Early Cretaceous (150 million to 100 million years old) specimens.....with "flesh"

a reply to: stumason

Case in point: peat bog bodies

originally posted by: Barcs
The ego is a HUMAN trait, not a scientist trait. People have big egos in all walks of life, from religious zealots, to hardcore scientists, to musicians, to wall street brokers. You haven't backed up your statement about egos in science overriding facts, so calling it a fact is simply not true.

I gave known examples. Ignore them if you wish, but it's a fact that egos cause scientists to suppress certain information.

originally posted by: Barcs
That is your opinion, and I love research, hence why I have actually researched evolution and learned how stupid it is to deny. 15 years ago I had a similar outlook as you, the whole "evolution is just a theory" BS, but as soon as I started reading about evolution from unbiased sources, I realized that it's silly to deny. Right now it seems like the only person with an ego problem is you, because you refuse to accept solid verified science.

That is your opinion. I have researched evolution as well, starting in school and going well beyond, and I am convinced it's a total crock. I have read many, many sources, from all sides, biased and unbiased. There is no solid verification of evolution. None.

originally posted by: Barcs
Your dishonesty is unreal. Did you not read THIS POST or THIS POST? It really cracks me up when folks just blatantly ignore evidence when posted. Please address it in detail, or don't bother arguing. You are just intentionally ignoring any evidence posted and think your opinion is absolute, yet have the nerve to accuse SCIENTISTS that do this for a living of having big egos. What is wrong with research? Why ignore the FACT that humans ARE apes, that has been stated numerous times? You need to take a basic biology course or something. Saying a creature is an ape rather than a human is ignorance at the highest level. It's not either or. Learn your classifications. Learn the basics of biology and then MAYBE you can present some science that supports your side. Your preaching and slander of scientists has no bearing on evolution or reality. Present something tangible.

I posted a quote from the guy in charge of the display that states he KNOWS it's wrong, and you call ME dishonest? Why am I not surprised?

So, you decided that "humans are apes", and because of this you dislike research? Weird. You can state it all day, but that doesn't change anything. I have taken more than one biology course, and some were advanced, tyvm. Pretending your opposition isn't educated is a lame attempt to divert the discussion. Where is YOUR science proving evolution? Oh, that's right; you haven't posted any.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: peter vlar

It doesn't fit because it shows "Lucy" to be more human-like than the evidence indicates. They KNOW it's wrong, but wont' correct it. Bruce Carr, a director of education at the zoo, stated -

We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.

In other words, no matter the evidence, they will present a known lie.

No, that is presented in YOUR words. [/quote]

How interesting that your post leaves out the quote I posted, which was from Bruce Carr -

We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.

HIS words, not mine. The quote is visible in my previous post, so claiming it's my words makes no sense.

originally posted by: peter vlar
To put it in other words, once an institution spends millions to have an installation built it isn't always cost effective or feasible to spend millions more to alter it every time new data is extrapolated. The point of the museum is to spark some interest in science in its visitors.

Real science doesn't lie, and it wouldn't cost "millions" to correct one poorly represented APE. The point of a museum should be to educate, not to mislead. THAT would be real science.

originally posted by: peter vlar
If you want to ostracize every museum fr having an incorrectly presented exhibit I think we would have very few museums open in the world. As long as the museum lights that spark that gets someone to do some reading and look farther into an aspect of science that interests them, to me that's far more important than having a couple of minor design flaws.

Yet when people do look at these things,a nd then research and realize the exhibits are wrong, they are ostracized for doing so? "Look, and learn, but don't ask questions!", right?

originally posted by: peter vlar
By the way you still haven't said what YOU think is wrong with the Lucy Exhibit except to say that THEY know it is wrong so it can't fit. That's a steaming pile of poo you've laid like an aster egg and it stinks to high heaven. Ill just keep waiting in case you ever formulate an answer.

I stated that the feet and hands are wrong, and not based on actual fossil evidence. That's the truth, and not liking it because it shows evolutionists will lie to prove their failed theory doesn't change a thing. That smell you detect is the theory of evolution rotting away.

originally posted by: peter vlar
I didn't realize you had been to east Africa and personally examined the prints.that's really cool. Did you take any pictures while you we there? What dig season did you go over?

Oh wait..you meant from the pictures didn't you? I like how I included contour maps of the impressions in an above post that show quite definitively that whoever those feet belonged to may have feet that looked like ours, they didn't walk Quite like us. But then why let a little evidence get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorance when its clearly serving of so well.

