A Why to Atheists & Darwinism

CON you have a U2U.

Urgent!

Originally posted by Conspiriology You give dave too much credit or he is ALWAYS too lazy in that I would suggest he not offer the two cents worth of his contradictory opinions.

I read his opinions, and they’re not contradictory they are merely incomplete.

That entire argument from start to finish is BUNK.

From the begining where you assume you know so much more to the "disclaimer" evolutionists insist on giving to explain why we can't connect the dots. Millions of years sharks have looked like what ?

SHARKS!

Millions of years aligators have looked liked what

Alligators!

Millions of years Tortoises have looked like what

Turtles!

Okay so you admit that these creatures have been around for long periods of time. So is your hypothesis that god just occasionally steps in and says, “Hmm, I feel like making a new creature today.” So there is a ‘poof’ a brand new thingee. Which is more likely, that these creature were created over a long period of time, or that god is some sort of MAD artist.
As for sharks, which kind. Do you mean Great White, Hammerhead, or one of the many others that seem to be mutating away from each other. Oh yeah, the alligators. I am pretty sure that they are no longer 65 feet long, as they once were.

Billions of years cock roaches have looked like what?

Roaches!

Cockroaches have been around for billions of years? What?

It isn't our fault the fossil record didn't come through with the right kind of transitionals and it isn't our fault that it takes so damn many millions of years to prove it.

ecology.tiem.utk.edu...
As this site shows micro evolution happens at a good pace, add more time and changes to the environment and you get new species.

It is speculation and the whole thing then is BUNK because it cannot be substantiated beyond your subjectivism.

Yes I can`t see it nor can almost everyone whom has seriously studied the subject or has merely graduated high school.

You call the Bible a Fairy Tale??

No I don`t call the bible a fairy tale, most fairy tales have good lessons to offer, the bible doesn’t. All it that book does is creating havoc and hard ship.

Nope and if you asked me, I would say you have none.

Nice. I disagree with you therefore I have no class.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Oh I see,, you are mocking me as if I am the one not understanding. Ridicule and subtle childish comments from Darwinists are exactly what was found to be the defense tactic of the same philosophy of Darwinian evolutionists masquerading as a science and found to be the very tactic used all the way to the top of NASE.

Yes and something like this is what we should expect from theists...

You say I think the science community is too stupid to get their heads around evolution? No,, I said the Science community has their heads somewhere else is what I am saying. They have their heads south then make a sharp twelve oclock North and you'll be there too. Its the dark tunnel just behind the "cul de sac" pronounced "called a sack" and you can't miss it. btw watch out for the "exhaust fumes".

That was you on page 3.

Not just any scientist but what I want to know is why they still have it in text books and teach it NOT as a hoax but as a real life form having lived.

What kind of back woods remote aria are you from that still uses text book with Piltdown man

That may be true but if you think I would have to resort to spying on innocent people whose job it is to challenge theory as is the case for scientists and how piltdown man was found to be hoax, you got the wrong guy and a flimsy premise to justify your argument much less to break the law and violate people's civil rights or ruin careers.

What the hell are you talking about? who said anything about anyone spying on others?

You might think they are all Scientists but they act like primadonnas and are prostituting themselves just to stay in business anymore.

Yeah so they can collect that fat 60 gs a year?

No,, they won't step foot in a real debate and if arguing was the only thing they did I wouldnt have a problem with it but that IS NOT how they behave. They proven once AGAIN they are nothing but a clique of mobsters, a little punk like band of crooks who must lie, cheat and steal and Ill say once again, The US Senate agrees with me and they should be watched like a hawk because obviously they have no respect for the rule of law so fudging data to fit their silly asinine theory is NOT only NOT out of the question. they seem to get busted like that every four or five years.

Proof please.

Well this intelligent person does and sees it and removing Neo Atheist Pseudo intellects who are more concerned with advancing their religion of Atheism than they are interested in REAL Science.

Okay then how about launching a real attack this horribly put to gather theory mmm, how about you actually saying something that science it self hasn`t already cleared up
What cha got ?



