Where is your evidence creationists?

[Astridhere]

That's cute. You guys all banding together to rip a concept you don't understand and refuse to try to understand because you think it's evil. Aw...

Except, here's the thing... I'm more right than you are. And even if I'm someday proven wrong I'm still more right than you are. That's not an opinion or boasting. It's a proven fact. If you can prove you're reading these words then I can prove I'm more right than you are because only if the world exists in such a state that we're not really communicating by these words is it possible that I'm not more right than you are.

Too bad all you have is self opinionated woffle to back your words along with 150 years of falsifications and contradictions..effectively nothing. So if you suggest your nothing has value I'd say you have validated my assertion that evolutionists have no idea what they are talking about on their best day.

I have your 150 years of refuted nonsense to play with and guess what? You lot will never live it down...

 

[cupid dave]

Ok. I'm not saying that.

Outside of "normal" church services we often have mid-week discussion groups to discuss common objections to "religion", God and Christianity.

I personally would welcome any atheist and their opinions to this - no problem.

So are you interested in coming to church then?

You may welcome atheists, but you will reject and lock out a theistic evolutionist who says Genesis is supported by Science, not opposed:




Theistic Evolution uses Modern Science concepts to support the following statements in Genesis where bracketed commentary specifically compares both the facts and the text references in the scripture:
1. There was a Big Bang beginning.
2. There were seven long durations geological eras) thereafter.
3. The Plant Kingdom did appear before the Animal Kingdom, on the morning of the 3rd duration, the Paleo-Proterozoic Era.
4. All the waters were gathered together into one place called Panthalassa.
5. All the Earth was was surrounded by the oceans which where gathered together into one place called Pangea.
6. The twenty-two (22) hominoid species of Paleontology correspond one-to-one with those linked from Adam through the sons of Noah.
7. The Three (3) Racial Stock Theory supports the three sons of Noah as Caucasian, Negroid, and Asian.
8. The Paleontological population explosion called the "out-of-Africa-theory" agrees with the flood of Noah 40,000 years ago.
9. The decimation and disappearance of Neanderthal and Homo Erectus supports the "Flood Story" eradication of all other mankind approximately 40,000 years ago.
10. Genetic Y-chromosome testing identifies all modern men with just one "Noah Type" man who lived exactly 40,000 years ago.

 

[Psudopod]

That is incorrect. Everything within evolutionary science has been falsified to give rise to new ideas. Extrapolations of adaptation have been speculated to demonstrate a mouse deer can poof into a whale.

Go on, please show me the paper that says a mouse deer can poof into a whale. Please. Wouldn't want to think you were making things up.

TOE has no predictive ability eg Y chromosome, chaos theory

Sorry, chaos theory? Why on earth do you think evolution has anything to say about chaos theory? Every post you make shows your ignorance of what evolution actually is.

Tiktaalic has been falsified as the first landing by tetrapod footprints dated to 395mya, much like, coelecanth the walking fish that is not walking anywhere, much to evolutionists embarassment. If coelecanth had not been found alive they would still be shoving it down creationists throats.

Was Tiktaalik ever claimed to be specifically the first land walking tetrapod, or just an early land walking tetrapod. Even still, if it was claimed by scientists that was the first and earlier ones have been found, none of this changes what Tiktaalik is - a creature showing morphology of fish and reptiles, found precisely in the geographic and historical location predicted by evolution. You're focusing on a tiny issue that I'm not sure was ever stated by anyone who knew what they were talking about, because you can't focus on the real issues.

and they remain virus. Adaptation is not evolution my dear. Adaption is not anti creationist. You lot speculate and call that fact.

Another example of Astridhere demonstrating her ignorance of evolution. If something changed into something completely different, that would falsify evolution. Dropsila will always be dropsila, virri will always be virri, humans will always be humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates etc.

Woffle and desperation trying to believe a bacteria will sprout legs.

Evidence that any scientist has ever said this. Again, wouldn't want you to be making stuff up and woffling, would we?

The head and developmental psychology is my baby and there is something terribly amiss with the life of someone that has nothing better to do than hang around forums delighting in the ridicule of theists.

