Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

So are you saying crocs and gators didn't exist millions of years ago?

I can't even see how could have extracted such a conclusion.

Did you see my new toy ?
I'm sorry if a rock is the only one who'll listen to your BS.

reply to post by randyvs


By your post? You say the dinosaurs got wiped out but crocs/gators didn't, followed by a laughing emoticon...that kinda sounds like you don't think there were crocs/gators back then.

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

that kinda sounds like you don't think there were crocs/gators back then.

Hardly, it's people like yourself who find ways to make text excruciating.

reply to post by randyvs


So please explain exactly what you meant then? Apparently "people like me" don't understand nonsensical ramblings. Your post indicated that you don't believe crocs/gators were just "super-tuff", while dinosaurs where wiped out. So what exactly are you implying? Are you saying they weren't there? Are you saying dinosaurs weren't there? Make some sense for the "people like me" please, because crocs/gators are indeed living proof of evolution.

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81


Is it ADD or something that makes it hard for you to stay in context ?
Go back, read and concentrate the message is clear.

crocs/gators are indeed living proof of evolution.

No their proof of creation.

Originally posted by Khaleesi
Just to make my position clear, I have no problem with evolution being taught as a THEORY. It should not be taught as fact and the education system should not use proven hoaxes in ANY WAY. Remove/replace inaccurate illustrations and references to known hoaxes.

Just an FYI evolution is taught as a scientific theory, and rightfully so. It is based on FACTS, or it would NOT be a scientific theory. Those hoaxes have been removed from science a LONG time ago, but creationists cling onto them because they are desperate to debunk something they don't even know the basic fundamentals about. It's kind of comical actually.

reply to post by Barcs


Respectfully Barcs can you refute the vid i posted for me ? I need someone to jerk my toy away
from me. I'm thinking you might be the guy ? With all sincerity I'm serious.

And I do know what you say about the hoaxes is truth.
The reasons why they ever happened are still cause for concern
in my view.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Hey, I am going by the stated definition of evolution of small changes over a very long period of time. Just what would give the animal the dna code to move it's nostrils up to the top of it's head? I mean shazam, one day it's not there and the next it is. The poor thing lost it's teeth! How was the so beneficial when it could take down large prey before now it has to deal with getting tiny plankton? One day teeth are there then shazam it has special filters for plankton! Talk about wild belief in unsubstantiated theories. You know that whale example is not a good choice.

One day it's not there and the next it is? By next day, you mean next 25 million years, right? This explanation is laughable. You need to do some research about the science behind evolution instead of posting this nonsense. Shazam? Sounds more like god to me.

I am simply looking for what scientists say evolution is.

Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Which one of those is not based completely on fact?

All I am asking for is incremental changes from one species into another, and there are NONE.

None?

Google hominid skulls and look at the 20 or so odd species of hominid that slowly show the cranium getting bigger over time. eh, what am I thinking, I know you won't. You'll just ignore it like my last posts and spew more nonsense.

An animal changing some aspect through adaptation is NOT evolution.

Adaptation is part of evolution!!!

Evolution tries to say we are all the products of much fewer ancestors and yet offers not one proof of these incremental changes.

www.talkorigins.org...

Nah, there NOT ONE PROOF!!! This must be a comedy routine, please debunk one or more of these 29 pieces of evidence. Good luck actually addressing science, rather than regurgitating stuff from creationist websites.

DNA is very specific. Where do the proteins come from? How did they combine in the most specific way necessary to support life when they didn't have it before? If they didn't have it before then there was no life. It's a circular argument.

Glad you realized it. It's also not an argument that has anything to do with evolution.

Do you deny genetic mutations?

Do you deny natural selection?

Let's start with those since that is what evolution is defined as. Which one is wrong and why. Please provide sources and proof.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs

 

Respectfully Barcs can you refute the vid i posted for me ? I need someone to jerk my toy away
from me.

I'm thinking you might be the guy ? With all sincerety I'm serious.

I'll take a look at it when I get the chance. I got stuck up way too late with the OPs comedy routine above.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
You are correct that Darwin did not set out to prove how life began. He started from having life here, which I have pointed out in other posts. It is used though to by evolutionists to get to that life and they have postulated their ideas of how life began from chemical soup activated somehow to become life. They have tried to do this in experiments and have not succeeded. They have postulated that meteors seeded the earth and that is how life began. Well, nothing like that has been proven, but it is possible. It still does not prove evolution. It shows an idea of how they think life might have come to earth. It does not show how life could evolve from that and there is no evidence of Darwin's slow incremental change over millions of years in the fossil record.