Mod Edit: Fixed link to PDF and fixed BBCode.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by GAOTU789]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Millions of years Tortoises have looked like what

Turtles!

Billions of years cock roaches have looked like what?

Roaches!

Grant it I will not claim to have read much of your posts (the reason being obvious), but this caught my eye.

Turtles, sharks, etc...have been around MILLIONS of years but roaches BILLIONS? Actually roaches in their current form have not, but that is besides the point.

I am just wondering how you could state that roaches are much older than turtles/sharks/etc...? Or was that a typo??? A rather odd typo if that is your claim.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Which is more likely, that these creature were created over a long period of time, or that god is some sort of MAD artist.

Well a long time isn't very specific, not that it matters in this case and I don't know about God being a mad artist but I would have to say,,

Your first choice,

That they were "created"

As for sharks, which kind. Do you mean Great White, Hammerhead, or one of the many others that seem to be mutating away from each other.

mmm mutating are they? mutations invariably don't survive well but if you say they seem to be, then conventional wisdom would suggest you have seen or have evidence of some slight changes in any of them?

Oh yeah, the alligators. I am pretty sure that they are no longer 65 feet long, as they once were.

Your point would be?

Here let me help you,, do you know what they call a 65ft Alligator?

ANSWER: An ALLIGATOR

Cockroaches have been around for billions of years? What?

No more far fetched as Dawkins saying had we been there 300 million years ago, we would have see a fish coming on to land in the form of an amphibian. The fact is. No one WAS there .

As this site shows micro evolution happens at a good pace, add more time and changes to the environment and you get new species.

No you don't.

when you can show me some evidence of a new species under those parameters, then by all means, I'd love to falsify it if possible.
Can you show me one proven example of macro evolution? Oh silly me,, I already requested that and so far you have only alleged mutating sharks that "seem" to be mutating and 65ft alligators becoming what again?

Alligators. Albeit smaller,, but a rose is rose and a gator is a gator by any other size.

Yes I can`t see it nor can almost everyone whom has seriously studied the subject or has merely graduated high school.

Well,, let me help you here again, you see their is only one drop dead honest way to say that sentence in context and it would be like this.

"No you can't see it, nor can anyone else, ipso-facto

Nice. I disagree with you therefore I have no class.

No, please re-read what you asked me than you can try another strawman again if you must.

Yes and something like this is what we should expect from theists...

WE?? I'm talking about Scientists. Are YOU a Scientist?

That was you on page 3.

yes I remember ,, I was there.

What kind of back woods remote aria are you from that still uses text book with Piltdown man

I'm sorry, I am having some trouble with the way you said that. Can you be more specific.

Yeah so they can collect that fat 60 gs a year?

Oh ,, I don't know how the criminal mind works.

Proof please.

as only I have done this entire thread

www.souder.house.gov...

www.souder.house.gov...

Puzzled? I been seeing that a lot from evolutionists too


- Con








[edit on 20-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Sonya610

Grant it I will not claim to have read much of your posts (the reason being obvious), but this caught my eye.

Turtles, sharks, etc...have been around MILLIONS of years but roaches BILLIONS? Actually roaches in their current form have not, but that is besides the point.

I am just wondering how you could state that roaches are much older than turtles/sharks/etc...? Or was that a typo??? A rather odd typo if that is your claim.

Oh my bad,, I guess that was a bit of a stretch their wasn't it.

I guess if someone is going to find a fault in my argument,, I can live with that one lol . Just out of curiosity,, and so I don't make this egregious error again,,

Just when exactly DID they appear?

- Con



[edit on 20-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by dave420

Clutching for straws much?

Well,, yeah,, sometimes when I get a Milkshake I like to use a straw,, why do you ask?

This is becoming a joke.

That's what Ive been trying to tell your Dave, and your buddy who you may have thought was going to really shine. I'm afraid he has done no better than you and You, as he suggested, were too lazy to do anything.

