proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Uber Genius]

Note to freshman college students - DON'T PLAGIARIZE WHEN DISCUSSING THINGS THAT YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

THOSE ABOVE YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND EDUCATIONAL STATION WILL RECOGNIZE THE CHANGE IN STYLE AND DO A 5-SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH TO DISCOVER YOUR DISHONESTY:


http://www.christianity-science.gr/files/CambrianExplosion-Biology'sBigBang.pdf

A neo-Darwinian understanding of the mechanism for generating new biological
structure generates three specific predictions or empirical expectations concerning the
fossil record. Given the operation of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the fossil record
should show: (1) the gradual emergence of biological complexity and the existence of
numerous transitional forms leading to new phyla-level body plans; (2) small-scale
morphological diversity preceding the emergence of large-scale morphological disparity;
and (3) a steady increase in the morphological distance between organic forms over time
and, consequently, a steady increase in the number of phyla over time.​

WORD. FOR. WORD.

And from a 'Consulting/Adjunct Professor'....

For shame.

You are the 4th creationist that I have caught plagiarizing on this forum in the last couple of months.

Great morals.

What was that projective, condescending quip you wrote to me?

Ah yes - "Given your grasp of the discussion so far I'm dubious of additional complexity but I will spell out why the experts who hold to NeoDarwinian evolution affine the Cambrian explosion to be a potential knockdown argument."


Yet the best you can muster is plagiarism...

again you manage not to reply to the issues raised!

And I am not submitting this forum post to a peer-reviewed journal.

Nice strawman.

Look it up.

Keep faking it. You will fool someone out here into believing your propaganda is actually a substitute for education.

Educated people see this crap a mile away.

 

[tas8831]

again you manage not to reply to the issues raised!

And I am not submitting this forum post to a peer-reviewed journal.

Nice strawman.

Look it up.

Keep faking it. You will fool someone out here into believing your propaganda is actually a substitute for education.

Educated people see this crap a mile away.

Amazing that a "professor" would actually claim that since he is not submitting to a journal that his pathetic plagiarism is cool - which tells me that Uber is misreprepresenting himself.

The "issue" he brings up is creationist spin - OK, I will address it:


Meyer et al's. claims are creationist spin based on probable purposeful misrepresentation of relevant data.

What does your plagiarism show regarding your 'knowledge' of the subject?


Any fool can copy-paste and call it their own.



Educated people see plagiarism as an admission of ignorance and dishonesty from a mile away.

if you had what it takes, you'd bring it instead of copying a creationist essay.

You are exposed and out of your league.

 

[bhsmte]

Amusing thread!

 

[tas8831]

It is time for you to grow up both intellectually and emotionally. You could have engaged my points about the ramifications (knock down objections) of thencambrian explosion. Instead I get ad hominem attacks.

Do you even know what 'ad hominem' means?

I did not attempt to address your plagiarized claims because YOU PLAGIARIZED so they are NOT your points!


Another dishonest plagiarist creationist.

Shocking.

An educated person would have replied with explanations for those data concomitant with the neo-Darwinian inference,

An educated person would not have tried to fool people by copy-pasting the work of someone else.

you respond with propaganda.

I responded by outing your hypocrisy and plagiarism, that is not propaganda.


YOU posted plagiarized propaganda churned out by some creationists.

Although I have been generous in sharing my concessions and am willing to engage you, I get non-sequiturs (you change the subject) and rhetorical flourish.

My view is that neondarwinian evolution is dead as a theory. Gradualism both from a punctuated equilibrium or no darwinian standpoint don't give a reasonable account of the data. Other theories might but seemed to be discouraged for political and religious reasons rather than scientific reasons. Rhetoric rather than reasoned research and honest discussion, seems to have won the day.

I'm not playing the rhetorical flourish game with you anymore, you have waisted [sic - professor???] enou of my time.

"IGNORED"

Nice set of assertions - but I am not concerned with the hackneyed, unsupported assertions of a plagiarist.

Why is plagiarism considered dishonest?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

My point is (and I can repeat this as many times as you want) the Bible is JUST as accurate as a mathematical formula. My son is taking math that only 10% of the people are able to understand. Does that make the formula any less accurate if 90% of the people do not understand the formula? God is always true even if every man is a liar. Because the Bible is not based on man, the Bible is based on God and His authority. God watches over His word to do and to perform what He says He is going to do.

Isa 55:11 "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."

I'm sorry, it just isn't. Go get a stack of math professors and see how many disagree on the underlying principles, formulas and rules that govern it - then do the same for the bible, grab a gaggle of priests and see how many disagree on the underlying principles, formulas and rules that govern it and you'll have a very different outcome. How many versions of maths are there and how many versions of christianity are there? Nobody looks at me weird or avoids me because I practice a different form of mathematics to them, that'd just be nonsense. Religion though, that's an everyday occurrance....

