Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Loudmouth]

ToE describes nothing . . .

ToE describes multiple mechanisms that are responsible for the biodiversity we see today. Those mechanisms include speciation, random mutations, natural selection, and neutral drift.

Pretending that the theory of evolution does not exist is not helping your position.

it just assumes "evolution did it", just meaning mutations survive selection.

Mutations survive selection with every birth. Are you saying that biological reproduction doesn't happen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Funny thing is nobody has any idea what this first life form should have been.

We don't need to know what the first life form looked like in order to conclude that humans share a common ancestor with other apes.

 

[Loudmouth]

I explained that.
It's not really my problem you're not happy with my explanation.
You can try to refute it though, but you don't want to read what i actually wrote, otherwise you would understand.

I did refute it. Your response was to childishly pretend that the theory of evolution doesn't exist.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Not adaptation actual evolution from one thing into,another.

Example: if every living thing has a common ancestor what causes plants,to become plants, mammals to be mammmals, fish to,he fish, birds to be birds. And why? What came first? Plants or animals. Why did plants evolve to need carbon dioxide and oxygen breathing creatures to need oxygen and then find a balance between the two. Where did rocks,come from? They are not living things yet there are a myriad of different types. If there was no creator where did they come from?
How is it that everything works,with everything else. The moon is just the right distance from the earth to control the tides specifically for,our size of water bodies. The earth is just the right distance from the sun for our type of life to,exist. Why did some things evolve into ants while there was a division in development that cause some things to develops into birds. What came first birds or ants. Insects,develope first or birds? What did birds eat if they didn't have insects or worms or whatever and did birds develops before berries etc or did berries develop first and why would berries have such a variety and yet often grow in the same type of environment and what would cause or trigger the need for change.
These are all questions that cannot be answered by evolution because it is mathematically impossible for all these to develop and work together as they do. Chaos does not create order without an outside force. There are just too many coincidents for all,of nature to have developed by mere chance. In fact it's mathematically impossible for all to coexist on this planet and have all things function in the harmony it does in,order for all the species of plants and animals to exist and with interdependence and independence. It cannot be explained by evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

Let's start with the first claim, and work on the rest one by one.

Why don't you show us the math?

 

[Hieronymus]

As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm suggesting dishonesty on their part, yes.
It's due to the a priori subscription to naturalism and not allowing "a divine foot in the door."
The fact that atheistic science claims to know the origins of our existence leaves little room for an open mind in approaching the origins questions.
It's simply disingenuous to ignore creation or ID when things appear (when analysing the evidence) designed.

And still they teach us evolution with debunked evidence, like the peppered moth, like Australopithecenes, like Archaeopterix...


Only a few were discussed by the defenders of naturalism here. Too few apparently...
The ones that have clear sources mentioned checked out.

I guess i messed up a little...

I fear you have become the unwitting dupe of creation-science propaganda. Take a look at the sources you are relating on. I have long and carefully studied creation-science material and I cannot help but conclude that it is anything but real, legitimate science. Hewer is just a brief list of major behavior patters found in the c-s community that tell me is dis all illegitimate science. It is illegitimate to present bogus credentials and degrees. It is illegitimate to plagiarize. It is illegitimate to present as definite the unqualified judgments of unqualified persons on sensitive scientific matters. It is illegitimate to create rumors and deliberately falsify information, as in the cases Haeckel and Darwin's finches. It is illegitimate to present your religious beliefs and to be accepted without question and as the sole criterion from which to determine the validity of scientific findings and research. It is illegitimate to present evidence you know to be bogus, as in the cases of c-s people themselves admitting the evidence is bogus but still insisting on it, the moon-dust argument and claims for human footprints among the dinosaurs. Now if you want to go for that kind of an approach, you are welcome to it. For me, it is total propaganda and to be avoided.

They can't even prove all bones are from the same organism.It is.

 

[Loudmouth]

As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )

Are you being sarcastic, or are you really being serious with this one? That is one of the worst quote mines that creationists have ever created.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. . .

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

 

[Armoured]

As Charles Darwin put it:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )

Hey ĺook! Another out of context quote mine!

 

[Subduction Zone]

As if you think these guys don't agree with eachother on this.
And they're quotes, not quote mines.

Paragraph 2 also mentions careful adjustment.
This needs a 'careful adjuster' or dead unconscious things performing miracles or a chance of practically zero percent.
Take your pick.
O wait, you already did, because you can not allow a divine foot in the door...

