Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution failures

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 9:34:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

Good start, falsely equivocating science and religion.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

How is that an evolution failure?

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

How is that an evolution failure?

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

How are they evolution failures rather than failures of fallible human beings?

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

It's called human nature. It's probably for the same reason that we don't see as big a press release on disproved diets as we do when they are supposedly the next big thing.

What does this have to do with the title of the thread?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:08:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What cave have you been living? Those hoaxes were exposed by scientists, didn't you know that? Where have you been hiding?

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

What disproved finds? Anything that has been shown to be a hoax is done so as a result of scientific investigation.

Seriously, come out from hiding from the world.
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
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:24:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

This sort of "fraud" you speak of is a distraction for people vested in disproving something. The frauds are found and outed by the very scientists and scientific methods you detest so much.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:37:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

There are 100s of transitional forms, and up to 250,000 fossil species ranging across all geological time.

Out of these forms, I know of a total of 0 that are known only from a tooth, or a few bones; there are some tentative finds comprised of a few bones, or a skull that are tentatively viewed pending more finds, and have survived peer review. The overwhelming majority are complete, or mostly complete; with transitional traits clearly defined and obvious.

In terms of "scientific fraud" I know of no example where the science was fraudulent, one example where the find was mostly accepted, and turned out to be false, a few examples of where a scientist thought a find was something, and it never gained acceptance or passed any form of scientific review (which is why they're there), and no examples where a find was thought to have some significance and ended up being completely different, though I expect there could be one or two. There are several examples of where finds upset what we had previously thought, or a species thought to be significant was actually less significant.

Importantly, out of the hundreds of thousands of finds, only a fraction of a sliver of a subset of a tiny percentage meet even close to the criteria you seem to be implying of all finds.

Your statements are wrong, and are propagated by creationist websites who are simply lying about either reality, the context or the detail about these examples in order to convince fools who view them as authoratitive.

What is funnier is on the one hand they claim that scientists continually change their mind, refine their ideas, and change our understanding through continuous testing; and then on the other claim that scientists neither test, nor challenge their own preconceived notions. You can't have it both ways.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:48:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

The OP did not characterize scientific certainty like this. He implied that scientific certainty arises from single discoveries are instantly proclaimed to prove a theory beyond all doubt.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:28:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:48:30 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

The OP did not characterize scientific certainty like this. He implied that scientific certainty arises from single discoveries are instantly proclaimed to prove a theory beyond all doubt.

"and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'"

Sounds like he was.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 12:10:01 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

No, it isn't. A layman might say a theory is proven but a professional scientist never would. They would say "my find confirms the theory" or "this fossil is more evidence for the theory". He is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientists have said when making these discoveries or he is simply ignorant on the matter (as I stated).
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 2:15:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

Lmao. Proof of the theory of evolution.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

Link?

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

Watch a documentary of it, its really cool. And its a complex process, but it is all very explained. They don't find a toe bone, they might find a thigh bone or something. Check it out, its really cool
http://www.bbc.com...

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

Who the hell are these?

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

Disproved finds? There aren't really any disproved finds, unless you could link a couple
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 3:53:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land.

The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

When did this happen? Any source? When did scientists find a single toe, and wrongly come to a consensus as to what the whole body looked like? This sounds like some kind of hypothetical situation you pulled out of your a** to demonize experienced dinosaur scientists and pretend like you are somehow smarter than these teams of researchers with PhDs with decades of work experience.

The Piltdown man

That was discovered over 100 years ago. The scientific community was in its infancy, and it was the evolutionist scientists not creationists who refuted it 40 years later when new methods for testing fossils came out. Back then it was much easier to forge fossils with the primitive verification technology.

And you have only one example. Every field has its share of forgeries. Just because one doctor is a fraud does not mean you try to treat yourself because you can't trust em lyin doctors.

the Mungo man and woman

The Mungo man is a 60,000 year old human with a full set of bones. How is that a fraud?

and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

The java man came from a leg bone and the top of the skull and is thought to be a homo erectus. By the way we have found hundreds of homo erectus specimens many of them very complete. From the thigh bone we could tell the specimen was about 5' 8' and has a cranial capacity of 900 cc. Humans are between 1100 and 1600 cc so its brain size was suspiciously small and that is why we think it was not human. Apes max out at 400 cc so it is probably not an ape.

