Why Evolution is True (2)

[createdtoworship]

You forgot your links for your claims. Did you use a proper source or a lying creationist source for those claims? Until I see something real they are just Deja Moo.

I didn't get it off of a link, it was from some doctor guy on the radio ( I believe it was Dr. mark eastman-ex athiest). He is not a scientist, but a doctor I believe. anyway, I used my own words and did not copy word for word. So now you have it, go ahead and refute away.

here is marks story:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11306211835

"Uploaded on Aug 27, 2007
After spending thousands for college, and being convinced that evolution was correct, a nurse gave Dr. Eastman a 50 cent cassette tape, by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, with a Christian sermon about creation on it. Before Dr. Eastman flipped the tape to side two of the cassette he states that the foundations of $150,000 worth of public education had been destroyed. Hear the humorous and telling story of a former atheist and evolutionist and how he came to know the creator, the Lord Jesus Christ. Includes much scientific evidence about how evolution is a scientific impossibility. The Great Debate: God or Chance, Evolution Or Creation? by A. E. Wilder-Smith - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pbm5Z...
"

above quote from you tube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBG9VwdDotg

 

[PsychoSarah]

I didn't get it off of a link, it was from some doctor guy on the radio. So now you have it, go ahead and refute away.

Unnamed radio apologist? Not exactly a source anyone who can rub two brain cells together should accept by itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't get it off of a link, it was from some doctor guy on the radio. I used my own words and did not copy word for word. So now you have it, go ahead and refute away.

It is late, but since you handwaved your argument in all that it takes to get rid of it is another:



Your argument has been refuted. Try harder next time.

 

[createdtoworship]

"As one creationist pamphlet put, "'A frog turning instantaneous into a prince is called a fary tale, but if you add a few million years, it's called evolutionary science.' " *Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, p. 399.

"Particularly difficult to accept as chance processes are those prolonged changes which lead to a new lifestyle, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles or --perhaps odder--the return of mammals to a life in the sea, as in the case of dolphins and whales." *G.R. Taulor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 160.

"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? .. These tales, in the 'Just-So Stories' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything..concepts salvage only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." *Steven Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, June/July, 1977.

"Extremes of adaption--such as the whale provoke wonder about how such a creature could have evolved. Sometimes larger than a herd of elephants, this intelligent mammal loads on tons of tiny plants and animals (plankton) it extracts from seawater. Since it is air breathing, warm-blooded and milk giving, it must have developed from land animals in ancient times, then gone back to the sea. But 150 years ago , who could imagine [faith] how such a transformation could come about?

Charles Darwin saw a black bear 'swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.' , Origins of Species (first edition, 1859.# " 'Preposterous!' snorted zoologists. Such an example, they thought, sounded so wild and far-fetched it would brand Darwin as a teller of tall tales. Professor Richard Owen of the British Museum prevailed on Darwin to leave out the 'whale-bear story' or at least tone it down. Darwin cut it from later editions, but privately regretted giving in to his critics, as he saw 'no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits.' Years later he still thought the example 'quite reasonable.' " *R.Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 463.

quotes from :

Untitled Document

a lot more where that came from, only one on the link seems to be a misquote. (misspellings have been corrected from original site).

 

[PsychoSarah]

A few apologists and at least one quote mine there

 

[Loudmouth]

"As one creationist pamphlet put, "'A frog turning instantaneous into a prince is called a fary tale, but if you add a few million years, it's called evolutionary science.' " *Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, p. 399.

"Particularly difficult to accept as chance processes are those prolonged changes which lead to a new lifestyle, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles or --perhaps odder--the return of mammals to a life in the sea, as in the case of dolphins and whales." *G.R. Taulor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 160.

"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? .. These tales, in the 'Just-So Stories' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything..concepts salvage only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." *Steven Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, June/July, 1977.

"Extremes of adaption--such as the whale provoke wonder about how such a creature could have evolved. Sometimes larger than a herd of elephants, this intelligent mammal loads on tons of tiny plants and animals (plankton) it extracts from seawater. Since it is air breathing, warm-blooded and milk giving, it must have developed from land animals in ancient times, then gone back to the sea. But 150 years ago , who could imagine [faith] how such a transformation could come about?

Charles Darwin saw a black bear 'swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.' , Origins of Species (first edition, 1859.# " 'Preposterous!' snorted zoologists. Such an example, they thought, sounded so wild and far-fetched it would brand Darwin as a teller of tall tales. Professor Richard Owen of the British Museum prevailed on Darwin to leave out the 'whale-bear story' or at least tone it down. Darwin cut it from later editions, but privately regretted giving in to his critics, as he saw 'no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits.' Years later he still thought the example 'quite reasonable.' " *R.Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 463.

quotes from :

Untitled Document

a lot more where that came from, only one on the link seems to be a misquote. (misspellings have been corrected from original site).

This post actually saddens me. I actually hold out hope that you will deal with science in an honest and forthright manner. There are posts where you seem to go down the road of honesty, and then you veer right back to the old road of dishonest quotes and lies copied from creationist websites.

I still hold hope for you gradyll.

 

[dad]

In this part of the forum evidence is king.

Where is your scientific evidence?

Now now, let's not be hypocritical. You have failed to provide evidence of any sort fot the state of the past you base all models on. You had the chance, but instead offered some pathetic coloring of evidence based on your beliefs.

We certainly can allow fast evolving, and an inability for most life to fossilize long ago, and long long long lifespans, and all the things Genesis and the rest of the bible tell us about the far past.


You also failed to address the failed issue of your claims on horse and human evolution.


