Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution--Where's the proof?

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.
:) nac
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 5:52:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.

Man! Have you got it right!!!!! IMO, religion in its many forms should be kept out of schools, period. Evolution is more a religion, as it certainly is not science.

I asked a questions on 'kinds' as against species, and the whole debate was "what was the question". If that is how scientist think then cancel Astronaut school as scientists make rockets.

Do you understand KINDS. AS in Noah two by two each according to its KIND.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:02:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:52:31 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.


Man! Have you got it right!!!!! IMO, religion in its many forms should be kept out of schools, period. Evolution is more a religion, as it certainly is not science.

I asked a questions on 'kinds' as against species, and the whole debate was "what was the question". If that is how scientist think then cancel Astronaut school as scientists make rockets.

Do you understand KINDS. AS in Noah two by two each according to its KIND.

It seems YOU don't know what "kinds" is, as you never actually answered the question.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 10:12:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Do you have any links to the "mountains of scientific evidence for creation" that you claim exists?

Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

What part of the second law of thermodynamics precludes localized complexity arising from simplicity? Please be specific.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

Can you define "macroevolution?" Also, what part of evolutionary theory leads you to the belief that a rat evolving into a chicken would be a result of evolution?

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Can you define "transitional fossils" so we all know what you are claiming don't exist? Also, are you under the impression that every species that has ever existed is represented somewhere in the fossil record?

Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.

What "truth" are you wanting to replace evolution with in the science classroom? How do you know it's the "truth?"
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 12:49:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 10:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Do you have any links to the "mountains of scientific evidence for creation" that you claim exists?

Reputable scientific publications like Answers in Genesis can attest to the existence of such a mountain range for me.


Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

What part of the second law of thermodynamics precludes localized complexity arising from simplicity? Please be specific.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, always increases, precluding complex, orderly systems from forming out of nowhere. Despite this scientific law contradicting the theory of evolution, the materialists are still believing in it, making it a religion.


For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

Can you define "macroevolution?" Also, what part of evolutionary theory leads you to the belief that a rat evolving into a chicken would be a result of evolution?

Macroevolution is evolution between kinds, or groupings of creatures. Evolution states that animals can evolve between kinds--for instance, a dinosaur can turn into a bird; as such, if evolution were true, rats evolving into chickens should be expected.


If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Can you define "transitional fossils" so we all know what you are claiming don't exist? Also, are you under the impression that every species that has ever existed is represented somewhere in the fossil record?

Transitional fossils are fossils between kinds. A crocoduck, for instance, is a transitional fossil; atheists have yet to produce a single specimen of it.


Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.

What "truth" are you wanting to replace evolution with in the science classroom? How do you know it's the "truth?"

The truth is that organisms were created the way they are now. The evolutionists, who deny the truth, are appallingly trying to censor creationism from our schools; this is counter to the scientific method, which states that all scientific claims must come under scientific scrutiny. Why are evolutionists censoring creationism? Well, it's because they do not want the truth to be heard. Evolution does not survive scientific scrutiny, which is why it's just a theory.
:) nac
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 1:10:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.

It's both hilarious, due to the sheer magnitude of ignorance and incredulity, and sad, due to what religion does to the minds of people, that religionists should come to the Science forum and blatantly make up lies about science.

It would be fine if they just stuck to their faith and beliefs, instead, as that would show some honesty as opposed to the obvious deceptions, disinformation and delusions they deploy, serving only to show how despicable, dishonest and disingenuous they are.

I wonder what compels them to demonstrate this on such a regular basis? Who do they think they're going to convince? Why do they want us to know they are so stupid? What could the possibly gain by losing all credibility? It boggles the 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
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 3:52:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/15/2016 12:49:07 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Do you have any links to the "mountains of scientific evidence for creation" that you claim exists?

Reputable scientific publications like Answers in Genesis can attest to the existence of such a mountain range for me.


Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

What part of the second law of thermodynamics precludes localized complexity arising from simplicity? Please be specific.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, always increases, precluding complex, orderly systems from forming out of nowhere. Despite this scientific law contradicting the theory of evolution, the materialists are still believing in it, making it a religion.

I agree clouds do not exist without God. Only he can cause a rain cloud to form because entropy ALWAYS increases.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 4:09:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

As a creationist, you believe in Common Descent; in that you do not believe that every one of the millions upon millions of species are present on the ark; so you likely believe that everything is descended from a collection of discrete kinds.

Given this, I suspect you have no problem with accepting that large changes can occur within a kind. For example, the differences between the two most disparate breeds of dogs are arguably greater than the differences between the most fox-like dog and the most dog-like fox.

I would further expect that you accept in certain amounts of evolution too of kinds too; how could you not, given that it can be shown to actually happen.

Given this, the only real difference between your position on biology, and evolution is a matter of degree's.

What is ridiculous here, is that evolution is based off exactly what you accept happens, with the only difference being that instead of life starting with a collection of multiple uniquely created kinds that evolve and diversify, evolution concludes that life started with a single kind that evolved and diversified.

So, in essence, to establish that Common Descent is valid beyond any reasonable doubt to you (providing that you are intellectually honest, a point that at this time is relatively unlikely given experience), I don't have to deal with the mechanics, operation or processes of evolution as you already accept those. I simply have to show that animals are related to a degree in vast excess to anything you are willing to accept, by the same principles you HAVE to accept, and show that given ANY measure one can use to determine whether one living thing is related to another shows that they are; and secondly to reasonably establish that the processes currently present and observed are enough to sufficiently account for those differences.

The key thing, is the FIRST of those two items establishes universal common descent, and the second establishes evolution as the mechanism by which the biodiversity in life we see today and in the past was established from a universal common ancestor.

It's really key aspect to realize here, that Common Descent, and evolution are not the same thing; even if evolution is incorrect, universal common descent can still be demonstrated by other means.

So, lets look at the first; how can you tell two animals are the same thing or different things. It's quite straight forward; organisms are arranged in discrete types and each collection of organisms can be told apart by the specific differences the organisms in that group share with each other, but are not shared by any other group. These features as they are unique to that group and no other become diagnostic of that group.

This is the way you tell a dog is a dog and not a cat, and a cat is a cat and not a rat. Each of these specific species has a collection of unique features, easily distinguishable and unique to that group that is not shared by any other group and therefore can be used to tell things apart.

Unfortunately, even though the group may share a collection of diagnostic features not shared by any other, any individual organism is generally unique in it's own way and may differ in subtle ways from every other member of the group.

Because of this, it is self evident that even though two organisms maybe different in particular ways they could still be part of the same group if they share a collective set of common diagnostic features not shared by any other group.

As a result, it is also self evident diagnostic features are the only way you can tell whether two organisms are the same, and the differences alone are not necessarily indicative of being part of a different group.

Now, if you go one or two levels higher in the taxonomic hierarchy, for example, to include all species in the family Canis (dogs, but not foxes), you will see a collection of groups that all contain a set of diagnostic features not shared by any other group, with each species within that group having it's own distinct set of differences.

As we established, it is self evident that diagnostic features are the most important aspect to consider, with any related species still being able to vary from the norm of that group, meaning that by the same criteria you use to determine whether a great dane and a chihuahua are related can be applied to all dogs to show that they are also related too.

So far, you probably agree with this determination that all dogs are related; but what about dogs and foxes (Canids)? Well, using exactly the same criteria, one must also conclude that dogs and foxes are both related too, however the one distinction you need to make is that as they have more differences between species in that group, dogs and foxes are less related than any two types of dogs.