It is in layers that are dated in the homo erectus era and its brain size fits it being homo erectus, but who knows exactly which hominid species it is? Plus it does not even matter because there are so many other specimens that are far more complete.

When it first came out most evolutionist scientists thought it was just an ape and it wasn't until later that it is believed to most likely to be a hominid. It can be hard to classify incomplete fossils as you can tell.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

Actually the Piltdown man is a very famous example of something that was disproved and a lot of people know about it. However it was disproved 60 years ago which is old news. The others you mentioned aren't even disproved as I have shown.

It is like you found all these examples off of some shoddy creationist website and claim they are evidence that the experienced professionals are all fools and these internet creationist are scientific geniuses without degrees or any actual experience whatsoever. Did you even try to google them and learn the whole story? It took me like 5 minutes to find the truth about them.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 3:56:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 12:10:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

No, it isn't. A layman might say a theory is proven but a professional scientist never would. They would say "my find confirms the theory" or "this fossil is more evidence for the theory". He is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientists have said when making these discoveries or he is simply ignorant on the matter (as I stated).

OP stated that evolutionists were claiming proof, not scientists. Many evolutionists are layman.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:09:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 3:56:10 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:10:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

No, it isn't. A layman might say a theory is proven but a professional scientist never would. They would say "my find confirms the theory" or "this fossil is more evidence for the theory". He is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientists have said when making these discoveries or he is simply ignorant on the matter (as I stated).

OP stated that evolutionists were claiming proof, not scientists. Many evolutionists are layman.

Fair point, although I doubt he could produce much evidence of that either. And what does it matter what laymen might say anyway? Why should it concern him when his thread title is "Evolution failures"? Do you report on what laymen say about scientific discoveries when trying to discredit those discoveries? No, he meant evolutionary scientists when he used the term 'evolutionists'.

Do you also agree with his categorization that evolutionists regard evolutionary theory as their 'religion' or was this deliberate provocation? What do you think?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 3:16:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 4:09:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/17/2016 3:56:10 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:10:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

No, it isn't. A layman might say a theory is proven but a professional scientist never would. They would say "my find confirms the theory" or "this fossil is more evidence for the theory". He is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientists have said when making these discoveries or he is simply ignorant on the matter (as I stated).

OP stated that evolutionists were claiming proof, not scientists. Many evolutionists are layman.

Fair point, although I doubt he could produce much evidence of that either. And what does it matter what laymen might say anyway? Why should it concern him when his thread title is "Evolution failures"? Do you report on what laymen say about scientific discoveries when trying to discredit those discoveries? No, he meant evolutionary scientists when he used the term 'evolutionists'.

I am guessing a majority of users on this forum are laymen. He is talking to evolutionists on this forum, so I don't see why he would be exclusively referring to evolutionary scientists.

Also, when people criticize religion, do they only focus on what theologians say? No, they criticize religious beliefs held by all people.


Do you also agree with his categorization that evolutionists regard evolutionary theory as their 'religion' or was this deliberate provocation? What do you think?

Some probably do, and some probably don't.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 12:05:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 3:16:45 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:09:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/17/2016 3:56:10 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 12:10:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:51:41 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 11:18:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

As soon as you proclaim that a scientist has put forward definite proof of a scientific theory you demonstrate your ignorance. Scientific theories are never "proved". Anyone even slightly science literate would know that.

Although science doesn't claim anything is proven with 100% certainty, science does claim things to be accurate with certain degrees of accuracy, sometimes with probabilities so high that in normal conversations can be referred to as 'proven'. So what he said is fine.

No, it isn't. A layman might say a theory is proven but a professional scientist never would. They would say "my find confirms the theory" or "this fossil is more evidence for the theory". He is either deliberately misrepresenting what scientists have said when making these discoveries or he is simply ignorant on the matter (as I stated).

OP stated that evolutionists were claiming proof, not scientists. Many evolutionists are layman.

Fair point, although I doubt he could produce much evidence of that either. And what does it matter what laymen might say anyway? Why should it concern him when his thread title is "Evolution failures"? Do you report on what laymen say about scientific discoveries when trying to discredit those discoveries? No, he meant evolutionary scientists when he used the term 'evolutionists'.

