Lines of Evidence

[Gracchus]

"So if they had went with what the new discoveries really look like they should be classed as then this would re date layers even more. Add to this that many of the so called ancient species are still being found alive or there are very similar ones found that are either smaller versions then we could say they are the same species that have always been around and dont show any evolution. But of course evolutionists say they just happen to have not evolved because they found their niche. Yet there are more and more being found all the time and other animals in similar niches have supposedly evolved. So they have an answer for just about every situation."

If an organism is very well adapted to its environment, any variation will likely be deleterious and thus selected out. If it is not well adapted, there is a greater likelihood that a change will provide an advantage. The modern coelocanth, for instance is an abyssal form, which means it is not only unlikely to leave fossils available to humans, but that it lives in a very stable environment. Selection in this case favors stabilization of phenotype, not change. The coelocanths that had been known prior to the discovery of Latimeria were shallow water dwellers, and quite different from the modern forms.
So "evolutionists" do, indeed have answers for many of your objections. I realize this is most annoying to you. But, all they have to do is consult reality, a procedure that is not available to many religious folks.

 

[stevevw]

If an organism is very well adapted to its environment, any variation will likely be deleterious and thus selected out. If it is not well adapted, there is a greater likelihood that a change will provide an advantage. The modern coelocanth, for instance is an abyssal form, which means it is not only unlikely to leave fossils available to humans, but that it lives in a very stable environment. Selection in this case favors stabilization of phenotype, not change. The coelocanths that had been known prior to the discovery of Latimeria were shallow water dwellers, and quite different from the modern forms.
So "evolutionists" do, indeed have answers for many of your objections. I realize this is most annoying to you. But, all they have to do is consult reality, a procedure that is not available to many religious folks.

So what about all the other creatures that have also either remained the same or are just smaller versions of the same creature. What about all the creatures that look modern and are found with dinos. What about the carbon dating of dinos to be less than 40,000 years. What about the dino soft tissue. What about the genetic evidence which shows a different tree of life than the one built on the observational records which is used for the geological column. Its Ok to say that the coelacanths are just one creature that has remained the same because it has found a nice little niche for itself. But many other creatures that live right next door to other creatures that are said to have changed have remained the same as well.

Then you have all the convergent creatures that happen to have evolved the same way as distant unrelated animal. Even 1000s of their genes are expressed in similar ways showing more than a coincidence. The re dating of creatures and the ever expanding geological layers to accommodate the new discoveries which are blending the fossil record into larger layers with creatures remaining the same for longer. Add to this the Cambrian explosions and other points in the fossil records where many creatures appear from out of nowhere and then disappear. Some only to turn up again and all without any trace of where they came from and showing no signs of the gradual evolutionary changes that Darwin talked about.

So when you put all this together there are more than a few anomalies and contradictions that cast doubt on the picture painted by evolutionists. It begins to make the fossil record look more like the same creatures with their complexity and various design being the same all the time. At least many are showing up with very similar features and shapes for much longer time periods. The thing is evolutionists do exactly what they accuse religion of doing. They come up with a reason for all these anomalies that are really based on assumptions and not solid testable evidence. Things like convergent evolution, ghost linage's, out of place fossils, the renaming of creature that look the same when found in the wrong place ect. These methods just allow an escape route for when the evidence points in the wrong direction.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what about all the other creatures that have also either remained the same or are just smaller versions of the same creature. What about all the creatures that look modern and are found with dinos. What about the carbon dating of dinos to be less than 40,000 years. What about the dino soft tissue. What about the genetic evidence which shows a different tree of life than the one built on the observational records which is used for the geological column. Its Ok to say that the coelacanths are just one creature that has remained the same because it has found a nice little niche for itself. But many other creatures that live right next door to other creatures that are said to have changed have remained the same as well.

