Why Evolution is True (2)

[dad]

This is just painful, I hope for your sake you aren't so misinformed as to think evolutionary theory would require such Frankenstein mash ups to exist. In fact, this sort of crap is so off it would actually refute evolution if creatures like this existed.

To be fair, getting this

From this

---is far harder.


.

 

[PsychoSarah]

To be fair, getting this

From this

---is far harder.


.

A flat worm didn't give birth to a human, we just share ancestry with them.

 

[dad]

A flat worm didn't give birth to a human, we just share ancestry with them.

Hard to believe people could actually believe that.

In effect, the offspring of flatworms eventually (in the sick mind of science) led to mankind existing! You really think we owe our very existence to worms having sex!!!!


Not only that, but science says earth is basically an insignificant dot in a boundless universe. They attack the destiny God has for earth and man. Here on earth, science considers us but beasts! Just another animal!!!! An animal that has no purpose or creator.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hard to believe people could actually believe that.

In effect, the offspring of flatworms eventually (in the sick mind of science) led to mankind existing! You really think we owe our very existence to worms having sex!!!!


Not only that, but science says earth is basically an insignificant dot in a boundless universe. They attack the destiny God has for earth and man. Here on earth, science considers us but beasts! Just another animal!!!! An animal that has no purpose or creator.

.

Why does that fact bother you so much dad?

I know from other posts of yours that you are very squeamish when it comes to a natural bodily function. Sex is not dirty. It is not sinful. It is merely an act that can result in reproduction, or be a highly enjoyable experience.

And if you both are not enjoying your sexual relations, then you are clearly doing something wrong.

 

[AustinMiles89]

A flat worm didn't give birth to a human, we just share ancestry with them.

can you offer any scientific proof of this?
sci·ence

noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\ : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation


are there any recorded experiments or observations of any species mutating into a completely different species?

 

[createdtoworship]

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

yey darwins mistake here was pointed out numerous times and yet he still believed it. that reminds me of the problem of observation for evolutionists. macro evolution and chemical evolution both remain un observed.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

I have a few quotes of darwins doubt over the cambrian if you want. does that mean he wasnt an evolutionist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a few quotes of darwins doubt over the cambrian if you want. does that mean he wasnt an evolutionist?

No, did it ever occur to you that we might have found a fossil or two since then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yey darwins mistake here was pointed out numerous times and yet he still believed it. that reminds me of the problem of observation for evolutionists. macro evolution and chemical evolution both remain un observed.

Wrong, macro evolution has been observed.

I would like you to define "chemical evolution" before I make any other corrections.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong, macro evolution has been observed.

I would like you to define "chemical evolution" before I make any other corrections.

chemical evolution is abiogenesis, biological evolution (macro evolution) is unobserved as well.

Unless you would like to debate that fact? I figure you will dodge as usual.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, did it ever occur to you that we might have found a fossil or two since then?

I don't think you have, do you have anything pre cambrian?

That is the issue at stake here with darwin. Oh they exist, but they are few and far between, nothing like the cambrian explosion:

in fact let me post more about it:


the mysterious Cambrian explosion:

obviously not complete but that the ALL major phyla showed up from no where, and have not gone away since.

its' a problem because of this:

"Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com


Darwin's Dilemma - YouTube


video get interesting about 17 minutes into it when it speaks of darwins doubts over the cambrian explosion:

"IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty...."

origin of species, Darwin

read context here:
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Absence of Intermediate Varieties at the Present Day. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


again he doubts:
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. "

origin of species, darwin

X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


BTW this is all argumentation from the TEACH THE CONTROVERSY series (legal in 9 states)

 

[Subduction Zone]

chemical evolution is abiogenesis, biological evolution (macro evolution) is unobserved as well.

Unless you would like to debate that fact? I figure you will dodge as usual.

I have never dodged. You are projecting again. Only creationists dodge.

"Macro-evolution" is evolution and it has been observed.

Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage, but it does have some evidence for it.

What do you believe? I am betting that there is no scientific evidence to support your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you have, do you have anything pre cambrian?

