Darwinism; What a Fake

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


No it's not redefined terms - the terms species and family have been defined in science for hundreds of years - modern taxonomy was originally defined by Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, who died in 1778.

this evolved into the evolutionary taxonomy in the mid-1800's and phylogenetics in the later 1800's.

so there is no redefinition going on - there is you showing your ignorance in regard of the terms you are using time after time.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Then explain whales. They were land animals at one point.

reply to post by Zaphod58


No, they weren't. They have some traits that people use to make the claim, but it isn't proven. It's like the old "prehistoric horse" line, where they lined up a bunch and claimed they were a progression, with no proof at all.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


So it's sheer coincidence that fish, whales and dolphins have bones that match up perfectly with land dwelling animals then.

In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.
From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.

www.agiweb.org...

There is an almost complete fossil record of whales evolving from land based animals to entirely ocean dwelling animals.

www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

No, they weren't. They have some traits that people use to make the claim, but it isn't proven. It's like the old "prehistoric horse" line, where they lined up a bunch and claimed they were a progression, with no proof at all.

Oh dearie, dearie me... Yes. It's a proven. (Sigh).

Look at how every animal starts off. Care to explain why anti evolutionists?

reply to post by boymonkey74


Ooo ohhhh..pick me - I can explain that - pick me....

The answer is:

GODDIDIT

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
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.

He dumped it because he has absolutely no knowledge of biology. He is no different than you in the ignorance department.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
Ok, As the title says, Darwinism is a fake.
Well, Charles Darwin is the man who said the following.
... "Survival of the fittest!"

I would not want to take the original OP to pieces, for there are several significant flaws. However, I will be pickie and dispute the quote “survival of the fittest” which you attribute to Darwin. In the interests of accuracy, I will correct you.

“Survival of the fittest” was coined by the English polymath Herbert Spencer, who used it to describe “natural selection” which was Darwin’s quote. In fact, “survival of the fittest” is not really what is described in the term “natural selection” when considering evolution. We all know that it is not the fittest who survive, but the most adaptable!

If you can make such a basic misquote, then one wonders how much you really understand of Darwin’s work.

Regards

reply to post by Zaphod58


Question is how smart are they?

Dolphins that can talk.

If we kill them, what would that be considered? Something worse that murder?

I find it hard that something so smart to evolve from, your term, "a land animal."

reply to post by paradox


Then what is biology but the study of life of man.

Death is what it studies the most in.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Something smarter than us, and more sensitive. They love deeper so much that if we get close to them and then leave them, they will die of a broken heart.

reply to post by boymonkey74


how many lives did it cost just to get that information?

1000, tens of thousands over time?

Biology is the study of life of man, beware of it.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Why couldn't they? You can't have intelligent species on land? Then what are apes, monkeys, and humans? All land animals, all (allegedly in the case of humans) highly intelligent. So why couldn't dolphins and whales start on land?

reply to post by FreedomCommander



OMG you can't even respond to any of our evidence....


Here a video so it isn't hard to understand.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


If people took that advice we would be dieing off from many diseases and have the average age of death in our twenties.
Beware of the study of biology? no I will embrace the clever people who have took the time to study it and help improve the human race for all.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

Biology is the study of life of man

Sigh......

bi·ol·o·gy
[bahy-ol-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun
1. the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

2. the living organisms of a region: the biology of Pennsylvania.

3. the biological phenomena characteristic of an organism or a group of organisms: the biology of a worm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1805–15; < German Biologie. See bio-, -logy

From dictionary.reference.com

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Also can you try and explain to me why some people are born with a tail?
I know why I just want to hear your version please.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by FreedomCommander

 

Also can you try and explain to me why some people are born with a tail?
I know why I just want to hear your version please.

God wanted them that way, duh!

reply to post by Zaphod58


They didn't. Never did.

If they did, they would be able to come back to land.

IF evolution was correct, then we would be the ones swimming forever.

But it is not. Because it would be like building a tall skyscraper on a very old foundation with too many cracks.