Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

So I'm guessing from what it looks like, instead of providing your evidence for the "debunking" of evolution, this thread as degenerated into nothing more than an atheist bash-fest and ad hominem attacks on noob?

Wouldn't it be great if you actually had proof of something that you could pull out, and irrevocably prove something?

But since you don't, you have to pull out the "atheists are evil" type arguments...

Although, nice job noob! I just got here and noticed you've been giving the proverbial "smack-down" on their fallacious arguments

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Just because Miller says he is a Christian doesn't mean he is and I believe in evolution as well but I like most Christians who say they also believe in it do NOT believe in being painted in a corner by equivocations of Atheists who insist on suggesting that because I Believe in micro evolution means I believe in macro. That is the point made in the above post mel.

the only painting into corners are done by fundamentalists who have backed them sleves into a corner declaring everything in the bible must be 100% exactly as laid out in the bible

they have no room for manouver they cant alter the faith to fit the facts so instead try and alter the facts to fit the faith

why on earth would i bother painting anyone into a corner? if theya re already there ill paint around them if they insist on not moving

and WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? to label who is and isnt a christian? are you jesus? god? the holy ghost?

or just an over opinionated individual who doesnt want them in your gang? which appears to be the case

Ken miller calls him self a christian and follows its beliefs and practices, you say your a christian and follow the beliefs and practices what makes him not a real christian but you one? how much arrogance and conciet can one person show

judge not lest ye be judged ..... maybe you should ACTUALLY try and practice what you supposedly believe

Ken may not be in your chosen little gang but he sure as hell seems to imbody jesus's teachings more then you do, your words and actions appear to have more in common with the pharisee then jesus

Are you here to chat or are you just expressing your feelings?

are you here to discuss and learn or just belittle and revel in ignorance ad-hominims and falsety?

Oh and I am not a "Con" as you say I resent the con artist accusation as I would any ad-hominem. You and noob wouldn't happen to be Atheists would you?

would you happen to be a nazi? adolf hitler was a nazi and a christain and practically all the nazi's were christians so ther fore all christains muct be nazi's obviously

so you msut also be a nazi

oo wait that kind of absurd reasoning only works when you do it ..

you resent somthing becasue its used against you? despite the fact you constantly use exactly the same againt everyone not in your gang? hypocritcal much?

I rest my case

we can only hope this is the case and you find other ways to amuse yourself,

might i propse reading from sources other then your favorite christians that you want in your gang, or educational pursuits maybe a few courses on logic and the avoidance of logical fallacies

[edit on 22/12/08 by noobfun]

I love when people say evolution is junk and you cant prove squat and then bring up god.

prove god

every known edition of the bible has been written by man.

no one has met god and lived to tell about it... or can at least prove it.

THEN i love the people who say why havent we as humans evolved?

evolution is small changes over millions of years... Humans are evolving. thats why if you look at all skeletons from back 2000 years ago the average person was shorter....

why did the average height change if evolution does not exist? we should have the same average height for the remainder of our existance?


yes thats a small change... but a change none the less


THEN THE BEST ONE OF ALL

people argue we didnt come from apes because apes are still here...

tigers didnt come from cats....

sharks didnt come from shiners...

they are seperate species on a completely different evolutionary track.

picture it this way...

there are orangatangs and silver back gorillas.... both apes

a million years ago (bogus number) there were gorillas orangatangs and insertnamehere.... WE ARE THE INSERTNAMEHERE

and eventually some of the apes we know may evolve to a stage where they act like us.. if they dont become extinct first.



now onto the whole finite infinite topic.... everyone contradicts themselves here.

just because you cant imagine something infinite doesnt mean its impossible.

also imagining that space and everything inside it was created and is not infinite.... creates an infinite scenario....

so therefore infinite has to exist

EXAMPLE FOR THE RETARDED

if god created everything... then one of two things must be true:

a. god is infinite and always was and always will be - INFINITE

b. someone created god and someone created the creator of god - INFINITE LOOP - INFINITE


so therefore infinity exists in some manner or another.

