Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spy66

 

spy66....I might have hit the send key, without thinking.

I like your response, and hope you will axccept my apologies for the mistake....

You have made no mistake. I think we did just the right thing. We solved a unknown that's all no harm in that.

reply to post by weedwhacker


all of your videos are argumentum verbosium. A falsidical way of debating. Please declare the thesis you are supporting and present its' evidence properly so that it may be scrutinized logically.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


JPhish....I would if I could....really, I found a better argument, via YTube, to explain what I simply didn't have the terms, nor the clever arguments, by typinhg them out....it seems best to find what comports with my views, and, as I did, bring them into the discussion.

I will stand behind the claims brought forth in those YTube diatribes...because they made sense to me, and although the narrator had to speak quickly to fit within the confines of the YTube 10-minute parameter....it still makes perfect sense.

reply to post by JPhish



JPhish....you of all people, you bring this challenge?!?

Just for those who follow these threads, I provided a link to a YouTube source....it was at least a 14-piece in 10-minute intervals, because of current YouTube restrictions. Please simply click on the youtube link to find the entire series....

I do not know why 'JPhish' wishes to pre-empt your ability to see this....his snide remarks have been noted...

reply to post by weedwhacker


i understand that, but don't expect anyone to have any sort of logical retort to these videos. I'm questioning Aermacchi's sanity for even attempting to. It's just far too much convoluted information to address coherently.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

JPhish....you of all people, you bring this challenge?!?

Not really a challenge, more of a request so that we might initiate a productive discourse. I’m sure it would be much better than you guys throwing videos and glib insults at each other.

I do not know why 'JPhish' wishes to pre-empt your ability to see this....his snide remarks have been noted...

Huh? I’m not trying to prevent anyone from seeing anything . . . I’m not being sarcastic either. :-\

reply to post by JPhish


Ermmmm...OK, Phish

I won't respond to the other, but to this post.

I'd like to hear your take on the YTubes I've posted....after you have seen all of them, of course.

I get the gist of THIS post....maybe we aren't too far off the mark, so to speak???

Originally posted by Aermacchi

You have NOTHING of the kind and Ill tell you why andre, it is because you and others here like you who believe in the biggest hoax ever perpetrated in science, do so without the mind of a skeptic but as a blind faith, nay a desciple, a follower of the ever lieing illusion of Darwinian evolution.

Man, this going to be so fun. Let me educate – The idea that organisms evolved was floating around long before Darwin and was revived a bit before his time by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who

was an early proponent of the idea that evolution occurred and proceeded in accordance with natural laws.

Lamarck's contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution, in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.

en.wikipedia.org...

Although his work didn’t gain much ground because there was no obvious mechanism by which a type of animal could change into another. Lamarck suggested that maybe animals changed because they felt the need to change. It didn’t sound very scientific and because there wasn’t any evidence to support it at the time the idea didn’t go very far.

So what Darwin did was show a plausible mechanism by which these changes could happen. And of course Alfred Wallace who came up with the same idea and published it jointly –

best known for independently proposing a theory of natural selection which prompted Charles Darwin to publish his own theory.

He was considered the 19th century's leading expert on the geographical distribution of animal species and is sometimes called the "father of biogeography". Wallace was one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 19th century and made a number of other contributions to the development of evolutionary theory besides being co-discoverer of natural selection.

The fossils of man illustrating evolution are just that "Illustrations". The cartoons and animations of what they imagine "might" have happened if evolution were true but it isn't true.

This is human evolution - Ardipithecus, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus. These pre-humans are stages of our evolution – they are real fossils and are accepted so by the world, but guess what – they’re all fake and it’s all a conspiracy. You Christians have got it….god just magically poofed things into existence……..ya, a more logical process then billions of years developmental progression and change, sigh.

The sequence showing the supposed evolution of the horse, which even they admit to be false, is still on display in museums. The horse series charts were the result of distortions of the facts. Every new fossil discovery has revealed the invalidity of these imaginary charts.

