Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Human Evolution-----FAKE

elisur
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 1:42:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nice post, definately some interesting reading on the link. I'll have to see what talkorigins has to say about these cases.

I read something about Guadeloupe woman a while back, which looks convincing, but got sidetracked and never got a chance to get the evolutionist's side of that find.
elisur
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 2:49:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

All evolution theory is fake man and animals
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 3:12:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 2:49:46 AM, elisur wrote:
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

All evolution theory is fake man and animals

That's called a "conclusion." I'm asking how you get from what you posted to the conclusion. That's called an "argument."
elisur
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 3:20:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 3:12:00 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/4/2012 2:49:46 AM, elisur wrote:
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

All evolution theory is fake man and animals

That's called a "conclusion." I'm asking how you get from what you posted to the conclusion. That's called an "argument."

What ever conclusion is that. that is the proof that evolution is not a facts. Stupid evolution carried by atheist.
angrymen
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:04:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

How so?


It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:09:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:04:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

How so?

If they need to do these acts to "legitimize the theory" as said by Elizur, it follows that maybe the theory needs these acts to be considered more "legitimate"


It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:12:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM, elisur wrote:
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...

This is stupid. Evolution is a theory. Theory is not fact. Theory is a plausible explanation for some phenomena backed by a preponderance of evidence. That it is backed by a preponderance of evidence, where the evidence itself is insufficient to prove beyond all doubt that phenomena occur in this way, it is illogical to entertain the notion that something is just simply the case, as fact. There are lots of problems with evolutionary theory. Any honest scientist will tell you that. There is no credible scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. Sorry YEC... go fight something else. The problem is when dogmatic neanderthals start having "faith" in science rather than looking at things reasonably. When that happens, Christians get their feathers ruffled because they think "Ah! This thing that is not my faith is eclipsing my faith! I must fight this in various ways!" Which is of course... well... stupid, because faith is not something that exists in a zero-sum relationship with other faiths -even if science is elevated to the level of faith. The idea that science and religion are at odds though is a bit absurd. They can happily coexist, so long as their spheres of intellectual influence don't overlap.
Tsar of DDO
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:17:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:09:39 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:04:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

How so?

If they need to do these acts to "legitimize the theory" as said by Elizur, it follows that maybe the theory needs these acts to be considered more "legitimate"

Except they don't need to do those acts to legitimize the theory. The theory is legitimate without them.



It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:34:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Only in the minds of creationists does a creationist website reporting a couple of inauthentic fossils, out of the thousands of human fossils, have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

It's not even really a matter of human fossils. There are billions of fossils all confirming the theory of evolution.

Then, it's not even a matter of fossils. All the molecular evidence confirms the theory of evolution.

We even have evolution happening in the lab.

But creationists are conspiracy theorists of the worst order.

What I don't understand is why aren't the YECs going equally hard at the cosmologists and the geologists? They pretend it's only one aspect of science they think is illegitimate, but it isn't. The conspiracy must include well over half a million scientists worldwide.

Creationists are the 21st century flat-earthers.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:46:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:17:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:09:39 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:04:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

How so?

If they need to do these acts to "legitimize the theory" as said by Elizur, it follows that maybe the theory needs these acts to be considered more "legitimate"

Except they don't need to do those acts to legitimize the theory. The theory is legitimate without them.

So then what was the motive?



It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 11:22:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:46:29 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:17:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:09:39 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:04:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

How so?

If they need to do these acts to "legitimize the theory" as said by Elizur, it follows that maybe the theory needs these acts to be considered more "legitimate"

Except they don't need to do those acts to legitimize the theory. The theory is legitimate without them.

So then what was the motive?

A good question.
Piltdown Man: The forger here is unknown, but one of the suspetcs if Charles Dawson, who is infamous for other hoaxes. His motivate here seems to be fame has he always forged some sort of fantastic discovery.

Nebraska Man: Not a hoax or a fraud, but rather an innocent mistake and misclassification.

Java Man: I don't see why this is labeled as a fraud for any reason. It is acknowledged as relying on a scant few pieces and it's value is weighted appropriately.

Orce Man: The classification of the skull remains inconclusive, either as human or as a donkey. It is rather unremarkable save for the fact that it is a potential candidate as the oldest European human. No evidence of fraud or hoax here.

