New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[nuttypiglet]

What do you mean "apes turn into men"? That is a nonsensical statement.

You might as well say "mammals turn into men" or "vertebrates turn into men".

You see we are all apes, you me even AV. We are all mammals. We are all vertebrates, well at least I have a backbone.

Clearly you still do not understand evolution. You cannot debunk a theory that you do not understand. You will keep making laughable mistakes like you just did.

And of course birds are dinosaurs. The big ones all died off in the huge extinction at the end of the cretaceous, but some of the smaller ones survived.

Utter myth, all of it. Science is so desperate to show dinosaurs evolved into birds that they fell for the biggest fraud scam in history. National geographic even published the findings as FACT. Chinese farmers were joining lizard fossils with bird fossils and selling them to scientists. They were scanned, prodded and tested in numerous ways, and science fell for it. It was a short lived excitement, but worth the look on your faces LOL.

 

[nuttypiglet]

What do you mean "apes turn into men"? That is a nonsensical statement.

You might as well say "mammals turn into men" or "vertebrates turn into men".

You see we are all apes, you me even AV. We are all mammals. We are all vertebrates, well at least I have a backbone.

Clearly you still do not understand evolution. You cannot debunk a theory that you do not understand. You will keep making laughable mistakes like you just did.

And of course birds are dinosaurs. The big ones all died off in the huge extinction at the end of the cretaceous, but some of the smaller ones survived.

turned into, evolved into, what's the difference? Why is saying "over millions of years, dinosaurs turned into birds" wrong?
Anyway, strange isn't it that this has not been proved yet you are quoting it as absolute fact. What you are quoting are statements from the so called experts who taught you this rubbish.

 

[lasthero]

turned into, evolved into, what's the difference? Why is saying "over millions of years, dinosaurs turned into birds" wrong?
Anyway, strange isn't it that this has not been proved yet you are quoting it as absolute fact. What you are quoting are statements from the so called experts who taught you this rubbish.

Nothing is proven in science.

 

[florida2]

Sir Fred Hoyle said "A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence,"

Ah yes, a single quote is of course enough to bring down the whole of evolution and overturn all the evidence and research.



Why can't creationists understand how foolish they make themselves look? Fred Hoyle (an astronomer - not a biologist) can hardly have been said to have been in the mainstream with his theories about the origin of life!

Plus, that quote says nothing about evolution.

 

[lasthero]

Utter myth, all of it. Science is so desperate to show dinosaurs evolved into birds that they fell for the biggest fraud scam in history. National geographic even published the findings as FACT. Chinese farmers were joining lizard fossils with bird fossils and selling them to scientists. They were scanned, prodded and tested in numerous ways, and science fell for it. It was a short lived excitement, but worth the look on your faces LOL.

Do you seriously think the whole field of knowledge on this subject comes from one single find over a decade ago? And it was never accepted by the mainstream community - there was doubt about it from the start.

Oh, and who exposed it? Creationists? Nope. Scientists did.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Utter myth, all of it. Science is so desperate to show dinosaurs evolved into birds that they fell for the biggest fraud scam in history. National geographic even published the findings as FACT. Chinese farmers were joining lizard fossils with bird fossils and selling them to scientists. They were scanned, prodded and tested in numerous ways, and science fell for it. It was a short lived excitement, but worth the look on your faces LOL.

nuttypiglet has made assertions; I suppose we'll just have to go home and sulk now.

Pack it in, folks; we big bad evos have been defeated...

 

[nuttypiglet]

Ah yes, a single quote is of course enough to bring down the whole of evolution and overturn all the evidence and research.



Why can't creationists understand how foolish they make themselves look? Fred Hoyle (an astronomer - not a biologist) can hardly have been said to have been in the mainstream with his theories about the origin of life!

Plus, that quote says nothing about evolution.

Oh and yet again the goalposts have to be moved. NOW you want a BIOLOGIST not a scientist, and NOW you want more then ONE. OK, I will return shortly.

 

[lasthero]

Oh and yet again the goalposts have to be moved. NOW you want a BIOLOGIST not a scientist, and NOW you want more then ONE. OK, I will return shortly.

You realize, of course, you were speak to Ollie. Florida can't move a goalpost he never set.

 

[nuttypiglet]

You realize, of course, you were speak to Ollie. Florida can't move a goalpost he never set.

Well as Evols keep asking for examples or evidence, then I'm going to ask for some now. I want evidence for the following....