ANOTHER SIDE NOTE

carbon dating

IT IS OF THE MOST ACCURATE DATING METHODS available

BUT

their is large contraversy over its ability to correctly date things in the millions of years category.

one hundred years is easily provable.... but once you date in the millions its accuracy falls rapidly.

so to use carbon dating as the end all be all of ancient species is rediculous.


ANOTHER SIDE NOTE

Someone said earlier... i beleive it was NOOB that the theory of evolution is the frame of what happens in nature its the specifics that are argued about.....


the theory of evolution is a theory.

it has a frame for its own theory.

A THEORY HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT BE A THEORY!!!!

there are loads of data backing up evolution on the micro level.. none of this evidence says evolution is 100% conclusive.... or again IT WOULDNT BE THEORY ANYMORE

arguing about all this crap is just ludicrous!

As I said in my previous post

go research something... be it god or science or a mix of both

go research it in the field and contribute your findings to the community.

DO NOT sit here and act like you know how we got here because no one knows that yet.

I am not against or for either side.... creationism or evolution... I read the studies i find interesting and form my opinions...

To argue for evolution and against all other ideas such as creationism when evolution itself is incomplete and unprovable (yes there is data that supports evolution but does not gaurantee it) or vice versa is pointless and no one will win...

end of rant.. post up scientific findings you thing are cool and interesting I love to see the stuff keep it coming.... but keep your opinions out of it.

Originally posted by sciencenewby

ANOTHER SIDE NOTE

carbon dating

IT IS OF THE MOST ACCURATE DATING METHODS available

BUT

their is large contraversy over its ability to correctly date things in the millions of years category.

one hell of a controversey its not designed to date anywhere near that long

its uper end is around 50-60,000 years the older something gets the larger the error of margin

at top end its accurate to around 5000 years

so to use it exclusivley is a waste of time as it also can only be used on orgnic's of a short period of time

we have plenty of other dating methods for minerals with a much smaller % margin of error that can go back billions of years

Someone said earlier... i beleive it was NOOB that the theory of evolution is the frame of what happens in nature its the specifics that are argued about.....

the theory of evolution is a theory.

it has a frame for its own theory.

A THEORY HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT BE A THEORY!!!!

easy there tiger

its a scientific theory meaning it has been proven to become a theory

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

wilstar.net...

its frame work is the outer workings of evolution, not a frame work for evolution but a frame work of evolution its the larger observaions that have been tested and proven, its all the fun intricate bits were looking at and the varied casues that can speed up or influence the larger observation

there are loads of data backing up evolution on the micro level.. none of this evidence says evolution is 100% conclusive.... or again IT WOULDNT BE THEORY ANYMORE

see above

theres also plenty of evidence tests and observations that shows the changes effecting at or above the species level (macro evolution)

but im talking about the real deffinition of macroevolution it bieng used to measure change, not be the change its self

As I said in my previous post

go research something... be it god or science or a mix of both

great idea everyone should

when evolution itself is incomplete and unprovable (yes there is data that supports evolution but does not gaurantee it) or vice versa is pointless and no one will win...

its proven but still incomplete becasue theres always more to do and test and find and poke and prod

thats why sceicne is so much fun everytime you solve one thing theres a hundred more waiting for your attention, then when better tests and devices come along you get to go back over what you already did and improve it if possible

end of rant.. post up scientific findings you thing are cool and interesting I love to see the stuff keep it coming.... but keep your opinions out of it

this could get interesting, yes please post up scienitific research for creationism

im not saying creationism is right... But I do enjoy reading about it.

as long as its somewhat sane and not crazy...

[edit on 22-12-2008 by sciencenewby]

Originally posted by noobfun
WOW never seen that before an air of arrogant condecending with a smattering of passive agressive in an attempt to create a false position of authority....