That is the issue at stake here with darwin. Oh they exist, but they are few and far between, nothing like the cambrian explosion:

in fact let me post more about it:


the mysterious Cambrian explosion:

obviously not complete but that the ALL major phyla showed up from no where, and have not gone away since.

its' a problem because of this:

"Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com


Darwin's Dilemma - YouTube


video get interesting about 17 minutes into it when it speaks of darwins doubts over the cambrian explosion:

"IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty...."

origin of species, Darwin

read context here:
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Absence of Intermediate Varieties at the Present Day. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


again he doubts:
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. "

origin of species, darwin

X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


BTW this is all argumentation from the TEACH THE CONTROVERSY series (legal in 9 states)

Sorry, you should not use liars for Jesus. Chien himself has admitted that he does not qualify for the job he holds at the Discovery Toot:

Paul Chien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please give proper sources for your claims. Lying creationist sources are not proper sources.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Wrong, macro evolution has been observed.

I would like you to define "chemical evolution" before I make any other corrections.

i think it would be beneficial for you to define what you believe macro evolution is and how it has been observed.

the scientific community, last i checked, had taken the stance that the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution, is essentially time.

if you wade through the argument the idea is that adaptation on a genetic level can eventually develop into speciation.
the problem is that no direct change into a wholly new species has been observed, or recreated.

genetic drift does not correlate to new genetic material.

the real problem that occurs with what evolutionary proponents claim as examples of macro evolution, is the amount of time they require for the event to transpire.
millions of years being the minimum. billions of years if you want to talk about a single celled organism becoming a modern mammal.

this requires them to first prove the earth is at least millions of years old.

i have read through dozens of young earth creationist arguments that evolutionary scientists claim to have rebutted (although often it is merely that they have managed a rational counter claim that bears no more plausibility than the claim they attempt to undermine)

but one glaring irony seems to pose itself. what argument exists that the universe is billions of years old?

cosmochronology?
its based entirely off of speculation.
biostratigraphy? its a chicken and egg issue, how old is the fossil, well because its in this layer of strata, its 5 million years old. oh well how do we know that everything in this layer of the earth is 5 million years old?well you see, we found this fossil in there that went extinct 5 million years ago.

carbon dating has long since been abandoned by evolutionary scientists because its been proven useless. so now we have a dozen other ways to infer the age of fossils that all rely on pure assumption, and have no more hope of proving accurate than carbon dating did.

yet this did not stop evolutionary scientists from touting carbon dating as inarguable fact for decades.

the fallacy of these claims as to the age of the earth is that no means of measurement can be known valid, because no observation of their means of dating have lasted longer than a handful of decades.

evolution requires more faith than i have. because it requires consent to the validity of a series of assumptions that are constantly changing.
and every time their means of inferring proof are found out to be impossible, they simply fill the void with the next generation of new scientific assumption.

the problem people should really look at, is that evolutionary scientists try to make the math and science fit their theory.
instead of allowing the scientific data that's available to speak for itself.

science is meant to be unbiased. that's why it has to be observable and predictable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i think it would be beneficial for you to define what you believe macro evolution is and how it has been observed.

You are late to the discussion. That has already been done.

the scientific community, last i checked, had taken the stance that the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution, is essentially time.

That is correct.

if you wade through the argument the idea is that adaptation on a genetic level can eventually develop into speciation.
the problem is that no direct change into a wholly new species has been observed, or recreated.

That is not true. Speciation has been observed many times and many ways.

genetic drift does not correlate to new genetic material.

That is true.

the real problem that occurs with what evolutionary proponents claim as examples of macro evolution, is the amount of time they require for the event to transpire.

How so?

millions of years being the minimum. billions of years if you want to talk about a single celled organism becoming a modern mammal.

That is a bit too long on the short end. If you are talking about species level on the bacterial level that can be observed in years or even shorter.

this requires them to first prove the earth is at least millions of years old.

The Earth was proved to be hundreds of millions of years old at least when Darwin wrote his theory. Now we can put a definite date on it.

i have read through dozens of young earth creationist arguments that evolutionary scientists claim to have rebutted (although often it is merely that they have managed a rational counter claim that bears no more plausibility than the claim they attempt to undermine)

No, they were all wrong. And many of them lied. YEC is a joke at best.

but one glaring irony seems to pose itself. what argument exists that the universe is billions of years old?

?????? Really? All scientific evidence points to an old Earth.

cosmochronology?
its based entirely off of speculation.

