Evolution's Wrong Biblically!

[slayer-2004]

There is no proof for evolution.

Righto ... you kepp telling yourself that ...

 

[USincognito]

There is no proof for evolution. Theres rocks that make people think it happened, we kind of look like monkeys, and turtles are everywhere. But show me the skeleton of a monkey that just turned into a homosapian, and give me the skeleton for each of the phase for the whole transformation. Ohps, they dont have any, as the oldest, I just bunked that theory. It has been bunked, Watermelon anyone?

Look Chief, I'm going to offer you the same question I have yet to have answered by creationists.

Here are 14 skulls. The first is a chimpanzee. The last is a human. Tell me where in this series you would devide between ape and human and why.

 

[tkster]

^ Look boys and girls! It's an evo who posted a bunch of pics of fossils and thinks that counts as evidence *rolls eyes*

You know, what is it with scientists nowadays and not being skeptical anymore? Fossils prove nothing except the organism died and some of it's bones were preserved. Thanks for proving to us you know nothing!

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[USincognito]

You didn't even attempt to debate the evidence. You just handwaved and posted a bunch of emoties. Is this how you "debate?" If so, you're pretty pathetic.

Would you like to try again with some actual substance this time?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

^ Look boys and girls! It's an evo who posted a bunch of pics of fossils and thinks that counts as evidence *rolls eyes*

You know, what is it with scientists nowadays and not being skeptical anymore? Fossils prove nothing except the organism died and some of it's bones were preserved. Thanks for proving to us you know nothing!

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

If you don't want people to start reporting you, you ought to start making posts with actual substance instead of just trying to advertise your website every chance you get with substance-free posts.

 

[tkster]

If you don't want people to start reporting you, you ought to start making posts with actual substance instead of just trying to advertise your website every chance you get with substance-free posts.

Substance free? Oh, you are gravely mistaken. What I just did was use the Skeptic's Creed to blow "fossil-evidence" out of the water. Maybe instead of acting on ignorance you should actually learn some skepticism yourself, and then post

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[tkster]

You didn't even attempt to debate the evidence. You just handwaved and posted a bunch of emoties. Is this how you "debate?" If so, you're pretty pathetic.

Would you like to try again with some actual substance this time?

No, that is a typical evo tactic. You try to get Creationists to "debate" your fossil evidence. The problem is that any skeptic would point out FOSSILS CAN'T BE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AT ALL! You try to get someone to argue with a flaw in your argument. Congrats, but unlike these other foolish Creationists I am not that ignorant to buy into that.

By the Skeptic's Creed, fossils cannot be evidence for anything except the organism died and a portion of the bones were preserved. That is it. That is skepticism, skepticism is what science is based on.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[USincognito]

Substance free? Oh, you are gravely mistaken. What I just did was use the Skeptic's Creed to blow "fossil-evidence" out of the water. Maybe instead of acting on ignorance you should actually learn some skepticism yourself, and then post

Perhaps you can actually address the evidence since ONE doesn't seem in any hurry to do so. Where in the series is the deviding line between ape and human and why? If you deny the skulls for some other reason, please give us the substance of your argument instead of effluvia and emoties.

 

[tkster]

Perhaps you can actually address the evidence since ONE doesn't seem in any hurry to do so. Where in the series is the deviding line between ape and human and why? If you deny the skulls for some other reason, please give us the substance of your argument instead of effluvia and emoties.

Again, I've already shown you why your evidence is flawed: It is a fossil. I am a skeptic, you either speak my language or you lose. That's it. The Skeptic's Creed just refuted your argument; You lose.

You cannot use a fossil as a "transition" because there's ONLY two things you can prove by a fossil. I've already listed those twice, and thus anything beyond that is a LEAP OF FAITH. That is NOT science. Again, the Skeptic's Creed just ended your "transitional faith." It's fine if you want to use it, but it is NOT science.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[USincognito]

You're not a skeptic because a skeptic would actually address the evidence. All you're doing is handwaving it away. We have 14 skulls that show a morphological change over time from ape to human. Point to where the dividing line is and why you would devide there. If you think that fossils are incompatible with phylogeny, please explain why we can establish phylogenies at all if we have to reject fossils. Thus far you have failed at doing anything other than blowing smoke. Please address the issue with some substance.

 

[slayer-2004]

You know, what is it with scientists nowadays and not being skeptical anymore? Fossils prove nothing except the organism died and some of it's bones were preserved. Thanks for proving to us you know nothing!

The only person who read that who doesnt know who the real ignoramus is here is yourself .

Seriously , have you even taken first grade science ? You seem to know absolutly nothing about fossils .

 

[tkster]

The only person who read that who doesnt know who the real ignoramus is here is yourself .

Seriously , have you even taken first grade science ? You seem to know absolutly nothing about fossils .

I'm afraid you don't know what skepticism is. That's fine, if you want to "believe" that fossils count for evidence, you have the freedom to do so, but fossils are not evidence from a skeptical standpoint. Again, as I've said, science is skeptical.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[tkster]

You're not a skeptic because a skeptic would actually address the evidence. All you're doing is handwaving it away. We have 14 skulls that show a morphological change over time from ape to human. Point to where the dividing line is and why you would devide there. If you think that fossils are incompatible with phylogeny, please explain why we can establish phylogenies at all if we have to reject fossils. Thus far you have failed at doing anything other than blowing smoke. Please address the issue with some substance.

