Natural selection v Intelligent design

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

ITs strange how many of these charades go on and people don't see it. Politics are just one big lie built on corruption and deceit but people just keep swallowing the politics and news, so is evolution science also just a big lie. Look what Hitler did, he told the big lie and convinced a nation to go to world war. Im afraid Hitler only showed our political and scientific leaders how to fool people easier. Tell the lie over and over, and people will believe it. Its been interesting, thanks for the thread and debate. Have a nice day everyone.

Ouch - way to Godwin the thread...

This kind of thinking about whole areas of science necessarily falls into the conspiracy theory bucket.

 

[Poster0]

This kind of thinking about whole areas of science necessarily falls into the conspiracy theory bucket.

Im referring only to evolution theory, not all of science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They say that Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide. They say that they appeared suddenly in the fossil records completely formed and similar to modern bats. Then they try to make up an excuse as to why there are no transitional fossils around because they are so fragile. Yet we have many fossils of other fragile creatures.

I posted a recently discovered bat precursor earlier, did you miss it?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Im referring only to evolution theory, not all of science.

Oh quite. Evolution theory is an area (or field) of science.

 

[Poster0]

I posted a recently discovered bat precursor earlier, did you miss it?

I have some pictures of UFO's and poltergeists if you are interested.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I cant access this paper so its no good to me.
Its funny I found a couple of other sites that talked about bat evolution. They say that Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide. They say that they appeared suddenly in the fossil records completely formed and similar to modern bats. Then they try to make up an excuse as to why there are no transitional fossils around because they are so fragile. Yet we have many fossils of other fragile creatures.

The they begin to paint the story of the evolution of bats and this is where they fill in the gaps to an idea that they already believe and assume happened. So this helps them make up the finer details. They say that bats started to turn up around the time of when flowers were coming onto the picture. So of course they will say this. Why because flowers bring insects and many bats love to eat insects. Yet none of this has been verified.

Thats what evolution states. But this is refuted by many. A lot of the evidence they use is superficial and speculative.
But it does remind of a good song.

Denial, steve. Denial.

 

[Poster0]

Oh quite. Evolution theory is an area (or field) of science.

Yes, so is Paranormal research.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have some pictures of UFO's and poltergeists if you are interested.

This isn't an appropriate thread. If you find a suitable topic for them, send me a link.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, so is Paranormal research.

Yes; so?

 

[Poster0]

Yes; so?

I was only suggesting that we can file the missing link fossils away in the X-Files. I got to go, later my friend.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was only suggesting that we can file the missing link fossils away in the X-Files. I got to go, later my friend.

You never said exactly what you think a missing link is; but, whatever, it's a non sequitur; fossils are not paranormal.

 

[Poster0]

You never said exactly what you think a missing link is; but, whatever, it's a non sequitur; fossils are not paranormal.

Yes, but paranormal research is science, and so is the search for intelligent alien life. What does paranormal research, aliens and missing link fossils have in common? Fox Mulder.



Do you know how hard it is to fake your own death? Only one man has pulled it off: Elvis.

--FOX MULDER

 

[paulm50]

Oh quite. Evolution theory is an area (or field) of science.

What part of Evolution science is theory? Don't say all of it unless you have proof.

 

[paulm50]

Not true. There is good science and bad science. Bad science has tried to tell us that the appendix was a useless organ, and is only a remnant of evolution from the past. IT was bad science because it didn't build this fallacy on any pure, observable science, but instead used obscure, theoretical, nonsensical, bad science of evolution theory. This apparent lack of pure, discernible science has proven that evolution theory science is incapable of even understanding the purpose of a human organ, let alone prove if God exists or not. Surely i cant trust them to discern the origin of mankind either.

Thats not science, its idealistic fallacy

Yes that part is bad science, the scientist found that out and announced it. So apart from that, everything is right.

Science isn't in the business of proving god exists, it can only deal with facts. And once they start going down the route of proving god's. They have to decide which one. There are so many versions.