And once again according to your standards you are saying that there is no God since the Bible declares that to be the case 12 times. Your posts have been quote mines People have shown you how they are quote mines. You never read the articles that the quote mines came from, instead you are trusting a source that has no problem lying for Jesus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey ĺook! Another out of context quote mine!

What a great witness for their religion of creationism, twisting the words of others to make them look like they said the opposite of what they really said.

Wasn't there a character in the Bible that was known for doing that? Didn't it start with a D? Or was it an S?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean the mountains of evidence that aren't there.

And now you have shown that you do not even understand the concept of "evidence". I can help you with that. You keep claiming that you understand evolution and science but every third or post that you make keeps showing that you are incredibly naive about what science is or how it is done.

 

[Gene2memE]

Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Not adaptation actual evolution from one thing into,another.

Example: if every living thing has a common ancestor what causes plants,to become plants, mammals to be mammmals, fish to,he fish, birds to be birds. And why? What came first? Plants or animals. Why did plants evolve to need carbon dioxide and oxygen breathing creatures to need oxygen and then find a balance between the two. Where did rocks,come from? They are not living things yet there are a myriad of different types. If there was no creator where did they come from?
How is it that everything works,with everything else. The moon is just the right distance from the earth to control the tides specifically for,our size of water bodies. The earth is just the right distance from the sun for our type of life to,exist. Why did some things evolve into ants while there was a division in development that cause some things to develops into birds. What came first birds or ants. Insects,develope first or birds? What did birds eat if they didn't have insects or worms or whatever and did birds develops before berries etc or did berries develop first and why would berries have such a variety and yet often grow in the same type of environment and what would cause or trigger the need for change.
These are all questions that cannot be answered by evolution because it is mathematically impossible for all these to develop and work together as they do. Chaos does not create order without an outside force. There are just too many coincidents for all,of nature to have developed by mere chance. In fact it's mathematically impossible for all to coexist on this planet and have all things function in the harmony it does in,order for all the species of plants and animals to exist and with interdependence and independence. It cannot be explained by evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

This is possibly the best argument from ignorance Gish Gallop I've ever seen. If it wasn't so terrible, it would be admirable.

I've got a day off work, so lets see if I can be bothered to find the answers for these questions:

First cab off the rank is easy.

if every living thing has a common ancestor what causes plants,to become plants, mammals to be mammmals, fish to,he fish, birds to be birds.

Mutation, hereditary variation, genetic drift and migration, being acted on by the mechanisms of natural selection.

And why?

Science doesn't attempt to answer that question. Save that for philosophy and theology.

What came first? Plants or animals.

Animals. Or, at least the ancestors of animals. The Ediacara biota developed about 600 to 560 million years ago. Its from these, and the rapid morphological diversification of the Cambrian radiation, that many of the first phyla of animals emerged. The first vertebrates and animals with hard shells and bones were well established by about 535 million years ago. What we consider plant life didn't really appear until about 435 million years ago, when shore dwelling algae began to transition from water to land.

Why did plants evolve to need carbon dioxide and oxygen breathing creatures to need oxygen and then find a balance between the two.

Plants descended from earlier C3 pathway photosynthesisers - such as cyanobacteria. They didn't "find a balance", the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere have pinged up and down all over the place over the past 200 million years, from as high as 36-37% to as low as 10-12%. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are only steady from our very limited human timescales.

Where did rocks,come from? They are not living things yet there are a myriad of different types. If there was no creator where did they come from?

Hydrostatic attraction and gravity. At least initially. As in, that's what formed the planet.

There are a variety of processes that create the three different types of rock.
Igneous rock is formed from vulcanism - heating and cooling of lava and magma in various conditions;;
Sedimentary rock is formed from the deposition of various materials and its compression
Metamorphic rock is formed through the combination of heating and pressure on igneous and sedimentary rock, or on older metamorphic rock

How is it that everything works,with everything else.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but the simple answer is "it doesn't". If you look at the history of life on this planet, better than 99% of the species that we've cataloged have gone extinct. The world is subject to all sorts of nasty things, that periodically wipe out most of life.

The moon is just the right distance from the earth to control the tides specifically for,our size of water bodies.

And the relevance of tides is? Are you suggesting that tidal action on bodies of water is a necessary pre-condition for life on the planet? If there was no moon, a smaller moon, a larger moon, or a closer/further away moon, what would the difference be?

Additionally, what does just right for "our size of bodies of water" even mean? Does this include the Pacific, Lake Victoria and the Caspian Sea?