So you'll be able to give some examples of people ridculing thesists, rather than creationists. You know, backing up your arguments?

 

[Astridhere]

Imotekh, Cabvet..you two parricularly appear to be one of those with plenty of words and nothing intelligent to say.

Not surprisingly, there is much disagreement among paleoanthropologists with respect to reconstructing phylogenetic relationships for the australoptihecines. Furthermore,(1) the discovery of new fossil specimens that are unexpected often cause dramatic re-organizations of hominid phylogenies. In addition to this, some new fossils are so out (2)of line with current phylogenies that they cannot be positioned anywhere sensibly on phylogenetic trees and are often left aside with question marks accompanying them (for example: Orrorin tugenensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Kenyanthropus platyops). Finally, paleoanthropologists are (3)people with egos (often large ones) and, not surprisingly, often place their recently discovered fossil specimens at points on the trees which are thought to be the most crucial in the grand scheme of human evolution (being ancestral to the genus Homo for example). For all of these reasons, reconstructing hominid phylogenies is extremely problematic, but still a very necessary task if one wishes to comprehend the evolution of the australopithecines.
Australopithecine Evolution



(4)"Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, 'This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,'" Wood says. "Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to."
Anthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, responds that, at least for Ardi, comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape. White led the team that excavated and analyzed Ardi's 4.4-million-year-old partial skeleton.
Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an Ardipithecus genus that evolved into the Ardipithecus genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions.

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News

I am asserting that..

1. If one single fossil can overturn current evolutionary thinking then effectively evolutionists cannot possibly know what they are talking about in the first place let alone suggest anything they present is evidence of anymore than an overactive imagination

2. There are many contradictions within evolutionary theory. There are many unexpected annomolies. These are butt covered by use of words like convergent evolution, genetic and morphological homoplasy, parallel evolution, indels and insertions that explain why comparisons that are not similar at all appear similar to the desperate.

3. Evolutionists egos are only matched by their desperation to promote their philosophy.

4. The reason why you have stuff all fossil evidence for gorilla and chimps is because they are hiding as supposed human ancestors.

5. Evolutionary theory has no more predictive ability that Alice in Wonderland eg the human/chimp Y chromosome.

6. If evolutionists were actually still able to use observation they would see that a living cell is irreduceably complex. There is no such thing as a 'primitive cell'. The term is a contradiction and delusion invented by naturalists that are prepared to believe any non plausible scenario.

7. Evolutionists can be hypocrites and demand a higher level of substantiation than they are able to supply themselves. 150 years of instability is proof that your underlying assumption of common descent is erraneous.

8. Creationists can produce their own supports for creation that is just as robust as anything evolutionists can produce.

http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html

Now I can back up everything I have to say. You have presented woffle and opinion and can supply no more than flavour of the month.....

As for this....

Astrid said...There was one attempt but that failed badly. You lot should not bring up your mistakes...it just makes it too easy......eg Tiktaalic, vestigal organs, ervs, LUCA, 200 years of evo theory, all of which and much more just opens the door to debunking evolution.
​

Imotekh said...So, instead of just repeating a small bit of the evidence we present and saying "blah, blah, blah, it's wrong." why not stop flouncing around acting like it's the easiest thing in the world to refute and ACTUALLY REFUTE IT. Or are you all talk no trousers?

Let me tell you that although I am not a scientist I expect some level of knowledge from the evolutionists I debate. It is pointles speaking to children that I have to educate in current research.

You are no better than Cabvet whose only defence is to say lies lies lies giving me undeniable proof that he, like you has no idea of the mess your theory is in at the moment. Don't worry about the glossy covered text books, they do not have the full story and are outdated by the time they go to print.

Now you tell me what of this you think is incorrect and I will show you just what dark place you are talking from and how much you have no idea about in relation to the psuedo science you support.....

 

[Astridhere]

Your posts are easy to refute.

Also, "evolutionist" is a stupid term, it's like saying "gravityist" or "relativityist.", showing us the irony of you telling us we have no idea what we're talking about.

