Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Prezbo369

Parsing words is for the political debate, not scientific debate.

That said, yes. I think it is entirely probable that there were hold overs existing from the age of dinosaurs that were around up to 1 million years ago. Existing with ancient man. Just like I said.

You DO understand what evolution is, right? It isn't like there is some slow, steady march from protozoa to today. Crocs, as an example, are a creature that has not changed since it existed alongside dinosaurs. The Coelocanth is another example. Exists today exactly as it did when we thought it went extinct millions of years ago. Evolution happens when a niche opens and an animals moves in to exploit it. Without an occasion to induce genetic drift, evolution doesn't happen.

Finally, i shouldn't have to point out that dinosaurs didn't "become" birds. Birds are what we call dinosaurs. Because in the traditional sense, we had brontosaurs and apatosaurs existing separately. Which was wrong. The only thing really evolving here is our understanding. And understanding has nothing whatsoever to do with a traditional sense.

On a side note, I'd like to point out that dinosaurs and reptiles are not the same thing. Reptiles are exothermic. Dinosaurs aren't. Its why we don't talk about komodo dragons when we talk about dinosaurs. And why i really didn't mention crocs (that was someone else bringing them up).

a reply to: Prezbo369

I'm not here to defend the claim. I was just pointing out that you could play a little fast and loose with the definition of dinosaur and make it hold true while evolution also holds true. That's all.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Prezbo369
Parsing words is for the political debate, not scientific debate.

Yeah because in science, what you actually say isn't at all pertinent.....

That said, yes. I think it is entirely probable that there were hold overs existing from the age of dinosaurs that were around up to 1 million years ago. Existing with ancient man. Just like I said.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? because it flies in the face of evolutionary biology.

You DO understand what evolution is, right?

Coming from you, after what you just posted, is pretty hilarious...

It isn't like there is some slow, steady march from protozoa to today.

Did someone say there was? are you attempting to demonstrate a knowledge of the subject?

Crocs, as an example, are a creature that has not changed since it existed alongside dinosaurs.

Wrong while they haven't changed drastically, they have changed.

The Coelocanth is another example. Exists today exactly as it did when we thought it went extinct millions of years ago.

Also wrong

It has changed, but again not drastically. The specimens that were discovered do not exist exactly as they did in the fossils we have.

Finally, i shouldn't have to point out that dinosaurs didn't "become" birds. Birds are what we call dinosaurs.

.....did you really ask me if I understood evolution? good grief!.......you really have to work quite hard to be so wrong.

On a side note, I'd like to point out that dinosaurs and reptiles are not the same thing. Reptiles are exothermic. Dinosaurs aren't. Its why we don't talk about komodo dragons when we talk about dinosaurs. And why i really didn't mention crocs (that was someone else bringing them up).

.....are you really saying that dinosaurs were not reptiles?

no wait, of course you are...

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Prezbo369
Parsing words is for the political debate, not scientific debate.

Yeah because in science, what you actually say isn't at all pertinent.....

Where i come from, what you MEAN is what is relevant. Not what you say. Parsing words is for teenagers looking to find loopholes in their parents rules. It has no place in honest discussion.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? because it flies in the face of evolutionary biology.

You DO understand what evolution is, right?

Coming from you, after what you just posted, is pretty hilarious...

It isn't like there is some slow, steady march from protozoa to today.

Did someone say there was? are you attempting to demonstrate a knowledge of the subject?

Crocs, as an example, are a creature that has not changed since it existed alongside dinosaurs.

Wrong while they haven't changed drastically, they have changed.

The Coelocanth is another example. Exists today exactly as it did when we thought it went extinct millions of years ago.

Also wrong

It has changed, but again not drastically. The specimens that were discovered do not exist exactly as they did in the fossils we have.

Finally, i shouldn't have to point out that dinosaurs didn't "become" birds. Birds are what we call dinosaurs.

.....did you really ask me if I understood evolution? good grief!.......you really have to work quite hard to be so wrong.

On a side note, I'd like to point out that dinosaurs and reptiles are not the same thing. Reptiles are exothermic. Dinosaurs aren't. Its why we don't talk about komodo dragons when we talk about dinosaurs. And why i really didn't mention crocs (that was someone else bringing them up).

.....are you really saying that dinosaurs were not reptiles?

no wait, of course you are...

I have no comment on the rest of your post. You can feel free to take your apparent emotional connection to this topic to someone else.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Awwww, It was kinda interesting watching the Evolutionists realize that they all believe completely different things LOL. Show's how subjective the 'Evidence' is.

a reply to: TechUnique

"Believe" is what creates emotional connection, turning science into religion.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Awwww, It was kinda interesting watching the Evolutionists realize that they all believe completely different things LOL. Show's how subjective the 'Evidence' is.

Everyone believes differently than everyone else. You have not outlined any new revelation here. That's why there are still debates about evolution among scientists. Evolutionary theory isn't a closed book. Though I wouldn't expect you to understand or acknowledge this.

a reply to: TechUnique

It's quite impressive how you've managed to contribute zero factual content to your own thread. I give you Pigeon Chess:

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

Your antics may go down well with the ignorant and scientifically illiterate fundy types but don't expect any reasonable person to take your assertions seriously.

The only thing any 2 evolutionists can agree on is that they think Young earth creationists are not only wrong, but somehow mentally lacking. Apart from this you guys literally have almost nothing that unites you.

Truth is supposed to unite people. All you guys can do is argue trivialities and moot points about a non existent science. You can argue and research and debate all you like, you're still never going to find the missing link and you're still never going to agree with each other.

