Dr. Dino

It does NOT show they hav are transitional! They could be something that's extinct or a whatever! Good grief, other animals that even evolutionists don't say are related to humans have features similar to ours!

I will call Evolution a lie as long as I live. Whether or not you think it's your being called a liar is up to you. Immature arrogance is saying YEC's are damaging our faith, when it's a FACT it's just the opposite.

Karl, while you will NOT get a serious adult debate, remember the damage Dutchunter does to the cause of YEC'ism with each post. That alone is worth it. Think of all the lurkers who come in here (usually outnumbering the members), reading through these threads. They see the arguments made by the YEC's like this one, both in tone and substance, compared to the tone and substance of the non-YEC presentations and there are only a couple of possibilities:

1. If they are not yet sure of which view of origins is correct, they will be quickly steered away from YEC'ism.

2. If they are already YEC's, they will be mightily embarassed by their representative and may even doubt they are on the right side.

Gee Vance.....I was the one who came here and first started asking for evidence. That didn't happen.

Here's your mirror again..............

You don't get it, do you?

This is how science works.

Hypothesis -> Prediction (null hypothesis)

The null hypothesis is that result or observation that proves the hypothesis is false.

You look for the null hypothesis. If you find it, you reject or modify your hypothesis. This is called falsification.

When a particular hypothesis gains a strong corpus of observation and result that does not falsify it, it becomes a theory.

Now.

My hypothesis is that the intermediate skulls are just that - intermediates. I cannot prove that they are, but what I can do is devise potential falsifications and test them.

Potential falsification - skulls from wrong geographical region - nope, they're from Africa where the hypothesis expects

-skulls from wrong time period - nope, exactly the right age.

And so on. This is how we test the theory. It passes the tests. Coupled with the other evidence here http://christianforums.com/t40560 for example, you can see it's a whole load more than "lies and wishful thinking" - unless you're really suggesting scientists falsify that DNA analysis?

__________________
I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race
Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face
I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed
But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead

I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears
I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun

Flexibility. Since you can't prove it, you just assume it. If it turns out THOSE are frauds as well.....just toss them out. So flexible.

Speaking of DNA....how about that Wollemi pine?

No. Since it has not been falsified despite the fact it easily could be, and since it is the best explanation we have for the observed facts and since it accurately predicts observations we later make we consider it the best current model. This is how science works.

Do you have a better model that predicts, for example, that an animal like Ambulocetus should be found in the strata in which it was?

And what about the Wollemi pine?

__________________
I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race
Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face
I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed
But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead

I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears
I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun

Karl, shouldn't we let Dutch actually address all the evidence we have given him rather than play his silly game of "you can't prove it"?

I have posted three threads which contains a LOT of evidence to support transitional forms and he has yet to respond to any of them with any substance. He asks for evidence, I give him evidence, he ignores the evidence.

He has no clue how science works and even his AIG gurus would wince at his posts and plead with him to stop embarassing the cause.

Sounds pretty flexible to me, Karl.

Vance....are you that pathetic that you claim you're not going to respond to me but you do so in response to Karl? I did respond to your posts. You still have yet to respond regarding the Wollemi pine. Or you could just hand brush(or whatever term he uesed) it off like Karl does.

I don't remember anything about a pine tree, but I will look into that.

In fact, make a list of questions you would like us to answer and we will. As soon as you provide a substantive response to the evidence I have presented. I doubt seriously if you will be able to do it. You talk big and spout excuses, but in the end, you are an empty bag without any real arguments to make other than repeating "it's a fairy tale!".

Read the evidence and respond to it. That is why we are all here.

I have provided substantive responses to a # of things. To once again make a demand "or I'm not gonna do it *pout*" is pathetic. I already have the answers. If I want evolution type answers I could go to an atheist type evolution forum. The responses would be the same with regards to the "evidence".

I don't think you are all here to read the evidence and respond to it. Some of you have an agenda of falsely saying "YEC's destroy our faith". AIG proves that wrong time and time again.