proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bugeyedcreepy]

No he understands it very well and your points are full of assumptions.

Sorry, he just doesn't. I'd be interested to hear why you think evidence is an assumption though?

 

[The Times]

Ok, time for part 2, and it looks like this part is going to be more... interesting. First off, this claim makes absolutely no sense, since what qualifies as a species has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever, and is a part of taxonomy intended for all living things on this planet.

Species are NOT organisms. Species have both form and intelligence. The plant machinery is an organism and this on its own does not prove new evolutionary life resulting from manipulating the organisms inputs to produce a resultant form with intelligence.

A Ford plant factory, just like an organism on its own, with all its machinery is not the actual Ford vehicle itself. The different species/beast or Ford models to come out of its assembly line is the result of the arrangement of inputs within its machinery plant, in order to engineer and to develop a NEW vehicle/beast.

Well, there are differences in the mechanisms by which cells work, but you are right, we don't control the functions of individual cells in our bodies. Actually, even humans don't consciously control most body processes.

What has that to do with the different species resulting from the different configurations of the plant machinery (organisms) inputs.

I'm not sure if you understand what the word "species" means... or how naming things works. A waterfall has no thoughts, but we do have a name for it. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up intelligence. Is it because we humans need to be "intelligent" in order to have taxonomy in the first place? That's a silly point of contention, considering there's no reason we should restrict ourselves only to categorizing living things which we consider to be intelligent.

Living things are not by any means species. You can observe the poo of an animal that is full of living organisms that came straight out of a cow's behind, then by rights, should we call the poo or the living goo a species, is that right?

Absolutely wrong! And I say organisms, unless they take form and intelligence cannot be classified as either a species of mammals, birds, fish, snails, insects or whatever. In fact evolution theory claims that from the poo goo different species sprang out and this is so laughable that it begs belief to be considered as a science.

DESTINED life form? That's not correct, evolution doesn't have a set path with set outcomes. No species currently alive was guaranteed to come into existence.

Very good! So by rights, this evolutionary process took many millions of millions of years of trials and misses, that should qualatitively and quantatively show evidence of morphing processes from say a sea based to a land based and vice versa. We should see a horror book of neomorphs leading to xenomorphs fossil remains and have infinite amounts of evidential fossil dot points, in order to accurately approximate the line of life, that stretches millions of millions of years, for any particular species that won out, right?

Please say right!

Yet on the contrary, all we get from Evolutionists is a gaping hole in context of evidence and a big presumption based on a mere allusion to a few incoherent and unrelated to that particular species, out of the millions species, organisms which are only plant machinery.

We can come up with in our minds of millions of allussionary or concept Ford models on paper only (text books), based on the premise that Ford has plant machinery (like an organism) to do so. Does that mean that the concept Ford models are a reality, in the real world?

Absolutely not!

Logic seems not to be on the side of the Evolutionist.

From my perspective, intelligence is no different from any other trait, so asserting that it's special enough to warrant an entirely distinct origin from all other traits an organism can have is rather silly to me. Also, there are plenty of transitional fossils for it, with various brain sizes.

Various sizing and adaptable traits are just that, thay are by rights adaptations of the same species and not a different evolutionary one that won out as you are implying. Seems silyness to you is logic in thought and context in evidence and reality of how we humans are so diverse from one another and adaptable, not only across the previous generations, but in our current time, so doesn't that mean to Evolutionists, that a single organism called the human evolved into the different human species that we have now, who have different sized noses, heads, coloured eyes and blood types and allergies and so forth?

Absolutely not!

The illogical conclusions drawn solely from organisms by Evolutionists to the alleged evolution of life, that is the millions of species, is so out there, that it begs belief. It is science fiction not science fact.

If it were so as the Evolutionists claim, then an infinite amount of evidentiary data of fossils should exist showing the neomorphing to xenomorphing of the two different species until one over millions of millions of years won out, through many dead carcuses and short lived events.

Since you defined orangisms as species, then we should have something like this in the battle that ensues......

You mean like this?

No!

or this?

No!

or this?

No!

How about this?

No!

You are just collapsing the context of the tree of life and trying to cook your own idea of evolution narrative into the many adaptations of life. But in your endeavour have failed to highlight the infinite intermediate processes in a consistent and a coherent evolutionary process, across any given species that we have today. How you manage to do this, is through making 3 dot points of unrelated species and then trying to give an impression to your audience of them being one process for any given species and this my friend is rather deceptive, with no disrespect intended.

Very strange organisms have lived on this planet, and currently do live on this planet. How "alien" they appear to you is a matter of familiarity vs unfamiliarity. I actually quite enjoy the more unfamiliar life forms that have existed on this planet because I find their appearance so strange. I mean, look at this thing

It proves nothing and there is no evidence of any chronological evolutionary link, that would present an infinite array of dot point fossil remains for any one given resultant species, for the millions of millions of neomorph to xenomorph intermediary processes. Where are the infinite trailed and missed intermediary processes across millions of millions of years for any given species that exists today?

