Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

a reply to: cooperton

In the proposed theory, fish are ancestral to humans on the tree of life.

That does not mean a fish was my grandfather though, does it?
As has, I am quite sure, been attempted to be explained to you previously.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Sky God came and mated with our women.

Really? That's what Genesis says?
Could have fooled me.

originally posted by: cooperton

Ok so any photograph of a dinosaur is out of the question then, such as this

I don't mean to be pedantic, but if you're going to argue over this at least read enough on the subject to know that none of the Pterosaurs are dinosaurs. They are cousins but don't share common ancestry like Saurischia and Ornithischia do.

Image of a dinosaur, because you will blindly disregard it as evidence by claiming it is fake.

Will I? You were able to discern that from my pointing out that you were incorrectly claiming that photographic manipulation was impossible prior to 2001 when it's been an ongoing phenomena since the advent of photography? That's fabulously interesting.

So, Let's check out some olde english literature:

Oh...yes, lets.

True and Wonderfull

and The Winged Dragon of Essex

You do realize that pamphlets in the 17th century were not necessarily any different than a modern tabloid right? Certainly there were many printed that took on religious, political and social commentary but propaganda and entertainment were also quite high on the list. Just because a pamphlet printed a story doesn't mean it is evidence of a real event.

I do love me some Genesis Park though! Nothing quite proves a point like a website that ignores science as a whole while selling trinkets in the name of Jesus. I guess even the good Lord needs a little pocket money too amiright?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Any comment on the English "true and wonderfull" accounts of dragons?

I have a comment,
They're cool stories. Nice stories.
I like the ones about unicorns and fairies too.

I'm a little more partial to the Arthurian legends than St. George myself but who can hate on the gnomes and fairies?

a reply to: cooperton

I like how it stings all who come in contact with it, poisoning them instantly but doesn't eat the flesh because it prefers the conies. that was my favorite part of the story. Does it sting the poor bunnies too or no?

originally posted by: peter vlar

You do realize that pamphlets in the 17th century were not necessarily any different than a modern tabloid right? Certainly there were many printed that took on religious, political and social commentary but propaganda and entertainment were also quite high on the list. Just because a pamphlet printed a story doesn't mean it is evidence of a real event.

Source for this?

"The most reliable figures show a gradual though not unbroken improvement in male literacy from 10% in 1500 to 25% in 1714 and 40% in 1750. " Source

At the time of this being printed (mid 1600s) less than 1/4th of the people were literate... I'll be a monkey's uncle, or rather, in your case, an ape is my uncle (as per the theory of evolution)... if the literate would've wasted their much valued literacy with tabloid journalism.

a reply to: cooperton

if the literate would've wasted their much valued literacy with tabloid journalism.

Still do as a matter of fact.
worldnewsdailyreport.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

You do realize that pamphlets in the 17th century were not necessarily any different than a modern tabloid right? Certainly there were many printed that took on religious, political and social commentary but propaganda and entertainment were also quite high on the list. Just because a pamphlet printed a story doesn't mean it is evidence of a real event.

Source for this?

"The most reliable figures show a gradual though not unbroken improvement in male literacy from 10% in 1500 to 25% in 1714 and 40% in 1750. " Source

At the time of this being printed (mid 1600s) less than 1/4th of the people were literate... I'll be a monkey's uncle, or rather, in your case, an ape is my uncle (as per the theory of evolution)... if the literate would've wasted their much valued literacy with tabloid journalism.

Books and newspapers carrying more proper news were the province of the elite, pamphlets were the du jour standard of the lower classes. In many cases, they're the equivalent of the modern pulp fiction or dime store novels of the 19th century.

At an absolute minimum, 30% of the male population in the countryside could read, while in London, male literacy rates were upwards of 80%. Even in the lowest classes, probably over 20% of husbandmen, nationally, could read (Watt chap. 8). This level of literacy sufficiently allowed the messages of printed pamphlets to spread to all corners of the country. Even if the actual pamphlets could not be read by everyone, the ideas and information were sure to be spread orally

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Sky God came and mated with our women.

Really? That's what Genesis says?
Could have fooled me.

Did fool you completely. YES it happened. Not sky gods exactly (just funning around) more like our geneticists that messed with our DNA profiles.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Did fool you completely.

No.
I know you're special.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

did fool you completely.

Phage: No. I know you're special

As you are just so; exactly the same as you describe another are yourself "special".

You know what would be weird? Is if the illuminati/elite/TPTB/shadow gov't and the "progressives" started mutating animals so that it appeared evolution was happening within our lifetimes or multiple generation's lifetimes. This would be such crazy propaganda. Especially towards a youth that is too deluded and distracted by technology, fantasy, abuse, partying, neglect, mental illness, synthetic drugs and the hunger for money, fortune and fame. We did that America. You proud? Have a boat, a house, 2 cars, get into debt for school, party, go broke, live under a bridge, and be frustrated at the generation before me.

a reply to: TheCretinHop

Yeah. That would be weird.

It would be also be weird if my uncle was a woman. Because then he wouldn't be my uncle, he'd be my aunt.

Weird.

originally posted by: peter vlar


Books and newspapers carrying more proper news were the province of the elite, pamphlets were the du jour standard of the lower classes. In many cases, they're the equivalent of the modern pulp fiction or dime store novels of the 19th century.

200-some years earlier when this was written the literacy rates were much lower. Source please.