No, it isn't. And it is not used to age the Earth.

biostratigraphy? its a chicken and egg issue, how old is the fossil, well because its in this layer of strata, its 5 million years old. oh well how do we know that everything in this layer of the earth is 5 million years old?well you see, we found this fossil in there that went extinct 5 million years ago.

No, you do not understand biostratigraphy.

carbon dating has long since been abandoned by evolutionary scientists because its been proven useless. so now we have a dozen other ways to infer the age of fossils that all rely on pure assumption, and have no more hope of proving accurate than carbon dating did.

Someone lied to you. Carbon dating has never been used by evolutionary scientists. It is only accurate to an age of about 50,000 years ago. That is just yesterday geologically.

yet this did not stop evolutionary scientists from touting carbon dating as inarguable fact for decades.

Nope, they never did. Who told you this garbage? Again, carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 years.

the fallacy of these claims as to the age of the earth is that no means of measurement can be known valid, because no observation of their means of dating have lasted longer than a handful of decades.

Again, you have no clue. Stop while you have no respect left at all

evolution requires more faith than i have. because it requires consent to the validity of a series of assumptions that are constantly changing.
and every time their means of inferring proof are found out to be impossible, they simply fill the void with the next generation of new scientific assumption.

And you just crossed over into complete foolishness. Not only that, now you are bearing false witness.

the problem people should really look at, is that evolutionary scientists try to make the math and science fit their theory.
instead of allowing the scientific data that's available to speak for itself.

They are not guilty of that at all. If anything creationists try to do that and fail terribly.

science is meant to be unbiased. that's why it has to be observable and predictable.

It is. That is why the claims of creationists are rejected. They have no evidence at all that supports their claims. Seriously, you can't believe all of this tripe. You should not believe any of the tripe that you posted..

How about we take your claims one at a time. What is your best argument against evolution? Post it and I will be able to show you how you are wrong.

 

[AustinMiles89]

How about we take your claims one at a time. What is your best argument against evolution? Post it and I will be able to show you how you are wrong.

lets start with the observance of speciation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lets start with the observance of speciation.

Seriously? Is this your best one?

Examples of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Even many creationists will own up to speication.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Seriously? Is this your best one?

Examples of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Even many creationists will own up to speication.

these observations note adaptation and genetic change within their own family of classification. but the theory of evolution is based on the premise that a single celled organism can ultimately evolve into an infinite variety of multicellular organisms.

speciation is observed only to the point of a rearrangement of genetic material that already existed within the original species. but has not yet observed speciation in which any new genetic material was created.

imagine the pieces of an intricate puzzle being interchangeable. the original had its own pattern and created a particular image. but you could rearrange those pieces to make a new picture. odd thing is the new picture looks almost exactly like the old one, because it uses all of the same pieces.

can you provide any examples where a species created new genetic material?

 

[Subduction Zone]

these observations note adaptation and genetic change within their own family of classification. but the theory of evolution is based on the premise that a single celled organism can ultimately evolve into an infinite variety of multicellular organisms.

speciation is observed only to the point of a rearrangement of genetic material that already existed within the original species. but has not yet observed speciation in which any new genetic material was created.

What? How do you "know" this. It is another foolish and ridiculous statement. Speciation is shown when two species can still hybridize, but their offspring are usually sterile. That is why lions and tigers are different species. They can mate, but their offspring have very low fertility rates. The same applies to horses and donkeys. Mules, their offspring are almost always sterile. We can see speication in action too. Check out the concept of ring species some day.

imagine the pieces of an intricate puzzle being interchangeable. the original had its own pattern and created a particular image. but you could rearrange those pieces to make a new picture. odd thing is the new picture looks almost exactly like the old one, because it uses all of the same pieces.

can you provide any examples where a species created new genetic material?

Sorry, but that is pure creationist twaddle.

Now I gave you what you asked for. Are you going to be honest and move along or are you going to try to move the goal posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way Miles, you need to support your posts. If you use lying creationist sources you will be laughed at. If challenged both of us should be able to find links from either peer reviewed journals, and real ones, not ones made up only for creationists that always fail at peer review. Or to a source of settled science. I know that my second source has references to the peer reviewed articles that it was based upon.

Now technically the theory of evolution is settled science, but I will try to avoid sources that point out the obvious.