Then you have all the convergent creatures that happen to have evolved the same way as a distant unrelated animal. Even 1000s of their are expressed in similar ways showing more than a coincidence. The re dating of creatures and the ever expanding geological layers to accommodate the new discoveries which are blending the fossil record into larger layers with creatures remaining the same for longer. Add to this the Cambrian explosions and other points in the fossil records where many creatures appear from out of nowhere and then disappear. Some only to turn up again and all without any trace of where they came from and showing no signs of the gradual evolutionary changes that Darwin talked about.

So when you put all this together there are more than a few anomalies and contradictions that cast doubt on the picture painted by evolutionists. It begins to make the fossil record look more like the same creatures with their complexity and various design being the same all the time. At least many are showing up with very similar features and shapes for much longer time periods. The thing is evolutionists do exactly what they accuse religion of doing. They come up with a reason for all these anomalies that are really based on assumptions and not solid testable evidence. Things like convergent evolution, ghost linage's, out of place fossils, the renaming of creature that look the same when found in the wrong place ect. These methods just allow an escape route for when the evidence points in the wrong direction.

The saddest part is all the evidence points in another direction, but being evolution is it's own religion, they refuse to give up their faith. Their belief in evolution is based on pure faith, all the actual science shows exactly what we already know - Kind after Kind with variation within that Kind.

They don't want to talk about those things you mentioned. Don't want to hear all of plant and animal husbandry virtually gave up on mutation as a possibility to bring species change. Want to try to throw off with strawmen the fact that no matter how many billions of generations and mutations they subject E coli to, they still end up with E coli - merely a variation thereof like we already see with our very eyes with dogs and cats. Dogs and cats that would have taken hundreds of millions of years to effect some of those changes without man's interference. And yet they are merely different breeds of the same species or Kind.

Close to 300 million fossils in museums, and still they resort to lack of the fossil record to explain their gaps. Viable when we had a few thousand, but stretching one's credibility in the here and now with the wealth of information available. Let alone that if evolution was correct, the stable populations would be the gaps - and the ones constantly changing would be the ones found in multitude. Darwin expected to find this as the fossil record increased. 200 years later we are still waiting for a single one. They can't be pinned down to anything, because their entire theory is one escape route after another.

 

[Gracchus]

Double post to to site malfunction.

 

[Gracchus]

So what about all the other creatures that have also either remained the same or are just smaller versions of the same creature.

Which ones are those?

What about all the creatures that look modern and are found with dinos.

Which ones are those?

What about the carbon dating of dinos to be less than 40,000 years.

This was reported where?

What about the dino soft tissue.

What about it?

What about the genetic evidence which shows a different tree of life than the one built on the observational records which is used for the geological column.

What report are you referring to?

Its Ok to say that the coelacanths are just one creature that has remained the same because it has found a nice little niche for itself. But many other creatures that live right next door to other creatures that are said to have changed have remained the same as well.

What creatures are those?

Then you have all the convergent creatures that happen to have evolved the same way as a distant unrelated animal. Even 1000s of their are expressed in similar ways showing more than a coincidence.

What species are you referring to, and what characteristics show convergence? It just won't do to wave your hands at half the world and say, "What about that?" I would then be justified and pointing to a university library and saying, "That's what?" You are not being honest, but you are so religious you don't even know that.

The re dating of creatures and the ever expanding geological layers to accommodate the new discoveries which are blending the fossil record into larger layers with creatures remaining the same for longer.

Again, you are making general statements which are very non-specific. (double entendre noted!) It is evident you are trying to overwhelm with questions.

Add to this the Cambrian explosions and other points in the fossil records where many creatures appear from out of nowhere and then disappear.

“The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record. Lasting for about the next 20–25 million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.” (Emphasis mine)


2015 Strategy/Community consultation - Meta


Stand away from the explosion! Business as usual will continue in twenty million years. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Some only to turn up again and all without any trace of where they came from and showing no signs of the gradual evolutionary changes that Darwin talked about.

Some? More hand waving and generalization! Each case must be considered on its own merits, and in the context of environmental factors. So give some examples that you find most troubling to evolutionary theory.

So when you put all this together there are more than a few anomalies and contradictions that cast doubt on the picture painted by evolutionists.

