Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Such a gentle way of saying it.
LOL!! This claim coming from the person that refuses to even discuss the basics of science. Your actions refute your claims.Congratulations, you’re consistently wrong,
I probably know more about science than you do.
And what shows how ludicrous the constant litany from evolutionists that if we understood the science we’d be in lockstep with the religion of atheistic materialism is, is the inconvenient fact of the thousands of creationists with PhDs in science, and especially the fact of the existence of those like Professor Dean Kenyon and others, who were once ardent evolutionists.
Get serious. Punctuated Equilibrium aka Equilibria, is a ludicrous hypothesis postulated in an attempt to explain away the lack of any evidence in the fossil record of phyletic gradualism.
It’s completely nonsensical, because common sense knows isolated populations can’t, and don’t, have the kind of intensive burst of macro evolution required to change body plans.
In fact it wasn’t hard to find information from wildlife biologists who work with endangered species - which are the epitome of isolated populations - that confirmed the fact that isolated populations lose diversity, and don’t gain it.
But PE illustrates the fact that evolutionists will grasp at straws and any half-baked idea, as long as it promotes ToE.
And yes, it’s an incontrovertible fact that both Gould and Eldridge admitted there’s no evidence in the fossils, and PE is their pitiful attempt to explain the dearth of fossil evidence,
And there’s nothing wrong with citing people and using quotes - every college level paper written, and most books, cite quotations in them.
That quote mining nonsense originated from the talk origins website.
Nope. We have more than enough transitional fossils. But then you probably do not understand the basic concepts. And though there is more than enough evidence in the fossil record you keep ignoring the strongest evidence for evolution.That’s bogus.
Transitional fossils are still missing in all the important areas.
And common sense knows that there can’t be short periods of intense macro evolution, to the point of creating new body plans.
Wildlife biologists who work with endangered species- the epitome of isolated populations- confirm that isolated populations lose genetic diversity - thus the facts are diametrically opposed to the PE hypothesis.
But PE is a good example of the fact that evolutionists are willing to accept any half-baked theory tif it promotes ToE.
Ridiculous.
A quote such as one from Gould admitting that the lack of transitional fossils in all the important places is the trade secret of paleontology, is a valid citation, and is too clear to obfuscate with complaints about quote mining.
Once creationists point out a problematic fact about ToE, evolutionists fall all over themselves to spin what they originally said, or to spin the facts.
Which is exactly what Gould did when he saw that his PE hypothesis blew up in his face.
BTW, anyone who ever wrote a college level paper, had to include citations and quotes for every single point they made. It’s SOP.
Pretending there’s something wrong with using quotes from those in the evolutionary field is preposterous and ludicrous - which is the edited version of how I classify whining about quote mining.
I'll remember that one.
B: 'Good grief, how much did that dress cost?'
Mrs. B: 'Not much, it was just a few dollars on sale'
B: 'I think that's an excessive statement of mis-truth'
Mrs. B: 'I beg your pardon..?
B: 'Nothing dear...'
Nope. We have more than enough transitional fossils. But then you probably do not understand the basic concepts. And though there is more than enough evidence in the fossil record you keep ignoring the strongest evidence for evolution.
Not if it is taken out of context the way that you did. You are in effect defending refuting God by abusing the Bible.
You cannot find any such problems. All you have is quote mining. If you have a genuine problem please bring it up. If you quote mine your error will be made public. You lose when you quote mine.
No, it never did. PE is still part of the theory of evolution today. And I have doubts if you ever wrote a college level paper. One needs valid sources. You cannot seem to find any. One cannot quote mine, that appears to be all that you can do. Like it or not quoting out of context is almost always an attempt to lie. Refute my quote of the Bible. I doubt if you can. You would need to find the specific verse that I quoted to show that I quote mined.
For the "Lurkers" ?Why continue after seeing a demonstration of inability to
admit to the smallest error .
The conversation has been interesting to watch. And I found myself googling octopus, so I've learned a thing or two.For the "Lurkers" ?
"Other Minds" is a wonderful book about the octopus.The conversation has been interesting to watch. And I found myself googling octopus, so I've learned a thing or two.
Adam Sedgwick is in aitch.Adam Sedgwick was ordained in 1818. And was the geologist who NAMED the Cambrian era.
No. He is notAdam Sedgwick is in aitch.
It is a slow day.Why continue after seeing a demonstration of inability to
admit to the smallest error .
As Spike Milligan once said, he'd never eat anything that was smarter than him."Other Minds" is a wonderful book about the octopus.
The strange evolutionary path that led to that marvellous
creature is well worth the book, to read about it, but what
has been learned of their intelligence is stunning.
I sort of thought I knew a bit about the cephalopds,
but!
One thing...I cannot eat octopus any more. : (
I am sure you misunderstand more science than I know.Congratulations, you’re consistently wrong,
I probably know more about science than you do.
Strange! For the third time I recommend that you read before you continue to with your mistaken belief.And what shows how ludicrous the constant litany from evolutionists that if we understood the science we’d be in lockstep with the religion of atheistic materialism is, is the inconvenient fact of the thousands of creationists with PhDs in science, and especially the fact of the existence of those like Professor Dean Kenyon and others, who were once ardent evolutionists.
Quotes are easily shown to be mined when the quote does not match the written record that it is take from, especially when the parts that are left out are the contain very things that creationists want to avoid.Get serious. Punctuated Equilibrium aka Equilibria, is a ludicrous hypothesis postulated in an attempt to explain away the lack of any evidence in the fossil record of phyletic gradualism.
That quote mining nonsense originated from the talk origins website.
Could you please edit out that the Discovery Institute is in Seattle in future posts? That is terribly embarrassing for people that live in the Puget Sound areaI am sure you misunderstand more science than I know.
Strange! For the third time I recommend that you read before you continue to with your mistaken belief.
A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or "Dissent from Darwinism") was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S... As part of the Discovery Institute"s Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.[1]
...The Discovery Institute has continued to collect signatures, reporting 300 in 2004,[32] over 600 in 2006 (from that year on the Discovery Institute began to include non-US scientists on the list),[5] over 700 in 2007,[6] and over 1000 in 2019.[4]
Sounds like been locked away in a cave for many many years.That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.
As long as God chooses to remain hidden he will remain unavailable for scientific study. In other words, it is God's choice to remain out of science's reach.Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.
You don't need to be an proponent of evolution to understand it.And the constant litany from evolutionists claiming that we can’t possibly understand science or we’d be evolution proponents, is beyond ludicrous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?