You can't definitively determine all that from a footprint. Some, yes, but much is speculation. The prints look human, not ape-like, and Lucy was an ape. I know people that don't walk quite like I do; are they some other species? Silly argument.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Thank you for playing along, I rather enjoy reading someone's vitriolic defense of their positions when the entire support structure rests on blanket statements and rewording of your statements to make them kind of sound like they could be facts but support them with no facts or citations. Well done. Ill bet there's an estate communion wafer in it for you this Sunday too.

There you go, making silly assumptions. Facts and quotes have been offered; that you don't like them doesn't change that. Rather foolish of you to pretend I have offered nothing, when anyone can read my posts. What, do tell, is an "estate communion wafer"? i wouldn't know. Is that some Catholic thing? I am not Catholic. Discussions of evolution aren't the focus of the church I attend, either. Your anti-Christian bias is showing. No surprise there.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Even if bacteria were present, that doesn't necessarily mean they would decay as you(or anyone in general) think they would. Experiments have proven rapid fossilization of soft tissue is, while rather infrequent, a natural process.

In decay experiments using modern shrimp, amorphous calcium phosphate preserved cellular details of muscle as well as bacteria. The source of phosphate was the decaying carcass of the shrimp itself. The experimental fossilization proceeded in an environment closed to additional oxygen. The pH began at 8, dropped to between 6 and 7 after three days, then recovered to near 8 within four weeks. Mineralization of the soft tissue began less than two weeks after the start of the experiment and continued to progress throughout the experiment. In the Santana Formation the apatite, precipitating in anoxic and acidic conditions, must have begun to preserve the fish gills within five hours of the fish’s death.

Evidently bacteria play a major role in the precipitation of apatite. The microbes’ metabolic activity increases the phosphate ion concentration and decreases the pH in the immediate vicinity. If there are also calcium ions in solution, apatite can precipitate if the pH is not too acidic. This fossilization process is referred to as phosphatization. It is often restricted to one area of a carcass. The first tissues that decay supply the phosphate ions which later precipitate as apatite in another area of the carcass. This seems to have happened in some clams that died with their shells tightly closed from being buried alive in sediment.25 The microbe-infested belly of the clam metabolizes first. The phosphate ion concentrations build up and subsequently mineralize the muscle of the clam before the muscle totally decays.

Emphasis mine. Bolded statements depict a very similar burial method.

source - D.E.G. Briggs and A.J. Kear, “Fossilization of Soft Tissue in the Laboratory,” Science 259 (1993):1439–1442.

And even though there seems to be some tension between the two sides, rapid fossilization actually fits well with theology in general. It demonstrates that a large amount of time is not required for fossilization. YEC's in particular love to cite these fossil records as evidence for a young earth.

And while I am a "creationist"(in the simplest of terms), I don't support any of these views. Rapid fossilization does not support any young earth theory. Nor does it support the contrary theory(just to be crystal clear)....

A2D

Now that's actual data, which has been lacking in many responses. Appreciated. Someone did dome research! THAT is what I stated needed to be done, so we could understand this sort of thing, and instead of offering information,a s you did (star for that!), I was attacked as a creationist. Research is always good, if done properly. These cases are so rare, they merit further study. That this can happen rapidly doesn't surprise me, either. The condition of many fossils would seem to indicate that rapid fossilization had to have occurred. Otherwise, stresses over time would have destroyed the carcasses long before they were hardened enough to last. I agree; that doesn't prove either theory. It's simply interesting data.

I am a creationist, in many ways, though I have no firm theory on the age of the earth. I don't think we know yet. The "evidence" for both sides is too weak to prove a thing.

a reply to: stumason

I didn't dispute anything; I simply stated that such things aren't proof of anything. Anaerobic environments aren't proven to be present in all these cases. Hence, the need for research. Assuming isn't proper science. You have to PROVE a case.

God poofed everything into existance?

"Sure did"

Talking snakes?

"Check"

Man builds a titanic-sized boat from wood to hold the entire animal kingdom so he and his family can escape a global flood?

"Of course"

Ancient Jewish dissident walks on water, multiplies food, dies for our sins and is resurrected?

"Yessiree"

Under rare conditions, fossils can preserve soft tissue?

"Well now hang on a goddam minute! I'm going to need proof!"

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
I gave known examples. Ignore them if you wish, but it's a fact that egos cause scientists to suppress certain information.

I did not see any posts where you gave specific examples. You mentioned Lucy, but ended up being wrong about the knuckle walking. Egos cause MANY people to do MANY things. For example how you are clinging on to any creationist argument you can find that goes against evolution, without scrutiny, despite the mountains of scientific evidence that you have not addressed.

