Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Three insurmountable proofs Darwin was WRONG

Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 5:53:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.

Clearly, you didn't get the sarcasm. Nor the fact that I was pointing out that it was Darwin himself who not only asked but answered the questions. Did you not read to the bottom of the article? You appear to have chopped it off in your response, so I'll just assume you didn't see it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 6:40:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

+1

I like your work.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:28:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:40:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

+1

I like your work.

Thanks :)
I like Darwin's work - it's a shame most of his critics have never read it.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:31:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 8:28:14 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:40:33 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

+1

I like your work.

Thanks :)
I like Darwin's work - it's a shame most of his critics have never read it.
Yep, my mistake....I was doing it on my iPhone to fill in a bit of time today and didn't see the bottom bit....shucks ya got me there!!!

I reckon, though, theists have moved on and accepted the fact of evolution and have also been beaten on the evolution within species only stupidity.

The latest "way out" for theists is the "intervention" argument. They don't have the knowledge to explain where or how such intervention took place and surprisingly enough, have no evidence but they feel it is buying more time until they can think of the next ridiculous justification for having an imaginary friend.

I feel a new topic coming on.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:51:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.
Now do ya see what you've done?
You've just taken away all the godist's arguments.
Nah ya haven't, none of them will understand what you wrote anyway.
Nice work.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:14:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

And again an attempt to tackle Evolution as IF that would proof creationism! Instead of trying to dubunk one theory (Evolution), why dont you come up with any evidence to proof the other (Creationism). The reason is, because you don't have any evidence. As long as creationism can not stand on its own evidence, it will never be a viable theory to rival Evolution.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:51:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:14:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

And again an attempt to tackle Evolution as IF that would proof creationism! Instead of trying to dubunk one theory (Evolution), why dont you come up with any evidence to proof the other (Creationism). The reason is, because you don't have any evidence. As long as creationism can not stand on its own evidence, it will never be a viable theory to rival Evolution.

LOL you really didn't read it to the end, did you?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:53:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:51:13 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/4/2016 12:14:17 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

And again an attempt to tackle Evolution as IF that would proof creationism! Instead of trying to dubunk one theory (Evolution), why dont you come up with any evidence to proof the other (Creationism). The reason is, because you don't have any evidence. As long as creationism can not stand on its own evidence, it will never be a viable theory to rival Evolution.

LOL you really didn't read it to the end, did you?

I am famous for reading the first two sentences and replying on that alone ;)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:07:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

That is exactly the problem in a nutshell, creationists haven't bothered to learn anything about evolution because they're too lazy and expect us to hand hold them through explanations, which they still don't understand and continue to deny/reject without reason.

Blame it on religious indoctrination. the death of the thinking mind.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 6:30:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:07:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

That is exactly the problem in a nutshell, creationists haven't bothered to learn anything about evolution because they're too lazy and expect us to hand hold them through explanations, which they still don't understand and continue to deny/reject without reason.

Blame it on religious indoctrination. the death of the thinking mind.

The inverse of that statement, would also hold some truth. The reason for denial, however ignorant, is still a reason...And people who have never understood a religion often criticize it just the same.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
janesix
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 7:28:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:30:28 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:07:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

That is exactly the problem in a nutshell, creationists haven't bothered to learn anything about evolution because they're too lazy and expect us to hand hold them through explanations, which they still don't understand and continue to deny/reject without reason.

Blame it on religious indoctrination. the death of the thinking mind.

The inverse of that statement, would also hold some truth. The reason for denial, however ignorant, is still a reason...

Just not a valid reason.

And people who have never understood a religion often criticize it just the same.

Okay, but you'll usually find the non-believers know more about religions than the followers.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:30:28 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:07:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

That is exactly the problem in a nutshell, creationists haven't bothered to learn anything about evolution because they're too lazy and expect us to hand hold them through explanations, which they still don't understand and continue to deny/reject without reason.

Blame it on religious indoctrination. the death of the thinking mind.

The inverse of that statement, would also hold some truth. The reason for denial, however ignorant, is still a reason...And people who have never understood a religion often criticize it just the same.

Irrelevant to the OP and (even if true) is no justification to accept ignorance.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:25:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

Good post.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:26:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The people who jumped on the OP for 'criticizing' evolution should probably be a little more diligent about understanding the posts they reply to. How embarrassing.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:27:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 8:21:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:30:28 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 11/4/2016 1:07:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

That is exactly the problem in a nutshell, creationists haven't bothered to learn anything about evolution because they're too lazy and expect us to hand hold them through explanations, which they still don't understand and continue to deny/reject without reason.

Blame it on religious indoctrination. the death of the thinking mind.

The inverse of that statement, would also hold some truth. The reason for denial, however ignorant, is still a reason...And people who have never understood a religion often criticize it just the same.

