Why are you judging me harshly for simply holding your evidence to the stated limitations which your own science states are the norm?

Richard Townsend writes:

The splitting of the population into different clusters based on size is what is evidence of the speciation event.

RAZD's saying with reference to alleles that the change is gradual. He is assuming that size in Pelicodus was determined genetically. This seems to be what you're objecting to as an assumption. Do you in fact object to this? Do you think it's unreasonable to assume that an extinct organism had genes? or that it's unreasonable to assume that its size was under genetic control? Or both?

By the way, this is very much a side issue - the evidence is the change in size distribution.

Sure Richard, great synopsis of what RAZD said. Unfortunately for you I have shown that no such evidence actually exists. Everything he offered up was nothing more than a nice story with all of the pieces fitting neatly in a perfectly wrapped package. Too bad none of it is valid science and what is even more sad is that you evos continue to delude yourselves by not only believing the lie, but defending it. That makes you guilty of promoting and endorsing it when all is said and done. So shame on you...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Richard Townsend, posted 09-14-2009 3:50 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 5:06 PM Archangel has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 162 of 217 (524165)
09-14-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Archangel
09-14-2009 4:59 PM


What I did was confront the evidence as offered and revealed the dishonest inconsistency which it attempts to spoon feed us. The evidence claims directly that it was arrived at through genetic testing which proved a change in alleles on fossils between 30 and 50 million years old, when evolution science also claims that this is impossible to accomplish on fossils older that 100,000 years old.

Is that an example of creation "science?"

If so, I'm not impressed.

You have provided no evidence against what RAZD posted. What you did was erect a monstrous strawman and proceed to belabor it. That type of argument might be looked upon with approval in religious apologetics or creation "science" but it doesn't mean anything in real science.

Care to try again?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 4:59 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 5:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 163 of 217 (524175)
09-14-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Coyote
09-14-2009 5:06 PM


Coyote writes:

Is that an example of creation "science?"

Not at all Coyote, all I have provided is the inconsistency and lies which evolution science promotes. Why can't you see that?

You have provided no evidence against what RAZD posted. What you did was erect a monstrous strawman and proceed to belabor it. That type of argument might be looked upon with approval in religious apologetics or creation "science" but it doesn't mean anything in real science.

I challenge you to clarify the strawman I have erected. Because the only strawman I have seen here was when RAZD claimed that a change in alleles showing 30 to 50 million year old fossils changed species and proved his claim that macro-evolution has occurred in Pelycodus when such tests on such ancient fossils cannot possibly return results of any kind.

But rather than admit the attempted fraud in those claims you must deny reality and insist that the strawman is mine. Well prove it. Point out the strawman as I have repeated my accusation of the dishonesty of the claim once again. For once prove that what you assert is true for all to see if you can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 5:06 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Archangel has responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3414 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 164 of 217 (524186)
09-14-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Archangel
09-14-2009 5:48 PM


Allelegorical License
Are you suggesting that a change in allele frequency can only be measured directly by sampling intact genetic material?

Can't we look at the other evidence (including size) of similar creatures and consider all of it when forming a hypothesis? You're telling us that there is only one way to measure change and that seems just plain wrong. Perhaps WK or RAZD could tell us more, or maybe it should be a new topic.

So far all you've done is poo-poo scientists for making educated guesses about the world we see around us and mis-characterizing science as a preachy know-it-all endeavor that indoctrinates kids. Those educated guesses put food on the table for billions, split the atom and put men into space; that's not a bad track record especially when compared with inanities like don't eat shrimp or wear textile blends.

Here's the question: Do populations change over time? We can see it, we can measure it...therefore: evolution is a fact.

Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away I'm afraid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 5:48 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 10:35 PM Tanndarr has responded
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2009 11:32 PM Tanndarr has responded
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Tanndarr has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 165 of 217 (524210)
09-14-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanndarr
09-14-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Allelegorical License
Tanndarr writes:

Are you suggesting that a change in allele frequency can only be measured directly by sampling intact genetic material?