Why did some things evolve into ants while there was a division in development that cause some things to develops into birds. What came first birds or ants. Insects,develope first or birds?

First insects descended from crustaceans about 475 million years ago. Birds descended from therapod dinosaurs about 150 million years ago.

What did birds eat if they didn't have insects or worms or whatever

As insects had been around for ~325 million years by this point, and land arthropods about 375 million years, I don't see any problems here.

and did birds develops before berries etc or did berries develop first and why would berries have such a variety and yet often grow in the same type of environment and what would cause or trigger the need for change.

Earliest fruiting plants emerged during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.

Are you aware of co-evolution? There is a book 'Birds and Berries' by Barbara Snow, David Snow. Most of it is available on google. It will answer your questions here.

These are all questions that cannot be answered by evolution because it is mathematically impossible for all these to develop and work together as they do.

It appears to me that evolution (and geology) has answers to all of these questions, you are just unaware of them, or are refusing to look.

 

[rjs330]

Let's start with the first claim, and work on the rest one by one.

Why don't you show us the math?

Oh I could. I could,post a bunch,of links. But what's the point. I post a bunch of links, you post a bunch of links and we argue over whose links are right etc etc etc. I've been through this too,many times already. You refuse to believe in God, you,refuse to believe in creation and I refuse to believe in evolution.

Evolutionists have no answers for my questions ever. They can never answer the how or why. They can never answer where the first molecule ever came from and how in some fashion it ever became rocks trees water air life etc. And how did find its way to this round ball floating the precise distance necessary,from THIS sin to be able to produce this incredible nature we have and how our atmosphere was exactly what was needed for this life to grow and become all the things we have in the air on the land and under the see. And how did our waters form precisely in the quantities we have to be able to cleanse and water this planet and the difference of salt and fresh water and how did the moon just happen to be just where we need,a to control the tides and gravity precisely what was necessary to hold the waters in place keep the atmosphere from floating off into space. And how did the atmosphere form in just the right amount of ingredients to provide air for all these things and be thick enough to keep the radiation from the sun from killing us? And what about the other planets. Jupiter is the right size and placement to balance the gravitas of the sun and hold the earth in its place so all these miraculous things could occur. Pure dumb blind chance is always The answer.

Yet evolutionists cannot explain any of it really. Because we cannot have a God. God is a myth therefore all this complexity of the universe and life on this planet must have happened by chance and chance alone.

Yet there is zero evidence for macro evolution. And don't even give me the "well this bacteria transformed into this bacteria in a lab." Big whoop. Show me a tree turning into an animal or vice versa and I'll be impressed. Or better yet show me an evergreen tree turning into an oak tree. Pfft... Its all nonsense.

Like Romans says all the glory and power of God is plainly seen in the things made.

With All of this complexity we Will believe in Blind chance even though there is no proof. But we won't believe in a God. Why? Why won't we believe in a God?



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

This is possibly the best argument from ignorance Gish Gallop I've ever seen. If it wasn't so terrible, I would be admirable.

I've got a day off work, so lets see if I can be bothered to find the answers for these questions:

First cab off the rank is easy.



Mutation, hereditary variation, genetic drift and migration, being acted on by the mechanisms of natural selection.



Science doesn't attempt to answer that question. Save that for philosophy and theology.



Animals. Or, at least the ancestors of animals. The Ediacara biota developed about 600 to 560 million years ago. Its from these, and the rapid morphological diversification of the Cambrian radiation, that many of the first phyla of animals emerged. The first vertebrates and animals with hard shells and bones were well established by about 535 million years ago. What we consider plant life didn't really appear until about 435 million years ago, when shore dwelling algae began to transition from water to land.



Plants descended from earlier C3 pathway photosynthesisers - such as cyanobacteria. They didn't "find a balance", the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere have pinged up and down all over the place over the past 200 million years, from as high as 36-37% to as low as 10-12%. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are only steady from our very limited human timescales.



Hydrostatic attraction and gravity. At least initially. As in, that's what formed the planet.

There are a variety of processes that create the three different types of rock.
Igneous rock is formed from vulcanism - heating and cooling of lava and magma in various conditions;;
Sedimentary rock is formed from the deposition of various materials and its compression
Metamorphic rock is formed through the combination of heating and pressure on igneous and sedimentary rock, or on older metamorphic rock



I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but the simple answer is "it doesn't". If you look at the history of life on this planet, better than 99% of the species that we've cataloged have gone extinct. The world is subject to all sorts of nasty things, that periodically wipe out most of life.