In fact, all you have done is suggest that my mind is wasted, but if that were true, your friend would surely not stepped in that one about the choices. He would not have asked for proof when I have it and he doesn't. He would not be proving micro evolution in one hand, then conjecture, about,, oh,, I duuno,, time travel or what ever it is they assume went on 300 million years ago to claim macro evolution happened.

I find it extremely disheartening that you would insult my bronze age book for being as old as it is while supporting a book or books suggesting and assuming, X happened over 300 million years ago.

It seems inconsistent for you to say such a thing when you assume your science acumen is so much more savvy then my own.

Where is the logic Dave?

You're already lost to the rest of humanity. You have been so poisoned by your personal need to believe that you've shunned the one completely objective aspect of humanity - science.

Dave, I realize it is a theory, but when you use the word Science symantically with Darwinian Macro Evolution, you are not being fair to me. I have always been specific about a theory that claims it is science and that is DME.

I am NOT rejecting Science but lets get one thing perfectly clear as I have said this numerous times in this thread. I DO NOT reject Science.

The fact that you, Dawkins and your friend have been unable to put forth a coherent argument for DME means only that is is YOU failing to effectively explain DME. Not that I don't understand it. Their is nothing understandable about it. The reason?

It's Bunk.

The real kicker is you want to hate it, and yet you can't seem to tell us why

Please,, don't flatter it so Dave,, I don't hate it,

it simply isn't that damn important.

. All you can do is mis-read quotes and try to stretch logic (which I'm sure makes perfect sense to you) to fill in the gaps. The massive, massive gaps.

Other than the roaches,, care to show me?

I won't hold my breath.

Oh well. Looks like God really did a number on you.

Don't knock till ya try it, Dave,,

Jesus is a helluva lot better

than Johnson.

- Con










[edit on 20-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Well a long time isn't very specific, not that it matters in this case and I don't know about God being a mad artist but I would have to say,,
Your first choice,
That they were "created"

So it’s your belief that “god” does in fact randomly step in and adds more critters to the planet?

mutating are they? mutations invariably don't survive well but if you say they seem to be, then conventional wisdom would suggest you have seen or have evidence of some slight changes in any of them?

Yes every time some thing is bourn it is a slight variation of its parents, you are a mutant. Your moms genes and your dads genes with a twist of your own. If not then all brothers or sisters would look exactly alike but they don’t.

No more far fetched as Dawkins saying had we been there 300 million years ago,

When and where did Dawkins say that? Homo-sapiens have not been around that long.

we would have see a fish coming on to land in the form of an amphibian. The fact is. No one WAS there .

True we didn’t see it, but for that matter we didn’t see the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs either, but both left there mark.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

when you can show me some evidence of a new species under those parameters, then by all means, I'd love to falsify it if possible.

Sure just give me a hundred thousand years and nature will whip one up.

Can you show me one proven example of macro evolution?

www.jayspeaks.com...

"No you can't see it, nor can anyone else, ipso-facto

...we look at the evidence and see what we can construe, and that would be, that over time creator that looked nothing like us slowly looked more and more like us until we all of a sudden were here. Now tell me what could that mean, how should we interpret that?

Nice. I disagree with you therefore I have no class.

No, please re-read what you asked me than you can try another strawman again if you must.

So you think that lying to people about science and nature is classy?

Nope and if you asked me, I would say you have none.

You did say I have no class that is not a strawman, like evolution it is a fact.

What kind of back woods remote aria are you from that still uses text book with Piltdown man

I'm sorry, I am having some trouble with the way you said that. Can you be more specific.

As far as I’m aware text books from the ‘60s on eliminated Piltdown man, what school still teach that?


[edit on 20-5-2008 by Mr Mxyztplk]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So it’s your belief that “god” does in fact randomly step in and adds more critters to the planet?

No

Yes every time some thing is bourn it is a slight variation of its parents, you are a mutant. Your moms genes and your dads genes with a twist of your own. If not then all brothers or sisters would look exactly alike but they don’t.

