Circular Reasoning

[whois]

Why then are you so angry?

because of posts just like yours.
do you really believe i would make all of this up?
and i went through the trouble of responding to you too, it won't happen again.

 

[bhsmte]

do you really believe i would make all of this up?

The answer to that question, would be determined by how well you support your claims.

 

[dad]

dad wrote:

Understand that this generally refers to a common original gene pool. Due to HGT, it's a bit more complicated than a single individual ancestor.

Yet they always get to one ancestor don't they? The imaginary one! What would it matter if they claimed there were three..or 4000..or 200,000 of those imaginary little phantom critters they call first life form? There was none. They can prove none.

The connection to so called recent ancestors is 100% pure faith alone. They assume that transfer between species was the same as well as genetics in general, and nature etc. Hooey. That religion got old fast, and is a sad joke to me now.

If you've read the Origin of Species, you can see that Darwin famously allowed for this type of adjustment in his ending to the book.

No. I couldn't read that any more than the devil's diaries. Yech.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

How gravity was at the beginning is above dead Darwin's pay grade actually. His vague allusion to a creator has no meaning, since it would not be God, who told us exactly how He did it in some detail.

 

[Split Rock]

because of posts just like yours.
do you really believe i would make all of this up?
and i went through the trouble of responding to you too, it won't happen again.

What all of this up? All you talked about was Piltdown Man. What other frauds were you taught? There aren't any.

 

[Papias]

Let's review:

First, you claimed that it was a central point that evolution claims one and only one individual at the start of life.

Next, I show that from the very start of the idea of evolution, the possibility of a more complex situation was recognized, showing text from Darwin's original work, the Origin of Species.

Last, you throw out a bunch of unsupported assertions, fail to say anything about the topic of Darwin's statement about the option of many forms, and end with a bunch of name calling.

I guess it is pretty clear why you are automatically defeated.

Not to mention that your .sig line is pure and simple Arian heresy.

Ouch.

In Christ -

Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

Guesses and suppositions.

Scientific hypothesis.

Do you reject the scientific method?

 

[Loudmouth]

you cannot possibly feign ignorance with a straight face.
we were flat out lied to in school, and boldly.
the various fossil frauds, piltdown is the best known.

Which of these is a fraud?

Should we discount all of christianity because of fake relics like the Shroud of Turin?

the "gaps" in the record are real, they are not the result of an incomplete record.

Evidence?

Why do we keep filling gaps with newly found fossils?

the disparity of the record had to be explained by HGT.

HGT is only prominent in species that do not leave fossil records, the prokaryotes. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.

the diversity of life is not the result of small accumulating changes.

Evidence?

there is no theory, nor empirical evidence, that gene mutations result in increased complexity.

I have already given you that evidence.

science has indeed come to the conclusion that abiogenesis is next to impossible, so much so that it has given up on a solution, and now i find that the last universal common ancestor was not one but at least 4 different lifeforms. so, multiply impossible by at least 4.

Abiogenesis research is still ongoing, and the LAST universal common ancestor is not being proposed as the first life, only the first in the lineages that survive today.

the disinformation associated with this discipline is outright . . . well, science really should be ashamed of it.

Your posts are filled with disinformation.

science knew in 1980 that the fossils would never be found.
but yet, what are we told, day after day.

Australopithecus sediba was found just a few years ago, and it fills a transitional gap between Austalopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus.

Australopithecus sediba

We continue to find hominids that fill transitional gaps.

regardless of what anyone says, i know for a FACT that franseco ayala DID NOT retract his statement, everything i have found out about this proves it.

You were shown a letter written by Ayala where he states that he never made the statement to begin with. Please stop spreading disinformation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not if whatever changed left us with the constants we know, rather than THEM changing.

Then explain why those changes are not seen.

 

[JacksBratt]

What all of this up? All you talked about was Piltdown Man. What other frauds were you taught? There aren't any.

The whole of evolution is dying as more and more people have to face up to the fact it was on a foundation of sand in the first place. Combine this with the overwhelming evidence of other skeletal remains of giants and archeological evidence that sacks the history books of Columbus and such.

There is a over seeing group that want evolution to stand as truth but it is a fabricated farce.

 

[Loudmouth]

The whole of evolution is dying as more and more people have to face up to the fact it was on a foundation of sand in the first place. Combine this with the overwhelming evidence of other skeletal remains of giants and archeological evidence that sacks the history books of Columbus and such.

The second sentence discredits your opinion in the first sentence.