For those bible believers who try to defend Genesis and creation using present state laws, I say quit embarrassing us! P or get off the belief pot.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now now, let's not be hypocritical. You have failed to provide evidence of any sort fot the state of the past you base all models on. You had the chance, but instead offered some pathetic coloring of evidence based on your beliefs.

There is no evidence you would accept, so don't pretend to ask for it.

 

[dad]

There is no evidence you would accept, so don't pretend to ask for it.

You would not recognize evidence if it bit you on the knee. You seem to think you had a carte blanche to call evidence only those items of colored faith that you select. No.

First believing in a certain set of laws and then explaining things with that belief is NOT evidence. Get over it. Not in science. For Scriptural and historical evidences we have somewhat different standards. But when did you see a history professor teaching that what he thought Alexander the Great really did or thought about some uncertain minor supposed event or conversation?? They might say something like 'I believe that probably such and such led to this conversation, or act...etc' Those who portend to peddle science ought to take a note from their page. Be honest in blabbering big anti God claims, that it is belief, and speculation and assumption and clearly not really known at all!


I for one have had it up to the gills with the false bellicose loud mouthed claims of the willingly ignorant people pretending they know more than God Almighty.
.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I for one have had it up to the gills with the false bellicose loud mouthed claims of the willingly ignorant people pretending they know more than God Almighty.
.

You must be fed up with yourself then.

 

[Loudmouth]

You would not recognize evidence if it bit you on the knee.

Then describe it for us. What evidence should we see if the past were the same as the present?

You seem to think you had a carte blanche to call evidence only those items of colored faith that you select. No.

If you can't tell us how your different state past is testable, then you have no claims of having evidence for your position. All you have is denial and dogma.

 

[createdtoworship]

This post actually saddens me. I actually hold out hope that you will deal with science in an honest and forthright manner. There are posts where you seem to go down the road of honesty, and then you veer right back to the old road of dishonest quotes and lies copied from creationist websites.

I still hold hope for you gradyll.

I think 75% of the quotes were directly from evolutionists. So if you have a problem its with them.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think 75% of the quotes were directly from evolutionists. So if you have a problem its with them.

No, the problem is with you pulling them out of context to make them say what they didn't actually say.

If you want, I can quote the Bible to support atheism.

"There is no God."--Psalm 14:1

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think 75% of the quotes were directly from evolutionists. So if you have a problem its with them.

No, the issue is that they are being misquoted, taken out of context. Just think for a minute, if they were evolution supporters, why would they make any significant comments against that which they support? It wouldn't make any sense.

 

[createdtoworship]

Unnamed radio apologist? Not exactly a source anyone who can rub two brain cells together should accept by itself.

ok then, rationalize the argument and stop this name calling game.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is late, but since you handwaved your argument in all that it takes to get rid of it is another:



Your argument has been refuted. Try harder next time.

everything he said about chemical evolution goes away, because you didn't like the fact he was a Christian converted from athiesm?

I think your argument goes away at this point (thank you very much)

 

[createdtoworship]

"As one creationist pamphlet put, "'A frog turning instantaneous into a prince is called a fary tale, but if you add a few million years, it's called evolutionary science.' " *Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, p. 399.

"Particularly difficult to accept as chance processes are those prolonged changes which lead to a new lifestyle, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles or --perhaps odder--the return of mammals to a life in the sea, as in the case of dolphins and whales." *G.R. Taulor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 160.

"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? .. These tales, in the 'Just-So Stories' tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything..concepts salvage only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me." *Steven Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters", Natural History, June/July, 1977.

"Extremes of adaption--such as the whale provoke wonder about how such a creature could have evolved. Sometimes larger than a herd of elephants, this intelligent mammal loads on tons of tiny plants and animals (plankton) it extracts from seawater. Since it is air breathing, warm-blooded and milk giving, it must have developed from land animals in ancient times, then gone back to the sea. But 150 years ago , who could imagine [faith] how such a transformation could come about?

Charles Darwin saw a black bear 'swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.' , Origins of Species (first edition, 1859.# " 'Preposterous!' snorted zoologists. Such an example, they thought, sounded so wild and far-fetched it would brand Darwin as a teller of tall tales. Professor Richard Owen of the British Museum prevailed on Darwin to leave out the 'whale-bear story' or at least tone it down. Darwin cut it from later editions, but privately regretted giving in to his critics, as he saw 'no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits.' Years later he still thought the example 'quite reasonable.' " *R.Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 463.

quotes from :

Untitled Document

a lot more where that came from, only one on the link seems to be a misquote. (misspellings have been corrected from original site).

no takers on this one eh?

 

[PsychoSarah]

no takers on this one eh?

Darwin made mistakes, who cares, it isn't like evolution hasn't improved over time as a theory.

 

[dad]

Then describe it for us. What evidence should we see if the past were the same as the present?

Why set up a question for a belief? You could change that question to fit any belief.

'describe it for us. What evidence should we see if the tooth fairy kissed Santa's elf'?

'describe it for us. What evidence should we see if the past different like the bible suggests'?

'describe it for us. What evidence should we see if mankind was the result of worms having sex'?

If you can't tell us how your different state past is testable,

Of course I can, one simple holds it up to God's word, that is the test. Hold up evolution from pond scum and see how that fares! Aside from that, don't be hypocritical, and act as if there should be a way science could test what forces and laws exist outside of our time and space.

Try to stop whining and prove the state of nature you claim existed. Face the truth, that you can't.


.

 

[dad]

You must be fed up with yourself then.

The shoe doesn't fit. I base my conclusions of an honest and historical look at actual Scripture.

While we don't need to know exactly how the future and past are, He told us enough to know a fair bit about them. Enough to authoritatively rule out the cunning fables of Satanscience.
.