No that isn't what mutant means, you might try looking into variation where those variations have not mutated but are already inherent in the DNA to start with. This as you may be aware is how we have arrived at so many breeds of dogs in only approx 1500 years. None of which are mutants and ALL are what?

DOGS thats what.

When and where did Dawkins say that? Homo-sapiens have not been around that long.

Exactly, and that is why it raises your eyebrow and why I said far fetched. He does say it however and I have left a little challenge on another thread where to this day no one has even attempted to correct it as it truly does exploit Dawkins as somewhat of a "dolt" when it comes to this same argument. Keep in mind, I have probably read more books about Darwinian Evolution than my interlocutors. In addition to Dicks other books regarding his Atheism. I don't think he is particularly that intelligent myself. He is funny at times but terribly misguided.

Enjoy www.abovetopsecret.com...

True we didn’t see it, but for that matter we didn’t see the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs either, but both left there mark.

Yeah that IS nice when something leaves a mark but when it doesn't,

It just doesn't

Sure just give me a hundred thousand years and nature will whip one up

In spite of your dubious assertion nature would whip one up, it isn't my fault or anyone elses , that you have that problem. It isn't our fault nature takes so long in your opinion, to test that theory. I understand the frustration and the impossible obstacle that creates as I have similar pardoxically complex constructs in theology also. The difference is, I won't attempt to call it fact when in fact both of our similar predicaments require something evolutionists do, while denying it and I readily admit it.

It's called having faith.

Can you show me one proven example of macro evolution?

www.jayspeaks.com...

It seems once again, you have failed to offer the evidence. Apparently the image is ahh well it is missing as every missing link I have ever seen is still missing.

...we look at the evidence and see what we can construe, and that would be, that over time creator that looked nothing like us slowly looked more and more like us until we all of a sudden were here. Now tell me what could that mean, how should we interpret that?

Well according to you, over time (extremely vague) the "over time creator" looked nothing like us Ok. then he changed and started looking like us? until all of a sudden we were here? were we not here while he was trying to look like us? HOw could we know he didn't look like us when were already here then when he looked more and more like us we appear? You are contradicting yourself.

So you think that lying to people about science and nature is classy?

asked and answered.

Nope and if you asked me, I would say you have none.
You did say I have no class that is not a strawman, like evolution it is a fact.

Have you asked me? there ya go.

The strawman was that you offered a diiferen't supposition suggesting that when you disagree with me I think you have no class. That was not what you asked. Now in this re-hash to satisfy the fetish for splitting hairs while you seem to have a disdain for speaking extemporaneuosly, you accuse me of saying it without satisfying the condition I make to satisfy your attempts to have me disparage you in the way prescribed.

Having said that , I can assure you, you would be worthy of the charge as hard as you are trying to earn it.

As far as I’m aware text books from the ‘60s on eliminated Piltdown man, what school still teach that?

books.google.com...://www.google .com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DWZPA,WZPA:2008-19,WZPA:en%26q%3Dicons%2Bof%2Bevolution&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-wit h-thumbnail#PPR10,M1


- Con





[edit on 20-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Can you show me one proven example of macro evolution?

www.jayspeaks.com...

Cute.

But that looks more like devolution to me.

This one is even more funny:



Although I understand you were joking, the fact we have to resort to jokes when providing evidence of macro speaks volumes. Not to mention the fact the man at the end of the evolutionary chain in your image is just that: A man. A man that appears to be devolving.

reply to post by AshleyD



Yes AshleyD you are correct it does look that way doesn't it. More than that however is the other thing you said which I am going to use as a summary for this entire thread.

What we have seen here is the same old argument between Christians and Atheists, Creationists and Evolutionists. What was proven, at least to my satisfaction and I am my own worst critic, was that Christians and Atheists need each other alot more than we are willing to admit.

What gets in the way of that, is our world views which we have adopted and want to see come to fruition one day.

Now just hear me out.

Not one of those intermediates icons of evolution whether they are in jest or not, are real. They are artists renderings of assumptions predicated on assumed creatures. Whether it is over time (we never know just how much) or not, we would find SOME hint some clue connecting one to the other.