At an absolute minimum, 30% of the male population in the countryside could read, while in London, male literacy rates were upwards of 80%. Even in the lowest classes, probably over 20% of husbandmen, nationally, could read (Watt chap. 8). This level of literacy sufficiently allowed the messages of printed pamphlets to spread to all corners of the country. Even if the actual pamphlets could not be read by everyone, the ideas and information were sure to be spread orally

What year is this referring to? Does it say anything about propaganda of these pamphlets? can you personally think of a motive as to why multiple Dragon sightings would have been totally fabricated?

a reply to: cooperton

Dragons are considered creatures of vast wisdom, strength and nobility in Asia. In fact, dragons are a much more prominent element in Chinese mythology than Judaism. One could just as easily take your evidence in favor of Shenlongs existence rather than the oblique scriptural scraps you keep passing around.

originally posted by: cooperton
It was not until 2001 that they were even able to (poorly) attempt to make a fake photo.

Did you not read my post or something? I clearly proved that photo manipulation has been around since the early 1800s.

How could they have faked the anatomy of a pteranodon in the 1870s when the anatomy of a pteranodon was mostly unknown?

Coop, you really make it too easy. Do you ever look up any of the claims you make before posting them? The first Pteranodon fossils were found in 1871, plus it's not even the first flying dinosaur found. Pterodactylus was found in 1784, so people were definitely aware of pterosaurs by the 1870s when the picture was allegedly taken(that is IF the arbitrary date of 1870 isn't also a lie).

Especially when the anatomy in the real photo is precisely similar to a pteranodon:

It's also "precisely similar" to a pteradactyl, but lets not mention that and pretend we didn't know about them when this picture was faked.

Wake up... stop defending a lie for the sake of your pride.

Here is a mirror. Nobody is posting false claims and lies here except you. Plus you haven't even addressed any of the evidence for evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Read the history of discovery. You are dead wrong as usual.

Ok so any photograph of a dinosaur is out of the question then, such as this Image of a dinosaur, because you will blindly disregard it as evidence by claiming it is fake. So, Let's check out some olde english literature:

True and Wonderfull

and The Winged Dragon of Essex

So nothing to support your viewpoint aside from art and assumptions made about it. Gotcha.

Another false claim bites the dust. Keep em coming, Coop.

The real question here is, how far will you keep digging before you realize your efforts are detracting from the ID / creation viewpoint, not supporting it. There comes a time when you must give up the ghost. We get it, you have faith. Stop trying to reconcile that with reality, it's FAITH.

originally posted by: Barcs
We get it, you have faith. Stop trying to reconcile that with reality, it's FAITH.

The dinosaur accounts of recent history have nothing to do with faith. These are matter-of-fact descriptions of dragons (dinosaurs). I suggest you stop trying to reconcile your faith in evolution with reality. But, considering you believe your forefathers were apes, I don't expect you to correct your worldview any time soon.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: spygeek
Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability.

If we can never observe it happen then how can honestly say that is how it was done? This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence? Just because some animals look the same as others does not mean they must have evolved from each other, but that seems to be the main evidence for evolution.

All the proof is in the sticky library. What more do you need? You don't read the evidence, so how the hell are you supposed to understand it or know about it?

And yes, evolution HAS been observed. It's a no brainer to someone who at least reads the scientific literature. You don't. So what do you expect??

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
We get it, you have faith. Stop trying to reconcile that with reality, it's FAITH.

The dinosaur accounts of recent history have nothing to do with faith. These are matter-of-fact descriptions of dragons (dinosaurs). I suggest you stop trying to reconcile your faith in evolution with reality. But, considering you believe your forefathers were apes, I don't expect you to correct your worldview any time soon.

Shenlong would be most disappointed to learn of you using his descendants to promote Western philosophies.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
We get it, you have faith. Stop trying to reconcile that with reality, it's FAITH.

The dinosaur accounts of recent history have nothing to do with faith. These are matter-of-fact descriptions of dragons (dinosaurs). I suggest you stop trying to reconcile your faith in evolution with reality. But, considering you believe your forefathers were apes, I don't expect you to correct your worldview any time soon.

There are also matter of fact depictions of leprechauns, Unicorns, elves, Fairies, gnomes, goblins, Thor, Odin, Valkyries, Freya, Thors flying 8 legged goats, Zeus, Apollo, Heracles, Gorgons, Chimeras, Hydras, Lions with impenetrable hides and on and on and on in every culture across the globe. One of your mid 17th century dragon depictions says It flew yet had tiny wings that any rational person understands is absolutely implausible.

Sometimes a story is just that, a story. Just like some artwork is merely stylized and not a literal depiction. People get Drunk on Mead and wine, eat Hallucinogenic substances and exaggerate things. It's a part of reality. You're ignorance regarding biological eviction and the voluminous evidence in favor of it, particularly in comparison to your "evidence" for the Existence Of dinosaurs continuing beyond the Cretaceous-Paleogene event.

The simple fact that you can't bother yourself to try to grasp the most basic aspects of evolutionary theory, particularly regarding the evolution of hominids is poignantly reinforced with your continuous statements intimating that apes are the forebearers of humanity when this is not at all what any aspect of evitionary theory postulates. We all share common ancestry, we did not evolve from apes. But you're still ongoing to fairy tales as if they were true life stories so I don't honestly expect you to take the time to educate yourself in and biological, life or earth science because it somehow conflicts with your indoctrinated faith.

I'm all for having your own point of view, thinking outside the box and postulating any number of zany thoughts. This is ATS after all. But insisting something is a fact based solely on confirmation bias with full blinders on while simultaneously attacking something you haven't bothered to learn the most basic fundamentals of is mind numbingly ignorant and you paint yourself in that light, with your own brush. I just Can't fathom Constantly mocking something that you're so unwilling to attempt to educate yourself on. I don't go on a religious rant or offer dissenting opinion without engaging in due diligence. It would behoove you to give it a try because then your systems won't seem as if they're
Coming from a McCarthy era Republican working at the local gas station. If you want your POV to be taken seriously you need to take yourself seriously enough to educate yourself a little.