Originally posted by rnaa
You are completely off the track with this argument. There is no-one anywhere at anytime that says evolution will turn a DEER into, say, an MOOSE. Or
as the example was put in an earlier post, a DOG into a CAT. Its a ludicrous, meaningless, criticism.
What is claimed that some ancient proto-deer has evolved into modern deer (actually many different Deer), Caribou, and Moose. .
I am not off track at all and if you weren't so presumptuous you would take note that your answer is exactly the same as mine.
I never said they would become anything other than deer or given the fact that they are a class of deer because I don't expect them to because
evolution as you have already said and agreed with me, DOESN'T work like that. I said they would all remain deer and so did you "(actually many
different Deer), Caribou, and Moose etc.
This again is adaptation and variation among Kinds and follows the biblical creationist model which is also why Noah didn't have to bring near as
many animals to the ark
Evolution doesn't transform one species into another, it weeds out unsuccessful mutations and rewards successful mutations. Some mutations fail in
some environments and are rewarded in other environments. When this happens there is a split in the characteristics of a population. When the split is
severe enough, science recognizes different species.
I repeat, it is not a case of cats becoming dogs. Its a case of some "before there were cats or dogs"-animal evolving into cats in one instance and
into dogs in another completely different instance. A fork in a tree, not a bridge between two branches.
Again, your inability to follow instructions and READ MY POST! I never said I believed evolution is like dogs turning into cats so withdraw the
allegation.
Even when someone DOES say it, you realize of course they already believe what you are suggesting doesn't happen so what the hell is your point
Since you didn't understand it, it did need to be made even if it was forlorn. I repeat, my statement from above, evolution is like a fork in a tree
branch, not a bridge between two branches. There is no leap from one species to the next. Dogs don't become cats - proto-Dogs become Dogs.
I really wish you would quit responding to statments I never made then criticize me for making them.
Weeding can produce a fine Carrot crop. But it can't turn "proto-root vegetables" into carrots, potatos, and turnips; evolution can and has.
...
I have listed over a hundred a fifty items of fraud in science, I have shown that this is not just some isolated incident and these are not just some
obscure fossil findings, they are the bedrock keystone icons of evolution some being their most proud and famous discoveries only to have them be
found fake, fraud or mistaken for a cavemans skeleton but it was an honest mistake they say. IT WAS A TOOTH! that was all, a tooth, not of a man but
an extinct pig! These people are supposed to be professionals for petes sake.
They are supposed to be intelligent and we expect them to be honest as many in this country see Science as an authority greater than religion.
Problem is , unlike the religious havng that Christian reputation to live up to, evolutionists never admit the many findings that corroborate the
creationist model and have long been known to suppress that kind of find apparently as easy as it is for them to lie about another faux fossil find.
Your calls to all that weaseling have been noted but they don't impress me
You know what weasels are do you not?
Here are many often used and ignore all of them.
Weasel Examples
"Some people say..."
"Some argue..."
"Contrary to many..."
"As opposed to most..."
"Research has shown..."
"...is widely regarded as..."
"...is widely considered to be..."
"...is claimed to be..."
"...is thought to be..."
"It is believed that..."
"It is rumored that..."
"It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..."
"There are rumors that..."
"Some people believe..."
"Some feel that..."
"They say that..."
"Many people say..."
"It may be that..."
"Could it be that..."
"It could be argued that..."
"Critics/experts say that..."
"Some historians argue..."
"Considered by many..."
"Critics contend..."
"Observers say..."
"Fans say..."
"Accusations..."
"Apparently..."
"Supposedly..."
"Presumably..."
"Allegedly..."
"Arguably..."
"Actually..."
"(x) out of (y) [vague group of professionals]...."
"Obviously..."
"Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..."
"Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..."
"The (mainstream) scientific community"
"It is claimed..."
"It has been revealed that..."
"Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..."
Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
"...is only one side of the story"
"Experts suggest..."
"Modern studies have claimed..."
"Studies show..."
"It is generally considered that..."
"It is notable"
"In some people's thoughts/opinions/minds..."
"It turns out that..."
There have been mistakes (Brontosaurus) that have been corrected as new data was found and frauds (Piltdown Man) that have been exposed as the
evidence has been exposed to scientific review. This is a strength of the theory, not a weakness. Neither of these two examples could have ever been
exposed by any rival to evolution.
Of course Scientists have an interest in making a living in modern society. That doesn't mean they have an agenda to be wrong in the face of contrary
data. For example, it may be that there are instances of accelerated evolution especially on island environments. Science is working out how to
accommodate that in "traditional" evolution. The theory isn't wrong, it just found more data it needs to explain. That is the only agenda science
has: explain the data as best it can.