Need more time?

Just add more space between the icons pictured.

Need more gradual change?

Just add more artist renderings which only make the odds greater we would find them.

The other thing is, as I show in Dawkins video, even he admits the icons of evolution don't show us coming up in that way. Also, he never does say exactly what it is because he simply doesn't know.

I have been sort of alone in this one up until now fending off questions while putting DME on the defense. Like Christianity there is much of it I can offer as proof prima facie and one I dare not even attempt to prove as the Scientific method makes this impossible.

So it is with evolution where there is much of it (if a Christian is honest to his or herself) that is proof prima facie.

Where evolution gets stuck is where we both do.

That age old question hard coded in our minds that seek the answer who are we and how in the hell did we get here.

That one is the spiritual answer to religion and a scientific one in macro-evolution, where they both get crushed (if evolutionists are honest with themselves) by the same Scientific method.

I have shown in my arguments with dave that we have more in common not so much what we believe but HOW we believe it and HOW we are so dogmatic. I have drawn similiarities that proved in a congressional inquest that evolutionists run by atheist act no differen't than religious zealots. It isn't God, the Bible that makes religion bad no more than it is Science that makes Evolution bad.

IT IS THE ZEALOTRY and The Dogma.

Their is nothing wrong with being Dogmatic on somethings and on others we have to admit we have faith in them. Christians have always known we are a very flawed people and have admitted we believe by Faith.

Why? Because even back then that old bronze age book knew to tell us to not merely suggest it. God knows how many times I'd wish the "God did it" answer would suffice but the fact is it just doesn't. So we need to rely on Science to get the answers to the questions that are ANSWERABLE and NOT those there will perhaps never be an answer for.

I really don't think Christianity has that much interest in taking over Science any more than Science want to Kill God. It is the directions we take them to derail the other that actually postpones getting down to the real issue and the real issue should NOT be trying to invent theory that cannot be explained but to work on feasible tests that apply to what IS and what is testable and verifiable without all the smoke and mirrors and BOTH of us have been guilty of that throuout history.

If we let God rather than prove God, I think God will do the proving for himself I have faith in that so that isn't necessary.

If you let evolution rather than prove evolution, I think Evolution will do the proving for itself and you can have faith in that otherwise you are left with doubt and I know doubting it is NOT what you have shown lol.

So if we concentrated on that I think truth has a way of revealing itself to us and no matter what that truth is. Trying to force our own on eachother to prove or disprove the age old question again about God is where Religion has no place in Science because Science simply can't go there

So Science has no business saying God can't be there by keeping the religious out. I can no more make Religion Science than Evolutionists can say we can turn Science into Religion.

I can no more disprove a God if he isn't real, than Science can create one if he isn't, conversley, Science can more Disprove God if he IS real Than Religion can prove God if he isn't.

BOTH rely on Faith and while one may admit it and the other may not is not the issue. it is Blind Faith we worry the other is following but if what we have faith in is where we really put our faith, NNeither one of us should worry. If I put my Faith in God than I should not have to worry my Faith is Blind and if Atheists would admit to putting thier faith in Science that Science would justify their having faith in it. If they wouldn't associate faith with fundie that is. lol

It's when we both try that we end up getting in the way of Both Science and Religion.

Their was a time believe it or not, when Religion and Science made BOTH very happy. Scientists didn't advance the disbelief in God with parts of science that are unprovable and Religion didn't have to defend the God unprovable to them by exploiting what theory Science couldn't prove either.


The Bottom line is , I may from time to time talk about God and you may think I'm a nut for believeing it but trust me I can live with that.

You might talk about Science or claim God doesn't exist and I may think you are nuts but I think you can live with that.

What we cannot live with is life without the answers to Scientic problems in life Science can answer for those testing it and the Philosphical spiritual Questions in life Religion may answer for those looking for it.