Indeed, when you put together all your hazy assertions it becomes very foggy.

It begins to make the fossil record look more like the same creatures with their complexity and various design being the same all the time.

No, it doesn't.

At least many are showing up with very similar features and shapes for much longer time periods.

Many? Name them, as many as you like, or just a few. What problems do they cause to the theory of evolution?

The thing is evolutionists do exactly what they accuse religion of doing. They come up with a reason for all these anomalies that are really based on assumptions and not solid testable evidence.

You mean that "evolutionists" do stuff like blaming all the evil in the world on a talking snake?

Things like convergent evolution, ghost linage's, out of place fossils, the renaming of creature that look the same when found in the wrong place ect. These methods just allow an escape route for when the evidence points in the wrong direction.

Convergent evolution happens because form follows function.

“When looking back at extinct organisms, there are some groups of organisms (or lineages) that have gaps in their fossil records. These organisms or species may be closely related to one another, but there are no traces in the fossil records or sediment beds that might shed some light on their origins. A classic example is the coelacanth, a type of fish related to the lungfishes and to primitive tetrapods. It seems that coelacanths have also been around for the past 80 million years, but have failed to leave us any fossils to look at. The reason for this is their environment, which is deep water near volcanic islands; therefore, these sediments are hard to get to, giving these coelacanths an 80 million year gap or ghost lineage. Another ghost lineage was that of the averostran theropods, a ghost lineage now reduced considerably thanks to the discovery of Tachiraptor.”


Ghost lineage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the renaming of species: Science makes mistakes. When mistakes are found they are corrected. Religion also makes mistakes. That's where the similarity ends.

Ask specific questions if you want to get specific answers. But I suspect that you don't want answers, and if you got them you would just "move the goal posts" or come back in another post asking the same questions. Eventually, you will probably just vanish. I have been a member of this forum for over twelve years and I have seen it happen.

I have also worked in mental wards and I am quite familiar with the methods patients use to defend their delusions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which ones are those?

QV please:

[youtube]kQa11RMCeSI[/youtube]

 

[Gracchus]

QV please:
[youtube]kQa11RMCeSI[/youtube]

I saw that. I have said that scientists can make mistakes. I also note, that science corrects mistakes that are found. You might say that science evolves to fit the facts.

See for instance: Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution, by Gary A. Cziko

Adapt or perish seems to have wide application, even in religion. Check out Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society by David Sloan Wilson. I think he overlooks some important points, but he does allow that religions adapt to the culture.

 

[stevevw]

Gracchus

Which ones are those?

I posted some a couple of posts back. But here are some anyway. There are so many I can only list a few.
Heres 12 living fossils.
What’s Old Is New: 12 Living Fossils
What's Old Is New: 12 Living Fossils | WIRED
Heres another 15.
15 living fossils: Purple frog | MNN - Mother Nature Network
Heres some plants
Living Fossil Plants - Ginkgo, Metasequoia, Wollemia
Heres some that are pushing back the evolution of animals and changing the fossil records that were built. This has all sorts of implications for evolution.
Discovery of ancient sea sponge fossils could push back existence of animal life on Earth by 90million years
[FONT=&quot]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1304061/Ancient-sea-sponge-fossils-push-existence-animal-life-90million-years.html#ixzz3T94UriC8[/FONT]
Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution
Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution
Fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years
Fossils push back snake origins by 65 million years › News in Science (ABC Science)[SIZE=+2]
Many modern birds such as [/SIZE][SIZE=+2][/SIZE]Parrots, Owls, Penguins, Ducks, Loons, Albatross, Cormorants, Sandpipers Avocets, etc.[SIZE=+2]have been found with dinos.
Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds[/SIZE]
11.18.98 - Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eTNoTHewY

There are also modern crabs, lobsters, insects, frogs, mammals, sea urchins and sponges, shrimps, star fish and many more that are either found with dinos or are very much the same as their modern counterparts. They are finding many of these examples all the time. Convergent evolution is finding more and more unrelated creatures that are very similar. In fact so similar its hard to believe its just convergent evolution and they didn't have some sort of exiting genetics built in to produce set traits in animals. They also have 1000s of similar genes which is in line with discoveries that have shown how the tree of life that evolutionists have made has many contradictions. It shows unrelated animals with similar genes sometimes large chunks and animals that are suppose to be more closely related have some surprising differences but also linked to more distant creatures on the tree.