Neanderthals: Yes, our understanding of Neanderthals has changed over the years, as more and more evidence of their biology and sociology has surfaced. That's how it is supposed to work, people. The notion that Neanderthals are merely humans with rickets or arthritis, however, is bunk. Neanderthals do not display evidence of having rickets. In any event, there is no evidence of fraud or hoaxes.

Thus, of those listed in the first part of the article, only one was an actual hoax (Piltdown man). However, scientists always regarded it with skepticism and it was scientists that actually uncovered the hoax. It wasn't like some creationists broke open some cover-up by scientists here.

So, again, explain to me how one man's joke/fraudulent attempt to gain fame negatively impacts the validity of evolution?

P.S. Yes, I know there are more claims of evolution hoaxes, but there are so many I'm not going to go through them all. I went through the specific ones identified in the beginning of the article. If you wish to examine more, we can do that on a case-by-case basis.

However, the motivation you are looking for here (that scientists are deliberately creating hoaxes in order to give evolution some level of credibility it would not otherwise have) isn't present in any of these "examples." People commit fraud for the same reason they commit fraud in any other area: fame, money, the lulz.




It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 12:58:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:34:06 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Only in the minds of creationists does a creationist website reporting a couple of inauthentic fossils, out of the thousands of human fossils, have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

No, there is much more then that, just ask medic he's got the argument down pretty well.

It's not even really a matter of human fossils. There are billions of fossils all confirming the theory of evolution.

If this were true, then most of us would accept evolution.. We're not in denial, you guys just seem to lack the ability to either explain it all correctly, or to find the evidence sufficient enough to shut everyone up.

Then, it's not even a matter of fossils. All the molecular evidence confirms the theory of evolution.

No, it doesn't.

We even have evolution happening in the lab.

Micro evolution, not macroevolution.

But creationists are conspiracy theorists of the worst order.

No, the whole evolution business just seems very shady..

What I don't understand is why aren't the YECs going equally hard at the cosmologists and the geologists? They pretend it's only one aspect of science they think is illegitimate, but it isn't. The conspiracy must include well over half a million scientists worldwide.

Creationists are the 21st century flat-earthers.

Hmm, actually you guys seem more like the 21st century flat-eathers. You know, the majority of scientists support it; people who don't are ostracised or mocked; rejected as real scientists, etc.

Seems to fall in line with what evlutionists do to creationists.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 1:32:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 12:58:24 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:34:06 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Only in the minds of creationists does a creationist website reporting a couple of inauthentic fossils, out of the thousands of human fossils, have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

No, there is much more then that, just ask medic he's got the argument down pretty well.


Well you must know what your reasons are. Why are you asking someone else to come up with the argument?

It's not even really a matter of human fossils. There are billions of fossils all confirming the theory of evolution.


If this were true, then most of us would accept evolution.. We're not in denial, you guys just seem to lack the ability to either explain it all correctly, or to find the evidence sufficient enough to shut everyone up.

You deny there are billions of fossils? You have even one that is not consistent with the theory of evolution? Is there even one scientific paper that is based on the fossil evidence which is inconsistent with the theory of evolution?


Then, it's not even a matter of fossils. All the molecular evidence confirms the theory of evolution.

No, it doesn't.

What area are you disputing? Are you saying the scientific literature is a conspiracy, or are you disputing it exists? Do you have molecular evidence which isn't evidence for the theory of evolution?

We even have evolution happening in the lab.

Micro evolution, not macroevolution.

A new ability arose from a beneficial mutation. Given that, what is the mystical barrier by which you think macroevolution does not occur? What stops that very final tiny change after thousands of other tiny changes?

How do you explain ring species?

But creationists are conspiracy theorists of the worst order.

No, the whole evolution business just seems very shady..

"Seems very shady" is the reasoning of a conspiracy theorist.

What I don't understand is why aren't the YECs going equally hard at the cosmologists and the geologists? They pretend it's only one aspect of science they think is illegitimate, but it isn't. The conspiracy must include well over half a million scientists worldwide.

Creationists are the 21st century flat-earthers.

Hmm, actually you guys seem more like the 21st century flat-eathers. You know, the majority of scientists support it; people who don't are ostracised or mocked; rejected as real scientists, etc.

The majority of scientists support a spherical Earth. Flat-earthers are ostracised or mocked; rejected as real scientists.