But the study of the beginning of life and evolution are two separate fields, not one and the same. There is proof that Darwin was right at every new argument that it's presented.

My OP was showing that the major discoveries used to further the teaching of evolution as fact were hoaxes and even once discovered to be wrong they continued to put them into books which engrained in children who are now adults that evolution is proven and it is not.

Evolution is proven. Evolution has been observed in laboratory and field studies. It has been proven a fact beyond reasonable doubt. The theories that try to explain evolution are always theories and subject to changes. I know it's from list verse, but this link will give you a starting point to search for evolution happening: 8 Examples of Evolution.

Similarities between species does not prove anything but that embryos exist. They start out small, they divide and change, they have heads, organs, spines, feet. That is not evolution, that is a way to go from fertilzed egg to a fully developed creature. It seems like it points more to an intelligent design of procreation to further the species. In the video I showed the anthropologist admitted it did not prove anything. It helps point to evolution in her explanation. Well sure it does and she doesn't even see that she is saying “we have lied, but it was to push evolution” as being any big deal.

It proves evolution because when we are at embryo stage our basic characteristics, even "lost" ones, appear at similar stages in embrionary development. And your logic is flawed.

Again, this is adaptation and not evolution. Now, show me that moth changing species, and we can discuss evolution. If you want to believe that change within a species is evolution have at it. I do not accept that idea. How they change within the species is very interesting, but it is not going from moth to bird. Show me the moth evolving into a new species and we can say that is evolution.

Wrong. The Moth didn't adapt, an animal cannot choose it's traits. Take it this way: Peppered moths were born white. Because of pollution, the tree trunks went darker and white moths could not survive predators. Some kind of genetic mutation caused some moths to be born darker colour, and those subsisted and reproduced, while the white ones died. This is evolution happening.

You say ancestor like it means we are related. That is not proven. It was here and now it is not. I call that extinction of a species. Again, she lacked human characteristics that they decided to provide and still use her image to push evolution. Even after having other examples in the fossil record that show ape like hands and feet they did not change them. I don't buy the excuse of “I wasn't here when that model was made” as the excuse to put forth a very flawed image. I love monkeys and apes. I see amazing intelligence in them. Same with whales and dolphins.

And what does an image mean? Nothing. We are related at a genetic level, we share characteristics that prove we are related, period.

Here we are going to just have to agree to disagree. Neanderthal was an old sick guy and not another species. I can show you examples of people today that look different and it's not evolution. Hell, I had a college professor who looked like he stepped out of “This is your Neanderthal”. He just had the most prominent brow and thick jaw I had ever seen on a man. He was not ugly. Looking at him one just went, “wow”.

A vitamin deficiency wouldn't cause the DNA to be different (and skeleton structure). Neanderthals were our genetic cousins, not sick people. And if you want examples of species evolving (again), check Canis lupus evolutionary tree.

Here is a list of credible answers to common misconceptions: Common misconceptions about evolution

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Heralding a potential new era in biology, scientists for the first time have created a synthetic cell, completely controlled by man-made genetic instructions, researchers at the private J. Craig Venter Institute announced Thursday.

"We call it the first synthetic cell," said genomics pioneer Craig Venter, who oversaw the project. "These are very much real cells."

thank you for confirming that intelligent design was "man made" as you put it not by a god



Thank you for proving intelligent design. I really appreciate it. The clue there was "MAN MADE". Now had they thrown ingredients in there haphazardly with billions of more ingredients and out popped this cell you would have something. I don't know much about this synthetic cell and it's proteins and replication capability, but it was intelligently designed, so thank you.

edit on 14-8-2013 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs

 

Respectfully Barcs can you refute the vid i posted for me ? I need someone to jerk my toy away
from me.

I'm thinking you might be the guy ? With all sincerity I'm serious.

And I do know what you say about the hoaxes is truth.
The reasons why they ever happened are still cause for concern
in my view.

edit on 15-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I'll bite, your vid says top 10 yet I see only ONE speaker.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

 

Is it ADD or something that makes it hard for you to stay in context ?
Go back, read and concentrate the message is clear.

crocs/gators are indeed living proof of evolution.

No their proof of creation.

edit on 15-8-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Yes the message is quite clear, you are always right and EVERYONE else is ALWAYS wrong. I get it. When you are called out you resort to personal attacks and distracting words, I get it. Rather than answer a question you create controversy to divert attention....I get it.