Fakes??? Where’d you pull that from –

The evolution of the horse involves the gradual development of the modern horse from the fox-sized, forest-dwelling Hyracotherium. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal.

en.wikipedia.org...

chem.tufts.edu...

I’ll reply to the rest of your post when I have more time……

[edit on 12-4-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I still want to know what came first, the protein or the DNA

www.madsci.org...

Neither!

In the search for the origins of life on Earth, the central question has been, "what existed before there were cells?" This has lead to the search for a single substance that fulfills the basic criteria of life and has the capacity to evolve into the cell-based life we know today. The two basic characteristics this substance should have are replication (the ability to reproduce) and enzymatic activity (the ability to create its own environment). DNA can replicate, but that's all it can do. Proteins can change their environments, but they have no mechanism for reproduction. The answer lies in between DNA and proteins.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by DohBama

 

Evolution is no longer a theory. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Evolution is certainly good for debunking creation myths.

it is still, technically a theory.

the universe and everything in it was indeed created, that is fact.

reply to post by DohBama


"technically"? Technically gravity is a theory. However, if you don't believe in it, feel free to jump off a tall building to express your opinion.

You have the words "fact" and "theory" running around loose in your post. Try to get control of them to the point where they make sense to the average reader, if you please.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

i understand that, but don't expect anyone to have any sort of logical retort to these videos. I'm questioning Aermacchi's sanity for even attempting to. It's just far too much convoluted information to address coherently.

Yeah you got a point there J, I get so sick and tired of taking hours to download a video weed already knows I don't have the connection speed for, the transcripts are given right there and he only shares the video which is proof of what?

YOU got it, another cartoon animation of how they THINK this might have occured. It has never been observed in nature however and if they want to call it science then they may as well allow ID in the science class room because that is the reason they say ID isn't science but evolutionists are now and always have been guilty of this same thing.

Even andre the poor kid actually still believes in that garbage about the evolution of the horse the smithsonian had finally put back in the basement but it is STILL in high school text books being taught a scientific fact when it is most certainly anything BUT fact.

Most evolutionsists even know this but like most evolutionsist scientsist's they get most of their ideas from there colon

THIS is how far gone they are when it comes to frauds of evolution.

I recomend the book called ICONS of evolution

as for horses.

George Gaylord Simpson, world's foremost evolutionary paleontologist said, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." (George G. Simpson, Life Of The Past, p.119)
Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium ("Eohippus"), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say "This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals…The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, G. G. Simpson,1944, p 105)
"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.
"The difference between Eohippus and the modern horse is relatively trivial, yet the two forms are separated by 60 million years and at least ten genera and a great number of species.. . . If the horse series is anything to go by their numbers must have been the 'infinitude' that Darwin imagined. If ten genera separate Eohippus from the modern horse then think of the uncountable myriads there must have been linking such diverse forms as land mammals and whales or mollusks and arthropods. Yet all these myriads of life forms have vanished mysteriously, without leaving so much as a trace of their existence in the fossil record" (M. Denton, p. 186).
This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertibrate and invertibrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phylia,.. (Tempa and Mode in evolution, G. G. Simpson, 1944, p 107)
"It is evolution that gives rhyme and reason to the story of the horse family as it exists today and as it existed in the past. Our own existence has the same rhyme and reason, and so has the existence of every other living organism. One of the main points of interest in the horse family is that it so clearly demonstrates this tremendously important fact." (Horses, G.G. Simpson, 1961, p. xxxiii)
"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (The Fossil Record And Evolution: A Current Perspective, B. J. MacFadden Horses, Evol. Biol. ISBN: 22:131-158, 1988, p. 131)
"...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" (Fossil Horses, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL, 1994, p.27 )
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25)
"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit down-stairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." (Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, Harper's, p. 60, 1984.
The sequence in the series which presents transitional forms between small, many-toed forms and large, one-toed forms, has absolutely no fossil record evidence. (Moore, John, N., and Harold S. Slusher, Eds., Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, p. 548)
"In the first place it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse. Thus Simpson (1945) states, ‘Matthew [1926] has shown and insisted that Hyracotherium (including Eohippus) is so primitive that it is not much more definitely equid than tapirid, rhinocerotid, etc., but it is customary to place it at the root of the equid group.’" (Kerkut, G. A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 149)
"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn (1937, 1943) for the evolution of the Proboscidea, where "in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the Early Eocene or Late Cretaceous' (Romer 1949)." (Kerkut, G. A., Implications of Evolution, New York: Pergamon Press, 1960, p. 149)
"Much of this story [horse evolution] is incorrect …" (Birdsell, J. B., Human Evolution, Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub. Co., 1975, p. 169)
"Because its complications are usually ignored by biology textbooks, creationists have claimed the horse story is no longer valid. However, the main features of the story have in fact stood the test of time...." (Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, p 85)
"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." (Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology, p 409)
"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses." (Phylogeny of the family Equidae, R. L. Evander, 1989, p 125)
Eohippus, presented as the ancestor of horse which has disappeared millions of years ago, resembles extraordinarily to an animal called Hyrax which still lives in Africa today. One of the evolution researchers, Hitchings comments as follows: "Eohippus, supposedly the first horse, doesn’t look in the least like one, and indeed, when first found was not classified as such. It is remarkably like the present-day Hyrax (or daman), both in its skeletal structure and the way of like that it is supposed to have lived… Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct, and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all a-shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush." (The Neck of the Giraffe?, Francis? Hitchings, [Title and first name are not certain])

