Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Phantom423

In that case, shalom aleichem

But still....

But still you don't provide evidence for your claim. You made a statement and can't back it up. I have the original research paper from SCIENCE with the data. What you suggest i.e. that a head can't tell you anything about the entire body is simply not true.

I love the "But still" OP left followed by those beloved vague ellipsis. Pair that with the fact OP still can't provide evidence and also cannot just admit defeat.

a reply to: firefromabove

How do scientist know stuff? They get what's called, an 'education'. They go to school and learn science. Why don't you ask one of them to explain it to you?

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: TzarChasm
yet another catchy thread wherein someone tries to make the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis look stupid and ends up proving that they dont have the educational background in geology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, etc to adequately criticize evolution. who saw that coming?

*tips fedora

Le science will save us from le magical sky fairy

Sorry, you're a lost cause, even to science. BTW, as a Muslim, why do you even care about evolution? Don't you have other "priorities" today?

As a white supremacist and Holocaust denier, don't you have other "priorities"?

You sound like a nasty racist.

I don't speak to nasty racists. Bye.

"you are a big meanie and i dont want to play with you anymore" after you lose a game of baseball with the neighborhood kids. if you are going to set yourself up for failure by challenging the forum so blatantly you should at least fail with grace buddy. tips for the future in case you decide to redeem yourself in another anti evolution thread.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

HAHA, did anyone say that it disproves evolution. I think I missed that part. I think the point the OP was trying to make was that they hide behind SCIENCE when anyone questions their methods, but really all they are doing is pontificating and making most # up from the air. What they claim is fact, in many cases is anything but.

Look at the evidence for gigantopithecus....lol some molars and a partial jaw bone, yet you have to DIG AND DIG to find the actual evidence. Lucy, the most complete hominid skeleton ever found, try and find pictures of the actual skeleton parts found. It is difficult and usually includes modified renderings and casts along with the actual bones making it difficult to find what is actually what.

I only ask for one thing. Don't mislead people with bull#. Give the actual evidence, not contrived evidence, and certainly not conjecture. Call a theory a theory, not a fact. Call conclusions what they are, your best guess based on your interpretation of the available evidence, not a fact. Also, include what evidence was excluded and give specifics on why the evidence was excluded. If all of your peer reviews have the same outliers removed, guess what? They AREN'T outliers.

Jaden

a reply to: TownCryer

Yeah because the paradigms that are taught in school are all historically so accurate... give me a break.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

HAHA, did anyone say that it disproves evolution. I think I missed that part. I think the point the OP was trying to make was that they hide behind SCIENCE when anyone questions their methods, but really all they are doing is pontificating and making most # up from the air. What they claim is fact, in many cases is anything but.

And HAHA to you too. Evidence? You want evidence? You can't handle the evidence (see my personal quote below).

Well here's some evidence. And after reading the original research paper and analyzing the supplementary fact sheet containing materials and methods, please do let us know where they went wrong! We wait with bated breath for an unremarkable response.

This was taken from the original research paper (not the general public article in Scientific American and Nature). It is the supplementary fact sheet which describes in detail the materials and methods.

It's up to YOU to download the complete document, read it and analyze it. I'm quite sure you won't do that, but I am also quite sure you'll have a multitude of comments about it! Please be sure to cite page number, paragraph, line number and the citation in quotes - we do follow proper form in science. Thanks for playing.





science.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: firefromabove
Firefromabove is living proof of evolution. He has the primitive inability to reason found in our apelike progenitors, a throwback to ancient times.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth
No one ever starts an atheist and the scientific evidence leads to Christianity...

This statement is contradictory. If no one ever starts as an atheist then that means they started religious and were led to atheism.

No modern scientist who has swapped to Christianity.. you have had a couple have a "spiritual" outside the lab experience and become Christians.. but you have never had some scientific experiment lead a scientist to believing in Christianity..

a reply to: firefromabove

Here's a question. If you jumped off a cliff and flapped your arms would you grow wings? If a million billion people followed you would they grow wings? The answer of course is NO. This is because they all died and couldn't (even if the possibility existed) pass on any genetic material to surviving generations to want to fly...(well to be honest is gets ridiculous from there but everyone still believes it's possible).

So fish learned to walk on the earth. That is what you all believe right? A fish out of water does what? Die! No apparently, not according to scientists and theorists, all of which have more faith than all the religions that ever existed.

