The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[AV1611VET]

Now go the extra mile and think about the implication, the inevitable consequence of a system where:
- what survives, survives
- what reproduces, passes on its genes
- the new generation is slightly different from the previous one

And that in a loopmode of a few trillion iterations using a global population of many more trillions of individuals, in an extremely diverse environment.

Think. It. Through.

Now all you have to do is take those simple ideas, see how, why and where they fit the theory, and then, given time, you may be able to start seeing the implications in the natural world around you. The real world may even start to come alive for you instead of just being a a source of awe-inspiring mystery.

In other words, play connect-the-dots.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

In other words, play connect-the-dots.

As Dogma said "Think it through".

 

[AV1611VET]

As Dogma said "Think it through".

Thinking it through is what got us Phlogiston, Thalidomide, Pluto and a host of other scientific failures.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In other words, play connect-the-dots.

You'd be surprised how many anti-evolutionaries lack this simple skill...

on the other hand, maybe you wouldn't be surprised...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thinking it through is what got us Phlogiston, Thalidomide, Pluto and a host of other scientific failures.

Always knew you were anti-thinking, AV; thanks for confirming it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In other words, play connect-the-dots.

No, not connect the dots...

Just thinking about the long term effect of a process that is on an everlasting loop (for as long as life exists) where every new iteration, changes are introduced wich are passed on to the next iteration....

Kind of like in this simplistic example:

1 - 0000 0000
2 - 0000 0010
3 - 0100 0010
4 - 0100 0110
5 - 0101 0110
6 - 0101 1110

Only 1 digit chanes every generation. But between generation 6 and 1, there are a lot more differences then just 1 digit. Because you see, DNA is inheritable and the changes of generation X are inherited by generation X +1 (and potentially all that follow afterwards).

There's no connecting the dots here....
There's just the logic behind the phenomena.

Micro changes that build up over time will result in macro changes. It's inevitable.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd be surprised how many anti-evolutionaries lack this simple skill...

Should I feel sorry for them, or should I take it like I take the person who says alcohol disagrees with him?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Should I feel sorry for them, or should I take it like I take the person who says alcohol disagrees with him?

"Them"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Micro changes that build up over time will result in macro changes. It's inevitable.

Treating the process of evolution like it is the energizer bunny doesn't wash.

I already posted the video showing Richard Dawkins explaining our "cousins" to us.

Did you take a good look at that chart on the wall?

It was a game of connect-the-dots.

Anyone can put four dots side-by-side on a piece of paper, then put one dot below those four dots and draw four lines from the one dot to the four and call it evolution.

I love what Kent Hovind once said:

"You can't prove a single species in our evolutionary past had a viable offspring."

 

[AV1611VET]

"Them"?

Yes, "them."

Should I feel sorry for these "anti-evolutionaries who lack the ability to play connect-the-dots," or should I rejoice in the fact that they can't see what you guys see?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Treating the process of evolution like it is the energizer bunny doesn't wash.

I already posted the video showing Richard Dawkins explaining our "cousins" to us.

Did you take a good look at that chart on the wall?

It was a game of connect-the-dots.

Anyone can put four dots side-by-side on a piece of paper, then put one dot below those four dots and draw four lines from the one dot to the four and call it evolution.

I love what Kent Hovind once said:

"You can't prove a single species in our evolutionary past had a viable offspring."

Lol, is this a serious post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lol, is this a serious post?

LOL, yup.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yes, "them."

Should I feel sorry for these "anti-evolutionaries who lack the ability to play connect-the-dots," or should I rejoice in the fact that they can't see what you guys see?

So you are not one of 'them'?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

LOL, yup.

That's rather sad.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are not one of 'them'?

I'm the once exposing evolution as a sequence of connect the dots ... remember?

For the second time, take a look at that chart on the wall that Richard Dawkins is pointing to.

Seeing is believing.

 

[lifepsyop]

Now go the extra mile and think about the implication, the inevitable consequence of a system where:
- what survives, survives
- what reproduces, passes on its genes
- the new generation is slightly different from the previous one

You do realize this applies whether or not universal common descent is true or not, right? No you probably don't... One is not even remotely sufficient enough to demonstrate the other. Classic example of affirming the consequent.

And that in a loopmode of a few trillion iterations using a global population of many more trillions of individuals, in an extremely diverse environment.

This is what is called pure imagination. Actual observation shows us change is cyclical or deleterious. Take Darwin's Finches for example (which evolutionists have endlessly blundered in their interpretations). The finches are merely oscillating between the same set of pre-existing morphological bird-beak configurations. Splitting up in different populations and then coming back together again with the seasonal cycles. That is how nature really works. It does not mystically "evolve" new types of animals over time. It is so sad that your cult has actually convinced itself that nature is a magical creative force.

Now all you have to do is take those simple ideas, see how, why and where they fit the theory, and then, given time, you may be able to start seeing the implications in the natural world around you. The real world may even start to come alive for you instead of just being a a source of awe-inspiring mystery.

Perfect example of the mindset of the evolutionary mystic. The mysterious sands of time give rise to all things. This is exactly how the superstitious ancients thought.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm the once exposing evolution as a sequence of connect the dots ... remember?

For the second time, take a look at that chart on the wall that Richard Dawkins is pointing to.

Seeing is believing.

Then you are one of 'them'.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Perfect example of the mindset of the evolutionary mystic. The mysterious sands of time give rise to all things. This is exactly how the superstitious ancients thought.

You seem to lack a usuable frame of reference. I said that the natural world around you would come alive for you if you got a handle on evolution. That is nothing to do with the world of superstition, which is perhaps one you are more familiar with and the reason that you immediately draw on it for something you don't understand. What I'm talking about is much more akin to having an atlas and knowing how to read it: suddenly the world starts to fit together in your head - it comes alive for you. If you think that learning how to read a map or an atlas is mystical then so be it, but what I'm describing is much the same. Evolution gives you an atlas for the natural world, a key if you like, and once you've grasped it you see it everywhere, and then if you follow the evolutionary eras back with the moving continents and the successive extinctions and changing environmental conditions it becomes an enormously rich picture. You're just missing out, that's all.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Should I feel sorry for them, or should I take it like I take the person who says alcohol disagrees with him?

Depends on your tendency towards self-pity.