As you accept the level variation within dogs can be accounted for using common descent, you must be forced to agree that foxes are also related to dogs simply for the fact that the difference between the most dog like fox and the most of like dog is less than between the two most different types of dogs. If you don't accept it, you need an objective reason to do so; after all, how can you say that two species are different kinds when they are less different from one another than two individual species within the same kind?

So given that dogs and foxes are the same type, one can then go one level up and go to all caniforms, including bears, badgers, weasels. Like both other levels, these species ALL share a collection of diagnostic traits not shared by any other groups. Again, the differences between the most bear like canid, and the most canid like bear is less than the differences between the most different individual species of canid. Like before, if the variation outside a related group is less than the variation within, one can only reasonably conclude that the higher group is related too.

When including fossil forms (that can also be distinguished by diagnostic in the same way), the variation between canids and caniforms are lessened too; Amphicyonidae, Hemicyonidae, Enaliarctos, for example helping bridge the variation gap between dogs, bears and pinnipeds whilst not strictly being transitional.

Lets go one level up, how about Carnivora? This is a group that like before all share a collection of diagnostic traits, including hyenas, feliforms, cats and others, and the same plethora of groups as the caniforms I just listed that can all be inferred to be related for the same reason.

The same logic holds true here too; including cats, hyenas, miacids (truly transitional), vivvarids, ninvarids and all the other host of feliforms present, it is clear that the difference between the most caniform like feliform, is less than the two most disparate species of caniform, that via the logic above you must again conclude are related.

Each level you go down, you HAVE to accept that evolution must be able to generate ever larger amounts of variation within a kind. If you apply it to all life and all examples of fossils, then the largest gap between any two species is invariably smaller than the largest amount of variation that you are forced to conclude evolution can generate.

This pattern is completely mirrored by genetics too; with genetic markers, ERV's, conserved proteins showing exactly the same patterns of lineage.

This alone is sufficient to completely disprove the existence of kinds, as there is no clear distinction between any two species and for that reason pretty much establishes universal common descent.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 5:15:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 12:49:07 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Do you have any links to the "mountains of scientific evidence for creation" that you claim exists?

Reputable scientific publications like Answers in Genesis can attest to the existence of such a mountain range for me.

Is there a reason you didn't actually provide a link? What makes you think Answers in Genesis is a "reputable scientific publication?" Why should I trust them over a site like Talk Origins or regular, peer-reviewed journals in fields relevant to evolution?

What part of the second law of thermodynamics precludes localized complexity arising from simplicity? Please be specific.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, always increases, precluding complex, orderly systems from forming out of nowhere. Despite this scientific law contradicting the theory of evolution, the materialists are still believing in it, making it a religion.

I know it says the total entropy of a closed system always increases, but does that mean there can't be areas in the system where entropy decreases?

I find your second sentence to be pretty interesting. The implication is that the only requirement for something to qualify as a religion is belief in an idea that is demonstrably untrue.

Can you define "macroevolution?" Also, what part of evolutionary theory leads you to the belief that a rat evolving into a chicken would be a result of evolution?

Macroevolution is evolution between kinds, or groupings of creatures. Evolution states that animals can evolve between kinds--for instance, a dinosaur can turn into a bird; as such, if evolution were true, rats evolving into chickens should be expected.

What's a "kind?" Can you define that term for me?

Can you define "transitional fossils" so we all know what you are claiming don't exist? Also, are you under the impression that every species that has ever existed is represented somewhere in the fossil record?

Transitional fossils are fossils between kinds. A crocoduck, for instance, is a transitional fossil; atheists have yet to produce a single specimen of it.

Why didn't answer the second part of my question? Are you under the impression that every species that has ever existed is represented somewhere in the fossil record?

Also, wouldn't an animal that exists between kinds necessarily be part of a brand new kind? How would you determine what is and isn't transitional?

What "truth" are you wanting to replace evolution with in the science classroom? How do you know it's the "truth?"

The truth is that organisms were created the way they are now. The evolutionists, who deny the truth, are appallingly trying to censor creationism from our schools; this is counter to the scientific method, which states that all scientific claims must come under scientific scrutiny. Why are evolutionists censoring creationism? Well, it's because they do not want the truth to be heard. Evolution does not survive scientific scrutiny, which is why it's just a theory.

Can you provide some evidence of evolution failing to "survive scientific scrutiny?" Also, you didn't answer the second part of my question. How do you know that organisms were created the way they are now?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 5:26:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 12:49:07 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/14/2016 10:12:36 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

Do you have any links to the "mountains of scientific evidence for creation" that you claim exists?

Reputable scientific publications like Answers in Genesis can attest to the existence of such a mountain range for me.

Answers in Genesis; proclaims that no evidence that could ever be provided will ever convince them that they are wrong.

"No matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem, no evidence of any sort can even be considered if it contradicts their sacred stories which they insist must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict. Their position is wholly dishonest, and it"s everything science isn't; because it's an a-priori position which must never be seriously questioned, corrected or rejected.

They have to defend their preconcieved notions because they're forbidden on pain of a fate worse than death to even consider that they could be wrong, and they must maintain that belief no matter how wrong they obviously are. Even when they know they're wrong, they still have to make-believe anyway. Their position is the definition of a closed-mind. It is not a search for truth.

There's no rational need for apologetics and science rejects it. We don't hold evolution sacred. We defend it only because it is evidently true. Superstitious politics have made evolution an icon necessary to the defense of the scientific method which is the real target of religious fundamentalism. But their under-handed attempts to undermine science is also eroding their parent theology more so than atheism ever could.

Because if you have to lie to defend your truth, then it was never really truth to begin with, and creationism obviously IS not like the truth and DOES not like the truth.

he simultaneously saddest and most laughable irony of this whole stupid controversy is that these zealots claim they're opposed to evolution as an issue of morality. Yet while we can cite dozens of examples where politically-influential creationists clearly know they're lying about science, there is no such instance wherein evolutionary scientists can be shown to be dishonest in their criticisms of creationism.

There's no need to be. Despite all the attempted deception, the baseless assertions and political division produced by the creationism movement, the truth is there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Not one period.

Neither has there been any credible proponents of creation science anywhere ever, because, (with one crackpot exception) everyone who has ever published anti-evolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension.

They've all revealed inexcusable ignorance in the very fields where they claim expertise, and their arguments are all dependant on erroneous assumptions, prejudicial bias, logical fallacies, ridiculous parody, misdefined terms, misquoted authorities, distorted data, fraudulent figures, or out-and-out lies. Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which are untestable, indistinguishable from the delusions of imagination, and can neither be indicated nor vindicated, verified or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 9:48:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

There are HUNDREDS of examples of transitional forms.

There are dozens of hominid species, for example that show a clear progression of changes from something that is closer to typical apes, all the way to modern man.

Indeed, with hominid fossils, there are so many transitional forms, it's difficult to fully classify whether some new finds are a part of one existing documented species or another.

Obviously, Creationists cannot possibly countenance the existence of such finds, so normally rely on dismissing them on the most tenuous grounds as "100% ape" or "100% human". Hilariously, many creationists have come to differing conclusions as to whether they a particular find is 100% human, or 100% ape, and some have even changed their mind. Doesn't that tell you something? That you have a species that could be viewed either as a human or an ape? Isn't that one of the types of transitional fossils?

Human evolution is relatively recent, however we can provide exactly the same level of transition in many other lineages too; we can show a clear progression of species in cetaceans, a clear march from land to fully sea dwelling. It is similar for Sirenians, and most famously of horses.

