The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh yes, things science has confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt right?

Perhaps based on the fragmentary fossil record, which scientists and researchers then attempt to make credible by using computer models to fill in HUGE gaps.

Now there's real science for you.

The "evidence" doesn't come close to supporting your claims, so you create your own "evidence" on a computer.

No thank you.

I'll stick with Jesus.

Your claims about the computer model were addressed specifically in that thread. Care to return to it? Or are you just going to ignore everything that was discussed therein?

 

[amariselle]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You got nothing.

Likewise, which is why we are always arguing in circles.

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Likewise, which is why we are always arguing in circles.

Actually, it always ends with you giving a lame rebuttal, one that usually doesn't address the substance of the post you're responding to. Only this time, you've also misinterpreted my earlier comments.

 

[amariselle]

Your claims about the computer model were addressed specifically in that thread. Care to return to it? Or are you just going to ignore everything that was discussed therein?

Oh, I never ignored it, but no convincing explanation was presented as to why filling huge gaps in a fossil record ,by I using computer models in an attempt to make the record support a theory, is indeed adequate and trustworthy science.

The fossil record simply does not support Darwinian evolution.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Hilarious thread.

Computer models are bad apparently, even if they are based on actual fossils.

 

[amariselle]

I have read through this thread, and you have shown nothing to support your claims that scientists are dishonestly putting forward evolution except putting forward more and more claims that they are wrong.
I am not doing your work for you. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up.

Likewise. If you think science is so perfectly honest and completely trustworthy, PROVE IT.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I never ignored it, but no convincing explanation was presented as to why filling huge gaps in a fossil record ,by I using computer models in an attempt to make the record support a theory, is indeed adequate and trustworthy science.

The fossil record simply does not support Darwinian evolution.

Tell us what you know about the fossil record?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh, I never ignored it, but no convincing explanation was presented as to why filling huge gaps in a fossil record ,by I using computer models in an attempt to make the record support a theory, is indeed adequate and trustworthy science.

Actually, it was explained. Go back, re-read the thread. You didn't understand what the authors' actually did.

The fossil record simply does not support Darwinian evolution.

The fossil record is one of the sources of evidence for evolution. You seem unwilling to discuss it in any depth.

 

[amariselle]

Where are the lies in the first few posts of this thread?

I said research the lies and dishonesty that have occurred in modern day science. You seem to think its infallible. It's not.

 

[amariselle]

Your Lord and Savior commands you to not discuss the evidence presented in the first few posts of this thread?

You don't understand what that comment was in response to, do you? Perhaps you need to read back a little in this thread.

 

[bhsmte]

Likewise. If you think science is so perfectly honest and completely trustworthy, PROVE IT.

You trust science every hour of every day of your life, in a multitude of ways.

Are willing to give all those up, because you claim science can not be trusted?

 

[amariselle]

If is clear, you dont address the scientific evidence, not in the least.

And, simply making vague statements claiming the evidence is flawed, without any attempt to demonstrate the same, only exposes reality: you cant directly address the evidence.

I have.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Likewise. If you think science is so perfectly honest and completely trustworthy, PROVE IT.

Stop playing games. You keep making claims that science is dishonest and untrustworthy, but you are refusing to back them.
So are you just full of hot air, or do you actually have anything to back up your claims?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Likewise. If you think science is so perfectly honest and completely trustworthy, PROVE IT.

No one is claiming that the scientific community is infallible. On the other hand, you are casting vague aspersions on those working in evolutionary biology, without elucidating what specific features of their conduct are dishonest or fraudulent.

 

[bhsmte]

I have.

Post number?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said research the lies and dishonesty that have occurred in modern day science. You seem to think its infallible. It's not.

Show us! Stop making claims, then tell other people to do your work for you when you're asked for evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I said research the lies and dishonesty that have occurred in modern day science. You seem to think its infallible. It's not.

Is your religion infallible?

 

[bhsmte]

Computer models are bad apparently, even if they are based on actual fossils.

Threads like this, are why this place is so entertaining.

 

[amariselle]

Is your religion infallible?

Jesus is infallible. Mankind is not.