It's a massive joke. You guys are all laughing at me, little did you know I'm actually RIGHT. It's like a pantomime.

GODS BEHIND YOU...
'NO HE'S NOT....'
NO SERIOUSLY HE IS...

Before you know it the world has ended and you lost your chance to salvation. All I can say is unlucky...

a reply to: TechUnique

One thing we can all agree on is that you have the reading comprehension of a tree frog. It's as if you read what you want to read and conveniently push aside all of the factual info and arguments that go against your child-like acceptance of Genesis.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TechUnique

One thing we can all agree on is that you have the reading comprehension of a tree frog. It's as if you read what you want to read and conveniently push aside all of the factual info and arguments that go against your child-like acceptance of Genesis.

Of course you can all agree on that. I'm the common enemy here remember?

originally posted by: TechUnique
The only thing any 2 evolutionists can agree on is that they think Young earth creationists are not only wrong, but somehow mentally lacking. Apart from this you guys literally have almost nothing that unites you.

They agree more often than the various types of Christians out there with their multiple thousands of different interpreted forms of faith.

Truth is supposed to unite people. All you guys can do is argue trivialities and moot points about a non existent science. You can argue and research and debate all you like, you're still never going to find the missing link and you're still never going to agree with each other.

The irony of you saying that is priceless.

a reply to: TechUnique

You haven't offered ANY evidence to support ANY of your claims. Your ignorance is the "common enemy" seeing as this site's motto is "deny ignorance".

Post up some actual EVIDENCE to support your ludicrous claims. Let's see some scientific papers. Put your money where your mouth is.

a reply to: mOjOm

Where is the missing link?

There should be an abundance of fossils providing proof for the missing link. Instead we have an abundance of fraudulent cases LOL.

And you call me ironic.

PERSPECTIVE.

a reply to: GetHyped

Though I may not agree with TechUnique's views on Evolution, I certainly won't personally insult him for it. If you must refute his views, do so in a respectful way.

My thoughts on the matter: Looking to a holy book written almost 2000 years ago for answers to where we came from is probably not the best method. While that book does provide some form of moral compass for folks, taking what is written literally is counter-productive.

Evolution is still a scientific theory. As such, the theory evolves (See what I did there?) as new information is gleaned and even some notions considered true of evolution could be discarded if new evidence disproves part of the theory. That said, I very much doubt any of us here are evolutionary biologists and are hardly qualified to speak on the matter with any sort of authority.

I have of course done my own research and I think the theory does hold water.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: mOjOm

Where is the missing link?

Another creationist who misunderstands evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

There should be an abundance of fossils providing proof for the missing link. Instead we have an abundance of fraudulent cases LOL.

Someone hasn't done their homework:

en.wikipedia.org...

And you call me ironic.

PERSPECTIVE.

I call you ignorant. Case in point: your posting history.

a reply to: TechUnique

150 years ago there was a lot of missing links. now look at what we have found. give it time and im sure more will be uncovered to lend illumination to the subject.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TechUnique

You haven't offered ANY evidence to support ANY of your claims. Your ignorance is the "common enemy" seeing as this site's motto is "deny ignorance".

Post up some actual EVIDENCE to support your ludicrous claims. Let's see some scientific papers. Put your money where your mouth is.

Lets see the missing link before you claim your belief of our origin any more credible than mine. So my claims that evolution is false are ludicrous?

Do you realize how ludicrous it is for you to even say that?

Evolution is a myth, end of. Creationism happened. All sorts of archeological 'anomalies' have disproved evolution except they haven't because they just get swept under the rug as 'anomalies'.

So you have the proof for evolution being false, COVERED UP.. then you have the 'proof' for evolution being true completely fabricated, proven to be false, but then still propagated.

It goes beyond a point of me having proof for my claims and into the realm of common sense.
(I can just imagine the posts now, 'LOL YOU SAID COMMON SENSE BUT U CREDIT UNION ADVOCATE'

Yeah, something like that.

a reply to: TechUnique

Where's you God???

LOL

There should be an abundance of evidence for God if he's the creator of everything and is allegedly everywhere at all times.
Instead we have an abundance of opinions from people who believe Mythology is actually Reality.

Yes, the things you say are Ironic and absolutely hilarious.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: mOjOm

Where is the missing link?

There should be an abundance of fossils providing proof for the missing link. Instead we have an abundance of fraudulent cases LOL.

And you call me ironic.

PERSPECTIVE.

Did we all get into the 'Wayback Machine' with Mr. Peabody and head the early 20th century or so ethimg? Because that's right around the last time the term "missing link" was used in a scientific context. There is no such thing as a missing link. Go back and read that sentence again only a little slower this time. There isn't one, it isn't a thing that exists in modern scientific literature, only the minds of those who don't understand science. and you can take that to the bank and cash it. The phrase goes all the way back to Plato and was picked back up in the 18th and 19th centuries. It has no place in modern science period let alone modern evolutionary synthesis.

If what you actually mean is transitional fossils, there are plenty. In fact every living creature is technically a transitional organism.

Please demonstrate and support your claim of an abundance of fraudulent cases so I may properly evicerate them and demonstrate how little they actually mean in the grand scheme of things because if how you will misrepresent them due to poor source material or quote mining. .Not that you will because you have yet to support a single one of your statements In any one of your identical threads with anything more than hyperbolic conjecture based on your own opinions and a scant few yutube videos. Bravo! That's how you show the scientists the error of their ways!