[FONT=&quot]The crab is another species that has not changed one iota over "millions of years[/FONT]
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution?
Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution? | Uncommon Descent

 

[stevevw]

QV please:

[youtube]kQa11RMCeSI[/youtube]

This is just one of the ways that observational evidence can be wrong. But its almost as though its beyond a mistake and its something that good scientists will pickup on. It seems obvious what the mistake was. This has happened many times with discoveries like the skulls at Georgia. The variations of the 5 skulls of the one species are said to cover several species of ape man which were named in the past by evolutionists as different species.

It was said that some of the scientists were to quick to name everything a new species. It is a race to see who can make the latest discovery and out do each other. So just about any new bone found becomes a possible piece of a new species when it may just be a variation of an existing species. You see the more species made the more links made. The more links the better the connections for building up the story of evolution.

 

[CabVet]

The saddest part is all the evidence points in another direction, but being evolution is it's own religion, they refuse to give up their faith.

Misinformation on purpose now? Tactics keep evolving.

 

[Split Rock]

I didn't say all the species are being pushed together. I said evidence is coming in more and more for some animals being pushed back towards the Cambrian era and others being brought forward towards the modern era. The evidence is individual discoveries in which there are quite a few being re dated. The other point is like I said when they discover a creature that looks very similar to an existing earlier one in a earlier layer rather than say its the same species and then re date the species and the layers they re name the new discovery as a new species. Even if it looks modern and much the same they still give it a new name and say it must be some ancient species that is a relative to the existing one.

So if they had went with what the new discoveries really look like they should be classed as then this would re date layers even more. Add to this that many of the so called ancient species are still being found alive or there are very similar ones found that are either smaller versions then we could say they are the same species that have always been around and dont show any evolution. But of course evolutionists say they just happen to have not evolved because they found their niche. Yet there are more and more being found all the time and other animals in similar niches have supposedly evolved. So they have an answer for just about every situation. Anyway here are some examples.
Discovery of ancient sea sponge fossils could push back existence of animal life on Earth by 90million years.
[FONT=&quot]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1304061/Ancient-sea-sponge-fossils-push-existence-animal-life-90million-years.html#ixzz3T94UriC8[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

[FONT=&quot]Giant Penguin [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Icadyptes salasi) [/FONT]
Ancient giant penguin found in Peru waddled the Earth 36m years ago | Daily Mail Online
I could post many examples like this. All are very much the same as today's animals except bigger. So there has been little evolution. Some are just about the same in every aspect like some of the sea life like shells or trees and plants ect.
[FONT=&quot]Wollemi Pines [/FONT]
Found Tree from the Dinosaur Age - Sydney Morning Herald Article.

[FONT=&quot]

Crabs supposedly millions of years old look very much the same.
Others such as shrimps, lobsters, dragon flies, mozzies, many different ferns and of course the famous [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Coelacanth[/FONT].

There are also suppose to be around 23 modern looking mammals found with dinos as well as many other creatures and plants.
Fossils of Jurassic 'squirrels' suggest mammals roamed the Earth 40 MILLION YEARS earlier than first thought.

Read more: Fossils of Jurassic 'squirrels' suggest they roamed Earth 200m years ago | Daily Mail Online

They have even found modern birds with dinos.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs - Scientific American

They have also dated dinos to be less that 40,000 years old. If you add this with the soft tissue that has been found things are starting to get a little suspect.
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones ​

Mostly you are showing that in some cases the earliest of a particular group is later found to have existed earlier than was known. This is hardly surprising, since any fossil representing a taxonomic group found in a particular strata only indicates that the group is at least that old. It hardly shows they are all being pushed back to the Cambrian Period.