That is your opinion. I have researched evolution as well, starting in school and going well beyond, and I am convinced it's a total crock. I have read many, many sources, from all sides, biased and unbiased. There is no solid verification of evolution. None.

LOL. Ok sure. Then address the actual science behind modern evolutionary synthesis and show me where it's wrong. Reading creationist websites doesn't count as researching evolution.

Surely you can address the evidence found in this link or maybe even this one.

No creationist has ever even attempted to address the actual science in those links, they just regurgitate arguments found on creationist websites that have nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Usually when I post these, the creationist in question vanishes for a while or attempts to change the subject. Hopefully you can prove that stereotype wrong and be the first to actually address the evidence. Good luck.

I posted a quote from the guy in charge of the display that states he KNOWS it's wrong, and you call ME dishonest? Why am I not surprised?

I asked for science, not quotes that have no bearing on the validity of evolution. Do you know how many quotes I could find all over the world of people who will say they KNOW the bible is wrong? That doesn't prove anything. You need evidence.

So, you decided that "humans are apes", and because of this you dislike research? Weird. You can state it all day, but that doesn't change anything. I have taken more than one biology course, and some were advanced, tyvm. Pretending your opposition isn't educated is a lame attempt to divert the discussion. Where is YOUR science proving evolution? Oh, that's right; you haven't posted any.

I didn't decide that humans were apes, biologists did when classifying organisms, based on genetics and similar anatomy. They are in the same family. Chimps, Gorillas, humans and orangutans are great apes. Period, end of story. I don't need to pretend you aren't educated when you don't even understand that basic biological fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Hominidae (/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:

chimpanzees (Pan) – 2 species
gorillas (Gorilla) – 2 species
humans (Homo) – 1 species
orangutans (Pongo) – 2 species.[1]

The Hominidae include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the family are collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6] There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.

It seems your biology classes didn't teach you much about classifying species. I LOVE research and facts. It's why I usually win arguments.

a reply to: Barcs

I wasn't wrong. The wrist structure didn't change. New "theories" based on single bones, to make it look like they were right all along, don't convince me. Far from solid evidence there.

What evidence would that be? Be specific. Animal after animal after animal appears in the fossil record with no background, and they can't explain them. They try, and they discuss the "evolution" of these, but the simple fact ism, they have NO CLUE. Pterosaurs, for example, animals that fly with scientists unable to understand even HOW they do so, with no ancestors at all. That evidence? There are many others like that.

Reading sites that are pro-evolution doesn't convince me. I don't tend to visit the other sort with any regularity. When evidence is sparse, and too many assumptions are treated as "facts", it's clear they have nothing solid. I don't need sites from the other side to see that reality.

The ever-touted "lines of evolution" are a joke, and everyone knows it. There is no proof that strung together creatures are related at all. Claiming they are to claim "proof" is foolish. Might as well toss out the peppered moths next. The same is true for all the rest; old claims, with no real proof, that have been refuted many times. You aren't helping your case tossing out material of that sort.

Biologists decided that, yet pigs are closer anatomically than apes in many ways. Shows what they don't know. Just because things were classified together doesn't mean they should be. Real scientific research means questioning everything.

Sure they did. Doesn't mean the material was accurate.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There's no point debating you. You're totally convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Every piece of evidence that has been produced has been sneered at and dismissed by you, whilst every piece of evidence that you have produced (what there is of it) has been held up to be 100% true. Double standards much? Sad.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
What evidence would that be? Be specific. Animal after animal after animal appears in the fossil record with no background, and they can't explain them. They try, and they discuss the "evolution" of these, but the simple fact ism, they have NO CLUE. Pterosaurs, for example, animals that fly with scientists unable to understand even HOW they do so, with no ancestors at all. That evidence? There are many others like that.

So anything that scientists don't fully understand makes the theory wrong? Not finding every organism to ever exist makes evolution wrong? Please explain in depth how that goes against evolution. We don't even fully understand gravity yet, but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. It's obvious, just like evolution. As we learn more we fill in more gaps. We have already filled in thousands, just as Darwin predicted we would. Finding 20 separate species between ancient ape and modern human that demonstrate slow change over time, many with mapped genomes is also pretty solid. It really can't be any clearer at this point. It's not just Lucy, by a long shot.

Reading sites that are pro-evolution doesn't convince me. I don't tend to visit the other sort with any regularity. When evidence is sparse, and too many assumptions are treated as "facts", it's clear they have nothing solid. I don't need sites from the other side to see that reality.