So what are you then a common descentist or delusionist? I am happy to call you what ever you would like to be called except for intelligent

So, instead of just repeating a small bit of the evidence we present and saying "blah, blah, blah, it's wrong." why not stop flouncing around acting like it's the easiest thing in the world to refute and ACTUALLY REFUTE IT. Or are you all talk no trousers?

I will start with Tiktaalic just to demonstrate to other creationists the calibre of evolutionists (or whatever this one wants to call himself) we are dealing with here.

Earliest Four-Limbed Animals Left Mud Tracks : Discovery News
Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution


Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported - throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: "can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years".

Science Literature - Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal

The tracks suggest that the animals that made them were up to 2.5 metres long and had a footpad up to 26 centimetres wide, although most prints were about 15 centimetres wide, reports a team of Polish and Swedish scientists in Nature this week1. This would mean that large, land-roaming tetrapods would have coexisted for 10 million years with the elpistostegids — including Tiktaalik roseae, which lived 375 million years ago — a group thought to mark the transition of from fish to land-roaming animals

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Many evolutionists still live in fairyland and have absolutely no idea just how much of their 'irrefuteable evidence' that has been shoved in creationists faces has been falsified requiring a brand new story.

You, my dear, are the one talking from the backside of your trousers.

 

[Huram Abi]

Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture
Just when everyone thought that a consensus had emerged, a new fossil find is reported - throwing everything into the melting pot (again!). Trackways of an unknown tetrapod have been recovered from rocks dated 10 million years earlier than Tiktaalik. The authors say that the trackways occur in rocks that: "can be securely assigned to the lower-middle Eifelian, corresponding to an age of approximately 395 million years".

Science Literature - Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution picture

Remember when we had CRTs? A 27" tv weighed 150 pounds and took up something like 7 square feet of space in the living room.

But, then LCDs came out and those pesky scientists and engineers improved the design of televisions, discarding the old way of doing things. Now a 32" tv weighs something like 25 pounds. It's about 4 inches deep, and can be installed on a wall with only one guy doing any lifting.

Obviously scientists have no idea what they're doing. Everytime they figure something out, something new changes everything!

This is proof that the science is bad and that techniques never had any accurate results because they stopped using them in favor of more precise and efficient methods after gaining MORE information. The science isn't improving. It just never worked to begin with!


This is sarcasm, btw.

 

[Astridhere]

Go on, please show me the paper that says a mouse deer can poof into a whale. Please. Wouldn't want to think you were making things up.
Indohyus is a variety of mouse deer as is Pacecetus.


If a fossil looks like a mouse deer could it be a variety of mouse deer? Of course not. It must be a whale.

Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer?

Yet Indohyus did not have broad, paddle-like feet or a thick tail for swimming. How did it get around while submerged? It appears that Indohyus might have walked along the bottom of shallow bodies of fresh water in a manner similar to living hippos, which also have osteosclerotic skeletons. Given the size and general appearance of Indohyus, though, it has often been compared to the small swimming mouse deer of Africa and Asia. These hoofed mammals jump into the water when danger approaches and can walk along the bottom.
Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer? | Wired Science[bless and do not curse]| Wired.com

Go suck eggs psudopod. Your researchers have lost all their common sense and ability to observe in their desperation to find intermediates for anything.


Sorry, chaos theory? Why on earth do you think evolution has anything to say about chaos theory?
Because apparently I know more about your supposed science than you, it appears...

The chaos theory of evolution - 2010

That is not to say that evolution is random - far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

Every post you make shows your ignorance of what evolution actually is.

It appears that you have demonstrated you are a pretender, I'm pleased to say...



Was Tiktaalik ever claimed to be specifically the first land walking tetrapod, or just an early land walking tetrapod. Even still, if it was claimed by scientists that was the first and earlier ones have been found, none of this changes what Tiktaalik is - a creature showing morphology of fish and reptiles, found precisely in the geographic and historical location predicted by evolution. You're focusing on a tiny issue that I'm not sure was ever stated by anyone who knew what they were talking about, because you can't focus on the real issues.