There are many examples of intermediates between birds and dinosaurs; even if you apply the most stringent criteria. Archaeopteryx has a bird form, with wings, but has distinctly dinosaurian features, like teeth, and unfused wing bones. It's so obviously a transition that when found without obvious wings, and feathers, it's very easy to misclassify as a member of the raptor family of dinosaur.

With living and extinct mammal forms, again, we see a clear progression in therapsids, the division where you have mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals; with species showing a clear progression of mammalian features like the ear changing from how they are in reptiles in steps, to how they currently are in modern mammals.

Miacids, Vivarrids, in the Carnivora clade, combined with two separate distinct types of dog like bears (one more related to bears, and one more related to dogs), provide clear transitions in this case too.

Between land and see, we have boney fish with swim bladders, fish with swim bladder like lungs, fish with more lung like lungs; and obvious transitions between lobe finned fish (many of which obviously appear to be closer to amphibians than the most unrelated fish), and primitive tetrapods of Tiktalik and the more land dwelling stegacephalians.

We have transitions between basal reptiles and snakes, showing loss of arms (hell, we have skinks, which are already half way there),

This is just a handful of the hundreds of clearly transitional forms that are in existence, not to mention the plethora of other forms showing indicative taxonomy at different times in life, also showing a clear progression in forms between what was there before and what was present after whilst not evidentially directly transitional.

There are three examples of "Hoaxes" that are generally mentioned, out of the vast array of transitional forms.

Piltdown man was controversial but initially accepted before tests by scientists demonstrated it was fraudulent, and it was rejected.

Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community with reconstructions from popular press, not scientists, at the time being criticized by the very man who discovered it as being too much.

The Micro-raptor mosaic find was discovered to be a fraud in peer review, and was never an accepted transition; and was overhyped by non peer reviewed media who jumped the gun; even though what you don't realize is that part of the fossil mosaic which was one specimen did actually turn out to be transitional!

So, no, in this regard, you are wrong on every last count. There are hundreds of transitional forms. The fossil record while still incomplete, is richer and more significant than any creationist ever dares acknowledge and clearly demonstrates exactly the same sort of march of progress that you deny here out of hand; and the examples of fraud are oversold and misrepresented, and so infrequent as to be dishonest to portray them.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:16:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 9:48:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

There are HUNDREDS of examples of transitional forms.

There are dozens of hominid species, for example that show a clear progression of changes from something that is closer to typical apes, all the way to modern man.

Indeed, with hominid fossils, there are so many transitional forms, it's difficult to fully classify whether some new finds are a part of one existing documented species or another.

Obviously, Creationists cannot possibly countenance the existence of such finds, so normally rely on dismissing them on the most tenuous grounds as "100% ape" or "100% human". Hilariously, many creationists have come to differing conclusions as to whether they a particular find is 100% human, or 100% ape, and some have even changed their mind. Doesn't that tell you something? That you have a species that could be viewed either as a human or an ape? Isn't that one of the types of transitional fossils?


Human evolution is relatively recent, however we can provide exactly the same level of transition in many other lineages too; we can show a clear progression of species in cetaceans, a clear march from land to fully sea dwelling. It is similar for Sirenians, and most famously of horses.

There are many examples of intermediates between birds and dinosaurs; even if you apply the most stringent criteria. Archaeopteryx has a bird form, with wings, but has distinctly dinosaurian features, like teeth, and unfused wing bones. It's so obviously a transition that when found without obvious wings, and feathers, it's very easy to misclassify as a member of the raptor family of dinosaur.

With living and extinct mammal forms, again, we see a clear progression in therapsids, the division where you have mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals; with species showing a clear progression of mammalian features like the ear changing from how they are in reptiles in steps, to how they currently are in modern mammals.

Miacids, Vivarrids, in the Carnivora clade, combined with two separate distinct types of dog like bears (one more related to bears, and one more related to dogs), provide clear transitions in this case too.

Between land and see, we have boney fish with swim bladders, fish with swim bladder like lungs, fish with more lung like lungs; and obvious transitions between lobe finned fish (many of which obviously appear to be closer to amphibians than the most unrelated fish), and primitive tetrapods of Tiktalik and the more land dwelling stegacephalians.

We have transitions between basal reptiles and snakes, showing loss of arms (hell, we have skinks, which are already half way there),

This is just a handful of the hundreds of clearly transitional forms that are in existence, not to mention the plethora of other forms showing indicative taxonomy at different times in life, also showing a clear progression in forms between what was there before and what was present after whilst not evidentially directly transitional.


There are three examples of "Hoaxes" that are generally mentioned, out of the vast array of transitional forms.

Piltdown man was controversial but initially accepted before tests by scientists demonstrated it was fraudulent, and it was rejected.

Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community with reconstructions from popular press, not scientists, at the time being criticized by the very man who discovered it as being too much.

The Micro-raptor mosaic find was discovered to be a fraud in peer review, and was never an accepted transition; and was overhyped by non peer reviewed media who jumped the gun; even though what you don't realize is that part of the fossil mosaic which was one specimen did actually turn out to be transitional!

So, no, in this regard, you are wrong on every last count. There are hundreds of transitional forms. The fossil record while still incomplete, is richer and more significant than any creationist ever dares acknowledge and clearly demonstrates exactly the same sort of march of progress that you deny here out of hand; and the examples of fraud are oversold and misrepresented, and so infrequent as to be dishonest to portray them.

What about the crocoduck? Does that exist?
:) nac
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:36:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 3:16:38 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 9:48:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

There are HUNDREDS of examples of transitional forms.

There are dozens of hominid species, for example that show a clear progression of changes from something that is closer to typical apes, all the way to modern man.

Indeed, with hominid fossils, there are so many transitional forms, it's difficult to fully classify whether some new finds are a part of one existing documented species or another.

Obviously, Creationists cannot possibly countenance the existence of such finds, so normally rely on dismissing them on the most tenuous grounds as "100% ape" or "100% human". Hilariously, many creationists have come to differing conclusions as to whether they a particular find is 100% human, or 100% ape, and some have even changed their mind. Doesn't that tell you something? That you have a species that could be viewed either as a human or an ape? Isn't that one of the types of transitional fossils?


Human evolution is relatively recent, however we can provide exactly the same level of transition in many other lineages too; we can show a clear progression of species in cetaceans, a clear march from land to fully sea dwelling. It is similar for Sirenians, and most famously of horses.

There are many examples of intermediates between birds and dinosaurs; even if you apply the most stringent criteria. Archaeopteryx has a bird form, with wings, but has distinctly dinosaurian features, like teeth, and unfused wing bones. It's so obviously a transition that when found without obvious wings, and feathers, it's very easy to misclassify as a member of the raptor family of dinosaur.

With living and extinct mammal forms, again, we see a clear progression in therapsids, the division where you have mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals; with species showing a clear progression of mammalian features like the ear changing from how they are in reptiles in steps, to how they currently are in modern mammals.

Miacids, Vivarrids, in the Carnivora clade, combined with two separate distinct types of dog like bears (one more related to bears, and one more related to dogs), provide clear transitions in this case too.

Between land and see, we have boney fish with swim bladders, fish with swim bladder like lungs, fish with more lung like lungs; and obvious transitions between lobe finned fish (many of which obviously appear to be closer to amphibians than the most unrelated fish), and primitive tetrapods of Tiktalik and the more land dwelling stegacephalians.

We have transitions between basal reptiles and snakes, showing loss of arms (hell, we have skinks, which are already half way there),

This is just a handful of the hundreds of clearly transitional forms that are in existence, not to mention the plethora of other forms showing indicative taxonomy at different times in life, also showing a clear progression in forms between what was there before and what was present after whilst not evidentially directly transitional.