So you got a few labels for it do ya, mmm too bad your vocabulary gives you away as someone who doesn't know the meaning of half the things he says. You'' have to forgive the "special editing" I must do to your post. The spelling is a nightmare and it seems that much of it is superfluous ranting where I suppose you feel it will be mistaken for clever wit and repartee. It isn't clever and it isn't very well thought out. I really am not interested in a dialogue with mouthy knowitalls who claim to have an above average grasp of Science yet can't spell an average of four words per paragraph, so in addition to being none of my business, so Ill just remove the irrelevant parts until I get to the meat and potato's of your message.

if you dont agree we have nothing to talk about, invariabley this says to me "im going to draw out the same old stuff and pretend im right" ...lest see shall we

We won't agree, THAT I can tell you right now.


actually i think you better becasue im guessing your version is still along the strawman variant that usually dragged out and flogged like a big dead straw donkey from a spanish gift shop

This paragraph offered nothing and makes no sense

well thats the page i and most everyone else who reads about evolution are on, becasue we pay attention to the real deffinitions not the misreresentational ones

Who is "we" Noob? The Atheists? your scout troop?

changes within a breeding population that result in changes to it taxonomic or phylogenetic classification, these can be a single change in plants but more normally a collection of accumulated changes in a breeding population that combine to give a change at the macro level

Say Wha?? Huh?

Again this is utterly incoherent. Just try reading that a few times and you'll see you are saying a lot about nothing. Basically, what we have here is you saying this:

Oh yeah,, and "at the macro level."

now the reason i call strawman is simple, becasue the words are recklessley falsely and purposely misrepresented to be actual parts of evolution which they are not, they are measures of evolution

Care to show me where exactly do you get this idea.

like centimeteres and meters are a meassure of distance, they are not the distance its self but merley a way to meassure it

Again this makes NO sense at all, none what so ever.

Meters, Kilometers, miles, etc are NOT the "WAY" to measure distance NOOBFUNDIE. We have tools that measure distance and they do that using "units" of measurement, for example: A unit of linear measurement in the metric system. One kilometer equals 1000 meters. This system of measurement known world wide is called the "metric" system. It is a system of weights and measures that uses the gram, meter and liter as its primary units of weight, distance and capacity.

ahhh so hybridisation of two plants that give rise to a tottaly new species that is viable but able to reproduce with either parent species has never been observed? even though we have twice with i believe it was species of sage

This again is Micro not Macro, SHOW ME SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL NOOBFUNDIE

how about the underground mosquit populatons of londons underground who are now completley unable to hybridise as above ground variants of moletus and pipens can and do, isolated breeding formed an new insipid species

This again is Micro not Macro, SHOW ME SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL NOOBFUNDIE

well thats not strictly true now is it because its not an instant switch as the strawman says its an accumulated process so rather then 1 change you would expect to see several changes along side the many more similarities

EXAMPLES?

please im presuming we are both intelligent and have a clue what we are talking about here so don't try simple misdirections and massivley incorrect generalisations to try and form a general rule

I am sorry I can not return the same opinion as I don't see you as someone up to my level in this argument. If that suggests to you that I think I am more intelliegent about this topic, I would concur, with this one small difference being that i am not just smarter, but a LOT smarter than you are on this subject. I like the way you use the Ken Miller debate style however. Inundating me with all that minutia in your post and all.

Not that it is something I wouldn't under normal circumstances take seriously, but c'mon lol If you think anyone is going to disect that mess arguing all the extraneous points you have made, most of which are simply ad hom opinions which mean zip to me.

It's true and you have done a bang up job sizing up xtians the same way all through this thread. While your peanut gallery of noobfundie groupies hi five you in off topic supporting comments suggesting I am the victim of a "Noobfundie Smack Down" is rather interesting.

How one can be so easily impressed by such a pedantic style of miss spelled, mis represented, mis understood, monosyllabic mumbo jumbo, one can only imagine but I'd guess they are like you, Atheists, not scientists, not even formally educated hobbyists but simply kids with too much time on their hands wanting to cheaply enhance their ego by belittling Christians.

your also making the assumption all scientists are athiests which is clearly not the case many are christians hindu's muslims buddists pnathiests deists and some are atheists ... more generealisations and falsehoods

Oh Rly?? Where did you hallucinate I said ALL scientists are Atheist? No it is you making the mistakes you are accusing me of but I understand your desperation to make yourself look like you know what you are talking about.