I already have and it is already obvious. I've pointed out from the Skeptic's Creed what fossils prove. Again, you lose. You cannot prove anything more of fossils except those two things I've listed a thousand times. Sorry, fossils do not work as evidence for evolution - which by the way, is a MAJOR blow.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

 

[slayer-2004]

I'm afraid you don't know what skepticism is. That's fine, if you want to "believe" that fossils count for evidence, you have the freedom to do so, but fossils are not evidence from a skeptical standpoint. Again, as I've said, science is skeptical.

You do realise that you are either more ignorant then a first grader or in serious denial . I would love for you to logically explain why fossils cannot be used as evidence for anything . I promise not to laugh

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'm afraid you don't know what skepticism is. That's fine, if you want to "believe" that fossils count for evidence, you have the freedom to do so, but fossils are not evidence from a skeptical standpoint. Again, as I've said, science is skeptical.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

Then why don't you be scientific and address the evidence instead of hand waving it away?


It looks like all we have here, folks, is another tro...oh wait we aren't allowed to say it. Apparently he's interested only in advertising his website than any actual substansive discussion.

 

[USincognito]

By the Skeptic's Creed, fossils cannot be evidence for anything except the organism died and a portion of the bones were preserved. That is it. That is skepticism, skepticism is what science is based on.

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. If this is how you "debate" you're either trying to rely on the ignorance of the audience, or you're ignorant yourself.

First off, I don't know where you're getting this "Skeptics Creed" from, but I've been involved with skepticism for a long time and it resembles nothing I've ever encountered. True skepticism investigates a claim. It's a process, not an preconcieved notion. You're not a skeptic, so please stop saying you are.

Second. For anyone reading this, look at the logical disconenct we have, and the appeal to the ignorance of the audience.

He claims that all we can conclude from the fossils is that something lived and died, therefore we can conclude nothing else.

I guess CBS needs to cancel it's CSI shows because obviously forensics is a joke. When the investigators find a body, all they can conclude is someone lived and died - and by his "logic" nothing else.

Well, we all know that's just not true.

See how long it took me to provide a counter example as to why we are able to find the remains of something and draw other conclusions from the remains. If this were a verbal interchange, I'd have to waste all my time drawing the forensics analogy instead of hammering him on evading the fossils.

Which leads to third, notice how his logic is faulty. "The fossils tell us something lived and died. It means we have a species that lived and was morphologically transitional between an ape and a human (12 examples actually). He relies on the audience to just ignore the fact that we actually do have transitional species that lived in the past that - according to creation - should not exist at all.

No wonder this guy won't do written debates, he's getting shredded by me and I'm not even a scientist.

 

[Asimov]

I already have and it is already obvious. I've pointed out from the Skeptic's Creed what fossils prove. Again, you lose. You cannot prove anything more of fossils except those two things I've listed a thousand times. Sorry, fossils do not work as evidence for evolution - which by the way, is a MAJOR blow.

take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)

tkster...fossils are indicative of more than just those two things. It's interesting how each set of fossils in the strata directly precedes the fossil above it in the strata.

For instance, the human skulls that were posted. The oldest skulls were naturally found in a separate and lower layer than each consecutive skull above it. Each of these skulls show minor differentiations (bigger brain case, smaller jaw, less sloping forehead). While this differences are minor, they are still from human descent. Notably, the chimp skulls, while similar, also have their own differences that set them apart from each other, and larger differences that set them apart from the human skulls.

These two groups of skulls are so similar, denying a common descent is tantamount to claiming that identical twins aren't related.

Our skulls aren't the only things that are similar. Our skeletal structure, while it obviously has it's differences, are remarkably alike, and the further back you go in the fossil lineage, the more alike our skeletons become.

To add to that, the genetic similarities between chimps and humans leave absolutely no doubt in my mind that humans are chimps are related by a common ancestor.

IMO, it is only humanities massive superiority complex that prevents most of us from seeing the truth, that we are, without a doubt, apes.

tkster, science is skeptical, but scientists who are skeptical also do experiments to prove that they are right in their skepticism. You do not, so you are not scientifically skeptical. You have no basis in your skepticism, and there is no logic to your skepticism. Cease and desist this irrational behaviour, and embrace your fellow chimp as a brother.

 

[funyun]

There is no proof for evolution. Theres rocks that make people think it happened, we kind of look like monkeys, and turtles are everywhere. But show me the skeleton of a monkey that just turned into a homosapian, and give me the skeleton for each of the phase for the whole transformation. Ohps, they dont have any, as the oldest, I just bunked that theory. It has been bunked, Watermelon anyone?

Every single thing you just said is a strawman.

 

[slayer-2004]

notice how tkster shut up when USincognito pretty much obliterated his arguments ( assuming they are worthy to be called arguments )

 

[Logic]

Is skeptictimes.com a joke that some evilutionists made like landover baptist? Or is that someone's real beliefs?