"I recomend the book called ICONS of evolution "

"Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001)."

"The Cambrian Explosion. Here Wells is running down a path well-worn by his creationist and Intelligent Design colleagues. As a result there is already significant literature available on the "animal phyla appeared suddenly, and without precursors, and all equally far apart from each other"-sort of contention."

"Molecular Phylogeny. Wells's second argument against the Tree of Life deals with the 'molecular clock' hypothesis -- namely that DNA or protein sequence divergence is regular enough to date ancient splits between lineages. This hypothesis is indeed being questioned by scientists, as the influence of things like natural selection may well alter the rate of sequence change (e.g. cone snail venoms are a fantastic example of rapid sequence divergence under selective pressure; see Espiritu et al., 2001). And if these changes occur often enough then getting accurate clock dates, particularly for distant events, will be very hard. This is an entirely different thing from determining molecular phylogenies, however, which is what Wells is actually trying to debunk. But unfortunately for Wells, there is considerable evidence that these phylogenies are reliable and in reasonably good accord with phylogenies generated from other data. On the general subject of accuracy in molecular phylogenies see Theobald 2002b and for recent work on phyla evolution and metazoan molecular phylogenies, which are quite certainly not in crisis, see recent articles in places Evolution and Development (e.g., Collins and Valentine, 2001; Peterson and Eernisse, 2001)."

Do you want me to go on?

reply to post by Aermacchi


Aermacchi, I am so sorry to hear that you do not have a DSL or high-speed wireless connection.

Sometimes a video presentation can provide better information than mere text. But, as you noted, there is a transcript available.

AND, no....the videos I linkyed to on YTube are not cartoons...they are really a narration/lecture series that uses a video montage to make points and provide entertainment for the eyes as the ears listen....

What is important to note is that in your arguments I see repeatedly the same FALSE assertions because of some less than reputable people's actions in the past...

Essentionally, you claim that because of a few frauds in the past, ALL of evolutionary theory is automatically ALSO a fraud. It just don't work that way, mate!!

At the very least, I could agree with you on ONE aspect (not covered in this thread)....the origin of that 'spark of life' that is now called abiogenesis. (I happen to think that everything in 'life' is both chemically and electricaly based...hence the 'spark' of life....but this topic)

...is about evolution. Whenever and however life first began (abiogenesis) there is little doubt by established scientists that the diversity of life we see now is but the tip of the iceberg compared to what has come before in the life of our planet. It is quite likely that there are more extinct species than current ones....and we're talking about millions of species alive now....right now....on this planet.

I sometimes think that 'creationists' just don't get it....they seem to have this mental image of ONE place on the planet that first developed life, from the magic guy in the sky. In fact, it is more likely that life developed, on its own, indepenently all over the planet....there are a lot of oceans to choose from, after all.