Evidence that the Universe came from a Multiverse and not a creator.
Evidence that the code of life (DNA) can form by natural events to start life.
Evidence that Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Now be careful with this one because I want answers to include the birds breathing apparatus.
Evidence that shows the 'mind' is inside the human Brain. Don't just refer to electrical signals which can be just about anything.

 

[lasthero]

Well as Evols keep asking for examples or evidence, then I'm going to ask for some now. I want evidence for the following....

Evidence that the Universe came from a Multiverse and not a creator.
Evidence that the code of life (DNA) can form by natural events to start life.
Evidence that Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Now be careful with this one because I want answers to include the birds breathing apparatus.
Evidence that shows the 'mind' is inside the human Brain. Don't just refer to electrical signals which can be just about anything.

Only one of those questions even has to do with evolution.

 

[StormanNorman]

Science books are written by men, are you now saying we can't trust them?
What Christians say is that the biblical writings were INSPIRED by God, NOT personally written by him. This has been explained several times before, yet you still raise this silly argument. Can it finally stop now?

The main difference, however, is that we can verify for ourselves that that is written is science book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The main difference, however, is that we can verify for ourselves that that is written is science book.

And he has implied that any evidence that could be supplied would not be good enough for him. That seems to be rather hypocritical to me. The evidence we can give is fossil evidence and for the breathing apparatus to be preserved is an unreasonable request.

Of course there is the genetic evidence in living birds. Chickens have "turned off" genes that make dinosaur tails, teeth and even scaled skin.

Some people have already made up their minds without evidence and no amount of evidence will change their minds. Requests for evidence from these people is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[CabVet]

Well as Evols keep asking for examples or evidence, then I'm going to ask for some now. I want evidence for the following....

After providing none? No, I will pass.

 

[Split Rock]

Utter myth, all of it.

You mean like a man made from dirt, a woman from a rib and a talking snake?

Science is so desperate to show dinosaurs evolved into birds that they fell for the biggest fraud scam in history.

First of all, science is not a person. Therefore science cannot be desperate or happy or sad. I realize you hate science, but science cannot hate you back. Secondly, it was hardly the "biggest scam in history."

National geographic even published the findings as FACT. Chinese farmers were joining lizard fossils with bird fossils and selling them to scientists.

Yes and the editors of Nat Geo learned a hard lesson from the incident. Now they make sure that the stuff they write about passes peer review first, which the fossil in question did not.

They were scanned, prodded and tested in numerous ways, and science fell for it.

Nope. As I said, science is not a person. It cannot fall for anything. Secondly, the experts who examined the fossil told the buyers that it was a mosaic. They rejected the original paper. They fell for nothing. The writers pressed and the editors of Nat Geo foolishly went along with them.

It was a short lived excitement, but worth the look on your faces LOL.

What look on whos face? I'm not a Nat Geo editor. No creationist showed it was a mosaic. Your fantasy drooling taking credit for something you did nothing to accomplish is pathetic.

 

[florida2]

Oh and yet again the goalposts have to be moved. NOW you want a BIOLOGIST not a scientist, and NOW you want more then ONE. OK, I will return shortly.

Firstly - biologists ARE scientists. Scientist is a very vague, catch-all term which creationists like to throw around. They seem to believe that all scientists are one homogeneous body; rather they are split into many disparate fields. They don't all read each other's research and journals. You wouldn't ask an astronomer about the details of evolution any more than you would ask a biologist about black holes or supernova.

Also, you can't just post a few quote mines - that's not how science is done and it's not evidence. Evidence is research and hard data. Going 'HA - LOOK! This quote says this scientist doesn't believe in evolution! That means it's been disproven!' just makes you look silly.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Only one of those questions even has to do with evolution.

No, evolution of the Universe and evolution of life. Evolution is a term used in at least 6 areas.

 

[lasthero]

No, evolution of the Universe and evolution of life. Evolution is a term used in at least 6 areas.

No.

 

[florida2]

No, evolution of the Universe and evolution of life. Evolution is a term used in at least 6 areas.

You've picked that up from gradyll - he's been told multiple times by me and others why that's wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

No, evolution of the Universe and evolution of life. Evolution is a term used in at least 6 areas.

Please stop using Jack Chick and Kent Hovind as sources. The theory of evolution only covers the origin of species or the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please stop using Jack Chick and Kent Hovind as sources. The theory of evolution only covers the origin of species or the diversity and distribution of life on earth.

I see you Arab-phoned "theory of" into his post.

Did you anticipate me responding with this?

Cosmic Evolution