They aren't pro evolution sites, as if it is a political issue. They are sites that reference scientific peer reviewed studies about evolution, that you probably haven't even attempted to read. I don't care about people's opinions, I care about the conclusions of research papers that have been verified by others. Do you have examples of the assumptions within the theory of evolution? Please base it on the evidence I posted, not blanket statements and generalizations.

The ever-touted "lines of evolution" are a joke, and everyone knows it. There is no proof that strung together creatures are related at all. Claiming they are to claim "proof" is foolish. Might as well toss out the peppered moths next. The same is true for all the rest; old claims, with no real proof, that have been refuted many times. You aren't helping your case tossing out material of that sort.

What material? You are speaking in generalities. I posted the proof, you are just choosing to ignore it. You should learn the history of evolution. It started with no knowledge of genetics and a small fossil record. Over the years the fossils began to fill the gaps and clearly showed what Darwin suggested. Then we discovered and began exploring DNA and realize it shows the same exact relation. We can tell the level of relation based on genetics based on any 2 species with mapped genomes and oddly enough the dating confirms the timelines to match the genetic ones. It's not just a guess or some wild idea.

Biologists decided that, yet pigs are closer anatomically than apes in many ways. Shows what they don't know. Just because things were classified together doesn't mean they should be. Real scientific research means questioning everything.

Sure they did. Doesn't mean the material was accurate.

LOL. Just as I figured. You didn't attempt to address the evidence I posted and changed the subject. Chimps are more closely related to humans than pigs on the genetic level, although some recent studies suggest that the human and pig share a recent common ancestor as well, but it's probably a bit further back that the one from where humans and chimps originally split off.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

There's no point debating you. You're totally convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Every piece of evidence that has been produced has been sneered at and dismissed by you, whilst every piece of evidence that you have produced (what there is of it) has been held up to be 100% true. Double standards much? Sad.

I could say the exact same thing about you. The difference is; I actually look at evidence from both sides, while you dismiss out of hand any that comes from a side you don't like. But I agree this is pointless. No reason to continue.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
What evidence would that be? Be specific. Animal after animal after animal appears in the fossil record with no background, and they can't explain them. They try, and they discuss the "evolution" of these, but the simple fact ism, they have NO CLUE. Pterosaurs, for example, animals that fly with scientists unable to understand even HOW they do so, with no ancestors at all. That evidence? There are many others like that.

So anything that scientists don't fully understand makes the theory wrong? Not finding every organism to ever exist makes evolution wrong? Please explain in depth how that goes against evolution. We don't even fully understand gravity yet, but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. It's obvious, just like evolution. As we learn more we fill in more gaps. We have already filled in thousands, just as Darwin predicted we would. Finding 20 separate species between ancient ape and modern human that demonstrate slow change over time, many with mapped genomes is also pretty solid. It really can't be any clearer at this point. It's not just Lucy, by a long shot.

If they have many animals that show no evolution at all (which they do), that should make them think that perhaps their ideas aren't correct. Instead, they simply claim, "We don't understand...", and go on propping up a theory that the evidence stands against. There are no solid lines of evolution. None. We have good evidence that gravity exists, even if we don't fully understand how it works. All those species claimed to be in between us and old apes aren't proven to be related at all. They are assumed to be related, and that's not the same thing.

originally posted by: Barcs
They aren't pro evolution sites, as if it is a political issue. They are sites that reference scientific peer reviewed studies about evolution, that you probably haven't even attempted to read. I don't care about people's opinions, I care about the conclusions of research papers that have been verified by others. Do you have examples of the assumptions within the theory of evolution? Please base it on the evidence I posted, not blanket statements and generalizations.

Of course they are pro-evolution. Claiming they aren't is foolish. An issue doesn't have to be political to have sides. I have read a lot more than you might think. The claimed evidence is shaky at best, and too many things are assumed. That isn't good science, no matter how many others might agree with it. Popular opinion doesn't make something valid.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The ever-touted "lines of evolution" are a joke, and everyone knows it. There is no proof that strung together creatures are related at all. Claiming they are to claim "proof" is foolish. Might as well toss out the peppered moths next. The same is true for all the rest; old claims, with no real proof, that have been refuted many times. You aren't helping your case tossing out material of that sort.

What material? You are speaking in generalities. I posted the proof, you are just choosing to ignore it. You should learn the history of evolution. It started with no knowledge of genetics and a small fossil record. Over the years the fossils began to fill the gaps and clearly showed what Darwin suggested. Then we discovered and began exploring DNA and realize it shows the same exact relation. We can tell the level of relation based on genetics based on any 2 species with mapped genomes and oddly enough the dating confirms the timelines to match the genetic ones. It's not just a guess or some wild idea.