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Maybe, because God only assigns it to man to gather the evidence. That does not mean we can trust them to explain or interpret that evidence. Life can be very subjective at times and it is not as objective as you seem to think it is.

Prove it then. Prove that God had anything to do with anything for a start. Then, prove that their conclusions aren't concordant with the evidence. That you don't understand it doesn't invalidate it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I guess you never heard of the The infinite monkey theorem. IF you falsify infinite then you falsify evolutionary theory because it is dependant on the The infinite monkey theorem.

That isn't infinite. it was first recorded as an idea (though in practice it really could be any random character generator & not a monkey) in 1913.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What he or anyone else says is irrelevant unless you can explain genetically how parents with no gene for eyes can have a kid with eyes.

Go read a book. Your Ignorance isn't a valid argument.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Amen. The Skulls of the sons of God (prehistoric people) definitely show an increase in size BUT that has nothing to do with intelligence since Neanderthal had a larger brain case that today's Humans. Your willingly ignorance of the difference is caused by the godless theory that the flood story is wrong. Read ll Peter 3:3-7 and you will find that Humans (descendants of Adam) came from a world (Kosmos) which was totally destroyed in the flood. The Ark brought the first Humans, which smaller brain cases than Neanderthal to this planet of prehistoric people. Your idea is refuted by the History of the first Human farming on this Earth. Try again?

Sorry, 2 Peter 3:3-7 doesn't say anything about humans coming from anywhere else to here. It just talks about the flood narrative (that never happened, btw) right here on this one place. so No, no need to 'try again'

 

[joshua 1 9]

That isn't infinite.

The infinite monkey theory is not infinite. So science does not say what they mean and they do not mean what they say. Of course, how could we expect anything any different. I do not even know where you would get a infinite number of monkeys and even if you had a infinite number of monkeys where would you keep them? Where would you find a infinite amount of food to feed them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It just talks about the flood narrative (that never happened, btw)

Noah was a real person and his flood was a real flood. The Bible is absolute literal truth. Even if people do not know what those words mean. The Bible is a paradigm not a metaphor. People do not realize how great God is and what HE is able to accomplish. When we talk about Jesus we talk about a corner stone. He sets the standard. He lived His life as a example for us to follow.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Prove that God had anything to do with anything for a start.

God represents the natural laws that we find in the Universe. This universe would not exist if it were not for the laws we are able to identify. However we are not seeking to show that God exists, we are showing that the Bible is accurate and true.

 

[bhsmte]

God represents the natural laws that we find in the Universe. This universe would not exist if it were not for the laws we are able to identify. However we are not seeking to show that God exists, we are showing that the Bible is accurate and true.

I believe he said prove it. You gave a personal opinion, with zero independent evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Go get a stack of math professors and see how many disagree on the underlying principles, formulas and rules that govern it

I go by NASA, when they screw up people die. If you need surgery who do you go to?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I believe he said prove it.

I have proven the Bible to be true> many many times right here on this forum. You have failed even once to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. You have a score of zero with a 100% fail rate. God has a 100% success rate and He always accomplishes His objective. Even in every detail of your life. So be as critical of me as you want because my success rate is far far greater than your rate of nothing or zero. When it is all over and you have lived your life out then what are you going to have to show for the life you lived?

 

[bhsmte]

I have proven the Bible to be true> many many times right here on this forum. You have failed even once to show that the Bible is not 100% accurate and true. You have a score of zero with a 100% fail rate. God has a 100% success rate and He always accomplishes His objective. Even in every detail of your life. So be as critical of me as you want because my success rate is far far greater than your rate of nothing or zero. When it is all over and you have lived your life out then what are you going to have to show for the life you lived?

You have failed miserably to do as you claim.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Then, prove that their conclusions aren't concordant with the evidence. That you don't understand it doesn't invalidate it.

What YOU do not understand is that Science goes by the best explanation they have. They produce the best answers they can come up with. You have to be able to produce a better solution or a better explanation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You have failed miserably to do as you claim.

Even if that were true, my success rate is still better then your 100% failure rate. You would have to show that there is NOTHING true in the Bible and YOU can not do that. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word: absolute.

 

[bhsmte]

Even if that were true, my success rate is still better then your 100% failure rate. You would have to show that there is NOTHING true in the Bible and YOU can not do that. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word: absolute.

Keep avoiding the burden of proof, it is amusing.

 

[bhsmte]

What YOU do not understand is that Science goes by the best explanation they have. They produce the best answers they can come up with. You have to be able to produce a better solution or a better explanation.

It is always a good idea, to have evidence to support those better explanations.