Unlike you apparently.
Evolution is the most studied, has the most data and the most support of any theory in history.
That dubious distinction you have so graciously lavished on evolutionary science may impress you but it doesn't me and almost ALL the discoveries
they make are proven to be untrue within 6 weeks to sometimes as long as 50 years but regardless of that. I have seen every argument given by them
over the past 40 years and have seen it change to cover up the stupid ideas they have had every time.
Like I said, it it isn't mistakes of science, it is out and out FRAUD and sure scientists should make a living, BUT AS SCIENTIST'S! Not Con
artist's trying to get rich and famous or peer reviewed with the latest "missing link". I have heard one out of five Scientists does science using
the scientific method and almost all of them find ways to buy their peer reviews and that has already been investigated and founf to be true. As long
as evolution is the only philosophy allowed to masquerade as science, then science will continue to get it wrong, create more fantastic theory and
just so story like punctuated equilibrium. and common descent with modification and and it is RAMPANT in evolutonary science and the MOUNTAIN of this
concensus based philosophy YOU call science has become a religion that can not be challenged without some dogmatic atheist zealot repeating the same
thing I have already proven doesn't happen and like you presenting these as mistakes?
MISTAKES?
45 years it took to expose piltdown man.
FORTY FIVE YEARS!
We have scientist's and paleontologists gluing feathers to reptiles, finding a tooth of an extinct pig and creating an entire skeleton of a caveman
and like Java man AND COLORADO MAN, LUCY AND ALL THE REST OF THE fakes frauds and manufactured icons of evolution, Darwin himself has been re-written
into our science books as the HMS Beagles Naturalist a Scientist when he was merely a paid guest and a hobbyist, hell he wasn't even a scientist at
all and the only degree he ever got was in theology. His book origin of species, he writes about the concerns he has with not finding any
transitional forms and that evidence was also a major concern of the late Stephen J Gould so what did we see the Science of evolution do? Well when
Darwins theory ws up for review and about to be kicked to the curb, Al Haekel comes to the rescue when Darwinsism was on the brink of becoming just
another dead theory. Haekel an athiest with an axe to grind used fabricated drawings to Prove Darwins theory saving it from the trash bin of broken
dreams.
Now Darwin knew this but never said anything and perpetuated this with Darwins theory already based on a premise of fraud and it didn't stop there,.
Goulds idea was to "invent" a plausible theory (excuse) for why their was so much stasis in the geological record and transitional fossils were not
to be found.
ny, times
viral impossibilities Prove once again mutation rates and variation in populations is not enough to substantiate evolution transpeciation dogma
populations and beneficial mutations are not enough, as i had already shown in pages prior, DNA doesn't work that way, you can't just start calling
Mutations Mutataions! They are invariably deleterious to the organism and of those that get fixed into the DNA, the likely hood of any further
mutations getting past DNA's coding corrections is for all intents and purposes, impossible. DNA doesn't need evolution to bring about all the
species on earth it is quite capable of making any creature it is instructed to make.
You see how evolutionists who have been saying "Natural Selection" doesn't need God so why do you say "god did it". Well that kind of hubris
comes back to bite the evolutionist in the ass because DNA doesn't need Darwin to explain the variety of species nor does it need evolution. The
FACT is, I have been arguing this debate for many years have read hundreds of books on it and many colleagues of mine have been scientists and ALL of
them say that behind closed doors and off the record, evolution is a crock
If single celled organisms are all exactly the same, have no different qualities, do not need to compete for food, sex or otherwise, then why did they
evolve? There was no competetion, and no need to evolve, there were no 'favourable qualities' in a single celled organism, so why did they evolve?
The evolution theory claims that the first simplest form of life evolved to greater and ever greater more complex forms of life.
But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene.
"What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations
have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene.
In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count.
In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene. There
is no evidence that it ever happens.
There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a
gene.
I have explained that if Darwinian Evolution works, organisms have to have a way to add a gene, because an organism has to increase the number of
genes in its genome in order to advance to a more complex organism. Mutating is not a way for any organism to add a gene. A single gene could mutate
forever but it would never change the gene count.
Supporters of the Theory of Evolution never talk about the Gene Count because there is no genetic mechanism for adding a gene.
More than that however and the area of science evolutionists invariably argue they do NOT go is "A-Biogenesis" and the reason when you think about
it, is quite obvious to the astute obeserver of science. How could anything copy genes and replicate itself when it lacks the very DNA components
required to do just that.
Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed and it's time to get back to teaching the truth.
God really DID
do it