Whether we ever come to that quasi scientific spiritual epiphaney,,

is the biggest question of all and

the one we waste time

arguing over

- Con

















[edit on 21-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So it’s your belief that “god” does in fact randomly step in and adds more critters to the planet?

No

Then how do you explain the biodiversity of our planets past and present? Why is it that in the older strata of rocks we don’t find life that now exists? Yet as we get to more recent deposits we see changes to the biota to modern life?

No that isn't what mutant means, you might try looking into variation where those variations have not mutated but are already inherent in the DNA to start with. This as you may be aware is how we have arrived at so many breeds of dogs in only approx 1500 years. None of which are mutants and ALL are what?

DOGS thats what.

Try crossbreeding a Great Dane and Chihuahua and get back to me. And dogs which are a sub species of wolves have been around for 15,000 + years.

When and where did Dawkins say that? Homo-sapiens have not been around that long.

Exactly, and that is why it raises your eyebrow and why I said far fetched. He does say it

And when is it that he said that?

however and I have left a little challenge on another thread where to this day no one has even attempted to correct it as it truly does exploit Dawkins as somewhat of a "dolt" when it comes to this same argument.

Do you mean this?

If you try to say we have an ancestor that is not that of a human ancestor than you have just contradicted what richard just said because we are not ancestors were "cousins" and need to show observable evidence of just what that ancestor is that he says we are a cousin to.

The ironic thing is all my cousins look like humans too, so what is meant by "cousins" is this word cousin to fall victim to the same obfuscation the word "species" has? Don't give me any of the "I just don't understand species" when the word has been troubling Science for a very long time.

So anyone that can make sense where Richard cannot please share with us why you are smarter than Richard without contradicting what he already said. The moment you do that IF you can do that we are no longer cousins so have fun spinning boys and Girls because I have a quote from this same man I am saving just for the right time.

Good luck with all that

The reason nobody excepted your challenge is because there is no challenge. All you have done is a bit of word play. All Dawkins stated was that we didn’t evolve from modern creters but along side them.

Keep in mind, I have probably read more books about Darwinian Evolution than my interlocutors.

I like theorises too. Try rereading the books and this time try putting a side your bias and objectively evaluate the evidence.

Yeah that IS nice when something leaves a mark but when it doesn't,
It just doesn't

Are you stating that the entire fossil record isn’t marks left by life over time.

The difference is, I won't attempt to call it fact when in fact both of our similar predicaments require something evolutionists do, while denying it and I readily admit it.
It's called having faith.

And an other difference is we have evidence on our side.

It seems once again, you have failed to offer the evidence. Apparently the image is ahh well it is missing as every missing link I have ever seen is still missing.

And that would be?

Well according to you, over time (extremely vague) the "over time creator" looked nothing like us Ok. then he changed and started looking like us? until all of a sudden we were here? were we not here while he was trying to look like us? HOw could we know he didn't look like us when were already here then when he looked more and more like us we appear? You are contradicting yourself.

I meant “creatures”, the lesson learned pay attention when typing a replies at ridiculous hours.
Replace creator with creatures and my argument still stands. Sorry for the mistake, my bad.

As far as I’m aware text books from the ‘60s on eliminated Piltdown man, what school still teach that?

books.google.com...://www.google .com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DWZPA,WZPA:2008-19,WZPA:en%26q%3Dicons%2Bof%2Bevolution&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-wit h-thumbnail#PPR10,M1

That is not a school text book. Please produce a school text book that teaches Plitdown man as part of our ancestry as you claimed.

reply to post by AshleyD


...you know, i've repeatedly posted evidence for macro evolution
i'm not quite sure if i've done it in this thread, so here it is again

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk


Then how do you explain the biodiversity of our planets past and present? Why is it that in the older strata of rocks we don’t find life that now exists? Yet as we get to more recent deposits we see changes to the biota to modern life?

Im not sure that is the case, but i thiink it is curious to argue the fossil record shows changes but none indicate DME

Try crossbreeding a Great Dane and Chihuahua and get back to me. And dogs which are a sub species of wolves have been around for 15,000 + years.