Show me some genuine science done by a creationist and we can discuss it. But there isn't any, because creationism is a religious dogma, adhered to irrespective of what science shows.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 2:37:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 11:22:59 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:46:29 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:17:15 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:09:39 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:04:36 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

How so?

If they need to do these acts to "legitimize the theory" as said by Elizur, it follows that maybe the theory needs these acts to be considered more "legitimate"

Except they don't need to do those acts to legitimize the theory. The theory is legitimate without them.

So then what was the motive?

A good question.
Piltdown Man: The forger here is unknown, but one of the suspetcs if Charles Dawson, who is infamous for other hoaxes. His motivate here seems to be fame has he always forged some sort of fantastic discovery.

Nebraska Man: Not a hoax or a fraud, but rather an innocent mistake and misclassification.

Java Man: I don't see why this is labeled as a fraud for any reason. It is acknowledged as relying on a scant few pieces and it's value is weighted appropriately.

Orce Man: The classification of the skull remains inconclusive, either as human or as a donkey. It is rather unremarkable save for the fact that it is a potential candidate as the oldest European human. No evidence of fraud or hoax here.

Neanderthals: Yes, our understanding of Neanderthals has changed over the years, as more and more evidence of their biology and sociology has surfaced. That's how it is supposed to work, people. The notion that Neanderthals are merely humans with rickets or arthritis, however, is bunk. Neanderthals do not display evidence of having rickets. In any event, there is no evidence of fraud or hoaxes.

Thus, of those listed in the first part of the article, only one was an actual hoax (Piltdown man). However, scientists always regarded it with skepticism and it was scientists that actually uncovered the hoax. It wasn't like some creationists broke open some cover-up by scientists here.

So, again, explain to me how one man's joke/fraudulent attempt to gain fame negatively impacts the validity of evolution?

P.S. Yes, I know there are more claims of evolution hoaxes, but there are so many I'm not going to go through them all. I went through the specific ones identified in the beginning of the article. If you wish to examine more, we can do that on a case-by-case basis.

However, the motivation you are looking for here (that scientists are deliberately creating hoaxes in order to give evolution some level of credibility it would not otherwise have) isn't present in any of these "examples." People commit fraud for the same reason they commit fraud in any other area: fame, money, the lulz.
I concede teh point.




It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 2:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM, elisur wrote:
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...

Money money moneeeyyy.. In a rich mans world!
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 3:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"

Out of curiosity, do you also think that the lies told by Christianity lower Christianity's credibility?
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 3:09:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 3:04:50 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:02:40 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 12/4/2012 8:18:37 AM, angrymen wrote:
So even if this was true it does not show evolution is false. One group doing something does not affect the theory at all.

It certainly lowers it's credibility.

It does not sink the theory, but it does "Affect the theory"

Out of curiosity, do you also think that the lies told by Christianity lower Christianity's credibility?

I would believe that if you changed Christianities's lies to christian's lies.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 4:04:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 1:32:38 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
At 12/4/2012 12:58:24 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:34:06 AM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
Only in the minds of creationists does a creationist website reporting a couple of inauthentic fossils, out of the thousands of human fossils, have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

No, there is much more then that, just ask medic he's got the argument down pretty well.


Well you must know what your reasons are. Why are you asking someone else to come up with the argument?

Some of us are better skilled in certain areas more than others, medic seems to be very skilled in the evolution debate. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not passing the buck.

It's not even really a matter of human fossils. There are billions of fossils all confirming the theory of evolution.


If this were true, then most of us would accept evolution.. We're not in denial, you guys just seem to lack the ability to either explain it all correctly, or to find the evidence sufficient enough to shut everyone up.

You deny there are billions of fossils? You have even one that is not consistent with the theory of evolution? Is there even one scientific paper that is based on the fossil evidence which is inconsistent with the theory of evolution?

No I don't deny that there are billions of fossils; I deny that they're evidence of macroevolution. I'm not sure if your question is a serious one, but, yes there are many "scientific papers" based on the fossil record that contradict the theory.

Here are a few articles about such "papers"(?):

http://www.icr.org...
http://www.icr.org...
http://tammyid.tripod.com...

Then, it's not even a matter of fossils. All the molecular evidence confirms the theory of evolution.

No, it doesn't.