The material you posted, of course. It isn't proof; it's mostly opinion. I know the history of evolution; I learned it in school the same as you did. Stop assuming people don't know something simply because they don't agree with it. That's foolish. DNA is similar for virtually all animals, to a point, and more between groups that are closer; mammals to mammals, birds to birds, etc. That isn't proof they are descended from common ancestors; it's proof they share environments and are thus made in a similar fashion. The timelines are not confirmed by genetics, either, and we don't know nearly as much about genetics as some might think. Come on; they recently found a whole new layer of code they didn't even know was there!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Biologists decided that, yet pigs are closer anatomically than apes in many ways. Shows what they don't know. Just because things were classified together doesn't mean they should be. Real scientific research means questioning everything.

Sure they did. Doesn't mean the material was accurate.

LOL. Just as I figured. You didn't attempt to address the evidence I posted and changed the subject. Chimps are more closely related to humans than pigs on the genetic level, although some recent studies suggest that the human and pig share a recent common ancestor as well, but it's probably a bit further back that the one from where humans and chimps originally split off.

Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory, and then claim I change the subject. You changed the subject; when I said more research was needed, you went off on a tangent and started discussing evolution vs. creation. But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

(Facepalm)
You really don't know very much about DNA do you? Similar environment? Really? No. I suggest that you put your biases behind you and start again.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
If they have many animals that show no evolution at all (which they do), that should make them think that perhaps their ideas aren't correct. Instead, they simply claim, "We don't understand...", and go on propping up a theory that the evidence stands against. There are no solid lines of evolution. None. We have good evidence that gravity exists, even if we don't fully understand how it works. All those species claimed to be in between us and old apes aren't proven to be related at all. They are assumed to be related, and that's not the same thing.

Please give me an example of an animal that has shown NO evolution at all. Even the great white shark who predates the dinosaurs, has changed, even though the changes are small. They are proven, but since you refuse to address the evidence I posted about that, you will just go on believing that you are right and living in ignorance. You just don't seem to understand how a scientific theory works. It does not become a theory until evidence proves it.

Gravity: Proven by repeated experiments with objects falling in various environments. It's exact origin and cause is partially unknown.

Evolution: Proven by the measurement of genetic mutations in every organism to ever be measured, and the fact of adaptation / extinction during environmental changes. The only unknown parts are determining exact time frames and dates for creatures that haven't yet been found.

Of course they are pro-evolution. Claiming they aren't is foolish. An issue doesn't have to be political to have sides. I have read a lot more than you might think. The claimed evidence is shaky at best, and too many things are assumed. That isn't good science, no matter how many others might agree with it. Popular opinion doesn't make something valid.

99.9% of scientists support evolution. That's the whole joke of the anti evolution crowd. There isn't a debate, there aren't 2 sides to this. Scientists only debate minor details today, not the validity of the theory. That was verified like 50 years ago. There is just one side, and there is overwhelming evidence for it. Then there are folks that deny this evidence. I have posted it, you have ignored it. Evolution deniers have NOTHING to support their side or any alternative theory to explain the diversity of life and yet they nitpick evolution, and just keep repeating themselves over and over again, but every time the evidence is posted they just pretend it was never posted and go back to repeating the same "no evidence" claims. Doesn't that get old? How about you actually address the evidence instead of dismissing it blindly? If you don't address the evidence you have no right to make wild claims about it, sorry. It's like ignoring the DNA evidence in a trial that proves a man's innocence, but convicting him anyway.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The material you posted, of course. It isn't proof; it's mostly opinion. I know the history of evolution; I learned it in school the same as you did. Stop assuming people don't know something simply because they don't agree with it. That's foolish. DNA is similar for virtually all animals, to a point, and more between groups that are closer; mammals to mammals, birds to birds, etc. That isn't proof they are descended from common ancestors; it's proof they share environments and are thus made in a similar fashion. The timelines are not confirmed by genetics, either, and we don't know nearly as much about genetics as some might think. Come on; they recently found a whole new layer of code they didn't even know was there!

LOL! Please give me examples from the links I provided that are "just opinions". Evolution is obvious. Speciation has been observed directly. ONCE AGAIN, Please actually address the evidence instead of instantly dismissing it as opinion. Until you break down the science and show where it's wrong, you are just another preacher on the internet. Why do you think paternity tests exist? We can tell via gentics EXACTLY how closely 2 people are related. The same concept applies to other creatures as well. You act like it's just made up. It's not. It was suspected by Darwin, verified by accurate predictions of creatures that were found in the fossil record, and then later verified AGAIN through the genetics. It's a slam dunk.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory, and then claim I change the subject. You changed the subject; when I said more research was needed, you went off on a tangent and started discussing evolution vs. creation. But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.