I am guessing a majority of users on this forum are laymen. He is talking to evolutionists on this forum, so I don't see why he would be exclusively referring to evolutionary scientists.

You miss the point. If he was talking to evolutionists in this forum (without a single citation or example) then how is that an evolution failure as per his thread title?

Also, when people criticize religion, do they only focus on what theologians say? No, they criticize religious beliefs held by all people.

We aren't talking about beliefs. He specifically referred to scientific discoveries made by scientists. With religious beliefs anyone can hold a view. With scientific evidence, if you are trying to criticize it by saying it is a failure for evolution, you don't do it by vague assertions about what the average Joe might think.

Do you also agree with his categorization that evolutionists regard evolutionary theory as their 'religion' or was this deliberate provocation? What do you think?

Some probably do, and some probably don't.

Yeah, right. I think we have picked up on how much you value intellectual honesty.
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 1:06:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 4:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

This sort of "fraud" you speak of is a distraction for people vested in disproving something. The frauds are found and outed by the very scientists and scientific methods you detest so much.

They are also perpetrated and defended by the same people. Pilt down man was not a mistake. It was a deliberate hoax by the scientific community. There were others too.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 2:07:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 1:06:54 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

This sort of "fraud" you speak of is a distraction for people vested in disproving something. The frauds are found and outed by the very scientists and scientific methods you detest so much.

They are also perpetrated and defended by the same people. Pilt down man was not a mistake. It was a deliberate hoax by the scientific community. There were others too.

Piltdown man was "found" by an amateur. He had other "finds" and some in the scientific community were skeptical from the start. They, when it was possible, showed the fraud.

Just don't see an issue with this. As a matter of fact, it points to the opposite for me. The willingness to look honestly and show (with real proof) that something was wrong with it.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 2:53:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 1:06:54 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

This sort of "fraud" you speak of is a distraction for people vested in disproving something. The frauds are found and outed by the very scientists and scientific methods you detest so much.

They are also perpetrated and defended by the same people. Pilt down man was not a mistake. It was a deliberate hoax by the scientific community. There were others too.

No, it was a Hoax by a man named Charles Dawson, and he fooled the scientists since technology was pretty primitive over 100 years ago. When technology advanced evolutionist scientists tested their fossils and found that the piltdown man was a fraud.Claiming it was a fraud by the scientific community is a complete lie.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:04:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.

Not really.

Well, I guess you could say that if you ignored all the key aspects that elucidate the transition, the transitional traits, were not interested in the real facts or fundamental concepts that you can't spin to agree with you. You know, the parts that Creationists consistently and purposefully misrepresent in order to give their position more credence.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:43:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 3:04:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.

Not really.

Well, I guess you could say that if you ignored all the key aspects that elucidate the transition, the transitional traits, were not interested in the real facts or fundamental concepts that you can't spin to agree with you. You know, the parts that Creationists consistently and purposefully misrepresent in order to give their position more credence.

I would be interested to know what sea animal whales are supposed to be descended from if they did not come from a land animal. And so on down the line. Since they are indisputably a mammal, giving birth to live young which they then provide milk to via mammary glands, this exact same strategy for a womb, gestation and the suckling of young must have arisen independently entirely in the sea. A miracle!

Not to mention the vestigial bones which are the only remaining legacy of hind legs (the front legs became flippers). I wonder what purpose those bones have?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 3:52:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 1:06:54 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 3/16/2016 4:24:31 PM, TBR wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

This sort of "fraud" you speak of is a distraction for people vested in disproving something. The frauds are found and outed by the very scientists and scientific methods you detest so much.

They are also perpetrated and defended by the same people. Pilt down man was not a mistake. It was a deliberate hoax by the scientific community. There were others too.

You do realize this is a flagrant, flagrant lie.

It was a hoax by one person to try and convince scientists.

It was contentious at the time, with many people unconvinced; and DECADES before it was exposed as a hoax, enough alternative evidence came to light that cast more and more doubt on this as a missing link to the point it was relegated to an evolutionary aberration inconsistent with other evolutionary evidence of hominid evolution.