What area are you disputing? Are you saying the scientific literature is a conspiracy, or are you disputing it exists? Do you have molecular evidence which isn't evidence for the theory of evolution?

I'm not saying scientific literature is a conspiracy, I'm saying molecular evidence does NOT confirm macro-evolution. I understand you'd like to avoid making a distinction between mico- and macro- evolution, but no creationist is going to accept you handwaiving it or claiming that it's the same thing as mico.. just after billions of years.

We even have evolution happening in the lab.

Micro evolution, not macroevolution.

A new ability arose from a beneficial mutation. Given that, what is the mystical barrier by which you think macroevolution does not occur? What stops that very final tiny change after thousands of other tiny changes?

Who says that those tiny little changes don't repeat themselves over and over again? Where is the new information coming from that makes one species completey different?

How do you explain ring species?

The same way I explain all evolution, it's a downhill process, that uses information already available. So what if a gull evolves into anoter bird it can't or doesn't breed with-- it's still a bird.

But creationists are conspiracy theorists of the worst order.

No, the whole evolution business just seems very shady..

"Seems very shady" is the reasoning of a conspiracy theorist.

Ignoring every argument a creationist presents because they're creationist, is the reasoning of someone shady.

Creationists are the 21st century flat-earthers.

Hmm, actually you guys seem more like the 21st century flat-eathers. You know, the majority of scientists support it; people who don't are ostracised or mocked; rejected as real scientists, etc.

The majority of scientists support a spherical Earth. Flat-earthers are ostracised or mocked; rejected as real scientists.

Lmao.. I guess you didn't get the connection I was trying to make..

Show me some genuine science done by a creationist and we can discuss it. But there isn't any, because creationism is a religious dogma, adhered to irrespective of what science shows.

lol, you say show me genuine science from a creationist, then say you're gonna reject it in the next sentence. How does this make you any different from the creationist you so despise?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:17:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 1:32:38 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:

You deny there are billions of fossils?

No one denies billions of fossils. Evolutionists though, assign them explanatory power that doesn't really exist. You can't tell by looking at fossils that one organism descended from a different type of organism. All you can show is that there are similarities, but having similarities could also be evidence for a common designer. Therefore, unless you can prove descendency by some other means, the entire fossil record is worthless to this discussion.

You have even one that is not consistent with the theory of evolution?

There is no way to not be "consistent" with evolution when you can place a fossil anywhere you want in support of a lineage, without having to prove that one came from the other. Heck, I can take skeletons of "currently existing" organisms and line them up to give the appearance that man evolved from a cow, but that doesn't prove that they actually did evolve from a cow. I could even work in some fossils of extinct animals and call them intermediary or transitional fossils.

Is there even one scientific paper that is based on the fossil evidence which is inconsistent with the theory of evolution?



Then, it's not even a matter of fossils. All the molecular evidence confirms the theory of evolution.

No, it doesn't.

What area are you disputing? Are you saying the scientific literature is a conspiracy, or are you disputing it exists? Do you have molecular evidence which isn't evidence for the theory of evolution?


We even have evolution happening in the lab.

Micro evolution, not macroevolution.

A new ability arose from a beneficial mutation.

Organisms are made to allow for some change within the genome. That mutation acted on information that already existed within the genome, to allow a new ability. A mutation cannot magically pull new genetic information from outside, that didn't already exist within the genome itself. That new "ability" itself, cannot add new genetic information. What you're describing is adaptability, or micro-evolution, and no one doubts that micro-evolution happens.

Given that, what is the mystical barrier by which you think macroevolution does not occur?

That barrier isn't so mystical, it's called the genome. An organism can only operate within the range of what it's genome allows, and it's offspring will be genetically very similar. That process will repeat itself, and will allow for minor changes within the organism's range, unless some new genetic information, from some outside source, is able to work it's way into the gene pool and fundamentally change the genetic make-up of that organism.

We see that process play out day after day. Humans bring forth other humans, dogs bring forth dogs, birds bring forth birds, etc. They all have to operate within their genomic range. Can you show an instance of a deviation from this process??

What stops that very final tiny change after thousands of other tiny changes?

Again, the genome. If that barrier, or "range" as I like to call it doesn't exist, then there is nothing to stop massive morphological change from happening to our offspring. So that then begs the question. Why do we only see tiny changes, and never major changes, if there is no barrier to what changes can be made by these random mutations??