The Oxygen that we enjoy, nay require, in order to live was not in our atmosphere 3 billion years ago. This planet was NOT suited for Human life until quite recently, in geological timeframes.

I'm sorry for writing such a long post, but in light of the new requirements from the Overlord, I wasn't sure how long was long enough. You should have no trouble in that regard....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

Ermmmm...OK, Phish

I won't respond to the other, but to this post.

I'd like to hear your take on the YTubes I've posted....after you have seen all of them, of course.

I get the gist of THIS post....maybe we aren't too far off the mark, so to speak???

If he questioned my sanity for wanting to address them why would you think he should want to watch them and question his sanity also.

You are the one that never seems to get the point weed

reply to post by Aermacchi


I am sorry....sorry for you, because you will NOT face anything that disputes what YOU believe!!

I have examined 'religion' It doesn't meet the criteria of logicsal rational thought.

Every time that true logic gets into the face of the 'dogmatic believers'....it is refuted with the same old, tried and true responses....baloney, and "pseuodo-science" claims. The irony is, the 'creationists' use the term "pseudo-sciience" as their mantra.....it is just a bunch of "balloohewey"!!

OK, I just made up a new word....'balloohewey'....because I cannot use the 'R' - Rated term I'd like to use.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker


What is important to note is that in your arguments I see repeatedly the same FALSE assertions because of some less than reputable people's actions in the past...

Essentionally, you claim that because of a few frauds in the past, ALL of evolutionary theory is automatically ALSO a fraud. It just don't work that way, mate!!

I'm sorry for writing such a long post, but in light of the new requirements from the Overlord, I wasn't sure how long was long enough. You should have no trouble in that regard....

Hehe appreciate the levity about my errr, essay posts hehe

What is important to note is that in your arguments I see repeatedly the same FALSE assertions because of some less than reputable people's actions in the past...

Weed if you see a false assertion then by all means REFUTE THEM!
If it is a video you, please watch it yourself first and give a critique of the video. Are you trelling me I am wrong about all the speculation in that video? If so tell me when someone uses words like "seems" and "could have" and "maybe this happened" etc; tell me how that is "scientific". Tell me the last time you saw a peer reviewed paper they allowed so many un-scientific speculations. Tell me when was the last time someone could have got away with saying 4+4 "could be 6" without someone asking for more proof saying; "How could it be 6?" can you prove it could be 6?


That is what Scientific method does and if you cannot then it should be discarded just like I have discarded the video's they are simply attempts at making caracatures of Creationists no different than the video shown using the south park kids.


Just don't merely contradict them, PROVE them to be false. Show me why it is wrong that for each and every fraudulent icon of evolution is given as scientific fact it spawns even more faulty fallacious arguments created as even more fallacious material that was drawn from conclusions that were drawn from even more fallacious material that was at first a fraud to begin with.


Take the many living fossils for instance where entire tree's of evolution were wiped out when when they were discovered. The 30 year career of that German scientist and all his work, can you imagine the collateral mis-information that was spun off that 30 years of fraud the domino effect it has on science!? You use the words "because of some less than reputable people's actions in the past..." Weed, the FACT is these were not less than reputable peoples actions, they were Science most notable most peer reviewed and published scientists and it wasn't a few times this has happened it was A LOT and continues to happen and be codified.

This Science if it were an industry requiring securities clearance like say stock brokers, these morons would be IN JAIL!


Andre in his attempt to belittle me suggesting I must think their is a conspiracy of evolutionist's to undermine creation and creationist's as if that is so far fetched an Idea I am being ridiculous for mentioning it. Not only will I mention it The United States Senate Proved it!

He has heard of social Darwinism where Karl Marx himself wrote Karl Marx, wrote for Darwin's book, The Origin of Species which laid the basis for the theory of evolution as Karl Marx made it clear that Darwin's theory provided a solid ground for materialism and thus also for communism. He also showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating Das Kapital which is considered as his greatest work to him. In the German edition of the book, he wrote:

"this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view". "From a devoted admirer to Charles Darwin".