More importantly, it (and other examples of forgeries that have never been rejected during peer review) was exposed as a fraud by the same scientific community that you seem to be complain are easily convinced of forgeries.

Should you not be actually commending science on being able to detect and correct inaccurate positions, and constantly testing their conclusions to expose forgery, fraud and bad evidence?

Even worse, what you're failing to notice; is that occasional fraud occurs in almost every avenue of human pursuit.

The implication that because science has detected forged evidence, that every one of the hundreds of thousands of fossil finds are fraudulent, and that every member of the scientific community that has been engaged in pursuing evolution based research is part of a compelling inter-disciplinary conspiracy to lie about, conceal and misrepresent evidence in order to discredit young earth creationism is the most ridiculous example of insane tin-foil-hattery one could conjure up.

And lets be clear, if there is a conspiracy, it's not atheism, because the majority of "Evolutionists" are religious, even in the U.S.

What makes this position even more profoundly insane, is that it can be easily shown that Creationists, Creationist websites and Creationist organizations and every group perpetuating this implication that almost every scientist is either dishonest, or mistaken; are the only ones who can be demonstrably shown to repeatedly lie, misrepresent, distort and otherwise dishonestly portray the facts.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 4:06:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 3:43:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:04:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.

Not really.

Well, I guess you could say that if you ignored all the key aspects that elucidate the transition, the transitional traits, were not interested in the real facts or fundamental concepts that you can't spin to agree with you. You know, the parts that Creationists consistently and purposefully misrepresent in order to give their position more credence.

I would be interested to know what sea animal whales are supposed to be descended from if they did not come from a land animal. And so on down the line. Since they are indisputably a mammal, giving birth to live young which they then provide milk to via mammary glands, this exact same strategy for a womb, gestation and the suckling of young must have arisen independently entirely in the sea. A miracle!

Not to mention the vestigial bones which are the only remaining legacy of hind legs (the front legs became flippers). I wonder what purpose those bones have?

While the statement will be vehemently opposed; primarily because it's exactly what these people believe no matter how much they avoid and dance around explicitly saying it:

Magic.

The whale was conjured up magically out of thin air through a verbal incantation from God.

Lets face it, ID proponents do not believe in alien genetic engineering, they do not believe in time traveling humans seeding life, they do not generally believe in long term, long scale evolution from a pre-cursor life form that was planted on the earth by other corporeal beings, or intelligences.

They believe a divine entity, who they can't show exists, at a time they are not sure of, operated on the earth in a way they can't explain in order to create a series of life forms, with no discernible or rationally understandable goal, with genetics, taxonomic and embryological patterns that neither make any sense, nor are consistent with the way any designer would be reasonably expected to operate; and just so happened to create life with intricate, specific and low level patterns permeating through every aspect of physical evidence that are arranged in the only consistent way that the processes of evolution we discover could create them, with any one of them not being true blowing a hole in evolution as we know it.... All so he could create humans that believe that they none of the physical evidence is actually true, and it was all done through magic!

And yet seem to think that we're the ones that are deluded!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 5:36:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 3:04:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.

Not really.

Well, I guess you could say that if you ignored all the key aspects that elucidate the transition, the transitional traits, were not interested in the real facts or fundamental concepts that you can't spin to agree with you. You know, the parts that Creationists consistently and purposefully misrepresent in order to give their position more credence.

I guess if I was inclined to take no genetic containing fossil skeleton toe bones, forget that body plans are adaptations to environmental niches, and image a dog tail becoming a whale flute with no bone evidence then I could accept the proposed evolution of baleen whales from meat eating hyenas.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 5:55:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 5:36:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:04:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.

Not really.

Well, I guess you could say that if you ignored all the key aspects that elucidate the transition, the transitional traits, were not interested in the real facts or fundamental concepts that you can't spin to agree with you. You know, the parts that Creationists consistently and purposefully misrepresent in order to give their position more credence.

I guess if I was inclined to take no genetic containing fossil skeleton toe bones, forget that body plans are adaptations to environmental niches, and image a dog tail becoming a whale flute with no bone evidence then I could accept the proposed evolution of baleen whales from meat eating hyenas.