There are three examples of "Hoaxes" that are generally mentioned, out of the vast array of transitional forms.

Piltdown man was controversial but initially accepted before tests by scientists demonstrated it was fraudulent, and it was rejected.

Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community with reconstructions from popular press, not scientists, at the time being criticized by the very man who discovered it as being too much.

The Micro-raptor mosaic find was discovered to be a fraud in peer review, and was never an accepted transition; and was overhyped by non peer reviewed media who jumped the gun; even though what you don't realize is that part of the fossil mosaic which was one specimen did actually turn out to be transitional!

So, no, in this regard, you are wrong on every last count. There are hundreds of transitional forms. The fossil record while still incomplete, is richer and more significant than any creationist ever dares acknowledge and clearly demonstrates exactly the same sort of march of progress that you deny here out of hand; and the examples of fraud are oversold and misrepresented, and so infrequent as to be dishonest to portray them.

What about the crocoduck? Does that exist?

A crocoduck would falsify evolution.

However, it's the type of "technology swapping" between multiple forms independent of lineage that would be one of the hallmarks of design.

So, you tell me, why are there no crocoducks?

But nicely done skipping over the exact evidence that shows your wrong, and showing your unwilling to even hold an honest discussion.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 4:44:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Over my few years on this planet, 77 years to be precise, I have heard the wonderful applause when another 'missing link' was found. The Piltdown man comes to mind, the Java man the Hobbits of Flores, and the Mungo Man and woman are but a few.

Give a graphic artist as small bit of bone, or even petrified rock and he will draw you the beasts it came from, eye colour, scales and hairy armpits, teeth too big for its mouth to close (Do the measuring on the next one you see) then there are the two toes or three toes, depending on how much ink is left in the pen, and wallah! Off go the evolutionists saying "There you go, what more proof do you want?"

Of course, when the fake is finally found out we hear zilch form the former believers.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 8:12:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance. However, despite their asserting that evolution is science and creation science is pseudoscientific, there is a dearth of scientific evidence for evolution and mountains of scientific evidence for creation. Evolution appears to be pseudoscience.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution if you think "random chance" is the most relevant characteristic of evolution. The only relevant "random event" regards the origins of life -- the unknown and undescribed event in which non-living matter became living, reproducing matter.

Everything beyond that is natural selection over long periods of time. While natural selection largely happens due to random mutations, the lack of significant behavior/physical altering mutations is rare and usually small. That we are here in our current state is highly unlikely; that intelligent exists in some form is all but guaranteed, assuming an origin of life.

Although materialists may wrap their theories in a veneer of scientific credibility by using big, scholarly-sounding technobabble, the theory of evolution is, in reality, lacking in any scientific soundness whatsoever; it's just a pile of wild speculation. Peeling away the technobabble, we see that the theory of evolution simply makes no sense. Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms, which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans. This "blind watchmaker" theory is ridiculous even to a layman, and it is even more so when you consider that you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence; the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case. Despite this, atheists insist on teaching evolution in our schools, to our children who cannot distinguish truth from fiction; they are deceiving us and our descendants by manipulating the education system.

All science that deals with either the past, future, or both relies on some level of speculation. To say that evolution is largely speculation is to not understand evolution. Large words are not necessary to understand the phenomenon of evolution. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of DNA and what happens to DNA at reproduction can understand natural selection and, thus, evolution. The only "speculation" we make regards the assumption that non-living to living matter transition is possible. Evolutionists tend to believe this a more reasonable assumption than assuming the existence of a higher power.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments. Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it. Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist. If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

There have been repeated experiments regarding the function of DNA. It is well documented that parent A and parent B can produce a child C with unique DNA -- DNA that has not previously existed. It's also well established that DNA directly affects literally everything regarding your biology. Give those two facts, the case for evolution is clear.

And are you seriously suggesting that creationism is more likely than evolution based upon test-ability? Do you realize that we are able to (repeatedly) test at least a few of the premises of evolution, whereas we are completely unable to test any of the premises involved in creationism?

I'm not saying that evolution is a particularly definite theory -- other scientific theories certainly have more merit. However, compared to creationism, evolution is far ahead as far as scientific evidence is concerned.

Next, are you surprised that macroevolution isn't directly testable? Would you be equally surprised to learn that the life and death of a star cannot be tested in the laboratory?

Lastly, rats do not evolve into chickens. Apes do not evolve into humans. This line of rhetoric isn't just tired and old, it's misrepresentation of what evolutionists believe. Rats and chickens share a common ancestor, one that existed long ago and is likely very different from both a chicken and a rat.

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

Fossils are rare. Realize that *literally trillions* of animals have existed before you. Very precise environments are necessary to preserve fossils. Some environments simply won't create fossils -- others will create fossils, but not allow them to exist long periods of time. Remember that only 6 fossils of the T. Rex have been found which consisted of more than 20% of the original skeletal structure, but we can reasonably assume that thousands of T. Rex's must have existed at some point -- a point which was not too long ago.

Additionally, by evolutionist standards, dinosaurs *are* transitional species. In fact, all old and current species are transitional in nature. Part of evolution is understanding that species are always transitioning. You assume that because two animals look different, they're not transitional -- even though transitional implies that there is a difference. The logic is self-defeating.

Even though there is no evidence for evolution, materialists insist on placing it in our schools and in our children's minds. Under their plot to "educate" our children with their lies, students with dissenting opinions are often laughed out of classrooms if they ever dared to believe in something other than the official evolutionist narrative. Evolutionists are feeding us with a mental poison--a poison of the mind that has no antidote other than proper, truth-based education.

Although I am about to make a common logical fallacy, you should realize that virtually all scientists of note of believe evolution to be fact. Now this does not mean it is, but one has to find it odd that the more educated an individual in the sciences, the more likely they are to believe in evolution. Seeing as increases in scientific awareness tend to result in better science, you really ought to reconsider your assertion that evolution is not "truth based".

Lastly, evolution is not a complete theory. No theory is complete and, in fact, it is impossible for any theory to be truly complete. (A mathematician proved that one.) However, there is more evidence supporting evolution than it's natural alternative -- direct creationism. In fact, the evidence is so skewed toward evolution that virtually no scientists believe creationism to be reasonable.

-------------
Sorry if anyone has already said what I am about to. I respond to the OP before looking at the state of the discussion when it comes to topics like these.
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 8:30:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 4:44:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Over my few years on this planet, 77 years to be precise, I have heard the wonderful applause when another 'missing link' was found. The Piltdown man comes to mind, the Java man the Hobbits of Flores, and the Mungo Man and woman are but a few.

Give a graphic artist as small bit of bone, or even petrified rock and he will draw you the beasts it came from, eye colour, scales and hairy armpits, teeth too big for its mouth to close (Do the measuring on the next one you see) then there are the two toes or three toes, depending on how much ink is left in the pen, and wallah! Off go the evolutionists saying "There you go, what more proof do you want?"

Of course, when the fake is finally found out we hear zilch form the former believers.

Scientists don't find a piece of bone, look confused, hand the bone to a sketch artist, look at the rendition, then say, "Ah! So that's what this is!" Artists recreate what some fossil might have looked like purely for the benefit of non-scientists -- everyday readers.