On a side note, common descent is the claim of evolutionists and as such, the onus is on them to prove that claim. You can't just make an extraordinary claim and then throw the burden on us to show that it can't happen. You have to take responsibility for showing that it did, and does, happen.

How do you explain ring species?

What's to explain?? Micro-evolution happens and a group of animals become unable to inter-breed with an ancestor species.

Lars gulls for example, are unable to inter-breed with an ancestral species. Problem is that the ancestral species continues to bring forth birds just like themselves, and the new species are still very similar birds, and will bring forth even more birds just like themselves. So how does this help you in any way??

But creationists are conspiracy theorists of the worst order.

blah blah yada yada...Not without good reason. This common descent theory gets passed of as scientific fact, and gets taught as such in schools, when evolutionists admit they can't prove the theory through scientific means without having millions and millions of years to do so. But that's ok though because it gives us a naturalistic explanation for intelligent life, and allows us to teach kids that God doesn't really exist.

No, the whole evolution business just seems very shady..

"Seems very shady" is the reasoning of a conspiracy theorist.

They can't prove their claim that life created itself from non-life, designed and mass produced it's own complex cell and dna system, had the intelligence to know that sexual reproduction would be more advantageous, came up with a way to grow into a male and female of each organism thus having different reproductive systems but parts of both were required to produce offspring. It then developed a complex system where it would make small changes to itself over millions of years, that would allow it to evolve into an intelligent creature, with emotions and feelings for other life forms thus leading to moral values and a sense of justice. All this complexity created itself from rain falling on a rock, and it's drippings falling into a mud puddle of primordial ooze. Yet with all the rain that has fallen since humans have been around, and with all the different chemical make-up of all the different mud puddles that must have existed over the centuries, this magical incident where life created itself has never happened again. Scientists can't even reproduce the feat in a laboratory, given all our knowledge and available resources.

Let's not forget the universe that created itself from nothing, evolved all the chemical elements, organized itself, tuned itself to allow for life to exist on one of it's many planets, and provided all the natural resources that that life would need for survival.

None of that can be proven scientifically, thus it's nothing more than a philosophy, yet it's taught in schools anyway as science. It's clearly not science, and passing it off as science, to the exclusion of all other theories, is wrong. Then add to that, the fact that people who question evolution, and this "theoretical mumbo jumbo" are treated as idiots because they don't buy into it, by it's adherents even though they can't prove any of it. To me that is the very definition of shady.

What I don't understand is why aren't the YECs going equally hard at the cosmologists and the geologists? They pretend it's only one aspect of science they think is illegitimate, but it isn't. The conspiracy must include well over half a million scientists worldwide.

The fallacy of the geologic column is pretty much a constant in creationist arguments against evolution. And we go after cosmology when it says that the universe created itself. We go after all six types of evolution that must occur for Darwinism to be correct. We don't confine our arguments to the biologists.
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:22:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:51:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:22:04 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

I think it was about evolution being fake.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:51:49 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/5/2012 9:22:04 PM, Chicken wrote:
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

I think it was about evolution being fake.

At 12/4/2012 2:49:46 AM, elisur wrote:
At 12/4/2012 2:45:43 AM, Wnope wrote:
I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

All evolution theory is fake man and animals

That's called a "conclusion." I'm asking how you get from what you posted to the conclusion. That's called an "argument."
bpatterson
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 11:03:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM, elisur wrote:
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...

Creationism ---- FAKE

Evolution is no longer a theory it is a FACT.

Want an example? I'll give you a few:

1. Flu shots - we have to get a new flu shot every year because the virus EVOLVES and the old vaccine would not work.

2. The muscles around our ears - most animals have muscles around their ears to allow the ear to move in the direction of what the animal is hearing. Look at dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, etc. Humans have the same muscles, however, through EVOLUTION, these muscles have become so small and feeble, all we can do is slightly wiggle our ears.

3. The Plantaris Muscle - we have the SAME muscle in our feet as our primate relatives that allows them to use their feet to grip and climb. This muscle through EVOLUTION has become so small and useless in humans, doctors often remove to use it for reconstructive surgery.

4. Wisdom Teeth - Humans needed an extra set of molars when we were mainly plant eaters. Now we have these teeth removed because our mouths and our digestive systems have EVOLVED to not need them anymore. IN FACT, some human populations do not even grow wisdom teeth anymore.