The fact is noobfundie, you know very little about evolution or Biology. What I said was, most Atheist's use evolution to advance their Atheism. That is why we see so many here wearing their cheer leading persona, pom poms in hand cheering on their man, and I am afraid, their religion of evolution.

Without wading through that post playing tit for tat in some silly point counter point exercise in futility, I will just cut to the chase as I am not interested in all that other "stuff" you say as most of it is just plane silly having nothing to do with facts but your opinions of me and what you think I mean. You get most of that wrong anyway and that is why It would take so long arguing this with you. I don't waste time re-writing someones bad spelling, incoherent ad-hom's much less the idea I am getting that I have to keep repeating things I have already made clear about evolution and what I think of it. As I said to melatonin, I DO believe in evolution and NO I never said Ken Miller wasn't a Christian. I said NOT everyone claiming to be is one. By their fruits you shall know them.

Oh and the thing about judging others lest ye be judged?

Better take a good look at that passage and you will find you don't have any idea what is being said in that passage.

Tell me Noobfundie, what can we do to examine those areas of said changes in a species? Is there a way to tell whether there was a dormant gene existing in the population on the island of origin that was simply actuated or enhanced by conditions in the new environment? Have there been genetic comparisons between the old and the new population? Do geneticists explain such rapid changes by positing an intervening mutation that bestows a successful new feature?

just illustrating the faulty logic being used in support of evolution. this is junk science and anyone with any respect for the scientific method knows it.

this line of inductive reasoning deliberately dismisses the internal genetic capacity for genetic variation inherent in the DNA of any given species. Take Darwin's Galapagos finch's, are these apparent VARIETIES of finches, lizards, flies, etc really examples of newly evolved SPECIES?

No they are not.

Just ask yourself an honest question,, does interbreeding and/or pollination occur?

Uh OH! I guess Noobfundie, better check his premises!

Originally posted by Aermacchi

if you dont agree we have nothing to talk about, invariabley this says to me "im going to draw out the same old stuff and pretend im right" ...lest see shall we

We won't agree, THAT I can tell you right now.


actually i think you better becasue im guessing your version is still along the strawman variant that usually dragged out and flogged like a big dead straw donkey from a spanish gift shop

This paragraph offered nothing and makes no sense

and yet you add to my comments why is that [highlighted in bold]? dishonesty? or making a complete hash of the quote system?

saying somthing doesnt make sense when it does to many others shows not that my wording is lacking but the comprehension of it is

Who is "we" Noob? The Atheists? your scout troop?

anyone who actually looks at the scientific deffinition

as when presented with the deffintion and some words to elaborate on this deffinition your reply was

Say Wha?? Huh?

ill skip the rest its a pile of generalisations ad-homonims falseties and general flimflam instead of anything of substance with an insiprational touch of grammer nazi'ism thrown in for good meassure

oh and one thing if you keep insisting your so highly intelligent with a flair for language using the same ad-hominim at least 5 times really shows a complete lack of flair and imagination and the double negative really does not help either

substance is what you bring to a debate not a collection of logical fallacies and name calling, try it some time for a refreshing change

or better still actually bring evidence of your claims, i saw it but cant find it seems a little too coincidental, by why let a lack of evidence or understanding ruin a perfectly good falsety -_-

Oh and the thing about judging others lest ye be judged?

Better take a good look at that passage and you will find you don't have any idea what is being said in that passage.

that would be this one wouldnt it?

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

it means simply do not judge others you may held up against the same standard you judge them with, becasue it is far easier to see faults in others then to spot your own

you learn a thing or two when you spend a great part of your life bieng a christian

and like your judgment on Ken Miller which suggests he may not be a christain, then you shall be judged by the same standards

and you are found lacking in honesty, humbleness, compassion, and in having a general willingness to throw the first stone at every given oppotunity even if its you in the wrong

they shall be known by thier fruits indeed

and what is your deal with Ken miller? its almost like a represed emotional state bieng born out as anger

Oh Rly?? Where did you hallucinate I said ALL scientists are Atheist?