The last one about C-14 dating of dinosaurs is in regards to research by some guys that was rejected, because they used C-14 dating of fossilized bones to determine how old the animal was when it died. It only shows how old some of the rock is, not the animal. They were measuring the carbon in the minerals, not the original organism. That is why no one uses C-14 to date fossilized specimens. Why are you all of a sudden using C-14 dating methods as evidence anyway? I thought radioisotope dating was all flawed? I guess its only flawed when you want it to be.

Evolutionists will assume that a creature found in old rocks is old. It cannot be anything but old even if it looks modern. They will give all sorts of other reasons why it cannot be anything but old. If it looks modern and is in old rocks they will come up with a new name and make it a new species rather than say it maybe a modern specimen in old rocks.

​

If there is a modern species found in the fossil record that was given a different name to cover up the fact it is modern, please show us an example.

Its not a case of being dumb. Its a case of being human. All humans are susceptible to bias and seeing things in the way they want to see them. If evolutionists believe a certain way and that all evidence should fit that way then everything they see will be made to fit that way.

While everyone has biases, not all of us celebrate our biases like creationists do. Yes, scientists have biases... but they are also very competitive and critical of each other. Creationists, on the other hand, tend to hold hands together against the "common enemy."

I guess its a matter of how things are interpreted. But if you add to this that the genetic evidence is also not matching with the tree of life in the Darwinian model then we can begin to see how some had built the links fore evolution bias on observations which are susceptible to personal interpretation and bias. In fact there concept for dealing with fossils that are predicted to be in certain places for the evolutionary model but are not there called ghost linage.

Ghost lineage – the gap of time in which an organisms supposedly existed (according to our phylogentic hypothesis) but for which there are no fossils. The crux of the ghost lineage problem is where we have disparity between where we find certain organisms in the fossil record, and where we think we should find them.
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ghost-lineages/
Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Evolution News & Views

The fossil record is incomplete, so ghost lineages are not too surprising... especially for organisms that do not fossilize well. You have not provided any alternative interpretation that explains the evidence better.

 

[CabVet]

This is just one of the ways that observational evidence can be wrong. But its almost as though its beyond a mistake and its something that good scientists will pickup on. It seems obvious what the mistake was. This has happened many times with discoveries like the skulls at Georgia. The variations of the 5 skulls of the one species are said to cover several species of ape man which were named in the past by evolutionists as different species.

It was said that some of the scientists were to quick to name everything a new species. It is a race to see who can make the latest discovery and out do each other. So just about any new bone found becomes a possible piece of a new species when it may just be a variation of an existing species. You see the more species made the more links made.

It's interesting though that science corrected itself, not you, isn't it? That's how science works. Mistakes are made and mistakes are corrected, it is a learning process.

The more links the better the connections for building up the story of evolution.

Only in your distorted version of evolution. The actual theory of evolution does not require this.

 

[stevevw]

Gracchus

As for the renaming of species: Science makes mistakes. When mistakes are found they are corrected. Religion also makes mistakes. That's where the similarity ends.

Ask specific questions if you want to get specific answers. But I suspect that you don't want answers, and if you got them you would just "move the goal posts" or come back in another post asking the same questions. Eventually, you will probably just vanish. I have been a member of this forum for over twelve years and I have seen it happen.

I have also worked in mental wards and I am quite familiar with the methods patients use to defend their delusions.

Umm so when it comes down to it attack the credibility of the person rather than debate the topic. I have no delusions about anything. I just investigate and see things for how they are. I dont buy into the story that some do. Evolution can be just as delusional as anything. Many people go along with what the scientists say despite no really understanding what they are saying. They just believe its so because a scientist said it was so.

I do ask the questions when needed. I have asked many times in the past. I dont believe everything I read and I dont go along with everything on both sides of the fence. I read both sides of the evidence and then I can make my mind up what presents itself as the best case. A lot of what I have posted is well supported by non religious science. A lot of it comes down to interpretation and nothing else. So I guess its the way you see it. You have to also remember that these things are also supported by the scientists. They just happen to not agree what the evidence is showing. Just because they dont agree doesn't mean they are mad or delusional.