Evolutionists attempts at filling the crossword of life, is an attempt to fill two or there unrelated case studies of adaptations to allude that they have worked out the entire word that consists of millions of millions of words, for any given species that exists today. This is so far out, as far as a rationale and logical mind can be, that it is either a Delusion or a Lie on the Evolutionists part. It could also be both.

This is a living organism, so weird. In any case, evolution isn't suddenly invalid because you think that the life on this planet isn't "weird enough".

No I did not say that a weird slug cannot take many adaptable forms and thrive in its own environment, in the deep deep sea where seeing things don't really matter. So there could be sea slugs with no eyes, no nose, only a brain and secretary chemical glands as sensors. But that is not saying that I am identifying the one that you are showing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry, he just doesn't. I'd be interested to hear why you think evidence is an assumption though?

You only think you would be interested. Events will lead you to regret that belief.

 

[The Times]

-_- if you are talking about transitional fossils with, say, amphibian and fish traits, there are plenty.

Adaptations within kind of species is not evolution. The plenty you claim is not showing any chronology within each transitioning species. There is no consistency and no chronology within each unique species. Your assuming because you found a few adaptations, that they are to be interpreted as evolution of species from one form to another.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So where is that confounded proof evolution is any more than a theory?

Wasn't it a theory at one time, the moon was made of cheese?

 

[The Times]

So where is that confounded proof evolution is any more than a theory?

Wasn't it a theory at one time, the moon was made of cheese?

What is observed when Evolutionists build on their Evolution theory narrative is in how they cornflate inconsistent and incoherent bits and pieces of non related species adaptations and they try to sell it across all species as if to imply that all species evolved in the same way, whilst absolutely having no consistent chronology of how millions of millions of years of evolutionary processes from neomorph to xenomorph to actual species came about.

The methodology that Evolutionist use is a term called collapsing the context by the combining of two or more non related sets of information about different species and they use this method to cornflate a thesis that evolution is somehow scientifically proven and in this respect nothing could be further away from the truth.

Collapsing the context definition.....

To combine (things, such as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

• The editor conflated the two texts.

• … a city of conflated races and cultures

to fuse into one entity; merge:
to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.

To a biblical scholar it would be by using two or multiple unrelated context, to merge into one, so to sell the narrative or doctrinal idea.

Coming from religious circles, this method is predominantly used by religious cults to further their ideological beliefs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What is observed when Evolutionists build on their Evolution theory narrative is in how they cornflate inconsistent and incoherent bits and pieces of non related species adaptations and they try to sell it across all species as if to imply that all species evolved in the same way, whilst absolutely having no consistent chronology of how millions of millions of years of evolutionary processes from neomorph to xenomorph to actual species came about.

The methodology that Evolutionist use is a term called collapsing the context by the combining of two or more non related sets of information about different species and they use this method to cornflate a thesis that evolution is somehow scientifically proven and in this respect nothing could be further away from the truth.

Collapsing the context definition.....

To combine (things, such as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

• The editor conflated the two texts.

• … a city of conflated races and cultures

to fuse into one entity; merge:
to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.

To a biblical scholar it would be by using two or multiple unrelated context, to merge into one, so to sell the narrative or doctrinal idea.

Coming from religious circles, this method is predominantly used by religious cults to further their ideological beliefs.

Interesting, and sounds about right to me. I've said more than once there is a lot of sleight of hand going on in this area, and that sounds like some of the bigger guns they may use in order to make the ridiculous at least seem reasonable to those who want to buy it.

I'll have to try to get a better grasp of that.

 

[The Times]

Interesting, and sounds about right to me. I've said more than once there is a lot of sleight of hand going on in this area, and that sounds like some of the bigger guns they may use in order to make the ridiculous at least seem reasonable to those who want to buy it.

I'll have to try to get a better grasp of that.

Real world evidence shows individual species showing up simultaneously fully formed in the fossil record. According to Evolution Theory this should not be happening consistently across all species.

They have also found a fossil of a fully aquatic whale that is older then the semi-aqautic species that were thought to be the whale's ancestors, Oops!

That kind of evidence busts the Evolution Myth of "beautiful succession" across every species. Individual species are showing up fully formed in the fossil record.

It is hilarious how this thing keeps on happening with fossil ancestors, as more evidence is exposing the falsehood of the Evolution Theory.

 

[Occams Barber]

Everyone's work will be tested. Those who build with wood, hay or stubble will suffer loss.

Wait , I think I've heard this one before.... don't tell me...

Gottit!

Three Little Pigs!!
OB

 

[AV1611VET]

Three Little Pigs!!

This, folks, is an example of what the Bible means when It says It is a ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Bible exposes us for what we are inside.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Species are NOT organisms. Species have both form and intelligence. The plant machinery is an organism and this on its own does not prove new evolutionary life resulting from manipulating the organisms inputs to produce a resultant form with intelligence.