A common theme for ridiculing creationists into the "desired behavior" can be quoted from the following top selling atheist authors. Sam Harris, Chtristopher Hitchens, and the dis-honorable Dick Dawkins. It took 45 years to get rid of just ONE fraud called piltdown man but it was approx only 15 years ago they FINALLY got around to removing that missing link from our text books but the images of the quasi ape-man still linger in the minds of students still asking about us coming from apes.


What is so ironic about that is when atheists go ballistic about it saying we didn't come from apes! Hey we have always known that, so don't blame us for moving the goal posts again just like I will make the accusation for the things that video is saying creationists do thinking about just one common ancestor.


This theory isn't about science and never was weed, and as many evolutionists claim religion was invented to control the masses, it would seem a little more than obvious why that occurs to them because that is EXACTLY what evolution and the socialism being taught in our public schools seeks to do and it is undeniable.


The theory of evolution is the outcome of the materialist philosophy that surfaced with the reawakening of ancient Sumerian and Greek materialistic myths and became widespread in the 19th century
Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. He took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things and he invented a mechanism.


Darwin called this process "evolution by natural selection". He thought he had found the "origin of species" the origin of one species was another species.


To Darwin and his followers dismay, his theory was about to be rejected by peer review as their was nothing to prove it. ENTER atheist scientist Haekel whose support of Darwin prompted him to back up his theory saving it from emminent rejection from the science community.


This would the begining of what continues to be the Frauds of Sceince in an atheist agenda to keep Darwins theory alive. Mendel and the emergence of DNA and the Chromosome put Darwins theory in jeopardy again. scientists who were determined to remain loyal to Darwin endeavoured to come up with solutions.


The question of the origin of the advantageous variations that supposedly caused living organisms to evolve an issue that Darwin himself was unable to explain but simply tried to side-step by depending on Lamarck. The idea was now "random mutations".

They named this new theory "The Modern Synthetic Evolution Theory" and then as before they were wrong dso very very wrong but argued as cock sure of themselves as you do when you assume evolution is true before you use evidence to support it and every single evolution supporter I have ever seen on this board makes that same mistake that same assumption.

The only one that I have seen debate this well is Melatonin and Jphish.


I still haven't a clue what Jphish,s personally held beliefs are but am always impressed with his arguments while I makde no apologies for mine because the evidence is more compelling to me if and only if I am to be objective regarding my stable datum and not attempt to make inferences that are not true. For example, many assuming the Bible is a science book or making excuses against it rather than try to understand it, they look at it as a skeptic while not looking at evolution the same way. Not only that, they compare it in a scientific frame of referance rather than a historical record to be scientifically substantiated and substantiate evolutions history as substantiated as science with religious zeal.


The following decades were to become an era of desperate attempts to prove neo-Darwinism.


It was already known that mutations in the genes of living organisms were always harmful. Neo-Darwinists tried to establish a case for "advantageous mutation" by carrying out thousands of mutation experiments.


All their attempts ended in complete failure.
Before anyone links me to anything, try finding any that have disproved it first.


That is what I do and if you did, chances are I have already seen those links and would save us both time in you not posting them and my not refuting them. Lenski' albeit mildly impressive, his experiments were refuted by Royal Truman quite successfully and still the bottom line was, the e-coli never changed adding new genes but expressed genes now known to be already inherant in the DNA.


Neo-Darwinist theory is also defeated by the fossil record.


No "transitional forms", which were supposed to show the gradual evolution of living organisms from primitive to advanced species as the neo-Darwinist theory claimed, have ever been found anywhere in the world.


Those they needed desperately to prove the missing link were so desperate that all, not one, but ALL of them,

proved to be fakes later on.


Think about it weed, ask yourself, has their ever been human remains found that have looked like piltdown man? Why is it they keep thinking they will look that way and then ask, if it is true we would have looked like that, then why tell me why do they even have to keep looking for some that do?


Why when the next one they came up with was completely created around the tooth of an extinct pig. Why was it that caveman so celebrated and again, proven as fraud. If we did ever look like that, those that are frauds would never have been so celebrated because their would be so many more.