A scientist would never look at an artist's recreation of the T. Rex and think, "Ah, so it does have brown skin." Scientists simply don't concern themselves with such things if it can't be substantiated with any level of fact. Understand that a newspaper with a picture of a colorful Dodo falling of a cliff is much more likely to sell than one with a picture of dirty bones laying on a table.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 10:14:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life, which is, according to their literature, through random chance.
Actually, they're called scientists, Leugen. In particular, biologists. And like all sciences, biology doesn't require you to identify with any culture or creed.

Consequently biologists of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist faith all uphold the scientific validity and veracity of evolution. Moreover, major churches such as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches have adapted their dogmas to accommodate it. Evolution isn't a product of secularism, except in the sense that science itself is independent of any faith. Nor does evolution require atheism any more than the creation of the universe implies theism.

In fact, evolution is now so well evidenced, researched and supported, and cross-supported by so many related disciplines that for the last 40 years, there have been pretty much no significant peer-reviewed biology papers contesting it, and peak scientific bodies worldwide have issued statements saying that if you teach anything else, you're teaching falsehood. And meanwhile universal common ancestry itself has now been established beyond all reasonable doubt, and the mutation and natural selection of species is now used across all relevant industries like fisheries, conservation and epidemiology.

Which makes the non-biologists fluttering around claiming controversy either ignorant or dishonest, doesn't it? And it makes the people who parrot the words of the interests spending money to rail against a science they don't like and either decline to learn or feign to misunderstand, their stooges, no?

So when you ask 'where's the proof', may I ask what sources you yourself have investigated and sought to understand? If you haven't done diligence, why should anyone seek to educate you?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 3:58:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 4:44:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Over my few years on this planet, 77 years to be precise, I have heard the wonderful applause when another 'missing link' was found. The Piltdown man comes to mind, the Java man the Hobbits of Flores, and the Mungo Man and woman are but a few.

Give a graphic artist as small bit of bone, or even petrified rock and he will draw you the beasts it came from, eye colour, scales and hairy armpits, teeth too big for its mouth to close (Do the measuring on the next one you see) then there are the two toes or three toes, depending on how much ink is left in the pen, and wallah! Off go the evolutionists saying "There you go, what more proof do you want?"

Of course, when the fake is finally found out we hear zilch form the former believers.

So, in all your 77 years, you didn't actually find out that it was scientists who uncovered those fakes and exposed them as such? And, that the fakes were not perpetrated by the scientific community, but instead by a few select individuals?
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
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 4:01:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 3:16:38 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 9:48:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

There are HUNDREDS of examples of transitional forms.

There are dozens of hominid species, for example that show a clear progression of changes from something that is closer to typical apes, all the way to modern man.

Indeed, with hominid fossils, there are so many transitional forms, it's difficult to fully classify whether some new finds are a part of one existing documented species or another.

Obviously, Creationists cannot possibly countenance the existence of such finds, so normally rely on dismissing them on the most tenuous grounds as "100% ape" or "100% human". Hilariously, many creationists have come to differing conclusions as to whether they a particular find is 100% human, or 100% ape, and some have even changed their mind. Doesn't that tell you something? That you have a species that could be viewed either as a human or an ape? Isn't that one of the types of transitional fossils?


Human evolution is relatively recent, however we can provide exactly the same level of transition in many other lineages too; we can show a clear progression of species in cetaceans, a clear march from land to fully sea dwelling. It is similar for Sirenians, and most famously of horses.

There are many examples of intermediates between birds and dinosaurs; even if you apply the most stringent criteria. Archaeopteryx has a bird form, with wings, but has distinctly dinosaurian features, like teeth, and unfused wing bones. It's so obviously a transition that when found without obvious wings, and feathers, it's very easy to misclassify as a member of the raptor family of dinosaur.

With living and extinct mammal forms, again, we see a clear progression in therapsids, the division where you have mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals; with species showing a clear progression of mammalian features like the ear changing from how they are in reptiles in steps, to how they currently are in modern mammals.

Miacids, Vivarrids, in the Carnivora clade, combined with two separate distinct types of dog like bears (one more related to bears, and one more related to dogs), provide clear transitions in this case too.

Between land and see, we have boney fish with swim bladders, fish with swim bladder like lungs, fish with more lung like lungs; and obvious transitions between lobe finned fish (many of which obviously appear to be closer to amphibians than the most unrelated fish), and primitive tetrapods of Tiktalik and the more land dwelling stegacephalians.

We have transitions between basal reptiles and snakes, showing loss of arms (hell, we have skinks, which are already half way there),

This is just a handful of the hundreds of clearly transitional forms that are in existence, not to mention the plethora of other forms showing indicative taxonomy at different times in life, also showing a clear progression in forms between what was there before and what was present after whilst not evidentially directly transitional.


There are three examples of "Hoaxes" that are generally mentioned, out of the vast array of transitional forms.

Piltdown man was controversial but initially accepted before tests by scientists demonstrated it was fraudulent, and it was rejected.

Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community with reconstructions from popular press, not scientists, at the time being criticized by the very man who discovered it as being too much.

The Micro-raptor mosaic find was discovered to be a fraud in peer review, and was never an accepted transition; and was overhyped by non peer reviewed media who jumped the gun; even though what you don't realize is that part of the fossil mosaic which was one specimen did actually turn out to be transitional!

So, no, in this regard, you are wrong on every last count. There are hundreds of transitional forms. The fossil record while still incomplete, is richer and more significant than any creationist ever dares acknowledge and clearly demonstrates exactly the same sort of march of progress that you deny here out of hand; and the examples of fraud are oversold and misrepresented, and so infrequent as to be dishonest to portray them.

What about the crocoduck? Does that exist?

How about a platypus?

"The platypus is among nature's most unlikely animals. In fact, the first scientists to examine a specimen believed they were the victims of a hoax. The animal is best described as a hodgepodge of more familiar species: the duck (bill and webbed feet), beaver (tail), and otter (body and fur). Males are also venomous. They have sharp stingers on the heels of their rear feet and can use them to deliver a strong toxic blow to any foe."

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...
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
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 7:25:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 4:44:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Over my few years on this planet, 77 years to be precise, I have heard the wonderful applause when another 'missing link' was found. The Piltdown man comes to mind, the Java man the Hobbits of Flores, and the Mungo Man and woman are but a few.

Give a graphic artist as small bit of bone, or even petrified rock and he will draw you the beasts it came from, eye colour, scales and hairy armpits, teeth too big for its mouth to close (Do the measuring on the next one you see) then there are the two toes or three toes, depending on how much ink is left in the pen, and wallah! Off go the evolutionists saying "There you go, what more proof do you want?"

Of course, when the fake is finally found out we hear zilch form the former believers.

It's funny that you claim to be a believe of the Bible, yet you seem to more than willing to break the 9th commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness".

You can't possibly have first hand experience of either Piltdown man (1912), to Java Man (1891).

You can't possibly also claim that Mungo Man, Or Homo Florensis were presented as a "Missing Link", as neither of them ever were.

You can't possibly also claim that scientists recreate human appearance from rock, because that has never happened; nor can you really say they do the same thing with small fragments of Bone.

Indeed the only example I know of where anything was unreasonably reconstructed into an artists impression was that of Nebraska Man, which was picked up by popular media of the time (not science), and extrapolated into an image to sell newspapers; a reconstruction that even the discoverer objected to at the time.

Saying this, Nebraska man, as I said, was NEVER portrayed as a missing link by science in any way. Piltdown man was controversial, even at the time, and was discovered to be a fraud by scientists. Java man was initially thought to be transitional between apes and humans (even that was controversial) and scientific scrutiny successfully change this interpretation. However, Homo Habilis is still transitional, basal between Neanderthals and Humans, but not a common ancestor of other apes and Homo. So even in this respect you're wrong to.