Except none of those things are really critical, instrumental or required to the flow of whale evolution as it has been established and presenting them as if these are the things upon which whale evolution was based is dishonest, and body plans being adaptations to environmental niches is not particularly contrary to whale evolution. Of course, you also have to ignore things like fossils with the sequential migration of nose to blow hole; sure you could be right.

The lack of critical thinking and willingness to misrepresent the data is pretty staggering from these sorts of arguments, really.

But hey, why should you have to acknowledge the significant compelling arguments in the taxonomic progression of whale evolution when you can focus on one specific peice that you dislike and use it to imply the bits evolution progression is actually based are all wrong too for no discernible reason.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 6:39:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/18/2016 4:06:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:43:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 3/18/2016 3:04:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/17/2016 4:18:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/16/2016 8:21:34 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Every so often we hear about great new breakthroughs in Evolution. It becomes the excitement of the month, and you will get evolutionists claiming that this or that is definite proof of their 'religion'.

There have been quite a number of these flavours of the month that have turned up as hoaxes, or misinterpretation of the facts.

One of the things that always amazes me is the drawing of a fully fledged dinosaur taken from the splinter of a little toe found in the desert of some far flung land. The artist will include the head, the teeth, usually in a open mouthed, look at me, pose, the colour of the eyes, the height and every little detail of the "Find".

I would imagine that serious evolutionists would be able to find artists that would draw several different depictions of a dinosaur from the same bone splinter.

The Piltdown man, the Mungo man and woman and the Java man are just a few that are very suspicious, or more, disproved "finds" for the missing link.

What others are there, and why don't we see as big a press release on the disproved 'finds' as we do when they are supposedly discovered?

The evolution of whales from a land animal is more artistic license than evidence.

Not really.

Well, I guess you could say that if you ignored all the key aspects that elucidate the transition, the transitional traits, were not interested in the real facts or fundamental concepts that you can't spin to agree with you. You know, the parts that Creationists consistently and purposefully misrepresent in order to give their position more credence.

I would be interested to know what sea animal whales are supposed to be descended from if they did not come from a land animal. And so on down the line. Since they are indisputably a mammal, giving birth to live young which they then provide milk to via mammary glands, this exact same strategy for a womb, gestation and the suckling of young must have arisen independently entirely in the sea. A miracle!

Not to mention the vestigial bones which are the only remaining legacy of hind legs (the front legs became flippers). I wonder what purpose those bones have?

While the statement will be vehemently opposed; primarily because it's exactly what these people believe no matter how much they avoid and dance around explicitly saying it:

Magic.

The whale was conjured up magically out of thin air through a verbal incantation from God.

Lets face it, ID proponents do not believe in alien genetic engineering, they do not believe in time traveling humans seeding life, they do not generally believe in long term, long scale evolution from a pre-cursor life form that was planted on the earth by other corporeal beings, or intelligences.

They believe a divine entity, who they can't show exists, at a time they are not sure of, operated on the earth in a way they can't explain in order to create a series of life forms, with no discernible or rationally understandable goal, with genetics, taxonomic and embryological patterns that neither make any sense, nor are consistent with the way any designer would be reasonably expected to operate; and just so happened to create life with intricate, specific and low level patterns permeating through every aspect of physical evidence that are arranged in the only consistent way that the processes of evolution we discover could create them, with any one of them not being true blowing a hole in evolution as we know it.... All so he could create humans that believe that they none of the physical evidence is actually true, and it was all done through magic!

And yet seem to think that we're the ones that are deluded!

I've seen the drawings and fossils. So only whales have nostrils high on their foreheads?

Rodhocetus was first said to have a fluke, then a powerful tale that moved it through water. Now it is said to dog paddle with webbed feet.

From the onset of it's descovery this alligator nich meat eating toothed animal was called an early whale. And pidgeon holed to be so.

If you look at the actual fossil evidence you see a huge leap from rodhocetus to whales and dolphins. A leap that to me appears more imaginitive than evidenced.

Taxonomy, body form comes from body function to survive in an enviroment. A raised nostril a blow hole it does not make.

I accept evolution. This is just a case that is a wild stretch
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 3:48:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 5:37:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

There are 100s of transitional forms, and up to 250,000 fossil species ranging across all geological time.