 

[Split Rock]

The saddest part is all the evidence points in another direction, but being evolution is it's own religion, they refuse to give up their faith. Their belief in evolution is based on pure faith, all the actual science shows exactly what we already know - Kind after Kind with variation within that Kind.

You really hate faith and religion, don't you? You use it like an insult. What does that say about your own faith in Christianity, I wonder...

Yes, kind after kind, is correct. We humans are the Eukaryote Kind. Just like those monkeys you hate so much.

Close to 300 million fossils in museums, and still they resort to lack of the fossil record to explain their gaps. Viable when we had a few thousand, but stretching one's credibility in the here and now with the wealth of information available. Let alone that if evolution was correct, the stable populations would be the gaps - and the ones constantly changing would be the ones found in multitude. Darwin expected to find this as the fossil record increased. 200 years later we are still waiting for a single one. They can't be pinned down to anything, because their entire theory is one escape route after another.

If the fossil record is so complete, why is it that we continue to discover new species in the fossil record every year? And just how many species did your god create all at once that there are so many extinct now?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You really hate faith and religion, don't you? You use it like an insult. What does that say about your own faith in Christianity, I wonder...

No, just that you have the same faith, you simply use the term science instead of religion, even if it is just that, religion.

And so you know, I accept "religion" no more than I do Fairie Dust. When you say religion, you mean catholic, protestant, etc - none of which existed during the time of JESUS.


[/QUOTE]Yes, kind after kind, is correct. We humans are the Eukaryote Kind. Just like those monkeys you hate so much.[/QUOTE]

Then you should have no problem throwing out your entire classification system, since you believe species is a bunk classification.

If the fossil record is so complete, why is it that we continue to discover new species in the fossil record every year? And just how many species did your god create all at once that there are so many extinct now?

New species according to whom? Not you, you just insist they are all the same species. Now you insist they are different? Sounds wishy-washy to me.

New species according to whom? Those that want to get their names in the books? Those same ones that misclassified baby and adult dinosaurs as separate species??? Those same ones that misclassified homo erectus skulls as a complete different species, since that is what they wanted them to be at that time to fill in the gaps?? Sounds wishy-washy to me.

I'm not sure you and I are discussing the same classification system or the same set of facts. I think you are discussing pure theory, versus what we have actually discovered. Pure theory that meets none of the scientific facts. Sounds wishy-washy to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's interesting though that science corrected itself, not you, isn't it?

Science made the error, science should correct it, eh?

I once knew a guy who would light fires, then either put them out or call them in; then take credit for "saving the day."

Scientists overstep their bounds when they try to correct something that isn't flawed: the Scriptures.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was said that some of the scientists were to quick to name everything a new species. It is a race to see who can make the latest discovery and out do each other. So just about any new bone found becomes a possible piece of a new species when it may just be a variation of an existing species. You see the more species made the more links made. The more links the better the connections for building up the story of evolution.

Scientists need to act like they're working hard behind the scenes, or else the public will lose interest in them.

This is why we get something new every month in magazines like Scientific American and Popular Science.

Scientists keep funneling the information to reporters, knowing they will hype it up and make them look good -- or at least, busy.

It will come out on the cover of the magazine, then when you read the article, it is full of such phrases as: "scientists think," "some say," "speculation has it," "other scientists think otherwise," etc.

Should the article be proven wrong, you might ... just might ... see a retraction in a small paragraph on page 38 of the next issue.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Gracchus]

Gracchus
Umm so when it comes down to it attack the credibility of the person rather than debate the topic.

You have posted "evidence" that does not back up your claims. You do not seem to realize this. You say here are twelve examples of "ghost species" and "here are fifteen more", and it would seem you never even notice that they have many examples in common, nor does the fact of ghost species threaten in any way the theory of evolution.