5. Tailbone or Coccyx - WE DON'T HAVE TAILS.

6. The Appendix - This was once used to help us process raw meats and raw plant matter. It is no longer used and can be removed when it becomes infected. Someone with their appendix removed can live a completely normal, healthy life without it.

The scientists who are fraudulently planting fossils are not trying to prove evolution, they're trying to improve their status in the scientific community (which they failed).
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 12:25:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 11:03:56 AM, bpatterson wrote:
At 12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM, elisur wrote:
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...

Creationism ---- FAKE

Evolution is no longer a theory it is a FACT.

Want an example? I'll give you a few:

1. Flu shots - we have to get a new flu shot every year because the virus EVOLVES and the old vaccine would not work.

2. The muscles around our ears - most animals have muscles around their ears to allow the ear to move in the direction of what the animal is hearing. Look at dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, etc. Humans have the same muscles, however, through EVOLUTION, these muscles have become so small and feeble, all we can do is slightly wiggle our ears.

3. The Plantaris Muscle - we have the SAME muscle in our feet as our primate relatives that allows them to use their feet to grip and climb. This muscle through EVOLUTION has become so small and useless in humans, doctors often remove to use it for reconstructive surgery.

4. Wisdom Teeth - Humans needed an extra set of molars when we were mainly plant eaters. Now we have these teeth removed because our mouths and our digestive systems have EVOLVED to not need them anymore. IN FACT, some human populations do not even grow wisdom teeth anymore.

5. Tailbone or Coccyx - WE DON'T HAVE TAILS.

6. The Appendix - This was once used to help us process raw meats and raw plant matter. It is no longer used and can be removed when it becomes infected. Someone with their appendix removed can live a completely normal, healthy life without it.

The scientists who are fraudulently planting fossils are not trying to prove evolution, they're trying to improve their status in the scientific community (which they failed).


No creationist here will deny that this occurs, and none of them will deny that it is evolution.

You, just like every other evolutionist apparently, deny macro-evolution is distinct from Micro-evolution. You just decribed adaptation; Micro-evolution.

Show us a fish that evolved into a land animal and we'll all shut-up. Until then, please stop repeating yourselves.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
bpatterson
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 1:03:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 12:25:08 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/6/2012 11:03:56 AM, bpatterson wrote:
At 12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM, elisur wrote:
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...

Creationism ---- FAKE

Evolution is no longer a theory it is a FACT.

Want an example? I'll give you a few:

1. Flu shots - we have to get a new flu shot every year because the virus EVOLVES and the old vaccine would not work.

2. The muscles around our ears - most animals have muscles around their ears to allow the ear to move in the direction of what the animal is hearing. Look at dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, etc. Humans have the same muscles, however, through EVOLUTION, these muscles have become so small and feeble, all we can do is slightly wiggle our ears.

3. The Plantaris Muscle - we have the SAME muscle in our feet as our primate relatives that allows them to use their feet to grip and climb. This muscle through EVOLUTION has become so small and useless in humans, doctors often remove to use it for reconstructive surgery.

4. Wisdom Teeth - Humans needed an extra set of molars when we were mainly plant eaters. Now we have these teeth removed because our mouths and our digestive systems have EVOLVED to not need them anymore. IN FACT, some human populations do not even grow wisdom teeth anymore.

5. Tailbone or Coccyx - WE DON'T HAVE TAILS.

6. The Appendix - This was once used to help us process raw meats and raw plant matter. It is no longer used and can be removed when it becomes infected. Someone with their appendix removed can live a completely normal, healthy life without it.

The scientists who are fraudulently planting fossils are not trying to prove evolution, they're trying to improve their status in the scientific community (which they failed).


No creationist here will deny that this occurs, and none of them will deny that it is evolution.

You, just like every other evolutionist apparently, deny macro-evolution is distinct from Micro-evolution. You just decribed adaptation; Micro-evolution.

Show us a fish that evolved into a land animal and we'll all shut-up. Until then, please stop repeating yourselves.

Not sure if you read the topic "Human Evolution ---- FAKE"

Evolution happens over time, adaptation can happen almost overnight.
If you're stranded on a deserted island you ADAPT to survive. You can ADAPT a novel into a screenplay.