Darls my research skills leave nothing to be desired if I say so myself. If you are going to get around and pretend to be some evo guru you had better shore up your facts before you deal with me, lovey.. Even as an scientifically uneducated forum member I can show you lot up for what you are..delusionists.....

Tiktaalik also seems to have been be the first vertebrate with what we can recognizably call a neck, which would have endowed it with much-needed flexibility during its short jaunts onto dry land.
Tiktaalik - Early Tetrapod Tiktaalik Characteristics, Behavior and Habitat

Of course the above woffle only lasted as flavour of the month for a short time until tetrapods dated to 395mya, some without tail drag marks which of course necessitated another story to butt cover that, like floating tails...



Another example of Astridhere demonstrating her ignorance of evolution. If something changed into something completely different, that would falsify evolution. Dropsila will always be dropsila, virri will always be virri, humans will always be humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates etc.

This above and rhe rest of your post is not demonstrating my stupidity it is demonstrating yours.

Evidence that any scientist has ever said this. Again, wouldn't want you to be making stuff up and woffling, would we?

Your obvious lack of integrity is apparent. Ridiculing me does not hide the fact that you appear to have no idea what you are talking about and have demonstrated same to the entire forum.

So you'll be able to give some examples of people ridculing thesists, rather than creationists. You know, backing up your arguments?
I have demonstrated that you psuedopod are a pretender like many here.

Would you like to have another go at demonstrating for the forum just how ignorant you are of the science you support and what a pretender you actually are?. Back to BIO101 for you.

Could fossils that look like a mouse deer actually be a variety of mouse deers ancestor and support a creationist paradigm of no evolution past in kind adaptation? Of course not. They must be some mythical creature about to poof into a whale...

Could fossils that have many chimp traits be a chimp ancestor? Of course not. They must be human.

Could fossils that have many similarities to a gorilla be a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. They must be human.

For goodness sake when are you evolutionists going to wake up?

 

[Astridhere]

Remember when we had CRTs? A 27" tv weighed 150 pounds and took up something like 7 square feet of space in the living room.

But, then LCDs came out and those pesky scientists and engineers improved the design of televisions, discarding the old way of doing things. Now a 32" tv weighs something like 25 pounds. It's about 4 inches deep, and can be installed on a wall with only one guy doing any lifting.

Obviously scientists have no idea what they're doing. Everytime they figure something out, something new changes everything!

This is proof that the science is bad and that techniques never had any accurate results because they stopped using them in favor of more precise and efficient methods after gaining MORE information. The science isn't improving. It just never worked to begin with!


This is sarcasm, btw.

Don't confuse science and advancement with evolutionary theory. The two are not the same.

 

[Fastener]

For goodness sake when are you evolutionists going to wake up?

With any luck never because the alternative doesn't even bare thinking about.

 

[Huram Abi]

Don't confuse science and advancement with evolutionary theory. The two are not the same.

Then stop using the advancement of the theory as a reason to reject it.

 

[Huram Abi]

Too much stupid to deal with before work. >_<

I'll sort it out when I'm home, but in the meantime I'll just pick the easiest one ot deal with.

"Evolutionary theory has no more predictive ability that Alice in Wonderland"

Considering you've already been told about Tiktaalik Roseae on multiple occasions I can only assume you're breaking the 9th commandment here.

Either you know better and you're breaking it, or your ignorance is overwhelming.

Basically, here's a list of a few of the predictions that have been shown to be accurate:

- Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

- Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

- A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

- In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.


- It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

- here are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

Source: Can't post links.

Of course, you won't accept these. You'll come out with some nonsensical, fallacious argument that'll serve to further display your ignorance.

There is of course more, but I'm unable to post links. These are a few of them that do not contain links.

 

[Psudopod]

Go on, please show me the paper that says a mouse deer can poof into a whale. Please. Wouldn't want to think you were making things up.

Indohyus is a variety of mouse deer as is Pacecetus.

If a fossil looks like a mouse deer could it be a variety of mouse deer? Of course not. It must be a whale.

Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says

Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer?

