Darwinism; What a Fake

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

This is a evolutionist vs. Creationist idea that has been at each others throats for over 200 years, and you, kid, are making everyone look like a small person.

Creationist ideas have been around far longer than 200 years my friend. And yet you are still yammering about with the same primitive drivel as ancient people, while science continues to progress and uncover truths. People like you are an insult to human intelligence and a step back in our development as a species.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Actually, yes, there is such data.

Check Lenski, and also London Underground Mosquito

And since there i no data for the existence of god or "creation science" or "intelligent design" I now fully expect you to realise your mistake!

Nah...not really....just joking

.... you have completely shot your proverbial foot right off but I have no doubt your indoctrination will allow you to weasel out of the obvious consequences somehow....

So, a mosquito became something other than a mosquito? No, it didn't. A bio on an evolutionist, on wiki, isn't evidence, either. Apparently, you have no real scientific sources?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Proof of transition fossils though from fish to land animal, therefore proving it can be done.
Case closed in my book.

There is no proof. Lining up a lot of pictures in a book, and claiming they go together, isn't proof. That sort of nonsense is one of the biggest reasons a lot of REAL scientists not reject that old, worn out theory.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Ye there is, this creature has both lungs and gills.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Actually, yes, there is such data.

Check Lenski, and also London Underground Mosquito

And since there i no data for the existence of god or "creation science" or "intelligent design" I now fully expect you to realise your mistake!

Nah...not really....just joking

.... you have completely shot your proverbial foot right off but I have no doubt your indoctrination will allow you to weasel out of the obvious consequences somehow....

So, a mosquito became something other than a mosquito? No, it didn't. A bio on an evolutionist, on wiki, isn't evidence, either. Apparently, you have no real scientific sources?

And you confuses data with something you understand.

A mosquito became a different species, and the bio is of the chap who is evolving e.coli through 50,000+ generations - as you might have realised if you bothered reading it.

You said there was no DATA - and there is.

You shouldn't ask the question if you don't understand what it is you are asking for.

But thanks again for showing off the ignorance of the creationist cult.

Not sure why you're on here tho - the motto is "Deny ignorance" - not demonstrate it!

reply to post by paradox


one creationist that went through everything, and I was reminded of him and what he has done.

Harold Aspden.

link

Read his books and found them very informative.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


There is one scientist that went through it all and he dropped it when he found the truth,

Harold Aspden.

He has more titles than anyone here.

Wow 13 pages and not one that proves the ops opinion.
Good god can I have my time back.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


So in other words you just posted your opinion of what you reject from one Author like Darwin and believe what another author wrote.

I see, nothing to debate.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

There is one scientist that went through it all and he dropped it when he found the truth,

Harold Aspden.

He has more titles than anyone here.

He's a theoretical physicist. WTF are you talking about and what does he have to do with evolution?

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

There is one scientist that went through it all and he dropped it when he found the truth,

Harold Aspden.

He has more titles than anyone here.

Looks like fascinating reading! Will have to go through is stuff when I have time. Thanks for the info. Saving the link.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Ye there is, this creature has both lungs and gills.

So? God couldn't make one like that? That isn't proof of evolution, but of imagination and creativity.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
A mosquito became a different species, and the bio is of the chap who is evolving e.coli through 50,000+ generations - as you might have realised if you bothered reading it.

I did read it. It's still a mosquito. Different variety, NOT a truly different species. That is another case of how evolutionists redefine the terms to support an unsupportable theory.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


There's plenty of proof that whales and dolphins were once land animals that moved to the ocean and evolved into the ocean creatures they are today. If you look at their pectoral fins, they have bones that look remarkably like feet or hands.

www.amnh.org...
www.indiana.edu...
ocean.si.edu...

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
A mosquito became a different species, and the bio is of the chap who is evolving e.coli through 50,000+ generations - as you might have realised if you bothered reading it.

I did read it. It's still a mosquito. Different variety, NOT a truly different species.

Really - what the article says is:

The evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C. pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation.

That is another case of how evolutionists redefine the terms to support an unsupportable theory.

Nah - I'm going with it's another case of a creationist who doesn't know what s/he is talking about - to the extent that you don't even know the difference between species.,genus and family.

All genera and species of mosquito belong to a single family are all members of the same family - the Culicidae.

There are 41 Genera of mosquitos, with 3500 or so species.

Thank for presenting me with another opportunity to identify and deny ignorance!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Really - what the article says is:

The evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C. pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive isolation.

That is another case of how evolutionists redefine the terms to support an unsupportable theory.

Nah - I'm going with it's another case of a creationist who doesn't know what s/he is talking about.

A "different species" of what? Oh, yeah, MOSQUITO! It didn't turn into a dragonfly, or a water bug, or some totally new form of insect, but remained a mosquito. Apparently, you didn't read the article yourself. But hey, by all means, continue to prove my point!

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Yes - a different SPECIES of mosquito - you said it wasn't a different SPECIES.

You were, and remain, wrong.

And clearly ignorant as to what the word means.

Edit: But I am not surprised by that, nor by you changing the goal posts when you are shown wrong - it's standard creationist dishonesty, which is kind of ironic given the 9th commandment that y'all profess to believe in

2nd edit:

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
A "different species" of what? Oh, yeah, MOSQUITO! It didn't turn into a dragonfly, or a water bug, or some totally new form of insect, but remained a mosquito.

That would require it to turn into a different family as I linked to above. Do you know the difference between a family and a species yet??

Apparently, you didn't read the article yourself. But hey, by all means, continue to prove my point!

indeed...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
A "different species" of what? Oh, yeah, MOSQUITO! It didn't turn into a dragonfly, or a water bug, or some totally new form of insect, but remained a mosquito.

That would require it to turn into a different family as I linked to above. Do you know the difference between a family and a species yet??

As I said, redefined terms. It's still a mosquito, and doesn't prove evolution, just variety.

reply to post by paradox


A physicist that can beat you in knowing truth.

He is one that was taught evolution and then dumped it because it was false. What made it false? Well, that is for me to know and you to find out.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I wouldn't be surprise to know that the parasite you speak of hasn't changed over the millions of years of due coarse.