And the relevance of tides is? Are you suggesting that tidal action on bodies of water is a necessary pre-condition for life on the planet? If there was no moon, a smaller moon, a larger moon, or a closer/further away moon, what would the difference be?

Additionally, what does just right for "our size of bodies of water" even mean? Does this include the Pacific, Lake Victoria and the Caspian Sea?



First insects descended from crustaceans about 475 million years ago. Birds descended from therapod dinosaurs about 150 million years ago.



As insects had been around for ~325 million years by this point, and land arthropods about 375 million years, I don't see any problems here.



Earliest fruiting plants emerged during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.

Are you aware of co-evolution? There is a book 'Birds and Berries' by Barbara Snow, David Snow. Most of it is available on google. It will answer your questions here.



It appears to me that evolution (and geology) has answers to all of these questions, you are just unaware of them, or are refusing to look.

And we know all this how? By guess or By gosh. A 150,million years ago. Hmm.. Interesting and who was there to witness this and catalogue it? The estimations of science are hogwash. They are guesses. How do we know birds were before berries or vice versa? What made the ant turn into a beetle and better yet how did the spider become a snake. Oh yeah. Evolution, blind luck. For something to require radical change there must be a reason for it. Especially when dealing with change of something to,become a plant or animal. No where has science,proven that radical change from one thing to another happens just because.

Belief in God is no more crazy that belief in this nonsense.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[USincognito]

(because it would have had to have existed before it existed, a logical fallacy).

Oh this is some delicious irony....

So, if you get educated that dead unconscious things performed miracles without a purpose, and you're not taught the reasons to doubt this, obviously you will lose faith in (special) creation.

So's Law validated.

 

[USincognito]

And we know all this how? By guess or By gosh. A 150,million years ago. Hmm.. Interesting and who was there to witness this and catalogue it? The estimations of science are hogwash. They are guesses. How do we know birds were before berries or vice versa? What made the ant turn into a beetle and better yet how did the spider become a snake. Oh yeah. Evolution, blind luck. For something to require radical change there must be a reason for it. Especially when dealing with change of something to,become a plant or animal. No where has science,proven that radical change from one thing to another happens just because.

Belief in God is no more crazy that belief in this nonsense.

Instead of Gish Galloping straw men and utter misunderstandings, you really should learn something about the subject before trying to critique it.

 

[Gene2memE]

And we know all this how? By guess or By gosh. A 150,million years ago. Hmm.. Interesting and who was there to witness this and catalogue it?

No one, but there's this thing called inductive reasoning.

There are entire fields of the sciences dedicated tot he reconstruction of life in the past. As for the dating, do you need a lesson on the various methods (chemical, radiological, luminescence), and how they can be used to corroborate each other?

The estimations of science are hogwash. They are guesses.

They are observations drawn from the available evidence. If you can't distinguish that from guesswork, that's your issue.

How do we know birds were before berries or vice versa?

From the evidence left via the fossil record. Its always a tentative set of conclusions, but the available evidence shows fruiting plants as being in existence several hundred million years prior to early birds, or even the proto-aviation transitions from therapod dinosaurs.

Still, palentology is built on the evidence available to it. So if we discover a 375 million year old bird, quite a lot of the conclusions will have be re-examinied. The chances of that are vanishingly small though.

What made the ant turn into a beetle and better yet how did the spider become a snake. Oh yeah. Evolution, blind luck.

Wow.

Spiders are invertebrate arthropods. Snakes are vertebrate reptiles. How could you possibly think that spiders became snakes? You'd have to go back to the last common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates to find their evolutionary link.

Ants didn't turn into beetles. Nor did beetles turn into ants. Insect evolution isn't my thing, but a quick check shows that there is about 50-60 million years between their descent from a common ancestor.

Can I assume that you've never taken a course in basic biology?

For something to require radical change there must be a reason for it. Especially when dealing with change of something to,become a plant or animal. No where has science,proven that radical change from one thing to another happens just because.

Evolution by natural selection has a reason. There's no "just because".

The title of Darwin's original publication on evoution - On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life - contains a RATHER LARGE hint.

Can you work it out?

 

[USincognito]

Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)

Oh my. This quote is not by Thoman{sic} and Webb. They are writers for New Scientist quoting Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles.

 

[USincognito]

It claims to explain the origin of species, which makes up the living part of the eco system(s) i.e. life on earth.

Sorry, but your engaged in false equivocation. The theory explains the origin of species which are living things already alive. It does not purport to explain the origin of life.