Confused analysis of words instead of rational arguement.

Living things are not by any means species. You can observe the poo of an animal that is full of living organisms that came straight out of a cow's behind, then by rights, should we call the poo or the living goo a species, is that right?

Absolutely wrong! And I say organisms, unless they take form and intelligence cannot be classified as either a species of mammals, birds, fish, snails, insects or whatever. In fact evolution theory claims that from the poo goo different species sprang out and this is so laughable that it begs belief to be considered as a science.

More evidence that creationists haven't got a clue as to what science really says about evolution.

Very good! So by rights, this evolutionary process took many millions of millions of years of trials and misses, that should qualatitively and quantatively show evidence of morphing processes from say a sea based to a land based and vice versa. We should see a horror book of neomorphs leading to xenomorphs fossil remains and have infinite amounts of evidential fossil dot points, in order to accurately approximate the line of life, that stretches millions of millions of years, for any particular species that won out, right? Please say right!

No, evolution theory does NOT say we will somehow have an infinite number of fossils. How many fossils we get to have is a function of geology, and what manages to preserve fossils, not evolution.

Yet on the contrary, all we get from Evolutionists is a gaping hole in context of evidence and a big presumption based on a mere allusion to a few incoherent and unrelated to that particular species, out of the millions species, organisms which are only plant machinery.

Again, a demonstration that the creationists are mostly utterly unaware of the tremendous amount of evidence for evolution they are opposing.

so doesn't that mean to Evolutionists, that a single organism called the human evolved into the different human species that we have now, who have different sized noses, heads, coloured eyes and blood types and allergies and so forth?

No, that would be the creationist point of view. It is astute of you to notice how improbable it would be for a single individual to result in the variety of humans we see today in just a few thousands of years, but that is an argument against the creationist point of view, not the evolutionist.

The illogical conclusions drawn solely from organisms by Evolutionists to the alleged evolution of life, that is the millions of species, is so out there, that it begs belief. It is science fiction not science fact.[/]

sorry, science has come up with far to many things that seem weird and strange and prove to turn out to be correct to let this kind of argument, now, be rationally considered.

Where are the infinite trailed and missed intermediary processes across millions of millions of years for any given species that exists today?

Sorry, we only have a finite number of fossils instead of an infinite number, but that is not an arguement against evolution, now is it. And we DO have intermediate fossil examples . . . lots of them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Real world evidence shows individual species showing up simultaneously fully formed in the fossil record. According to Evolution Theory this should not be happening consistently across all species.

Is this a reference to the Burgess Shale? That is why we go from evolution to neo evolution to post neo evolution to the modern synopsis. The theory itself does seem to go though constant modification and change.

 

[Speedwell]

. The theory itself does seem to go though constant modification and change.

That's called Science in Action.

 

[Occams Barber]

This, folks, is an example of what the Bible means when It says It is a ...

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Bible exposes us for what we are inside.

Why are you picking on me?

It's not my fault.

Joshua 1 9 started it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Joshua 1 9 started it.

Shame on you, Joshua!

 

[Astrophile]

This is a common misconception, but I also think it's a deliberate tactic among creationists so they can discount evidence they don't want to acknowledge. I've even seen creationists go so far as to claim that unless a specific fossil organism is proven to have produced offspring, then they're disqualified as 'transitionals'.

If creationists could prove that a specific fossil organism didn't have parents, grandparents, etc. and therefore couldn't be descended from remote ancestors that belonged to a different kind, they would have a case.

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationists could prove that a specific fossil organism didn't have parents, grandparents, etc. and therefore couldn't be descended from remote ancestors that belonged to a different kind, they would have a case.

And if atheists could prove just one prophecy of the Bible failed, they would have a case.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is hilarious how this thing keeps on happening with fossil ancestors, as more evidence is exposing the falsehood of the Evolution Theory.

The whole thing is hilarious/ridiculous, and it's amazing how multitudes of seemingly, otherwise intelligent people, just accept it.

 

[Astrophile]

So where is that confounded proof evolution is any more than a theory?

'A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.'

'Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian Stephen Jay Gould said, “...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”'

See Scientific theory - Wikipedia. You ought to study the factual evidence, in genetics, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, embryology, biogeography and palaeontology, that the theory of evolution is based on.

Wasn't it a theory at one time, the moon was made of cheese?

Probably not. From what I have read, 'The moon is made of green cheese' was a story told to people who were naive and gullible to make them look foolish. It was a standard joke, like 'Wigan pier' and the 'Swiss navy', first recorded from England in the 16th century. It was certainly never a scientific theory.

 

[Kenny'sID]

A scientific theory is an explanation

Exactly, "an" explanation.

From what I have read, 'The moon is made of green cheese' was a story told to people who were naive and gullible to make them look foolish

Bingo!

You walked right into that one.