Science vs. Evolution

[Hespera]

the first bit of creo nonsense was much bettet

 

[Cassiterides]

the first bit of creo nonsense was much bettet

tell me are you still pretending to have that bad leg?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

the first bit of creo nonsense was much bettet

If you want to find a big collection of stupid creationist quotes all you have to do is look at the links that Cassiterides posted for us earlier on this thread.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Frog ----> PRINCE = Fairytale

Frog ----> + 300 million years ----> = Prince = Science?

Your beliefs are a fairytale.

Dust --> Prince = Fairytale
Dust + Spit --> Man = Prove historical fact

Completely not religious at all, nope, nosiree. Also, ignore the man behind the curtain.

See, I can do it too! Do I get an epic Darwin-sausage too? It's much better than those bananas you guys keep sending me...

YouTube - Atheist Nightmare

 

[Hespera]

tell me are you still pretending to have that bad leg?

huh?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Frog ----> PRINCE = Fairytale

Frog ----> + 300 million years ----> = Prince = Science?

Your beliefs are a fairytale.

I accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth and the clear and obivous evidence for common descent from comparative genetics, comparative anatomy and the fossil record.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

I have been studying science for more than 50 years. Most of the molecular data in support of evolution didn't even exist when I started to study science.
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

Meanwhile all you can do is tell bad jokes and point to websites that are even worse jokes.
AiG's attempt to rebut Tiktaalik as a transition fossil is laughable. The video you pointed to is deceptive and also makes some laughably stupid statements (such as the one that where the guy essentially says that their should be intermediates between cats and dogs all over the place). One of the websites you pointed to uses bogus young earth claims that even AiG refuses to use.

You have nothing so you make claims about fairy tales while you believe in the myth that all the animals on earth are descended from 2 or 6 (remember Noah burned up one of the clean aminals after the fllood) representives of each kind that came off a boat in the Middle East 4,500 years ago.

It is not possible to prove a scientific theory such as evolution, we can only point to the evidence for common descent and the evidence that common descent is the result of evolution and show that the theory of evolution has not been falsified. However, it is possible to falsify alternate hypotheses and the Young Earth Global flood hypothesis has falsified multiple times by every branch of science that can be applied to its study.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Dust --> Prince = Fairytale
Dust + Spit --> Man = Prove historical fact

Completely not religious at all, nope, nosiree. Also, ignore the man behind the curtain.

See, I can do it too! Do I get an epic Darwin-sausage too? It's much better than those bananas you guys keep sending me...

YouTube - Atheist Nightmare

Congratulations, you found a video even more absurd that the one Cassiterides last posted though it is pretty typical creationist nonsense. I like this one better
YouTube - Atheist Nightmare: Sexy Banana

 

[Cassiterides]

huh?

You pretend to have a bad leg or was it your back? (and change the dates of when you had the accident). You claim this so you seem 'neutral' on the whole evolution vs creation issue i.e your just wasting some time on this issue debating it to kill some time. However in truth it just seems you have a hidden agenda as a typical militant atheist to attack creationists or anyone who doesn't believe in the fairytale of evolution.

I found your user on evolutionfairytale.com making a post in 2009 talking of your accident, now it's almost a year later and you still claim the same thing...

 

[Cassiterides]

AiG's attempt to rebut Tiktaalik as a transition fossil is laughable. The video you pointed to is deceptive and also makes some laughably stupid statements (such as the one that where the guy essentially says that their should be intermediates between cats and dogs all over the place). One of the websites you pointed to uses bogus young earth claims that even AiG refuses to use.

On the subject of the video, how do you explain all the evolutionists interviewed claimed there is a lack of/ or no transitional fossils? The video was directly from their words, no creationist dishonesty...

You have nothing so you make claims about fairy tales while you believe in the myth that all the animals on earth are descended from 2 or 6 (remember Noah burned up one of the clean aminals after the fllood) representives of each kind that came off a boat in the Middle East 4,500 years ago.

The flood is confirmed by ancient historians. There were even pagan Greeks who wrote it was a fact.

It is not possible to prove a scientific theory such as evolution, we can only point to the evidence for common descent and the evidence that common descent is the result of evolution and show that the theory of evolution has not been falsified.

Common descent is not observable.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

On the subject of the video, how do you explain all the evolutionists interviewed claimed there is a lack of/ or no transitional fossils? The video was directly from their words, no creationist dishonesty...

You mean he wasn't begin dishonest when he said this regarding whale evolution?

The only fossil evidence is a skull and some teeth, no leg bones.

I think I showed pretty clearly that we was being dishonest.

By the way the Patterson out of context quote they bring up is well known.
Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

I really did like the comment about Cogs and Dats, what a hoot. Either these guys are just trying to fool you or they know nothing about evolutionary theory or all of the above.

The flood is confirmed by ancient historians. There were even pagan Greeks who wrote it was a fact.

They also wrote of the Greek Gods as fact. The global flood has been falsified by biodiversity, biogeography, paleontology, geology, archeology and every other applicable branch of science

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378/

Creationist complain about gaps the fossil record when they can't even explain the existence of an ordered fossil record. Last time I brought this up you mentioned Duane "bullfrog protein" Gish. Does he give any logical explanation for the ordering of microfossils or macrofossil or the existence of trace fossils in his book? If so let hear it. It should be a better joke than the last one you tried.
Perhaps he can explain why mammal fossils are extremely abundant in Eocene and later strata but are never found in Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian strata.