Nothing you said was backed by evidence and you still haven't addressed a single piece of the evidence I posted. You haven't brought up ANY flaws, only misunderstandings that don't prove anything about evolution, only that your knowledge of it is abysmal. You haven't posted a SINGLE FACT yet. The theory is just too complex for you and you sit there baffled about it and think it can't possibly happen, yet it does constantly, every day in nature while you deny it. Denying evolution is like denying gravity or the earth going around the sun. The science is overwhelming. I posted it, you ignored it. You need to either address the science in the links I posted, or provide evidence of an alternative to evolution. Until you can do either one you are just ranting. I don't deal with rants, I deal with hard evidence. I have given it to you. The ball is in your court. Address it or don't bother responding. I don't need to waste my time repeating the same facts over and over again to deaf ears and essentially debating semantics.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Just as I figured; you ignore anything and everything that shows flaws in your chosen theory... But, hey, don't let the facts bother you.

In order for a cult to succeed, one MUST ignore all facts and reality.

Darwinism is nothing less than a MASSIVE form of mind control masquerading as knowledge.

Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Darwinism — A cult in which few believe

"Darwinism aids the New Age goal of global purging... The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance." ~ T. Rosazak

"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

"...many elite controlled organizations are heavily involved in the spread of the evolution theory" archive.org...

"The illuminati have a much deeper agenda than most people know, they promote and fund the teaching of evolution, while behind the curtains they worship Lucifer the devil as their own God.. they know the truth in the Bible and they know satan is real, its the sheep who are under the illusion.. please have a look at this and think hard." the-complete-truth.blogspot.com...

His theory of evolution was the result of the spread of Kabbalistic occult science in Europe following the Reformation and through the masonic Alta Vendita, a conspiracy to subvert the Christian faith and replace it with the anti-Christ Kabbalistic world order. Darwinism and its occult science set the foundation for technocracy, or, the scientific dictatorship currently enveloping the world.

Illuminati Agents – Series V

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques

In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.

Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

The truth is there is no debate, it's an open/shut case when observed through the lens of historical fact: The 'evolution theory' is purely a political weapon used to shut down Man's awakening to his true potential which began with the spread of the revelation of Christ as the promised Savior which all the world was waiting for... Now look around you: illiteracy/ignorance is up, 'science' is faked to serve Global politics and transnational corporations... Socialists needed evolution as the backbone to sell their world-view and evolution needed Socialism to force it into the public mind via compulsory learning and media support.

Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution

a reply to: Barcs

Got to admire your persistence, chap - I gave up trying to explain the obvious a long time ago!

Keep it up

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

(Facepalm)
You really don't know very much about DNA do you? Similar environment? Really? No. I suggest that you put your biases behind you and start again.

Yes, actually, I do. Yes, similar environments would require similar characteristics. DUH? You know, like all fish have gills, so they can breathe underwater? I suggest you simply give up. Yet again, all you can offer is an insult. Not worth the time to debate, and I am done here. Toodles. reply all you like; I won't respond.

originally posted by: Barcs
Please give me an example of an animal that has shown NO evolution at all. Even the great white shark who predates the dinosaurs, has changed, even though the changes are small. They are proven, but since you refuse to address the evidence I posted about that, you will just go on believing that you are right and living in ignorance. You just don't seem to understand how a scientific theory works. It does not become a theory until evidence proves it.

Minor variations are not major evolution. Minor differences in various pterosaurs don't even prove minor changes; they only show different varieties, just as we have different varieties of birds. That isn't even proof of minor adaptation, though it could be seem as a possible indicator of that. Pretty much everyone accepts that minor changes do occur; it's the major change into entirely different species that many don't believe is possible. For that sort of major change, we have no evidence. You might accept that these minor changes "prove" the major ones, but I don't, and neither do many professional scientists. We see many changes in people. For example, the average man is a lot taller now than men were int he Middle Ages. As a teen, I would have been hard pressed to fit into some suits of armor made for grown men, and I was a skinny girl of average height. The difference in height between those time periods is notable, but it isn't a change to anything close to a new species.

originally posted by: Barcs
Gravity: Proven by repeated experiments with objects falling in various environments. It's exact origin and cause is partially unknown.