There are no credible transitional forms for any of the Cambrian animals like Anomalocaris, Opabenia, Trilobyte, Hallucigenia etc, if there were then paleontologists would not describe their presence as the "Cambrian explosion" yet they do use this term.

There must have been hundreds of thousands of generations of creatures preceding these complex and varied beasts, each generation differing imperceptibly from its preceding generation, a smooth gradation from simple single celled life to these huge complex shelled creatures.

Yet there is no evidence of such ancestors, not anywhere. The fossils we do find are also the same form everywhere we find them anywhere on earth. Surely if they evolved as claimed we'd see differing examples, snapshotted at differing time in different parts of the earth but we don't see this randomness at all.

Of course Darwinists ocassionally propose this or that find as being examples of some transitional but their scarcity is so low that it cannot serve as evidence of gradual evolution.

Far too many people uncritically accept the claims of evolutionists even in cases like the Cambrian where far fetched is an under statement!

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 4:49:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 3:48:34 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/16/2016 5:37:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

There are 100s of transitional forms, and up to 250,000 fossil species ranging across all geological time.

There are no credible transitional forms for any of the Cambrian animals like Anomalocaris, Opabenia, Trilobyte, Hallucigenia etc, if there were then paleontologists would not describe their presence as the "Cambrian explosion" yet they do use this term.

There must have been hundreds of thousands of generations of creatures preceding these complex and varied beasts, each generation differing imperceptibly from its preceding generation, a smooth gradation from simple single celled life to these huge complex shelled creatures.

Yet there is no evidence of such ancestors, not anywhere. The fossils we do find are also the same form everywhere we find them anywhere on earth. Surely if they evolved as claimed we'd see differing examples, snapshotted at differing time in different parts of the earth but we don't see this randomness at all.

Of course Darwinists ocassionally propose this or that find as being examples of some transitional but their scarcity is so low that it cannot serve as evidence of gradual evolution.

Far too many people uncritically accept the claims of evolutionists even in cases like the Cambrian where far fetched is an under statement!

Harry.

You sound just like a bible thumping creationist, Harry, yet you're doing it in the Science forum. Having trouble understanding the Cambrian period, Harry? There's plenty of papers on it, why not read some good peer-reviewed papers... oops, sorry, Harry, I forgot you don't trust the peer-review process.

And, we call them scientists or biologists, Harry, not evolutionists.
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
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 5:44:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 4:49:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/19/2016 3:48:34 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/16/2016 5:37:03 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

There are 100s of transitional forms, and up to 250,000 fossil species ranging across all geological time.

There are no credible transitional forms for any of the Cambrian animals like Anomalocaris, Opabenia, Trilobyte, Hallucigenia etc, if there were then paleontologists would not describe their presence as the "Cambrian explosion" yet they do use this term.

There must have been hundreds of thousands of generations of creatures preceding these complex and varied beasts, each generation differing imperceptibly from its preceding generation, a smooth gradation from simple single celled life to these huge complex shelled creatures.

Yet there is no evidence of such ancestors, not anywhere. The fossils we do find are also the same form everywhere we find them anywhere on earth. Surely if they evolved as claimed we'd see differing examples, snapshotted at differing time in different parts of the earth but we don't see this randomness at all.

Of course Darwinists ocassionally propose this or that find as being examples of some transitional but their scarcity is so low that it cannot serve as evidence of gradual evolution.

Far too many people uncritically accept the claims of evolutionists even in cases like the Cambrian where far fetched is an under statement!

Harry.

You sound just like a bible thumping creationist, Harry, yet you're doing it in the Science forum. Having trouble understanding the Cambrian period, Harry? There's plenty of papers on it, why not read some good peer-reviewed papers... oops, sorry, Harry, I forgot you don't trust the peer-review process.

And, we call them scientists or biologists, Harry, not evolutionists.

Anyone who questions the far fetched claims of evolution sounds like a "bible thumping creationist" to you because you're unable to differentiate legitimate criticism of dogma from fanaticism, such is your narrow mindedness.

I refuse to believe without some rational reason like material evidence in the case of scientific claims. If I cannot see sufficient evidence to reasonably justify some claim then I'm going to withhold belief, I believe many atheists also claim to adopt this policy.

You believe whatever makes you feel good Dummel, I'll rely in rationality thanks.

Harry.