I would also like to hear his explanation for biogeography if he has one. It is probalby not as hilarious as Sarfati's on True Origins but it should be good for a few laughs.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155813/

Maybe you can also tell us what predators ate after the flood. No one else has be able to. I even wonder what prey species ate on a world that had been underwater for a year.

How about answering the biodiversity question I raised earlier?

Common descent is not observable.

No but the evidence of common descent is observable. How do you explain nested hierarchies
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

how about patterns of endogenous retroviral insertions?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

How about plagiarized error in molecular genetics
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

how about the evidence of the formation of human chromosome 2 by fusion from two ancestral chromosomes
Chromosome fusion

and Tiktaalik is a transition fossil, you attempt to show it is not by pointing to an AiG page was a total fail
The Lancelet: AiG tries to respond to Tiktaalik

How are these observations not evidence for common descent?

 

[interested in life]

You mean he wasn't begin dishonest when he said this regarding whale evolution?

I think I showed pretty clearly that we was being dishonest.

By the way the Patterson out of context quote they bring up is well known.
Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

I really did like the comment about Cogs and Dats, what a hoot. Either these guys are just trying to fool you or they know nothing about evolutionary theory or all of the above.

They also wrote of the Greek Gods as fact. The global flood has been falsified by biodiversity, biogeography, paleontology, geology, archeology and every other applicable branch of science

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378/

Creationist complain about gaps the fossil record when they can't even explain the existence of an ordered fossil record. Last time I brought this up you mentioned Duane "bullfrog protein" Gish. Does he give any logical explanation for the ordering of microfossils or macrofossil or the existence of trace fossils in his book? If so let hear it. It should be a better joke than the last one you tried.
Perhaps he can explain why mammal fossils are extremely abundant in Eocene and later strata but are never found in Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian strata.

I would also like to hear his explanation for biogeography if he has one. It is probalby not as hilarious as Sarfati's on True Origins but it should be good for a few laughs.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155813/

Maybe you can also tell us what predators ate after the flood. No one else has be able to. I even wonder what prey species ate on a world that had been underwater for a year.

How about answering the biodiversity question I raised earlier?


No but the evidence of common descent is observable. How do you explain nested hierarchies
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

how about patterns of endogenous retroviral insertions?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

How about plagiarized error in molecular genetics
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

how about the evidence of the formation of human chromosome 2 by fusion from two ancestral chromosomes
Chromosome fusion

and Tiktaalik is a transition fossil, you attempt to show it is not by pointing to an AiG page was a total fail
The Lancelet: AiG tries to respond to Tiktaalik

How are these observations not evidence for common descent?

Wow want to simplify your posts there boss?One point at a time,you know its difficult to clear anything up when you are throwing multiple points of discussion.whats the biggest thing that bothers you?
I like discussing human evolution especially the fossil record.

 

[interested in life]

How does one know from looking at a skull whether that particular specimen had descendants or not?What can we look for in teeth ,jawbones, or craniums to decipher whether the specimen had reproduced?
We have established that its impossible to judge intelligence from the size of a cranium without soft tissue.
Im eager to learn here.

 

[interested in life]

hello?

 

[AV1611VET]

What can we look for in teeth ,jawbones, or craniums to decipher whether the specimen had reproduced?

Reputation.

If they can get some attention for it, then it's a "discovery".

If not, then I'm wondering if they don't just put it back.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Reputation.

If they can get some attention for it, then it's a "discovery".

If not, then I'm wondering if they don't just put it back.

keep wondering, AV -- and remember that you wear your ignorance like a badge.

 

[Blayz]

I like discussing human evolution especially the fossil record.

You should find another interest. The fossil record is vaguely academically interesting, but it accounts for 0.01% of evidence/the nature of evolution. If you really want to discuss human or any other evolution, get a grounding in genetics.

How does one know from looking at a skull whether that particular specimen had descendants or not?

Inference based on what else is found in the area, where abouts it was found and what other evidence exists.

We have established that its impossible to judge intelligence from the size of a cranium without soft tissue.
Im eager to learn here.

We???

 

[AV1611VET]

keep wondering, AV -- and remember that you wear your ignorance like a badge.

That's right -- that's one of the things science operates on.

To bring up a popular point -- that's how Pluto got voted down -- they weeded out those in the know in favor of those who weren't qualified.

32

 

[interested in life]

You should find another interest. The fossil record is vaguely academically interesting, but it accounts for 0.01% of evidence/the nature of evolution. If you really want to discuss human or any other evolution, get a grounding in genetics.

Noted,so is it safe to say that really when a naturalist wants to defend his position,the fossil record actually doesnt back him?I find it interesting despite the multitudes of fossils discovered,you would say 0.01%

Inference based on what else is found in the area, where abouts it was found and what other evidence exists.

Right understood,so what if there only happens to be fragments or only 2 or 3 specimens found,would it be safe to say that they are an anomaly rather than the rule?.You didnt quite answer the question either,if there are no other skulls or fragments in the area,how can you tell whether the specimen has reproduced?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's right -- that's one of the things science operates on.

To bring up a popular point -- that's how Pluto got voted down -- they weeded out those in the know in favor of those who weren't qualified.

32

Not seeing the connection -- you're not in the know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not seeing the connection --

I wear my ignorance like a badge, and that's just what the IAU did with the voters -- filtered out the sages so that only those wearing ignorance like a badge voted.

Didn't you read the link?