ENTER: Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, Realising that this, Eldredge and Gould put forward a new model: punctuated equilibrium. This is the claim that evolution did not take place as a result of minor variations but rather in sudden and great changes. They had even used the examples of how fast changes came about using the modern varieties of Dogs and how fast they came about arguing evolution doesn't take millions of years.


Ironically, this was one of my favorite analogies to refute Darwinists who believed in cumlative advantages over time. Now Darwinists were acting like THEY came up witrh this argument and were calling us stupid for using probability formulas proving evoluton couldn't have happened!
Yeah I am as old as you are and remember all these models.


You can see in my many debates you and I had many years ago back in 2007 where this was being used and I was asking for frogs turning into princes or reptiles suddenly hatching birds.

In time, punctuated equilibrium was finally trashed, then came junk DNA where again they used that to prove the arguments of Dick Dawkins 11 mins of silence when asked if their was any way new information could be added to the genome and he was stumped.


The answer he gave inspite of the arguments he was set up by devious creationists were insufficient to answer the question that was given and to this day he simply avoids that one. No species ever change outside of their kind. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.


The rest of evolutions frauds can be called "Rhetoric" because they are alibi's that are imagined or made up to explain away things that have never been observed or proven such as the human eye. I have seen literally every youtube video to explain how natural selection and mutation "could have" explained this complex feature of our sight.

However, this also assumes evolution is true FIRST then uses it to prove it is true but what we have seen is nothing of the sort, even the most primative of living fossils are shown to have eyes that are quite complex where this is the most primative of creatures is now understood that even the trilobyte has never changed and as old as it is, its honeycombed eyes are so complex evolutionists are forced to imagine some creature living earlier having some sort of photo sensitive nodule which they have already done then use that to prove evolution assuming it is true when it is not true.

It would be if evolution was actually happening but IT ISN'T!

Just because someone can make something up and then arrange a brain storming session using the tenets of evolutions current model to explain how it COULD have happened does not a science make.



[edit on 12-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

I am sorry....sorry for you, because you will NOT face anything that disputes what YOU believe!!

I have examined 'religion' It doesn't meet the criteria of logicsal rational thought.

Every time that true logic gets into the face of the 'dogmatic believers'....it is refuted with the same old, tried and true responses....baloney, and "pseuodo-science" claims. The irony is, the 'creationists' use the term "pseudo-sciience" as their mantra.....it is just a bunch of "balloohewey"!!

OK, I just made up a new word....'balloohewey'....because I cannot use the 'R' - Rated term I'd like to use.....

Religion is NOT science weed it is religion and that is not what I am talking about. Just because I am a Christian does NOT mean I can't understand science or that I am unable to. I wasn't always a Christian you know.

It seems however that is what happens with anyone challenging evolution it is because they are a Christian. Yet when I say they are all atheists, that is when they proudly display the names of famous Christians that are Darwinists like Ken Miller or the Pope etc. Which proves religion doesn't have anything to do with it, they like me, can seprate science from religion but it seems it is only believed we can when we agree with Darwinsts and that is simply a logical fallacy.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Sorry, sir....I am NOT trying to change your opinon!!!

In fact, I doubt that any on ATS are trying to change anyone's opinion..;

This is really, just a forum for many to respond....

So, respond....within the criteria as suggested......

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by DohBama

 

"technically"? Technically gravity is a theory.

No, it’s not.

However, if you don't believe in it, feel free to jump off a tall building to express your opinion.

you are on a slippery slope my friend.

You have the words "fact" and "theory" running around loose in your post.

well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

Ermmmm...OK, Phish

I won't respond to the other, but to this post.

I don’t see the problem, but OK

I'd like to hear your take on the YTubes I've posted....after you have seen all of them, of course.

I watched all of those videos in their entirety almost a year ago . . . in terms of any knowledge one might procure from them, there wasn’t much; hence, they weren’t particularly memorable.

I get the gist of THIS post....maybe we aren't too far off the mark, so to speak???

you confuse me so very much weedwacker