Yet Indohyus did not have broad, paddle-like feet or a thick tail for swimming. How did it get around while submerged? It appears that Indohyus might have walked along the bottom of shallow bodies of fresh water in a manner similar to living hippos, which also have osteosclerotic skeletons. Given the size and general appearance of Indohyus, though, it has often been compared to the small swimming mouse deer of Africa and Asia. These hoofed mammals jump into the water when danger approaches and can walk along the bottom.
Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer? | Wired Science[bless and do not curse]| Wired.com

Go suck eggs psudopod. Your researchers have lost all their common sense and ability to observe in their desperation to find intermediates for anything.

Well done. You've not only showed that you cannot back up your claim that science says mouse deer poofed into whales, you've provided a claim that neatly points out the difference between Indohyus and Hyemoschus: "Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.” from Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer? | Wired Science[bless and do not curse]| Wired.com

Sorry, chaos theory? Why on earth do you think evolution has anything to say about chaos theory?

Because apparently I know more about your supposed science than you, it appears...

The chaos theory of evolution - 2010

That is not to say that evolution is random - far from it. But the neat concept of adaptation to the environment driven by natural selection, as envisaged by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and now a central feature of the theory of evolution, is too simplistic. Instead, evolution is chaotic.
The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

Every post you make shows your ignorance of what evolution actually is.

It appears that you have demonstrated you are a pretender, I'm pleased to say...

Nope, just showing your lack of understanding. You're putting the cart before the horse essentially - just because evolution has a random, chaotic part (not something anyone is disputing) doesn't mean evolution has anything to say on chaos theory.

Was Tiktaalik ever claimed to be specifically the first land walking tetrapod, or just an early land walking tetrapod. Even still, if it was claimed by scientists that was the first and earlier ones have been found, none of this changes what Tiktaalik is - a creature showing morphology of fish and reptiles, found precisely in the geographic and historical location predicted by evolution. You're focusing on a tiny issue that I'm not sure was ever stated by anyone who knew what they were talking about, because you can't focus on the real issues.

Darls my research skills leave nothing to be desired if I say so myself. If you are going to get around and pretend to be some evo guru you had better shore up your facts before you deal with me, lovey.. Even as an scientifically uneducated forum member I can show you lot up for what you are..delusionists.....

Tiktaalik also seems to have been be the first vertebrate with what we can recognizably call a neck, which would have endowed it with much-needed flexibility during its short jaunts onto dry land.
Tiktaalik - Early Tetrapod Tiktaalik Characteristics, Behavior and Habitat

Of course the above woffle only lasted as flavour of the month for a short time until tetrapods dated to 395mya, some without tail drag marks which of course necessitated another story to butt cover that, like floating tails...

Thank you for proving my point! Not only did you fail to back up your point with a scientific source that Tiktaalik is the first fishapod, you also ignore all I wrote about why Tiktaalik is important and why it doesn't matter if it is the first. And you are the one being insulting and patronsising.

Another example of Astridhere demonstrating her ignorance of evolution. If something changed into something completely different, that would falsify evolution. Dropsila will always be dropsila, virri will always be virri, humans will always be humans, apes, mammals, vertebrates etc.

This above and rhe rest of your post is not demonstrating my stupidity it is demonstrating yours.

No, Astridhere, I am correct. Humans will always be apes, mammals, vertebrates. This is evolution. If you think evolution claims any differently, then you do not understand evolution.

Evidence that any scientist has ever said this. Again, wouldn't want you to be making stuff up and woffling, would we?

Your obvious lack of integrity is apparent. Ridiculing me does not hide the fact that you appear to have no idea what you are talking about and have demonstrated same to the entire forum.

So, that's a no then, you cannot back up your comment that "scientists say bacteria will grow legs". Didn't think so.

So you'll be able to give some examples of people ridculing thesists, rather than creationists. You know, backing up your arguments?

I have demonstrated that you psuedopod are a pretender like many here.

No you haven't and even if you had, how is that ridiculing theists. I have made no comments about your religion, I haven't even insulted you. Where as you constantly put people down with condecending language, insult them by saying they have nothing intelligent to say and call them names like pretender and delusionist.