Uhh, yeah!!! Why, are you suggesting that we can determine a change in allele frequency by looking at the incomplete fossils from animals who lived an ALLEGED 30 to 50 million years ago? I mean, I get the direct impression that you people think that graph RAZD posted represents millions of years of perfectly preserved skeletons of these animals. But only because that's the impression the evolutionists description gives, of course.

I'm going to inject a little reality into this debate in order to educate you innocents so as to inoculate you somewhat against the pseudo intellectualism these wannabe scientists promote at every turn around here as they bluster with such assurance about things they have absolutely no real and actual clue about. Let's start with decomposition and the survival of the remains of dead animals in the real world. Let's see what happens to a similar sized animal to the Pelycodus after death using high speed time lapse video. This is following this rabbit for 8 days after death in a protected environment where no predators can contribute to consuming it and carry off the bones. It is safe to say that this rabbit wouldn't have lasted even the 8 days it took it to decompose naturally had predators had access to the remains.

Given this reality, how do you propose that generation after generation of Pelycodus fossils survived to be slowly and methodically preserved in layers of strata which left us with a perfectly datable record of when they lived and died? Can any of you intellectual giants explain this problem in the face of an actual video which exposes real time reality for once, apart from actual predators carrying off the bones of course,? Any takers???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrSHku6-LFo

Can't we look at the other evidence (including size) of similar creatures and consider all of it when forming a hypothesis? You're telling us that there is only one way to measure change and that seems just plain wrong. Perhaps WK or RAZD could tell us more, or maybe it should be a new topic.

Hey, I'm only going by what RAZD said and held us as evidence in order to support his claims. Don't blame me that what he claims is evidence that alleles changed between 30 and 50 MILLION years ago ALLEGEDLY, is proven to be impossible to test for by what your own Talk Origins says.

So far all you've done is poo-poo scientists for making educated guesses about the world we see around us and mis-characterizing science as a preachy know-it-all endeavor that indoctrinates kids. Those educated guesses put food on the table for billions, split the atom and put men into space; that's not a bad track record especially when compared with inanities like don't eat shrimp or wear textile blends.

WOW, this is quite a rant. When did I say that science attempts to indoctrinate kids even though I know that evolution does exactly that! Or when did I ever deny or even discuss agricultural advances here? Or speak against splitting the atom, can you quote me questioning that science at all? And when have I questioned our ability to put men into space? Can you quote me doing that at all? Don't you get it that I'm not anti-science at all? Can you grasp that truth? I AM ANTI-EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS A PHILOSOPHY RATHER THAN A PROVABLE OR VERIFIABLE SCIENCE. And this false evidence of claiming that alleles confirm the proposed conclusions, when a different branch of evo science admits that fossils older that 100,000 years cannot produce any testable results at all is evidence that my mistrust of this so called science is justified.

Especially since all you can fall back on is accusing me of being a science denier because I possess the common sense to question the bogus claims this pseudo science makes.

Here's the question: Do populations change over time? We can see it, we can measure it...therefore: evolution is a fact.

Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away I'm afraid.

LIE TO YOURSELF IF YOU LIKE, MY DELUDED FRIEND, BUT DON'T YOU DARE EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE OR ACCEPT YOUR LIES. EVOLUTION IS A FALSE SCIENCE WHICH HAS NO FOUNDATION IN FACTS AT ALL. IF IT DID, THEN DISHONEST ASSUMPTIONS AND MISLEADING CONCLUSIONS WOULDN'T BE ITS SOP.
http://blogcritics.org.../the-crumbling-facade-of-the-theory

Edited by Archangel, : add additional evidence:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanndarr, posted 09-14-2009 6:24 PM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 11:24 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 169 by Blue Jay, posted 09-15-2009 12:04 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 170 by Tanndarr, posted 09-15-2009 12:31 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019