Im not talking about cross breeding hybridization, I'm talking about variation determined by temperament of different dogs producing radically differen't breeds of Dogs in ways where it is possible to have two large dogs produce very small ones. That is not however DME as they are still Dogs Canine Dogs.
Watch the PBS special about it www.pbs.org...
Variation does not constitute evidence for evolution. Variations are nothing more than different combinations of already existing genetic information, and they do not add any new characteristic to the genetic information.

The question still un-answered by Dawkins is the one that stumped him and DME as the impossible or how brand-new information to make a brand-new species comes about.

When and where did Dawkins say that? Homo-sapiens have not been around that long.

And when is it that he said that?

Here you are talking about a question that was asked and answered again. for a third time I will give you a link to the video where he says this from the original post I made quoting him VERBATIM.

"had we been there 300 million years ago, we would have see a fish coming on to land in the form of an amphibian. www.abovetopsecret.com...- Dawkins"

Do you mean this?
If you try to say we have an ancestor that is not that of a human ancestor than you have just contradicted what richard just said because we are not ancestors were "cousins" and need to show observable evidence of just what that ancestor is that he says we are a cousin to.

The ironic thing is all my cousins look like humans too, so what is meant by "cousins" is this word cousin to fall victim to the same obfuscation the word "species" has? Don't give me any of the "I just don't understand species" when the word has been troubling Science for a very long time.

So anyone that can make sense where Richard cannot please share with us why you are smarter than Richard without contradicting what he already said. The moment you do that IF you can do that we are no longer cousins so have fun spinning boys and Girls because I have a quote from this same man I am saving just for the right time.

Try rereading the books and this time try putting a side your bias and objectively evaluate the evidence.

WHAT Evidence!

he uses conjecture and make that clear as he says "seems" and "or something like that" something like what?

He never says thats what and I know why as it is crystal clear in spite of my so called bias, HE simply doesn't KNOW Period.

Are you stating that the entire fossil record isn’t marks left by life over time.

No I am not because that isn't what you asked me.

And an other difference is we have evidence on our side.

HA HA yeah?? then SHOW ME. So far you have only shown me that you can ask me a question that I answer and for some reason you keep saying words to the effect that I you read an answer to a question never asked in the guise of clairification saying "so you believe this" or "so you are saying that" when what I am saying is what I just said in the original answer to the original question.

So far what you have shown me is that you can ask the same question again and again and I answer it the same again and again, irritating as that is.

So far what you have shown me is that you can provide cartoons of the icons of evolution but cartoons are not evidence.

So far what you can show me is that you can continue to come up with Johnson and still proclaim you have the evidence when I havem't seen jack squat of your alleged evidence.

And that would be?

every art rendered image of one to suffice for those they have not ever found. That's what that would be.

I meant “creatures”, the lesson learned pay attention when typing a replies at ridiculous hours.
Replace creator with creatures and my argument still stands. Sorry for the mistake, my bad.

Hehe I kinda figured something was clouding you on that one. I hate that when that happens lol. Not a problem though.

That is not a school text book. Please produce a school text book that teaches Plitdown man as part of our ancestry as you claimed.

You want me to snail mail you one?

- Con







[edit on 23-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

...you know, i've repeatedly posted evidence for macro evolution
i'm not quite sure if i've done it in this thread, so here it is again

Yes we have all seen it been there done that. This paragraph taken from the link given, seems to be making excuses, disclaimers and customary allowances for macro-evolution

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. ,None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless

One read of this and we see that not only do they not know what causes leopards to get spots, shark to get fins, etc. they know none of the evidence regarding natural selection is valid, furthermore, that it is not sufficient. That no evidence to indicate what mechanism is used but and this is the but most of us have had to deal with and one Ben Stein makes clear in the movie "expelled"

The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless




Another words, regardless of the criticle un-answered un-known, un-specified, un-substantiated un-scientific, way this is being passed off as science, evidence or proof.

It is all explained away for one reason,,

just because.

- Con




[edit on 23-5-2008 by Conspiriology]