 

[Psudopod]

1. If one single fossil can overturn current evolutionary thinking then effectively evolutionists cannot possibly know what they are talking about in the first place let alone suggest anything they present is evidence of anymore than an overactive imagination

Where has one single fossile every turned over evolutionary thinking? New fossil evidence can change things like when a trait first appeared, or whether a species is directly ancestorial or a branch relation, but despite the sensationalist magazine pieces you tend to link to, the theory of evolution is not challenged in the slightest by any finding I am aware of. Let's take your beloved bipedalism. What, other than the point at which bipedalism evolved in the great apes, has been challenged by this discovery?

2. There are many contradictions within evolutionary theory. There are many unexpected annomolies. These are butt covered by use of words like convergent evolution, genetic and morphological homoplasy, parallel evolution, indels and insertions that explain why comparisons that are not similar at all appear similar to the desperate.

Examples please. What contradictions? What anomolies?

3. Evolutionists egos are only matched by their desperation to promote their philosophy.

Let me just leave this comment here:
"Darls my research skills leave nothing to be desired if I say so myself. If you are going to get around and pretend to be some evo guru you had better shore up your facts before you deal with me, lovey.. Even as an scientifically uneducated forum member I can show you lot up for what you are..delusionists.....
"

Do you think this was written by a creationist or someone who accepts evolution?

4. The reason why you have stuff all fossil evidence for gorilla and chimps is because they are hiding as supposed human ancestors.

As explained to you previously, a) there is not "stuff all" evidence; b) fossilisation is a rare process particularly where chimps and gorillas live; c) they are classed as human ancestors because they show a mix of traits present in humans and earlier apes.

5. Evolutionary theory has no more predictive ability that Alice in Wonderland eg the human/chimp Y chromosome.

You are asking evolution to make predictions on something it has no capability on. Evolution cannot tell you whether one chromosome will or won't show more divergence that its counterpart. It does predict that the genetic relationships will follow a pattern of nested hirearchy, which is what we see. We can also use evolution to predict the locations of potential ancestors historically and geographically, like Tiktaalik.

6. If evolutionists were actually still able to use observation they would see that a living cell is irreduceably complex. There is no such thing as a 'primitive cell'. The term is a contradiction and delusion invented by naturalists that are prepared to believe any non plausible scenario.

No cell has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. And you are aware you are looking at a modern cell, something that's been through 3.5 billion years of evolution, right?

7. Evolutionists can be hypocrites and demand a higher level of substantiation than they are able to supply themselves. 150 years of instability is proof that your underlying assumption of common descent is erraneous.

As above, nothing fundamental about the theory of evolution has changed that much, espcially with our understanding of genetics.

8. Creationists can produce their own supports for creation that is just as robust as anything evolutionists can produce.

Except, when asked, they never do. And some creationists will tell you that there cannot be any evidence for creation.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I am getting from this discussion: you said you don't welcome atheists if they are there to start arguments. I am saying that if an atheist goes to a church and doesn't start an argument, he is not an atheist, but someone that converted before going to church. So to me, really what you are saying is that you don't welcome anybody that is not a Christian already.

Why on earth would any athiest who was sure about his faith......even go to church...unless they are not so sure of themselves?

We welcome sinners at our church because we are sinners. If we werent...we wouldnt need Christ.

 

[Belk]

Why on earth would any athiest who was sure about his faith......even go to church...unless they are not so sure of themselves?

We welcome sinners at our church because we are sinners. If we werent...we wouldnt need Christ.

Why do you keep asking questions that people in the thread already answered?

 

[Astridhere]

Well done. You've not only showed that you cannot back up your claim that science says mouse deer poofed into whales, you've provided a claim that neatly points out the difference between Indohyus and Hyemoschus: "Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.&#8221; from Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer? | Wired Science[bless and do not curse]| Wired.com

But I have, even your own resaerchers suggest Indohyus "is just like a mouse deer". Why you suggest you have established your point is beyond me.

Nope, just showing your lack of understanding. You're putting the cart before the horse essentially - just because evolution has a random, chaotic part (not something anyone is disputing) doesn't mean evolution has anything to say on chaos theory.