This science is so corrupted by Atheists attempting to keep it alive that it has been investigated and proven by the united states congress.

well as the figures state that 96-97% of all scientists engaged in the field of biology are also keeping this 'corrupted science alive' your comment that it is only bieng done by athiests would imply that those 97% must be athiests also

and as the figures show 94% of scientists working in fields of natural science also support evolution they must by your argument also be athiests

which they really arnt are they

what can we do to examine those areas of said changes in a species? Is there a way to tell whether there was a dormant gene existing in the population on the island of origin that was simply actuated or enhanced by conditions in the new environment?

wouldnt this be genetic level alteration turning the gene back on? or natural selection if its enviromentaly related, so even if we dont know the precise change it still could lead to a change at the macro level (the real one the one you dont appear to understand) so even if we dont know the exact cause or mechanism it still shows a change, and gives us somthing to find out by comparing against others of the samespecies that dont show this trait

so yes still uses the scientific method, observe, hypothesise and test away untill you find the answer

Have there been genetic comparisons between the old and the new population? Do geneticists explain such rapid changes by positing an intervening mutation that bestows a successful new feature?

genetic comparisson most likley yes they would do that, as for how the new feature arose would depend on many things and they woud follow the evidence to form a testable conclusion to confirm they are right

so again scientific method is adhered to

just illustrating the faulty logic being used in support of evolution. this is junk science and anyone with any respect for the scientific method knows it.

well you better start writting letters to the 94% of all scientists in a field of natural sciences and the 96-97% of them involved directly in biology im sure they would appreciate the laugh at your nonsense

this line of inductive reasoning deliberately dismisses the internal genetic capacity for genetic variation inherent in the DNA of any given species. Take Darwin's Galapagos finch's, are these apparent VARIETIES of finches, lizards, flies, etc really examples of newly evolved SPECIES?

as they are species hither to unknown to science that are genetically distinct enough to prevent viable gen1 offspring then yes they are new species

its not deliberatley ignoring genetics capacity to change its becasue of its capacity to change that new species arise, and when those changes lead to an incapacity to create viable hybrids thats a macro level change

Just ask yourself an honest question,, does interbreeding and/or pollination occur?

i dont need to ask, they actually test it in observed instances of speciation in lab enviroments

the moletus/pipens mosquito experiments was a study of viable hybridisation between the 2 strains and thier above ground counterparts

in the instance of the hybridised sage again it was tested, they were unable to hybridise with either parent species

Uh OH! I guess Noobfundie, better check his premises!

apparently not

substance not logical fallacies, try it for a nice change

do you arrive at bring a bottle style parties with an empty bottle? probabily not so dont do it here theres a good chap

and next time try actualy addressing a point not just saying umm i dont understand ... i mean it makes no sense so you can attempt to skip around what you cant address which seems to be most anything to do with evolution

[edit on 22/12/08 by noobfun]

I think you both need to start providing more external sources.... lots of "facts" being thrown around without links... I dont know who's right if neither of you are providing the evidence you talk about.

reply to post by sciencenewby

what would you like buddy? ill be happy to rustle some up

the part about the new mosquitos not being able to breed with both of the previous versions or however you would phrase it would be a good start for me. You always claim people make bold statements without links to reputable sources.

I would like to see the info for that one.

(I beleive you do have the links and know what your talking about but you should practice what you preach)

...unless I missed the link in a previous post then I am sorry... I think I have read through everything but there is a lot of info here haha

[edit on 23-12-2008 by sciencenewby]

dont think ive linked it in this thread ... think i took papabryant on arcaeopteryx in this one


www.gene.ch...

www.madsci.org...

www.nature.com...

I read through all three and it seems pretty legit especially the last link.

I would have to say to your oponent please show something in line with the last link that disproves this.