All hail,the religion of evolution. And before you say otherwise evolution is adaptation passed on from living creatures. If you take a fish from water it dies. If you jump off a cliff you die. Lemmings are still ground based creatures. But convince yourself otherwise if you need the new religion of evolution.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: firefromabove

How do scientist know stuff? They get what's called, an 'education'. They go to school and learn science. Why don't you ask one of them to explain it to you?

You mean scientists like bill nye?

The guy who made the "sex junk" video?

Lol. OK. You listen to him all you want

You might enjoy this video though:

youtube.com...

a reply to: SanitySearcher

I don't believe in evolution

But great points

originally posted by: thekaboose
Remembering back to different things over the years, a number of times a species look has been changed with new evidence (Raptors for one) some have been found to not even exist. Its study, research, piecing evidence together the best we can without a time machine.

They dont find one bone and scream "this is what it looks like" they fine more, they study but with one bone they can piece together an appearance.

The more we find out the better our understanding.

But why the rabid need to teach children that it is basically fact, all of the time.

And portray it everywhere as that they are fully always telling the truth ?

originally posted by: deerislander
a reply to: firefromabove
Firefromabove is living proof of evolution. He has the primitive inability to reason found in our apelike progenitors, a throwback to ancient times.

There were no "apelike" progenitors

Parroting evolutionist claims doesn't mean you have the ability to reason but keep telling yourself it does

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth
a reply to: firefromabove
Now that OP is here...

Care to show us where there was an incidence of an artist rendering was based on one jawbone by itself?

And to be nice...I'm going to let you the chance to post a source that specifies an artist rendering was based on ANY single fossil bone...THAT'S RIGHT! I said ANY. ANY bone, it doesn't even have to be a jaw bone specifically.

Go 'head. I'll wait.

Not doing your homework for you

Many ancient animals we are told once existed are "proven" by a jaw bone and few teeth

The piltdown man that was proven as a hoax was also founded on jaw bones and teeth

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution

That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?

Anyone can understand the processes, and see that ALOT of theory gets a pass just because it went through the process.

What many want to know is, why does ALL of it need to be accepted as fact realistically, by the public all of the time ?

a reply to: Phantom423

Evolutionists live within their own fantasy world. They write "papers" on a fantasy subject, get their own peers to review those "papers" and hi-five each other and congratulate themselves for being so smart. In case you cant see it, it is not science, its their own show

All youre doing is being a fan of that show and demanding everyone else do the same

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution

That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

So you don't understand evolution or scientific methods....therefore it's all lies and rubbish?

Anyone can understand the processes, and see that ALOT of theory gets a pass just because it went through the process.

What many want to know is, why does ALL of it need to be accepted as fact realistically, by the public all of the time ?

Because evolution IS a dogmatic religion

People are genuinely shocked when someone questions it or suggest it may not be true

Ever noticed how every evolutionist believes the same thing as to how this or that evolved? Or over what happened billions of years ago?

Not even religious groups are that monolithic.

originally posted by: thekaboose

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: thekaboose
Proof is needed, if you do not offer sources, proof or anything else then you are just showing your own bigoted ignorance

Ande "proof" isnt even really possible on anything (outside of raw adaptation being an inherent design of life) that is likely to be mentioned herein, therefore agnosticism is the only true logical position to be taking.

I do beg to differ, if proof isnt possible and you have to go on what we have in front of us -

Evolution side:

- Fossils
- DNA analysis
- Animal adaptation

God side:

- Some books

The logical side would be evolution.

It would be, but yet it is clearly in theory logical but with many slants that still exist.

We see the proof of this often with changing knowledge.

What is the importance of convincing people you know the truth and are always on the right path when that much is muddy at best.

a reply to: firefromabove

if evolution does not satisfy your expert skepticism then perhaps you have a solution of your own to propose? a solution that we can test and verify? a tall glass of illumination would go nicely with that heaping plate of scorn you keep passing around. go ahead and amaze us if you have the wit to do so.

To those who doubt evolution.

What would be your explanation for land crabs?

Crabs are usually found in the ocean with the exception of fresh water crabs but these crabs spend their adult life on land.








What would your explanation for the axolotl an amphibian that unlike its salamander relatives never got rid of it's gills.

What is the explanation for something like a lungfish a fish that can breath air because it has lungs?


If evolution is not the answer for these examples I would love to hear an explanation from the experts.