Also if crocs/gators are proof of creation why do we not have fossil evidence of their modern counterparts. We have fossil evidence of their ancestors, which vary quite a bit from the modern model, feel free to read here
dinosaurs.about.com...
Did god or this so called creator like gators so much he kept making new ones? Here is one ancient variation of croc that doesn't even remotely resemble modern day crocs, yet is a relative of itdinosaurs.about.com...
So those guys existed way back when, and modern crocs/gators didn't. Did ALL of those die off along with every other relative of the modern species and the creator said well heck I like gators, I'll make some new ones. Or did through adaptations and environment changes and temporary survival changes, they became permanent. That is evolution in a nutshell. You should really do some research into topics you want to dispute

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So you admit that adaptation occurs. Do you also agree that adaptation causes changes at the genetic level? If so, what is the mechanism that prevents many of these small genetic changes from accruing over a long period of time to produce large scale genetic differences and as a result a very different species?

I'm also curious about one other thing. Science says that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. If you believe in Creationism does that mean that you believe there were billions of species on Earth in the beginning?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Now many on this thread that don't believe in evolution are basing it on their belief/faith in god.
So can someone tell why this all powerful thing who you think created everything we see and can't see seemed to only get his message to a tight georaphical area of the world after all if it could do what is claimed why was every race on the planet not told at the same time surely an easy task if you created everything.

Why in other parts of the world did people believe in other gods, these others have creation stories, what makes you think yours is anymore worthy than any other one told round the world. Is it the simple fact that they didn't explore the world and KILL people who didn't convert to their true ( ) religion, gods were a problem solver for people if you didn't understand thunder, it was the thunder god,you couldn't understand why the sun did what it did rising and setting every day easy the sun god looked after that etc etc.

You are told stories from a very young age by people basically who's job depends on keeping people believing the stories that's the stark fact about it, there is NOTHING to back it up just like all the other gods around the planet and of course years ago if you didn't conform you were punished or worse.

Also as others have asked why are certain fossils only found in certain strata of rocks if what you claim is true we would ahve dogs with dinosaurs etc, as for you asking about transitional evidence of every step remember we are on a very active planet. At least with evolution there is evidence of a physical nature not hand me down tales and stories.

For example finding Tiktallik I don't know if anyone has posted this. They new the type of rocks it may be in went to the best area to find exposed rocks of that age and found a fossil.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Oh I understand.

That you don't understand.

Is Nick Matzke going to set Professor Tour straight on Macroevolution?

UPDATE: Professor Tour Accepts Nick Matzke's Offer. However, Tour doesn't want the meeting recorded and Matzke insists that it be recorded.

More here
Why would Tour not want it recorded?

reply to post by randyvs


Great all I got from that clip was that he is a great chemist and can tell you how molecules are made and that he doesn't understand evolution !

Great so he doesn't understand evolution , but isn't he referring to how evolution came into being because of the creation of DNA and complex molecules and then into life as we know it ?

news for you no one understands this "yet"

reply to post by sapien82

news for you no one understands this "yet"

How is that news for me? That's what I'm saying !
I Want to see if Barcs comes to that conclusion
also. Then I'm convinced that no one even understands
how the factual theory even works. I'm pretty
sure even he will have to admit that. I don't mean
to corner anyone, but if anyone can understand it, it's most
likely Barcs.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

So, you think showing 3 species or 3 similar animals proves evolution? Darwin's dilemma still stands. Show me the slow incremental changes over time. Those holes moved huge distances and that is not slow incremental change. Thanks for the images though.

No, I don't think that 3 images proves evolution. You asked for examples of transitional species. Here's a few more.

On the Discovery of the earliest fossil bird in China (Sinosauropteryx gen. nov.) and the origin of birds

Sinosauropteryx unequivocally proves that the phylogeny of the class Aves progressed from a small theropod as proposed by Ostrom (1976) and supported by numerous workers in the field, although previously there had been no empirical evidence such as a transitional form. Sinosauropteryx hereby provides the most convincing evidence supporting Ostrom’s theory.

The Mammal-Like Reptiles: A Study of Transitional Fossils

The paper in the link above actually addresses the creationsit theory and makes predictions based upon it. From the creationist theory a prediction can be made that within the fossil record, there would be the sudden appearance of each created kind with ordinal characteristics complete. Sharp boundaries would separate major taxonomic groups with no transitional forms between higher categories.

So, there would be no transitional groups between say... reptiles and mammals if creation theory was correct. However, that's not the case as the paper in the link clearly proves.

Here's a link to Google Scholar: scholar.google.com...

Using the search phrase: "evolution transitional fossils" returns 45,600 results.

I'm betting you won't bother to use it though. It's become apparent that no amount of evidence presented will convince you that you're wrong. It's also become apparent that you simply don't have enough knowledge of the opposing viewpoint to argue your premise intelligently.