Yes; gravity can be proven to exist. That's established.

originally posted by: Barcs
Evolution: Proven by the measurement of genetic mutations in every organism to ever be measured, and the fact of adaptation / extinction during environmental changes. The only unknown parts are determining exact time frames and dates for creatures that haven't yet been found.

Nope, not even close. Adaptation does not create entirely new species. Extinction doesn't prove evolution at all.

As far as the time frames are concerned, those are claimed to be "known", yet they also change. The supposed age of the Earth has been adjusted more than once, as more and more time was needed to believe evolution had any chance of making actual changes to new species. Evolution as a theory is a long way from proven. Adaptation, yes, evolution, no. They aren't the same thing.

I didn't simply decide to not believe what I learned in school about evolution. I studied, as I have always had a real interest in science, and the more I studied, the more I started seeing problems. This was a process. No "creation" programs, no one telling me that was how it was supposed to be, nothing like that. I studied on my own. The key point was a very detailed National Geographic layout on the "evolution of Man". Too much was assumed. There was no real evidence linking ANY of the "early man" forms to people at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
99.9% of scientists support evolution. That's the whole joke of the anti evolution crowd.

Prove it. Post a comprehensive list of every single scientist in the world, and proof of their opinion. Otherwise, your statement is nothing but a baseless claim.

I have addressed the supposed evidence. Adaptation isn't proof of evolution. Claiming that a line if similar animals are an evolutionary line doesn't prove that they are. The problem with evolution is people have taken what were guesses and decided the guesses were "proof". Look honestly at the supposed evidence, and you will see that.

originally posted by: Barcs
We can tell via gentics EXACTLY how closely 2 people are related. The same concept applies to other creatures as well.

You cannot prove, however, that animals with similar DNA descended from a common ancestor, and that is what evolution claims. As for paternity tests, I guess you never heard of problems with those, either. The "chimera" problem, for example, where it is now known that mothers can absorb some of the DNA from their offspring, and cause some real issues with said tests. link See what assuming gets you? Can't even always prove paternity, but you want to prove relation from fossils, from which you can't even GET DNA??? Sorry, but no.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Minor variations are not major evolution. Minor differences in various pterosaurs don't even prove minor changes; they only show different varieties, just as we have different varieties of birds. That isn't even proof of minor adaptation, though it could be seem as a possible indicator of that. Pretty much everyone accepts that minor changes do occur; it's the major change into entirely different species that many don't believe is possible. For that sort of major change, we have no evidence. You might accept that these minor changes "prove" the major ones, but I don't, and neither do many professional scientists. We see many changes in people. For example, the average man is a lot taller now than men were int he Middle Ages. As a teen, I would have been hard pressed to fit into some suits of armor made for grown men, and I was a skinny girl of average height. The difference in height between those time periods is notable, but it isn't a change to anything close to a new species.

You said "no evolution at all", not "no major evolution". You claimed many creatures showed this but didn't give an example. Major evolution isn't even a term. Evolution always is minor and always occurs on the genetic level by definition. Once again you have blatantly ignored the link to the science that I provided and keep bringing up concerns that aren't really concerns about evolution. You are defining what is considered proof and I don't think you are qualified to determine that. Obviously a slight increase in height over thousands of years isn't considered a new species. New species aren't just born overnight. It takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years of those small changes to add up for complex creatures before they are considered a new species. You don't have have 1 species one day and another the next. And it's not just increased height. It's little things like fingernails instead of claws, opposable thumbs, less body hair, greater intellect, bipedalism, ability to use tools and plan ahead, etc etc that define humans from their ancestors just a few million years ago. You don't seem to understand that big changes are brought about by lots of little changes over longer time periods.

Yes; gravity can be proven to exist. That's established.

Much like evolution. That's established. It's scientific theory based on mountains of facts and evidence. Genetic mutations happen in EVERY creature to EVER reproduce. Environmental changes force others to go extinct. It's not unrealistic to think that small changes can add up over time. I just wonder why you are so vehemently opposed to that idea. There isn't some magical barrier or force that prevents changes from adding up. Your beef with evolution is all misunderstandings of it. You claim to have fully researched it but don't seem to understand the concept of changes adding up over time.

Nope, not even close. Adaptation does not create entirely new species. Extinction doesn't prove evolution at all.

Observed instances of speciation

You obviously didn't even read the links I posted for you because you are arguing based on something that has already been addressed. I can't wait for the next argument where you move the goalposts and say that species level changes do not add up either or mention some nonsense about "kinds" or just pretend I didn't post that link again like last time. I should have known better expecting an honest argument.