Science is essentially a search for the truth; and to do that, you have to acknowledge that what you know or may think may not be correct, which is why science has corrected it's position based on new evidence and updated precision.

You are obviously not on a search for what is true, because you already believe you know what the truth is, and obviously are unwilling to accept that you could be wrong about everything; and even if you were I don't think you would be able to tell me how you would even know you are wrong if you were.

If you have no way of telling whether you are wrong about what you believe, or not, then how could you possibly know whether you are right or wrong at all?

But if you want to claim that the missing link is missing?

It isn't, nor has it been for a long time. Maybe in 1859 when we only know of humans and Neanderthals, with no fossils that linked them to any apes we know of.

In the intervening time, we have found thousands of examples of individuals, over dozens of hominid species, many providing specific and demonstrable links to other apes; including particular species that were predicted to exist by evolution before they were discovered.

The first link is a definitive common ancestor between other modern apes we see today, and the combination of Human species (Neanderthals, humans, and the primitive human Homo Habilis), there are examples of this including Orrorin and Sahelanthropus, which both exist at the predicted time of the Human-Chimp split according to genetic, and show transitional traits or at least close to basal traits if not strictly transitional for both groups.

This theory also required us to find an extinct hominid within strata between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana, and the time of the earliest known human (Homo Habilis).

There are up to 50 species of extinct apes, with gradations of difference between humans and primitive ape like species; but the theory demands in part finding a species morphologically half way between humans and other apes.

We've found that too in 1974, with Australopithecus afarensis which can be shown to be fully bi-pedal with hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull and other physical details pretty much EXACTLY what creationists such as yourself has challenged evolution to find yet are still pretending has never been found! It has ape like features with regards to the skull, teeth, brain size, and a host of other, but with feet, hands, pelvis getting close to that of humans.

In the 30+ years since, there has been a veritable boom in discovery of transitional forms in many lineages including are own. So much so that a number of fossil lineages (including our own), are virtual complete.

The problem now for evolution is not that there are too few examples of transitional forms, but in many cases there are too many with so much diversity around the points of many major divergences that it is hard to tell which of the many forms are the basal group, and which are merely relatives of that basal group; while the compounding problem for Creationism is that not even one should exist at all if your story is true; and yet they do, by the bucket load!

The intermediate forms between in the evolutionary line between humans and other apes are now so fine that Paleoanthropologists are finding it difficult to really tell whether all the examples that we have found and continue to find are part of one species or another to the point that there aren't really any more links needed for human evolution any more.

However, Creationists like yourself still insist that we have never found anything that was "half ape, half human", even though we have found multiple individuals that fit just that description even by the most draconian definition, and also have found myriad species and examples that fit in many of the gaps in between.

Creationists cling to absolute claims and being unwilling to admit any degree of variance other than 100% or zero and make sure that they happily lump each example into one side or another for a litany of obscure and subjective reasons; made all the more hilarious when creationists cannot even make up their minds which side of this imaginary wall these species belong.

Individual Creationists have independently claimed that such transitional species are 100% ape, whilst others have claimed that those species are instead 100% human; with some even changing their mind as to whether they are 100% human or 100% ape over time. Hilariously, if Creationists disagree over whether a species is 100% human or 100% ape, surely that should tell you that it's traits, morphology and description is ambiguous and could either be interpreted as ape, or human. This ambiguity, effectively, should be exactly what is expected of any form that could be claimed to be transitional; thus demonstrating that the transitional forms you claim do not exist absolutely do.
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 9:17:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
theistic evolution , I don't have to change science or the wording of the bible .

genesis 30 - jacob uses applied evolutionary theory - SELECTION. sexual selection .

as your post seems to suggest that you perhaps may have some confusion
concerning evolutionary theory and Abiogenesis (life forming at deep sea vents )-"let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life "
I think I will just add my lil 2 cents and leave the rest to the regs as I am a newbie here .
I just thought I might offer a different perspective on it .
one love , God bless
Carcharus
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:29:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM, Carcharus wrote:
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.

But what about macroevolution? No evolutionist can ever produce evidence of macroevolution occurring, as evolution is simply false. Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution.
:) nac
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 12:42:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:29:54 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM, Carcharus wrote:
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.

But what about macroevolution? No evolutionist can ever produce evidence of macroevolution occurring, as evolution is simply false. Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution.

may I ask you a question ? what in your opinion separates one species from another , the most basic will do ?
I mean close species ..lion and tiger .. gibbon and gorilla ... bobcat and cheetah ....cobra and rattle snake ?
what makes them not the same species ?
...may I supply the biggest one ? they cant produce fertile offspring , would you agree that is what separates them ?
here is the kicker , we have already observed speciation in a living species . a split in a branch that cannot breed with its sister branch ...it is proven .
The various Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast all descended from a common ancestral population.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:40:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:29:54 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM, Carcharus wrote:
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.

But what about macroevolution? No evolutionist can ever produce evidence of macroevolution occurring, as evolution is simply false. Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution.

When comparing any an organism to every single living organism, and evidenced extinct organism, there isn't really any point, difference or change that appears more significant than any of the ones before. Indeed, if you compare humans to homonoid fossils, then great apes, then apes, then monkeys, then primates (including basal fossil primates) then colugos, then Tree shrews, then rodents and lagomorphs, there isn't really any significant point at which comparative taxonomy indicative of the successive inheritance of acquired traits combined with gradual divergence and independent acquisition of new traits (IE: Descent with modification).

Because of that, you can't really draw ANY line based on taxonomy (or genetics) where one type of thing becomes fundamentally another kind of thing.

The only exception to this, the only place where any form of line can ever be drawn that fundamentally separates one species from any other is reproductive isolation, as it is the only objectively determinable difference that does not have to be arbitrarily defined.

As a result, this is the ONLY place where you can define the position where Micro Evolution becomes Macro-Evolution, and we have seen it crossed innumerable times.

Mutations occur, and they demonstrably accumulate.

Moreover, phenotypical changes (what a creature looks like) are based on embryological development; there is no blue print here, simply a set of chemical signals that control how and when cells divide and differentiate.

This mechanism can demonstrably be altered in DNA and can continue to be so by successive regulatory changes one on top of the other, as DNA has no memory; it is not possible for these mutations NOT accumulate given any examination or determination that can be made from any aspect of DNA.

Not only that, with the existence of both innumerable transitional forms, the evidence from hybridization and artificial selection; it can be demonstrated that not only do such changes accumulate and serve to permanently alter the phenotype of the species and it's descendents; macro-evolution is evidenced in both the successive fossil progression cross confirmed with chronological dating and detailed genome analysis between species including conserved proteins, full genome analysis, and ERV pattern sequencing.

IE: We can positively show that it MUST happen; every piece of evidence about the past shows it HAS happened, and even explains a good deal of HOW it happened in terms of detailed species trees.

Given this, to say it can't happen, is merely wishful thinking; and a position that is directly controverted by every experiment, test or piece of evidence that could show your position is valid.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:24:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:40:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:29:54 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM, Carcharus wrote:
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.

But what about macroevolution? No evolutionist can ever produce evidence of macroevolution occurring, as evolution is simply false. Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution.

When comparing any an organism to every single living organism, and evidenced extinct organism, there isn't really any point, difference or change that appears more significant than any of the ones before. Indeed, if you compare humans to homonoid fossils, then great apes, then apes, then monkeys, then primates (including basal fossil primates) then colugos, then Tree shrews, then rodents and lagomorphs, there isn't really any significant point at which comparative taxonomy indicative of the successive inheritance of acquired traits combined with gradual divergence and independent acquisition of new traits (IE: Descent with modification).

