Scientists' quotes

[bhsmte]

subscribing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly... so stop trying those strawmen when it comes to creation and your claiming "I can't imagine how, and no one knows of x, therefore y."

I cite positive evidence, such as shared genetic markers and transitional fossils.

Stop ignoring all of observation of the natural world and breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species - then ignoring it totally when it comes to classifying the fossil record. If they ever get around to correcting any of their classification mistakes you will find you are left with nothing to theorize about except Kind after Kind.

The theory of evolution explains the pattern of shared and divergent DNA between species. That includes common ancestry between species that don't produce fertile offspring.

 

[Jan Volkes]

What's so hard to understand about no origin of life - no life - no evolution? You can't just say oh geee, life exists so it evolves. Your theory demands it comes from non-life - through no one knows what mechanism, or conditions or even how. Your only observation is that life was not, then it was - everywhere all over the globe at once, except for man and the animals with him which was the last creation, because they had not had time to spread out far before the continents were separated at Babel.

Most Christians ignore this fact too. That all life prior to man exists on almost every continent as we see it now, only man and the animals created with him are segregated by continents.

Evolution as we all know, is one of the most flawed theories that exist. You observe breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species in real life - then refuse to apply that knowledge to the fossil record. Instead insisting things never once observed took place.

As we say in the UK, I think you're off with the fairies, you are so far off base it's doubtful if you will ever find your way back.
We seem to not be communicating so I will leave you to your own thoughts. take care, bye.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's see how this works for other fields of science.

No origin of matter, no atmosphere - no meteorology?

Are you saying that in order to have a natural explanation for how weather changes we also have to have a natural explanation for the origin of the universe?

I guess you must - it is science that says no effect without cause, if there was no origin to matter - there would be no matter. Yes? Science has been working diligently on that priest's theory of the Big Bang to explain the origin of the universe, because they felt compelled to because without it, they are left with hollow claims. Of course even with it they are left with hollow claims, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

 

[RickG]

If they ever get around to correcting any of their classification mistakes you will find you are left with nothing to theorize about except Kind after Kind.

Then why don't we see kind after kind in all layers of sedimentary strata?

 

[bhsmte]

As we say in the UK, I think you're off with the fairies, you are so far off base it's doubtful if you will ever find your way back.
We seem to not be communicating so I will leave you to your own thoughts. take care, bye.

He talks about fairy dust a lot.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I cite positive evidence, such as shared genetic markers and transitional fossils.

I cite direct empirical evidence that says your transitional fossils are all merely incorrect classifications.

I say you can't defend your stance of these being separate species:

Anymore than any biologist would even attempt to list these as separate species, which not a single one of them even attempts to, being their lineage is too well known.

I say start applying empirical evidence to the fossil record and get rid of all those incorrect classifications first. Then perhaps we can have a logical discussion.

I cite positive evidence those ERV's are one and all foreign to the host and are known to bring foreign genomes across species lines.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

The theory of evolution explains the pattern of shared and divergent DNA between species. That includes common ancestry between species that don't produce fertile offspring.

Because they have misclassified breeds in the fossil record as separate species. Stop ignoring the world around you when looking at the past.

Quit trying to claim finches that all interbreed and produce fertile offspring are examples of speciation and are separate species.

Stop incorrectly classifying those "ring species". Every ring species listed is listed as natural conditions having caused locally adapted traits. Which brings them under the heading of "infraspecific taxa - subspecies - not separate species. Stop with the incorrect classifications that defy the very science you claim to follow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

And if you got a problem with that definition - then present the scientific definition of species you say is the valid one???? And we'll go from there. But we all know that is how any science textbook is going to describe it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess you must - it is science that says no effect without cause, if there was no origin to matter - there would be no matter. Yes? Science has been working diligently on that priest's theory of the Big Bang to explain the origin of the universe, because they felt compelled to because without it, they are left with hollow claims. Of course even with it they are left with hollow claims, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

Are you really saying that we can't explain what causes weather because the Big Bang theory is wrong?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then why don't we see kind after kind in all layers of sedimentary strata?

You see them everywhere. T-Rex is a T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. Triceratops is the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

Just as an Asian remains an Asian and an African remains an African - and only the offspring becomes an Afro-Asian - and it will remain an Afro-Asian until they mate with another breed (race) and then a new one will come into the record.

Stop ignoring reality please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you really saying that we can't explain what causes weather because the Big Bang theory is wrong?

Not at all, but then if the Big Bang theory is wrong, then that only leaves one valid theory left. Why would you follow the BB theory since a priest invented it?

 

[justlookinla]

Also, on a side note, if you are trying to reconcile your faith with the evidence in reality, my advice would be to form your faith around reality, rather than the other way around. Take a note from the countless christian sects (including for example the Catholic Church) that accepts that evolution is true and that the earth is 4,5 billion years old. It's perfectly valid to see Genesis as allegory, and to accept both the scientific facts about reality and that a god exists. Because reality will not shift, no matter how hard you believe.

No Christian sect accepts the Darwinian view that all life, including humanity, is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms. They may vary on how God created humanity, but He's present in all of the views.

 

[Loudmouth]

I cite direct empirical evidence that says your transitional fossils are all merely incorrect classifications.

No, you don't. Not once have you shown a single piece of evidence demonstrating that any of those fossils are not correctly classified as transitional hominids.