I have no delusions about anything.

That statement is one I have heard many times from delusional mental patients.

I just investigate and see things for how they are.

What you see is what you want to see.

I dont buy into the story that some do.

You don't "buy into" reality.

Evolution can be just as delusional as anything.

"Delusion n 1. (Psychiatry) a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur.
2. (Psychiatry) a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. See also illusion, hallucination
3. (Psychiatry) the act of deluding or state of being deluded
deˈlusional adj deˈlusive adj deˈlusively adv deˈlusiveness n delusory adj"


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Many people go along with what the scientists say despite no really understanding what they are saying. They just believe its so because a scientist said it was so.

That is so. Others disagree with what scientists say despite not really understanding what they are saying. I am sorry to inform you that you belong in the latter category.

I do ask the questions when needed. I have asked many times in the past.

It's a pity you don't listen to answers.

I dont believe everything I read and I dont go along with everything on both sides of the fence. I read both sides of the evidence and then I can make my mind up what presents itself as the best case. A lot of what I have posted is well supported by non religious science.

Science is, by its very nature, non-religious, in that it can only address what is verifiable, countable and measurable. Religion does not limit itself to objective reality.

A lot of it comes down to interpretation and nothing else. So I guess its the way you see it. You have to also remember that these things are also supported by the scientists. They just happen to not agree what the evidence is showing. Just because they dont agree doesn't mean they are mad or delusional.

Let's be clear. Scientists devote their lives to the study of a subject. They publish their work so that it can be inspected and critiqued by other scientists. Sometimes they disagree. But there are some things these dedicated people do agree on. They agree, for instance, that 2 + 2 = 4. And they agree that the modern theory of evolution is essentially correct. Anyone who disagrees with that theory is free to bring forth evidence and testable hypothesis to challenge it.

What you have posted as "evidence" for your position does not support your claim. "Ghost species" exist, but that does not in any way count as evidence against the theory of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

No, just that you have the same faith, you simply use the term science instead of religion, even if it is just that, religion.

And so you know, I accept "religion" no more than I do Fairie Dust. When you say religion, you mean catholic, protestant, etc - none of which existed during the time of JESUS.

Do you worship Jesus or not? Do you pray to him or not? Do you debase yourself to him or not? That is religion.

I don't pray; i don't worship; I don't have a holy book.

Then you should have no problem throwing out your entire classification system, since you believe species is a bunk classification.

I didn't debunk our classification system, just your argument. Our system acknowledges kind after kind, as you suggested. Eukaryotes, for example, have been reproducing kind after Eukaryote kind for millions of years. We are an example of this. We never stopped being Eukaryotes. Get it now?

New species according to whom? Not you, you just insist they are all the same species. Now you insist they are different? Sounds wishy-washy to me.

I never said they were not new species, just the same "kind," as you defined the term.

New species according to whom? Those that want to get their names in the books? Those same ones that misclassified baby and adult dinosaurs as separate species??? Those same ones that misclassified homo erectus skulls as a complete different species, since that is what they wanted them to be at that time to fill in the gaps?? Sounds wishy-washy to me.

As another has already posted, in science we correct our errors. You guys don't.

I'm not sure you and I are discussing the same classification system or the same set of facts. I think you are discussing pure theory, versus what we have actually discovered. Pure theory that meets none of the scientific facts. Sounds wishy-washy to me.

Everything sounds "wishy-washy" when you use straw men mischaracterizations like you do.

According to you, kind reproduces after the same kind. I agree. Eukaryotes reproduce kind after kind generation after generation. Our ancestors were Eukaryotes, and we are still Eukaryotes. There are many species that fall under the Eukaryotes kind. We are one of them.

 

[Split Rock]

Science made the error, science should correct it, eh?

I once knew a guy who would light fires, then either put them out or call them in; then take credit for "saving the day."

Scientists overstep their bounds when they try to correct something that isn't flawed: the Scriptures.

The scriptures aren't necessarily flawed... your interpretation of the scriptures is what is flawed.