Evolutionists keep saying that their theory is the foundation of biology but that is totally absurd. The foundation of biology is what scientists have observed, tested and repeated, and proven. Evolution theory has not been observed, tested, repeated and proven, despite what they assert to the contrary. They didn't test, observe, repeat nor prove that the appendix was a useless organ, or that humans have a bunch of junk DNA. No, and this fallacy was derived from atheism's idealistic notions, but not from science. However they assert that they are the foundation of biology, but this is nothing but atheistic faith and religion. That's the truth, regardless of the denial.

Evolutionists have observed all the evidence, you can observe it as well. And when they find a mistake, they correct it.

On most people in the modern world, an appendix is useless. Otherwise we wouldn't live after removing them.

So how did all the species get here, and what proof can you give us to back that up?

 

[paulm50]

Many scientists don't believe Lucy or any other fossil is actually a missing link in human evolution. Evolutionists however will give us the impression that the whole scientific community accepts these fossils as credible evidence of a missing link. This is nothing more than a huge charade.

Agreed, but they know, those species existed. You want to deny they did. So let's go to later Hominids. Where in your creation story does it say we and Neanderthals lived on Earth at the same time, in the same places, and met?

 

[Foxhole87]

Then can you describe to me what is random.

Quantum-level interactions with no causal links.

This strange characteristic vanishes beyond the quantum scale.

 

[pshun2404]

Do you normally post by drive-by jabbings or did you get around to figuring out how your use of the word "information" makes no sense the last time you posted in this thread?

Well first off I was addressing a misconception of another poster and NO I do not agree with YOUR interpretation of what information is...I still see (in this Universe) many examples of information (instructions or laws governing processes of formation and determining function) as being required for matter and energy to respond in just the way they do (like physical and chemical laws for example)....

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm quoting a paper so they are the ones you reckon are getting it wrong.

Nowhere in those papers does it say that you will get the same protein fold from every amino acid sequence.

They are saying that basic protein folds are represented by a narrow set of natural forms which are determined by a limited number of construction rules. Similar to those that govern the atom in physics. That adaptations and natural selection dont play a role in their formation but pre set rules that are finely tuned for making life. So this is similar to the finely tuned universe for life and shows ID rather than a naturalistic process. Its as simple as that.

Different amino acid sequences will produce different protein folds. It is those sequences that natural selection chooses between.

 

[pshun2404]

That's my aim.
Such as?

Well like just after I could no longer remain an agnostic (having experienced some things outside the natural while in a group of people who also experienced it) a lifelong condition I was to be medicated for for the rest of my life, upon hearing His still small voice I was told I was healed of this, believed it and threw away these meds, and was in fact healed of it, and have not taken medication for it for decades, my PH is fine and I have never had another Kidney Stone...

Now before the twist this is not an endorsement for people to throw away their meds...I take medications now for other issues and He has never told me to throw these away and they are wonderful scientific discoveries that keep me alive...but this is just one example...

 

[stevevw]

I posted a recently discovered bat precursor earlier, did you miss it?

Yes thanks I must have missed it. Sometimes I dont get all the messages into my email and I miss some now and again. I have heard of this discovery in my research but didn't think much about it. It is another example of how evolution assumes things and grabs onto anything that will possibly fill in the gaps missing. Bats lack transitionals and there is nothing showing any gradual progression. So this discovery of a smaller middle ear bone in a bat fossil is being made into a big deal because it can give the evolution of bats a possible transitional feature. But what they dont tell you is that there are bats today that dont have echolocation anyway. So all this may be is one of them.

Besides all the rest of its features are completely formed as a modern day bat. So you would think that along with a gradual transition in echolocation there would be other features that also were missing or show a transition. The one that mostly comes to mind is the long digits the bat has for making its wings. It is said that it evolved from a creature that had normal sized digits. So we would expect to see something somewhere with the gradual progression of longer and longer digits. But there is nothing but fully formed bats that suddenly appear in the fossil records. They are much the same 50 or 60 million years ago when they first appeared as they are today. This is the same for many animals.