 

[Strathos]

Does anyone actually have evidence of "skeletal remains of giants" that's not just a bad photoshop?

 

[Loudmouth]

Does anyone actually have evidence of "skeletal remains of giants" that's not just a bad photoshop?

It is worth mentioning that we have threads where creationists say that evolution is false because of false fossils like Piltdown Man. In those same threads, we have creationists offering fake fossils like the ones JacksBratt is offering.

Time to order irony meters in bulk.

 

[lasthero]

It is worth mentioning that we have threads where creationists say that evolution is false because of false fossils like Piltdown Man. In those same threads, we have creationists offering fake fossils like the ones JacksBratt is offering.

Time to order irony meters in bulk.

To be fair, most creationists tend to shy away from the whole giant skull thing. I've only seen the farthest fringe act like it's a serious argument.

 

[Split Rock]

The whole of evolution is dying as more and more people have to face up to the fact it was on a foundation of sand in the first place.

Ah yes... the "imminent death of evolution." Everywhere except among the people who make use of it everyday, I guess. Also, one of the longest running falsehoods in creationism.
See: Demise of Evolution?

Combine this with the overwhelming evidence of other skeletal remains of giants and archeological evidence that sacks the history books of Columbus and such.

Giants? Talk about a "fabricated farce!"

There is a over seeing group that want evolution to stand as truth but it is a fabricated farce.

So who is this? The Illuminati?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Guesses and suppositions.

Sorry, but in an honest debate, you don't get to just claim that the other positions are "guesses and suppositions" without backing it up with actual evidence.

 

[lasthero]

Ah yes... the "imminent death of evolution." Everywhere except among the people who make use of it everyday, I guess. Also, one of the longest running falsehoods in creationism.
See: Demise of Evolution?

Thanks, I was looking for that link.

I've shown this to Jack before. Doesn't make a dent. It really is amazing that a group of people can be so wrong for so long and still go on thinking that some amazing scientific move towards creationism is about to happen.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks, I was looking for that link.

I've shown this to Jack before. Doesn't make a dent. It really is amazing that a group of people can be so wrong for so long and still go on thinking that some amazing scientific move towards creationism is about to happen.

At this point, short of a creator showing itself and proving it created life on earth, or some calamity destroying much of the human population and causing another dark ages, creationism is probably going to lose strength until many, many years from now, it eventually fades away.

 

[dad]

Does anyone actually have evidence of "skeletal remains of giants" that's not just a bad photoshop?

If remains could not last long in that former time, none are expected, any more than for pre flood man.

 

[Loudmouth]

If remains could not last long in that former time, none are expected, any more than foor pre flood man.

Why would remains not last long in the past?

 

[JacksBratt]

Does anyone actually have evidence of "skeletal remains of giants" that's not just a bad photoshop?

Here's the deal. The whole evolution camp is powerful. They control the education system and the scientific world. If anyone disagrees or even hints at something different or something that would cause the "theory" of evolution to stumble, it is ridiculed and the person is discredited.

If you research the history of North America and South America and put the history books you had in school away for a bit, open your mind to the possibility that they either had it wrong or covered up things that made the TOE questionable, You will start to see things in a different light.

I have looked at some pictures of giant skeletons on sights that claim they are real, fake and some sights discrediting them still have some that just say they "believe" it to be faked and some that are actually real. (The photo at the bottom is real, in Peru, huge proportions.)

We have been programed to see these as unreal, impossible and unnatural. This is due to how we were programed to believe the world is the way, it got this way the way we were told, and that it always has been this way.

It is, therefore, easy for evolutionists to shout "fake" and everyone tosses it out. They shout "conspiracy nut" at people who are aware that the Smithsonian has hid, destroyed, ignored and denied anything that doesn't fit the story line we have been force fed.

There are numerous skulls, real, that are not human, but human like, that are huge, huge brain cavities, double rows of teeth and larger eye sockets. Google them, they are all over the place in South America.

There are areas at the base of the Grand Canyon that nobody is allowed to go, it is forbidden. What are they hiding. Google that too but expect to get pounded by "fake" or conspiracy type rhetoric.

Finally, look at the pictographs in Egypt. they have opened new tombs that show figures carving many of the huge structures there. The scale of the figure to the megalithic sculpture they are carving means they would dwarf modern humans. Yes, the sculptures are still around today to make real proportionate comparisons. There are also many figures with cattle that come to their waste while other figures are normal heights in the same pictograph. They are the seal on the fact that giants were around.

Why ignore it, dispute it and toss it out?