I gave examples of EVOLUTION, with the exception of the flu shots, I'll give you that one (which is still evolution but could be considered adaptation)

Show us a talking snake and a religion who hasn't been blatantly plagiarized from ancient Egyptian beliefs from 5,000 years ago and we'll shut up.
elisur
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 11:46:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/6/2012 1:03:34 PM, bpatterson wrote:
At 12/6/2012 12:25:08 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/6/2012 11:03:56 AM, bpatterson wrote:
At 12/4/2012 1:00:28 AM, elisur wrote:
In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

http://www.nwcreation.net...

Creationism ---- FAKE

Evolution is no longer a theory it is a FACT.

Want an example? I'll give you a few:

1. Flu shots - we have to get a new flu shot every year because the virus EVOLVES and the old vaccine would not work.

2. The muscles around our ears - most animals have muscles around their ears to allow the ear to move in the direction of what the animal is hearing. Look at dogs, cats, deer, rabbits, etc. Humans have the same muscles, however, through EVOLUTION, these muscles have become so small and feeble, all we can do is slightly wiggle our ears.

3. The Plantaris Muscle - we have the SAME muscle in our feet as our primate relatives that allows them to use their feet to grip and climb. This muscle through EVOLUTION has become so small and useless in humans, doctors often remove to use it for reconstructive surgery.

4. Wisdom Teeth - Humans needed an extra set of molars when we were mainly plant eaters. Now we have these teeth removed because our mouths and our digestive systems have EVOLVED to not need them anymore. IN FACT, some human populations do not even grow wisdom teeth anymore.

5. Tailbone or Coccyx - WE DON'T HAVE TAILS.

6. The Appendix - This was once used to help us process raw meats and raw plant matter. It is no longer used and can be removed when it becomes infected. Someone with their appendix removed can live a completely normal, healthy life without it.

The scientists who are fraudulently planting fossils are not trying to prove evolution, they're trying to improve their status in the scientific community (which they failed).


No creationist here will deny that this occurs, and none of them will deny that it is evolution.

You, just like every other evolutionist apparently, deny macro-evolution is distinct from Micro-evolution. You just decribed adaptation; Micro-evolution.

Show us a fish that evolved into a land animal and we'll all shut-up. Until then, please stop repeating yourselves.

Not sure if you read the topic "Human Evolution ---- FAKE"

Evolution happens over time, adaptation can happen almost overnight.
If you're stranded on a deserted island you ADAPT to survive. You can ADAPT a novel into a screenplay.

I gave examples of EVOLUTION, with the exception of the flu shots, I'll give you that one (which is still evolution but could be considered adaptation)

Show us a talking snake and a religion who hasn't been blatantly plagiarized from ancient Egyptian beliefs from 5,000 years ago and we'll shut up.

HERE'S REAL PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS WRONG!!!
http://pandasthumb.org...
1.CB030: Decay of prebiotic molecules
2.CB010: Probability of abiogenesis
3.CB010.2: Origin of the first cells
4.CB621: Mitochondrial Eve
5.CC102: Sandal footprint found with trilobites
6.CC331: Polystrate fossils and deposition
7.CD102.1: Lewis Overthrust
8.CC335: Vertical whale fossil
9.CC052: Laetoli footprints
10.CC101: Paluxy river footprints
11.CC110: Moab Man
12.CF101: Origin of the Universe
13.CF001.2: Thermodynamics universal
14.CB040: Left-handed amino acids
15.CB101: Most mutations harmful?
16.CB010.1: Complex "simple" life
17.CB015: DNA or protein: which came first?
18.CB940: Complex structures by chance
19.CB200: Irreducible complexity
20.CF010: Cybernetic simulations show no order from Darwinism
21.CF003: Information assembling itself
22.CB030.1: UV effect on early molecules
23.CF002.1: Tornadoes in a junkyard
24.CB141: Differing chromosome numbers
25.CB100: Rare mutations
26.CB901.1: Variation within kinds
27.CB200.2: Blood clotting and irreducibly complexity
28.CB300: Evolution of complex organs
29.CC352: Archaeoraptor was a fake
30.CC130: Petrified hammer?
31.CB701: Haeckel's embryo pictures
32.CC216.2: Horse fossil record
33.CC001: Piltdown man
34.CB930.1: Coelacanth, a living fossil