Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by edmc^2
I think this answers your question in the simplest of fashions.
Though it seems your repeating the same argument in multiple threads irrespective of the question posed.
OK - got one for you:
And BTW - are you aware that Evolution Theory had changed several times already? Everytime it gets challenged and proved wrong, proponents of it (like
you) start changing what it means and how it works? And then when ask why, will say - ah but that's how science works.
Then they go around preaching on top of their voices proclaiming - "see evolution theory has been proven to be true more than a century now". They
ignore the fact that the meaning is no longer the same as it was originally thought of.
First it was Darwinian Evolution, then microevolution, then macroevolution, then punctuated equilibrium, then change of the alleles. What's next -
Just like I said - it's like pinning the tail on donkey's ass. Hard to pinpoint where the "ass" is at - they keep moving the target while they
blindfold you with silly ideas.
Funny thing though is EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory.
For example whether you're aware of it or not, most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms. They point to similarities in skeletal
structure of different animals as proof that such animals are related. They say, dude this is evolution by direct descent, a descent from a common
ancestor. In fact they will say such things as;
'in the early stages of development from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower” ones. Looki here - if you
analyze the blood plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin you can see that these different species are close or related to each other or to
their more distant relatives.'
They claim that such comparisons lead inevitably to the conclusion that all animals have a common ancestry. They say they cannot conceive of any other
Of course, why not? Having first ruled out the possibility that all have the same Designer and Maker, they cannot accept that as an alternative
But when challenge further they start ridiculing those with opposing POV while at the same time hiding the fact that they don't know what the heck
they're talking about.
Here's a textbook example. When shown to them that such proof is not complete because "the existence of homologous resemblances, of parallelisms in
embryonic development, and of graded degrees of chemical relationship between organisms does not in itself prove that evolution has occurred. -- Man
and the Biological World"
They will just ridicule and fall back on paleontology. Hey, we have evidence of evolution thru fossil records.
But when you counter them with opposing views and findings made by other paleontologists they will revert to:
Oh, a quote from authority, an appeal to authority. They will destroy the authority then launched on a nonsensical stuff like "argument from
ignorance". While all along they are the ones arguing from ignorance - hiding again from the truth by admitting "we don't know".
They switch to another topic - like I said they keep moving the target. Geeewhizzz!!
So do you still subscribe to the Darwinian Evolution Theory?
later...not much time today.