I have provided the link from evolutionary theorists that says otherwise. The beauty of evolutionary theory is one can find contradictory research to back just about any claim.

Thank you for proving my point! Not only did you fail to back up your point with a scientific source that Tiktaalik is the first fishapod, you also ignore all I wrote about why Tiktaalik is important and why it doesn't matter if it is the first. And you are the one being insulting and patronsising.

You lot will now have to go find another intermediate older than 395myo, that is what that means and well you should know it. Deal with it or hide your head in the sand. The choice is yours.

No, Astridhere, I am correct. Humans will always be apes, mammals, vertebrates. This is evolution. If you think evolution claims any differently, then you do not understand evolution.
I understand that after 150 years your researchers are more confused than ever.
[/color]

So, that's a no then, you cannot back up your comment that "scientists say bacteria will grow legs". Didn't think so.

That was a funny. Sorry you do not have a sense of humour



No you haven't and even if you had, how is that ridiculing theists. I have made no comments about your religion, I haven't even insulted you. Where as you constantly put people down with condecending language, insult them by saying they have nothing intelligent to say and call them names like pretender and delusionist.

While evolutionists continue to suggest flavour of the month is evidence I will continue to regard it as delusional

Well actually delusion is an apt descriptor of what was once irrefuteable evidence for evolution tossed aside and falsified eg human knucklewalking ancestry. If every falsified evolutionary support was not heralded as factual and irrefuteable and only the stupid would deny it, I would not be so hard on you guys. However that is usually the line evos preach


Indohyus skeleton

Mouse deer skeleton

If a fossil looks like a mouse deer could it possibly be a variety of mouse deer? Of course not. It must be some other creature about to morph into a whale. I apologize for being demeaning to those that are respectful to me. However most evos here are very derogatory and I am happy to return the same in kind.

There is absolutely no need to suggest Indohyus was anything more than a variety of deer with aquatic ability like a modern day mouse deer or chevrotain. It is on the assumption of common ancestry that evolutionists need to straw grab as they do when clearly a fossil resembles a species with us here today.

Coelecanth was another example. If Coelecanth was not found alive and well today that would be yet another purported intermediate that creationsists would be saying is just a fish and we would be right despite anything evolutionists had to say about it.

Would you like me to show you research on the aquatic ear developing independently, or are you already aware of this research???

 

[CabVet]

When you can't win an argument, just declare that you won and change the subject. Works every time.

 

[CabVet]

Honestly?

I was gonna pick apart Astrid's post like an anteater at an ant nest, but thanks to Psudopod I no longer feel like I need to. Y'did a pretty epic job.

The sad thing is that Psudopod (and many others) do that, all the time, and she will make the same false statements over and over again, always reiterating how right she is, either in this same thread or elsewhere. Sometimes I wonder if she even reads the responses. And when the argument is beaten to death, she just posts another wall of text in a completely different subject.

 

[JediMobius]

I wonder if some little group of mankind on some Island somewhere will morph into an aquatic creature, to escape rising sea levels. Maybe they will learn to fly.......

That whale's offspring will only be able to fly if the genetic information for wings and hollow bones (among other traits) are already in its DNA. Under selective pressure, genes cannot be selected which do not exist. (Even in the experiment that produced citrate-utilizing bacteria, every permutation was expressed, and no trait alien to that bacteria's biological family was produced.) Same with the humans on the shrinking island. Only if their DNA can select genotypes under that specific pressure, but then a significant portion of the population would also carry such genes, and some freak occurrence of a human or small human population becoming aquatic or avian for survival should likely have been found by now.

 

[JediMobius]

I agree. I don't understand...in their minds how they can believe that out of a bang......everything started evolving....and only on earth, no where else? Why no life on other planets? And the thing that really stumps me is that mankind seems to have a universal morality. This evolved? While the egg, the eye and all other complexed systems were perfectly forming...so was our consciences? Wow. All our of nothing.....from nothing.

And they say God is a far fetched idea...and creationism.

Some hypotheses for the origins of life even posit that the origin of life was extraterrestrial, and then evolved on earth. Why even bother to figure it out at all, right?