Because of that, you can't really draw ANY line based on taxonomy (or genetics) where one type of thing becomes fundamentally another kind of thing.

The only exception to this, the only place where any form of line can ever be drawn that fundamentally separates one species from any other is reproductive isolation, as it is the only objectively determinable difference that does not have to be arbitrarily defined.

As a result, this is the ONLY place where you can define the position where Micro Evolution becomes Macro-Evolution, and we have seen it crossed innumerable times.


Mutations occur, and they demonstrably accumulate.

Moreover, phenotypical changes (what a creature looks like) are based on embryological development; there is no blue print here, simply a set of chemical signals that control how and when cells divide and differentiate.

This mechanism can demonstrably be altered in DNA and can continue to be so by successive regulatory changes one on top of the other, as DNA has no memory; it is not possible for these mutations NOT accumulate given any examination or determination that can be made from any aspect of DNA.

Not only that, with the existence of both innumerable transitional forms, the evidence from hybridization and artificial selection; it can be demonstrated that not only do such changes accumulate and serve to permanently alter the phenotype of the species and it's descendents; macro-evolution is evidenced in both the successive fossil progression cross confirmed with chronological dating and detailed genome analysis between species including conserved proteins, full genome analysis, and ERV pattern sequencing.

IE: We can positively show that it MUST happen; every piece of evidence about the past shows it HAS happened, and even explains a good deal of HOW it happened in terms of detailed species trees.

Given this, to say it can't happen, is merely wishful thinking; and a position that is directly controverted by every experiment, test or piece of evidence that could show your position is valid.

But when a chicken, for example, speciates, its offspring are still chickens; that's not what I'm looking for. What is actually needed to prove evolution is actual macroevolution between kinds, such as a bear turning into a giraffe.
:) nac
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:30:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:24:48 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:40:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:29:54 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM, Carcharus wrote:
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.

But what about macroevolution? No evolutionist can ever produce evidence of macroevolution occurring, as evolution is simply false. Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution.

When comparing any an organism to every single living organism, and evidenced extinct organism, there isn't really any point, difference or change that appears more significant than any of the ones before. Indeed, if you compare humans to homonoid fossils, then great apes, then apes, then monkeys, then primates (including basal fossil primates) then colugos, then Tree shrews, then rodents and lagomorphs, there isn't really any significant point at which comparative taxonomy indicative of the successive inheritance of acquired traits combined with gradual divergence and independent acquisition of new traits (IE: Descent with modification).

Because of that, you can't really draw ANY line based on taxonomy (or genetics) where one type of thing becomes fundamentally another kind of thing.

The only exception to this, the only place where any form of line can ever be drawn that fundamentally separates one species from any other is reproductive isolation, as it is the only objectively determinable difference that does not have to be arbitrarily defined.

As a result, this is the ONLY place where you can define the position where Micro Evolution becomes Macro-Evolution, and we have seen it crossed innumerable times.


Mutations occur, and they demonstrably accumulate.

Moreover, phenotypical changes (what a creature looks like) are based on embryological development; there is no blue print here, simply a set of chemical signals that control how and when cells divide and differentiate.

This mechanism can demonstrably be altered in DNA and can continue to be so by successive regulatory changes one on top of the other, as DNA has no memory; it is not possible for these mutations NOT accumulate given any examination or determination that can be made from any aspect of DNA.

Not only that, with the existence of both innumerable transitional forms, the evidence from hybridization and artificial selection; it can be demonstrated that not only do such changes accumulate and serve to permanently alter the phenotype of the species and it's descendents; macro-evolution is evidenced in both the successive fossil progression cross confirmed with chronological dating and detailed genome analysis between species including conserved proteins, full genome analysis, and ERV pattern sequencing.

IE: We can positively show that it MUST happen; every piece of evidence about the past shows it HAS happened, and even explains a good deal of HOW it happened in terms of detailed species trees.

Given this, to say it can't happen, is merely wishful thinking; and a position that is directly controverted by every experiment, test or piece of evidence that could show your position is valid.

But when a chicken, for example, speciates, its offspring are still chickens; that's not what I'm looking for. What is actually needed to prove evolution is actual macroevolution between kinds, such as a bear turning into a giraffe.

Then what you're looking for is not evolution. Most likely because you don't understand what evolution can and can't produce. If a bear turned into a giraffe, it would disprove evolution.

Either way this is fundamentally changing the subject, my main point contends your claim:

"Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution."

It's not a false claim, it is empirically verifiable by any means of evidence that you can acquire. Indeed, every single piece of understanding we have about how mutations occur and how they accumulate tells us unequivocally that changes accumulate indefinitely.

So it doesn't matter what I can or can't produce; we know it happens anyway. And the claim that it can't has already been thoroughly invalidated for the reasons I have listed above.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 5:03:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Materialists and atheists have long promoted evolutionism as the secular way of explaining how life came from non-life,

Not true. Evolution only shows how life evolved from an original life form.

which is, according to their literature, through random chance.

The main director of evolution is natural selection not random chance.

Evolution states that we are all results of a cosmic coincidence that happened to create mono-cellular organisms,

That is abiogenesis which discusses the origin of life not the theory of evolution.

which, through a secular miracle, transformed into apes which then became humans.

According to evolution that happened through natural selection and mutations not through randomness or miracles.

you cannot turn something simple into a complex system without the existence of an intelligence;

Why do you say that? Evolution claims that natural selection and mutations can do this.

the second law of thermodynamics precludes it from being the case.

It precludes it from being the case in a closed system. Our planet is receiving energy from the sun which means energy is flowing in overpowering the degrading that naturally happens.

For something to be considered science, it must be provable through repeatable experiments.

Not true. Experiments are only a tool for demonstration not the only tool. Theories make falsifiable predictions and we can test to see if these predictions are true through experiments or through exploring nature, doing surveys, etc. Science has many ways of testing theories than just in the lab. Black holes cannot be created in experiments or observed yet there is strong prediction testing evidence for them existing.

Atheists seem to make an exception for evolution, which is difficult to prove through experiments or observation; evolution, they say, happens over millions of years, conveniently making it impossible to observe it.

They say this because every degrading isotope says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We even have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years. We have star light from stars millions of light-years away, meaning that for the light to get to us, they would have had to travel for millions of years.

Materialists cannot produce any examples of macroevolution happening in the lab, as it simply doesn't exist.

Macroevolution takes millions of years. Of course it can't be done in the lab. However we can see what falsifiable predictions the theory of evolution makes and see if they are verified.

If you were to ask an evolutionist to provide an example of a rat evolving into a chicken, they wouldn't be able to; evolution is a falsehood.

Rats did not evolve into chickens. Rats and chickens evolved from reptiles independently.

That kind of evolution does not happen quickly. Human evolution was actually very fast and that took 6 million years. Other instances of major evolution took tens of millions of years at least. Most species barely evolve at all and eventually go extinct.

If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found,

We have thousands of transitional fossils for human evolution we even have some of their DNA. We have transitional fossils for fish to land animals, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, land animals to whales, evolution of horses, and much more.

and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes.

Every area of science has some hoaxes. By your logic them we can't trust any science at all. Hoaxes are rare because scientific work requires convincing evidence, peer review, and independent testing.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 4:48:04 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:30:14 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/19/2016 2:24:48 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:40:03 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:29:54 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 4:41:03 PM, Carcharus wrote:
The original post is entirely false. The issue of evolution is decided by consensus in scientific research. I suggest you read some peer-reviewed research on evolutionary mechanisms, e.g. selection, and then make your decision on the reality of biological evolution. I would like to note that the term 'biological evolution' has varied definitions. The form known as 'micro-evolution' has been fully documented in studies of live organisms.