As far as the time frames are concerned, those are claimed to be "known", yet they also change. The supposed age of the Earth has been adjusted more than once, as more and more time was needed to believe evolution had any chance of making actual changes to new species. Evolution as a theory is a long way from proven. Adaptation, yes, evolution, no. They aren't the same thing.

The age of the earth was never an exact figure. It was always "at least xxxx years". Even today there is still a margin of error. As scientists learned more the number got bigger and more precise and haven't changed in something like 70 years. You are suggesting they just made up the figures for age of the earth to appease evolutionary theory and scientists are all involved in some mega conspiracy to suppress religion.

I didn't simply decide to not believe what I learned in school about evolution. I studied, as I have always had a real interest in science, and the more I studied, the more I started seeing problems. This was a process. No "creation" programs, no one telling me that was how it was supposed to be, nothing like that. I studied on my own. The key point was a very detailed National Geographic layout on the "evolution of Man". Too much was assumed. There was no real evidence linking ANY of the "early man" forms to people at all.

So your vast research was all reading a single national geographic article and proclaiming it wrong? LMAO! Way to go into detail! I posted the evidence but you keep ignoring it. Can you PLEASE address the science, instead of pretending it wasn't posted and STILL arguing that there is no evidence. That notion is laughably absurd and ignoring evidence is dishonest.

Prove it. Post a comprehensive list of every single scientist in the world, and proof of their opinion. Otherwise, your statement is nothing but a baseless claim.

Why should I offer proof when you haven't offer a shred of evidence against evolution or for an alternative theory? It's funny how it works with creationists. They demand all sorts of ridiculous proof for everything, and then when it's posted it gets ignored. The vast scientific support of evolution is well documented. More in the next post.

I have addressed the supposed evidence. Adaptation isn't proof of evolution. Claiming that a line if similar animals are an evolutionary line doesn't prove that they are. The problem with evolution is people have taken what were guesses and decided the guesses were "proof". Look honestly at the supposed evidence, and you will see that.

LOL! You didn't address a single piece of the evidence, you just denied without even reading the vast list I posted with 47+ different proofs for "major" evolution. You haven't addressed a SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!!!

MORE BELOW

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You cannot prove, however, that animals with similar DNA descended from a common ancestor, and that is what evolution claims. As for paternity tests, I guess you never heard of problems with those, either. The "chimera" problem, for example, where it is now known that mothers can absorb some of the DNA from their offspring, and cause some real issues with said tests. link See what assuming gets you? Can't even always prove paternity, but you want to prove relation from fossils, from which you can't even GET DNA??? Sorry, but no.

Human genome shows proof of recent evolution

How can the study of genetics provide evidence for evolution?

Please give me a valid explanation for retro viruses, and spare me no details. Don't just deny. Explain them without evolution. Good luck.

Also, You must selectively read your own links because it clearly says:

DNA testing is the best and most accurate way to determine paternity.
With the exception of identical twins, two individuals having the same genetic DNA is one in several billion. But there has yet to be any documented cases of two individuals with identical DNA. I must make it very clear that when it comes to DNA tests for paternity the mistakes most often occur during the collection of samples, and this is human error.

So DNA testing is right pretty much all of the time except for that one in several billion chances or with identical twins or human error (most cases). Relation can be determined in the vast majority of cases. Sorry but you haven't proved DNA testing unreliable by a long shot.

And as for the scientific support behind evolution, the best estimates come in at 97% for all scientists. I mistakenly said 99% because I was thinking of strictly biologists. That is still the overwhelming majority.

Level of support for evolution

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[25] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[26][27]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[28] pseudoscience,[29][30] or junk science.[31][32] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[33] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[34] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[35]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] [n]This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]

Man, those nobel prize winners must not know anything!!!

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[36][37][38][39] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[40][41]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that scientists know a wee bit more than the average public about science.

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.[45]

^FYI that statement was signed by 177 of America's leading biologists.

Even the Catholic church accepts evolution now. Clinging onto old world views in this day and age is silly. If the Catholic church can accept science, then surely you can. It's like being stubborn and still claiming the world is flat. There hasn't been any real opposition to evolution in like a hundred years. It doesn't conflict with god or the bible or anything, only illogical literal interpretations. Fundamentalism is bad. I suggest you adjust your views to the modern world, instead of living in the dark ages. You are using a PC, a product of science to type your responses. Why aren't you questioning the validity of information science or programming or electric engineering? The crusade against evolution is unwarranted, unsubstantiated and flat out nonsensical in today's world where several fields of science are directly influenced and based off of evolution. None of biology makes sense without it. Plus there is still no conflicting evidence whatsoever with it.