I say you can't defend your stance of these being separate species:

You will notice that those aren't the species I was referring to. Will you be getting to the hominid fossils any time soon?

I cite positive evidence those ERV's are one and all foreign to the host and are known to bring foreign genomes across species lines.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

It is the fact that they are foreign to the host which makes them ideal as genetic markers. Also, your reference doesn't even mention ERV's.

Here is a reference you need to check out. They took three retroviruses and allowed them to infect human cells. They then went in and mapped where the retroviruses inserted into the genome of those cells. What did they find? Those retroviruses inserted all over the place, just as expected.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC509299/

Those little dots are all different insertion points for the retroviruses that they studied. The brownish bars are the different human chromosomes. They didn't insert into one spot. They inserted all over the place. Therefore, when you find the same 200,000 insertions in two different genomes, the only explanation is that it is due to a single insertion that happened in a common ancestor. If they happened independently then they should be found at different locations in each genome.

Do you understand this or not?

 

[RickG]

You see them everywhere. T-Rex is a T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. Triceratops is the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

I don't believe you understood my question. We see T-Rex fossils only in late Cretaceous sedimentary strata; not middle Cretaceous, early Cretaceous, or in any other sedimentary strata. How did T-Rex kind after kind only come to be in late Cretaceous strata? Why is T-Rex never found in Eocene strata, Devonian strata, Cambrian strata, or Jurassic strata? If it is kind after kind, it should be in all layers of sedimentary strata.

 

[justlookinla]

I cite positive evidence, such as shared genetic markers and transitional fossils.

You going to again post that tired old graphic of skulls A to L (and sometimes N) which has nothing to do with transitional fossils?

The theory of evolution explains the pattern of shared and divergent DNA between species. That includes common ancestry between species that don't produce fertile offspring.

Darwinian evolution's view of how all life, including humanity, was created from an alleged single life form of long long ago is based not on the scientific method, but rather on a series of guesses and suppositions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First, the opinions of individual scientists do not outweigh the scientific literature. Second, scientists can be mistaken, particularly about subjects in which they lack expertise. Third, creationist quote-mining is appalling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are really two points: (1) non-scientists in this forum have said similar things and have been ridiculed for it, and (2) these quotes put evolution on ice.

No amount of words is going to put evidence-based explanation on ice.

Only more evidence will do that. Got any?


And arguments from authority are fallacious.

 

[dysert]

I don't want to be argumentative or insulting, but you "guys" don't get it. You might mention that arguments from authority are fallacious, that quote-mining is slimy, that arguments from incredulity are fallacious, etc. The fact is, I don't care about all the reasons you give for why my anti-evolution stance is wrong. There's a hole in evolution that nobody addresses. If evolution were correct, it should lead us backward to *the* common ancestor of all life. The hole is, what was the "organism" that existed just prior to this common ancestor? You'll probably tell me that that is not in evolution's purview, but I think it is. The preceding "organism" is just as much the common ancestor of all life as the one you stop at. I am just taking it back one more generation, and yet all of a sudden everyone is mute on that.

 

[RickG]

I don't want to be argumentative or insulting, but you "guys" don't get it. You might mention that arguments from authority are fallacious, that quote-mining is slimy, that arguments from incredulity are fallacious, etc. The fact is, I don't care about all the reasons you give for why my anti-evolution stance is wrong. There's a hole in evolution that nobody addresses. If evolution were correct, it should lead us backward to *the* common ancestor of all life. The hole is, what was the "organism" that existed just prior to this common ancestor? You'll probably tell me that that is not in evolution's purview, but I think it is. The preceding "organism" is just as much the common ancestor of all life as the one you stop at. I am just taking it back one more generation, and yet all of a sudden everyone is mute on that.

Common ancestors and missing links are not necessary to see evolution. If evolution is false, would we not see all life forms that have ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata?

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess you must - it is science that says no effect without cause, if there was no origin to matter - there would be no matter. Yes?

So you are saying that we can't use naturalistic explanations for weather?

 

[The Cadet]

There's a hole in evolution that nobody addresses. If evolution were correct, it should lead us backward to *the* common ancestor of all life. The hole is, what was the "organism" that existed just prior to this common ancestor? You'll probably tell me that that is not in evolution's purview, but I think it is.

Well then you get to be wrong. I'm sorry, there's no nicer way of putting this. In no scientific resource is the theory ever defined in such a way that the first lifeform must be accounted for. Evolution makes no statement or prediction about how that lifeform came about (although it does make certain predictions about how that lifeform must have been - very simple compared to modern organisms).

The origin of life on this planet is not the purview of "evolution". Evolution deals with life once it already exists. Whether that first organism came about through natural chemical reactions in an early ocean or through the magic hand of a supernatural being does not matter one bit for the theory of evolution.

The preceding "organism" is just as much the common ancestor of all life as the one you stop at. I am just taking it back one more generation, and yet all of a sudden everyone is mute on that.

The question of whether or not the preceding organism even qualifies as an organism or as "alive" is another question altogether. We're talking about the first lifeform. Pretty much by definition, what came before was not alive. And as said, that is not the purview of evolution. That's abiogenesis, a field admittedly in its infancy faced with a very difficult question. But regardless of whether we can figure out how the first organisms came out, the facts still point very strongly to universal common ancestry, an old earth, and evolution.