Irrelevant to the OP and (even if true) is no justification to accept ignorance.

I'd agree fully with that notion, and believe it coincides perfectly with this little side string. I think all the things that should be pointed out have been pointed out now.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
janesix
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.


2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Whilst there are always punctuated bursts through time due to "sudden" environmental changes you will still see the gradual evolution of those species as they adapt better and compete with others....those changes are not incremental.

For example, there were many gradual changes through different species before we can distinguish the species, homo sapiens who adapted and competed for survival following a very gradual continental drift.
janesix
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.

Whilst there are always punctuated bursts through time due to "sudden" environmental changes you will still see the gradual evolution of those species as they adapt better and compete with others....those changes are not incremental.

For example, there were many gradual changes through different species before we can distinguish the species, homo sapiens who adapted and competed for survival following a very gradual continental drift.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.

When you say "suddenly", what are you alluding to? A split second, a year, thousands of years? And what is your point anyway?

The fact that the "fossil record" is far from complete does not necessarily mean we can make a finite conclusion, does it?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)

"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.

If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.
<<ATHEIST'S GOD, which is time, DEBUNKED ONCE AGAIN BY THEIR OWN "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"
http://creation.com...
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:54:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:50:53 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
<<ATHEIST'S GOD, which is time, DEBUNKED ONCE AGAIN BY THEIR OWN "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"
http://creation.com...

The funny thing is that the scientific methods may cast doubts on certain scientific certainties from time to time, but it will never cast any doubt on the fact that religion is deadwrong in everything that is says about the creation of the universe and life itself.
janesix
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:57:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.

When you say "suddenly", what are you alluding to? A split second, a year, thousands of years? And what is your point anyway?

The only fossils we have before the Cambrian fauna are bacteria, algae, worms, sponges and ediacarans. Then we have brand new phyla with no obvious ancestors. There are no obvious lineage/ ancestry between the new phyla. Where did they come from? Practically every part of an animal is represented here with no ancestry. Eyes, brains, everything "complex" that should take millions of years of incremental steps. But there they are, fully formed with no ancestry. What happened ?

The fact that the "fossil record" is far from complete does not necessarily mean we can make a finite conclusion, does it?

I accept that it may not be complete. But the fact that there are cambrian deposits all over the world with the same phyla, yet not one fossil of possible ancestors makes me think the fossil record is complete as its going to get.
janesix
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:04:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.

I have already explained to you that i am an evolutionist but i believe in saltation, and i think the fossil record is evidence for this.

About soft parts not fossilizing is wrong. Sponges, thier eggs, worms, and bacterial mats are all soft and they fossilize.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

"...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" (point 1)
Because none exist, anywhere. Name three animal fossils where a design feature in the middle fossil is a transition from one feature to another. Then prove with scientific process the middle fossil is related to the above and below fossil. Actual evidence, not it looks like so therefore...etc...
"...how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?" (point 2)
Evolutionists used essentially an equivocation fallacy to redefine what "transitional". means. You think sinks evolved into birds, show a feature in between a feather and a reptilian scale. There are none...period.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems... absurd in the highest possible degree." (point 3)

If you want to have the best arguments against Darwinism available on hand, you should rush to get this book. You can get it online. The book is:

On the Origin of Species - by Charles Darwin.

That's right, the most impressive arguments against evolution that "creation science" can muster were all given 150 years ago, by the man who wrote the book on it. Not only did he anticipate each of these objections which "creation scientists" would like you to think they are so clever for uncovering, he examines each in detail, taking pages to work through every single point, and explain exactly how the process works.
NOPE THATS WR0NG AND YOU'RE A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE
If you think you're entitled to quote the above three arguments in contradiction of evolution, maybe to be honest to yourself, you should download and read the book - in particular, chapter six.

http://www.detectingdesign.com...
LOL, TYPICAL ATHEIST LIES New fossil record findings show Darwin was an idiot.
Fact,....there are NO watertight examples of fossils showing transitional features. Over a billion fossils yet not one transitional fossil with a feature known to be "transitioning". Evolutionists can't even prove a fossil gave birth to one of its own much less a "more evolved" offspring.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 654
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:17:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 12:04:24 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.

I have already explained to you that i am an evolutionist but i believe in saltation, and i think the fossil record is evidence for this.

About soft parts not fossilizing is wrong. Sponges, thier eggs, worms, and bacterial mats are all soft and they fossilize.

Saltation can do a lot in a very short time but even with saltation, that what a new species becomes will still in large part resemble the species that came before and as such, a trilobite ancestor would have had some (if not even most) of the characteristics of a trilobite even if no fosils of that ancestor has ever been found. It is ofcoarse possible that this earlier ancestor only lived in a very small part of the oceans and that the trilobite gained the ability to survive where the trilobite ancestors could not.