But what about macroevolution? No evolutionist can ever produce evidence of macroevolution occurring, as evolution is simply false. Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution.

When comparing any an organism to every single living organism, and evidenced extinct organism, there isn't really any point, difference or change that appears more significant than any of the ones before. Indeed, if you compare humans to homonoid fossils, then great apes, then apes, then monkeys, then primates (including basal fossil primates) then colugos, then Tree shrews, then rodents and lagomorphs, there isn't really any significant point at which comparative taxonomy indicative of the successive inheritance of acquired traits combined with gradual divergence and independent acquisition of new traits (IE: Descent with modification).

Because of that, you can't really draw ANY line based on taxonomy (or genetics) where one type of thing becomes fundamentally another kind of thing.

The only exception to this, the only place where any form of line can ever be drawn that fundamentally separates one species from any other is reproductive isolation, as it is the only objectively determinable difference that does not have to be arbitrarily defined.

As a result, this is the ONLY place where you can define the position where Micro Evolution becomes Macro-Evolution, and we have seen it crossed innumerable times.


Mutations occur, and they demonstrably accumulate.

Moreover, phenotypical changes (what a creature looks like) are based on embryological development; there is no blue print here, simply a set of chemical signals that control how and when cells divide and differentiate.

This mechanism can demonstrably be altered in DNA and can continue to be so by successive regulatory changes one on top of the other, as DNA has no memory; it is not possible for these mutations NOT accumulate given any examination or determination that can be made from any aspect of DNA.

Not only that, with the existence of both innumerable transitional forms, the evidence from hybridization and artificial selection; it can be demonstrated that not only do such changes accumulate and serve to permanently alter the phenotype of the species and it's descendents; macro-evolution is evidenced in both the successive fossil progression cross confirmed with chronological dating and detailed genome analysis between species including conserved proteins, full genome analysis, and ERV pattern sequencing.

IE: We can positively show that it MUST happen; every piece of evidence about the past shows it HAS happened, and even explains a good deal of HOW it happened in terms of detailed species trees.

Given this, to say it can't happen, is merely wishful thinking; and a position that is directly controverted by every experiment, test or piece of evidence that could show your position is valid.

But when a chicken, for example, speciates, its offspring are still chickens; that's not what I'm looking for. What is actually needed to prove evolution is actual macroevolution between kinds, such as a bear turning into a giraffe.

Then what you're looking for is not evolution. Most likely because you don't understand what evolution can and can't produce. If a bear turned into a giraffe, it would disprove evolution.

Either way this is fundamentally changing the subject, my main point contends your claim:

"Despite this, they still insist that macroevolution is true by falsely claiming that microevolution builds up into macroevolution."

It's not a false claim, it is empirically verifiable by any means of evidence that you can acquire. Indeed, every single piece of understanding we have about how mutations occur and how they accumulate tells us unequivocally that changes accumulate indefinitely.

So it doesn't matter what I can or can't produce; we know it happens anyway. And the claim that it can't has already been thoroughly invalidated for the reasons I have listed above.

Evolution is a religion. Believing in it requires a lot of faith. Evolution isn't science.
:) nac
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:56:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 4:01:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/16/2016 3:16:38 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 1/15/2016 9:48:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2016 5:04:17 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
If evolution were true, then we should see transitional fossils littered all over the place, documenting every single step in the "march of progress", whose graphical depictions are plastered all over classroom walls by evolutionists. In reality, however, no such transitional fossils can be found, and many alleged examples of transitional fossils, such as the Piltdown man, have been exposed as hoaxes. The evolutionist's narrative of how the world came to be is built upon thin air--the evidence that should be there does not exist.

There are HUNDREDS of examples of transitional forms.

There are dozens of hominid species, for example that show a clear progression of changes from something that is closer to typical apes, all the way to modern man.

Indeed, with hominid fossils, there are so many transitional forms, it's difficult to fully classify whether some new finds are a part of one existing documented species or another.

Obviously, Creationists cannot possibly countenance the existence of such finds, so normally rely on dismissing them on the most tenuous grounds as "100% ape" or "100% human". Hilariously, many creationists have come to differing conclusions as to whether they a particular find is 100% human, or 100% ape, and some have even changed their mind. Doesn't that tell you something? That you have a species that could be viewed either as a human or an ape? Isn't that one of the types of transitional fossils?


Human evolution is relatively recent, however we can provide exactly the same level of transition in many other lineages too; we can show a clear progression of species in cetaceans, a clear march from land to fully sea dwelling. It is similar for Sirenians, and most famously of horses.

There are many examples of intermediates between birds and dinosaurs; even if you apply the most stringent criteria. Archaeopteryx has a bird form, with wings, but has distinctly dinosaurian features, like teeth, and unfused wing bones. It's so obviously a transition that when found without obvious wings, and feathers, it's very easy to misclassify as a member of the raptor family of dinosaur.

With living and extinct mammal forms, again, we see a clear progression in therapsids, the division where you have mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals; with species showing a clear progression of mammalian features like the ear changing from how they are in reptiles in steps, to how they currently are in modern mammals.

Miacids, Vivarrids, in the Carnivora clade, combined with two separate distinct types of dog like bears (one more related to bears, and one more related to dogs), provide clear transitions in this case too.

Between land and see, we have boney fish with swim bladders, fish with swim bladder like lungs, fish with more lung like lungs; and obvious transitions between lobe finned fish (many of which obviously appear to be closer to amphibians than the most unrelated fish), and primitive tetrapods of Tiktalik and the more land dwelling stegacephalians.

We have transitions between basal reptiles and snakes, showing loss of arms (hell, we have skinks, which are already half way there),

This is just a handful of the hundreds of clearly transitional forms that are in existence, not to mention the plethora of other forms showing indicative taxonomy at different times in life, also showing a clear progression in forms between what was there before and what was present after whilst not evidentially directly transitional.


There are three examples of "Hoaxes" that are generally mentioned, out of the vast array of transitional forms.

Piltdown man was controversial but initially accepted before tests by scientists demonstrated it was fraudulent, and it was rejected.

Nebraska man was never accepted by the scientific community with reconstructions from popular press, not scientists, at the time being criticized by the very man who discovered it as being too much.

The Micro-raptor mosaic find was discovered to be a fraud in peer review, and was never an accepted transition; and was overhyped by non peer reviewed media who jumped the gun; even though what you don't realize is that part of the fossil mosaic which was one specimen did actually turn out to be transitional!

So, no, in this regard, you are wrong on every last count. There are hundreds of transitional forms. The fossil record while still incomplete, is richer and more significant than any creationist ever dares acknowledge and clearly demonstrates exactly the same sort of march of progress that you deny here out of hand; and the examples of fraud are oversold and misrepresented, and so infrequent as to be dishonest to portray them.

What about the crocoduck? Does that exist?

How about a platypus?

"The platypus is among nature's most unlikely animals. In fact, the first scientists to examine a specimen believed they were the victims of a hoax. The animal is best described as a hodgepodge of more familiar species: the duck (bill and webbed feet), beaver (tail), and otter (body and fur). Males are also venomous. They have sharp stingers on the heels of their rear feet and can use them to deliver a strong toxic blow to any foe."

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...

Don't even get me started on that satanic egg laying mammal son of a b*tch.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12