Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Justatruthseeker]

So on fact you admit that there is a gradation of morphologies beyween T. horridus and T. prorsus, you just don't want to call it evolution. Correct?

Where did you even get that idea???

"Neither the T. Horridus nor the T. Prorsus are a separate species - just new breeds suddenly appearing in the fossil record, just as we observe in real life. No transitional forms are found between them, except the natural transition we see that occurs when a new breed begins mating predominantly within it's own breed, and the features peculiar to that breed become fixed."

You just don't want to admit it's not evolution, correct? It is not a creature evolving over time into another creature. It is two breeds mating and producing a third.

And let's not forget that you are basing your claim on the existence of T.X, a hypothetical triceratops for which there is no evidence.

If you "say" so.

I see lots of different breeds of the same Kind.

Remember, coloring is an artists conceptual addition having no significance to what any reality might have been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did you even get that idea???

"Neither the T. Horridus nor the T. Prorsus are a separate species - just new breeds suddenly appearing in the fossil record, just as we observe in real life. No transitional forms are found between them, except the natural transition we see that occurs when a new breed begins mating predominantly within it's own breed, and the features peculiar to that breed become fixed."

You just don't want to admit it's not evolution, correct? It is not a creature evolving over time into another creature. It is two breeds mating and producing a third.



If you "say" so.

I see lots of different breeds of the same Kind.

That is only because you are not qualified to determine if they are different species or not. You can only make an argument from ignorance. As would I on this subject. At this point you have two choices either ask an actual expert or learn enough so that you are no longer ignorant.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is only because you are not qualified to determine if they are different species or not. You can only make an argument from ignorance. As would I on this subject. At this point you have two choices either ask an actual expert or learn enough so that you are no longer ignorant.

So who is qualified??? Apparently evolutionists are too ignorant to even recognize babies and adults, let alone different species.

So let's ask one about all those different species then.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Where did you even get that??? "Neither T. Horridus ppearing in the fossil record, just as we observe in real life. No transitional forms are found between them, except the natural transition we see that occurs when a new breed begins mating predominantly within it's own breed, and the features peculiar to that breed become fixed."

You just don't want to admit it's not evolution, correct? It is not a creature evolving over time into another creature. It is two breeds mating and producing a third.



If you "say" so.

I see lots of different breeds of the same Kind.

What do you mean, "if you say so"? There is no T. X at the base of the HCF for T. horridus to have bred with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So who is qualified??? Apparently evolutionists are too ignorant to even recognize babies and adults, let alone different species.

So let's ask one about all those different species then.

I already covered some of the errors that Jack made. Essentially all that he really "proved" is that some of the dinosaur fossils came from young individuals.

Let's see if you can find some actual science, a peer reviewed paper that supports his work. A Ted Talk is not too impressive as evidence if you want to try even a minor paradigm shift as you think has occurred.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, watch the video. It won't kill ya. At worst, you may actually learn something new.

All right.

I watched it in its entirety.

Thank you for the 411.

 

[The Cadet]

Evolution existed as an ideology amongst the institutional hegemony before Charles Darwin was even born. Do you think that might be a clue that some people had an interest in seeing it promoted?

This is not an answer to my question. Try again, please. What ideological influence could have caused evolution to spring to the forefront of biological understanding and stay there for some 150 years?

 

[JasonClark]

Those scientists can take a hike.

(Thanks for leaving "miracles" off the list though.)

I laughed so loud surly everyone for miles around must have heard me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I laughed so loud surly everyone for miles around must have heard me.

Nice to meet you, by the way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm sure this problem could be obviated by simply having me inject myself. In addition the correct pronoun for "a healthy person" is not "them" but rather "he or she."

This is like a guy who doesn't buy into gravity and bets 10.000$ that he can be pushed from the Eiffel Tower and remain unharmed. When the dude that's supposed to push him then says that he doesn't find it ethical to do so, the guy then says "ow, that's okay... I'll just jumpt myself".


When a person suggests jumping from the Eiffel Tower... you don't bet that he will die. Instead, you stop him from jumping. By force if necessary.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What do you mean, "if you say so"? There is no T. X at the base of the HCF for T. horridus to have bred with.

Just what I said, if you say so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I already covered some of the errors that Jack made. Essentially all that he really "proved" is that some of the dinosaur fossils came from young individuals. .

What he proved is that you can't even get babies and adults correct of the "same" species - and so wouldn't know the difference between breeds and different species either. If you can't even get babies of the same species correct, why should i accept you got anything correct, besides your say so? So you classified babies as an entirely new species, which just tells me you wouldn't know a new breed when you saw one. Denial SZ is not a river in Egypt. It's what you are doing right now because you don't want to accept evidence.

Back to the Ostrich theory we go. Don't you think it's time to give the Ostrich theory up?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is not an answer to my question. Try again, please. What ideological influence could have caused evolution to spring to the forefront of biological understanding and stay there for some 150 years?

Incorrect identifications of different breeds as different species. Led them to an incorrect assumption. Plain and simple. Ignoring how real life propagates in the here and now (breed mating with breed producing a new breed). At no time does one thing "evolve" into another. Evolutionists simply refuse to accept empirical evidence.

 

[lifepsyop]

And let's not forget that you are basing your claim on the existence of T.X, a hypothetical triceratops for which there is no evidence.

That is rich coming from an evolutionist, whose belief system requires the existence of billions of hypothetical common ancestors for which there is no evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is rich coming from an evolutionist, whose belief system requires the existence of billions of hypothetical common ancestors for which there is no evidence.

Shared ancestors are not hypothetical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What he proved is that you can't even get babies and adults correct of the "same" species - and so wouldn't know the difference between breeds and different species either. If you can't even get babies of the same species correct, why should i accept you got anything correct, besides your say so? So you classified babies as an entirely new species, which just tells me you wouldn't know a new breed when you saw one. Denial SZ is not a river in Egypt. It's what you are doing right now because you don't want to accept evidence.

Back to the Ostrich theory we go. Don't you think it's time to give the Ostrich theory up?

No, he did not prove that. He only claimed that. Again, if he was correct you could find some actual peer reviewed articles by him on this subject. A Ted Talk is hardly "scientific evidence"

And yes, I agree, it is time for you to pull your head up out of the sand. If a scientist cannot back up his claims with published works he is all but admitting that he has nothing. It is rather amazing that after all of your time here that you still have no clue as to how new ideas are developed in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect identifications of different breeds as different species. Led them to an incorrect assumption. Plain and simple. Ignoring how real life propagates in the here and now (breed mating with breed producing a new breed). At no time does one thing "evolve" into another. Evolutionists simply refuse to accept empirical evidence.

No, creationists do not understand what scientific evidence is. All of the empirical evidence that your hero has put up tells us is that some fossils were of immature dinosaurs. I already linked an article that showed how he was wrong about the triceratops. And you still try to use triceratops as an example. One more time, peer reviewed papers please. If he could not publish there was a very good reason for it.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Just what I said, if you say so.

You keep posting these pictures. None of them support the existence of the T. X your model requires. You have nothing but your say so that it exists.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That is rich coming from an evolutionist, whose belief system requires the existence of billions of hypothetical common ancestors for which there is no evidence.

That is rich coming from the guy who can only support his model of geology by ignoring all observations of where animals live in favour of no observations. I notice twice now you have avoided responding to this point. Do you deny this characterization? If so, defend your position.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is rich coming from an evolutionist, whose belief system requires the existence of billions of hypothetical common ancestors for which there is no evidence.

Isn't it though.

Notice that while they dream of all these hypothetical common ancestors, they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.

It's that Ostrich theory taking effect lifepsyop.