Not a stupid youtube video... A white paper or a research paper please. Thank you.

Originally posted by sciencenewby
I read through all three and it seems pretty legit especially the last link

well thats one way to describe peer reviewed scientific papers


hey an not all youtube videos are silly i only post ones made by scientists about science ^_^

its just most of them that are silly

[edit on 23/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by sciencenewby
I think you both need to start providing more external sources.... lots of "facts" being thrown around without links... I dont know who's right if neither of you are providing the evidence you talk about.

Well Ok, Ill say start with noobs credibility,

This is a screen copy of my software science writer, it checks for such things as spelling, grammar all the way to inconsistencies in logic and misused words, over used words etc. Noob as you can see has not much on any average 7th grader much less anyone with a better than average grasp of Science.



Spelling may not be a big deal but it IS an indication of the kind of intelligence I am dealing with here and as you can see, he pays no mind to it so why should I pay any to him?





What I think of him as an atheist, albeit they DO support evoluton and have recruited dim witts like Ken Miller JUST so they can say Christians support it to but Ill explain why this is absolutley asinine to suggest such a ridiculous assertion. One simple reason is God never spoke to an evolving Adam and Eve. Wanna be a Christian? You got to believe at least SOME of the Bible and Miller throws it out in the very first book

I am not the one who is making claims for the TOE (Theory of evolution) Noob is, and he is using already debunked data such as titalak if you read the book icons of evolution, and read the US congress report titled



Decades of observations of different animal or plant species revealed that variation within living things never went beyond specific genetic bounds.

Genetic experiments, on the other hand, showed that the mutations that Darwinists regarded as an “evolutionary mechanism” could never add new genetic information to living things, but that on the contrary they always had harmful effects.
Life, and especially the living cell and the complex organelles within it, is full of the most complicated designs.

Our eyes, with which no camera can possibly compare, bird wings that inspired aeronautical technology, the complex and interdependent systems within the living cell, the extraordinary information contained in DNA …

All these are clear “examples of creation…”

They also leave the theory of evolution, that regards life as the product of blind chance, utterly helpless.

These scientific facts left Darwinism backed into a corner by the end of the 20th century. Scientists in many Western countries, particularly the United States, today reject Darwinism in favour of the fact of creation.

If Evolution were true, we would be seeing us evolve by now and the post above mentions Apes evolving thumbs as if their were a time we didn't have any. Does he realize how utterly silly his assertion is? When was the last time we found fossil of such evolved primates or humans. If this were true we would STILL be evolving such appendages and they would look like this



The countless mutation experiments carried out on fruit flies only yielded deformed individuals. Natural Selection is not only discarded as a mechanism but has recently been admitted as flawed by Richard Dawkins himself. He realized that nothing about creation being what it is, could have come about the way it has without some mind behind it.

Noob says he can prove this he can prove that well I have asked him if we came about by natural selection and random mutation and he says their is mountains of proof. Most Atheists say this and when someone refutes the TOE, they then say that person doesn't understand evolution. Dave420 is notorious for saying "Clearly you have no clue about evolution"

The fact is NO ONE DOES and if anyone were to spend the time catching up on the latest revision of it as it keeps evolving to make excuses for itself, for its too numerous to count forgeries, its countless frauds and the multitudes of fabrications, fudged data and deceptive practices






including but certainly not limited to the despicable acts of discrimination towards ID and Creation SCIENCE they were found guilty of by members of Congress and the pdf for that is available for download and is nothing like what the Atheist websites downplaying it.






It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

www.guardian.co.uk...

This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten - a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist - told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull.

However, the professor's 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other "stone age" relics.

Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous "falsehoods and manipulations". According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax


Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds

An eminent paleontologist in Beijing, Xu Xing, now claims that the fossil is not even genuine. Rather, ‘Archaeoraptor liaoningensis’ was really combined from the body and head of a birdlike creature and the tail of a different dinosaur. Dr Xu said that a fossil in a private collection in China contains the mirror image of the tail of the alleged Archaeoraptor.

But it might’t be a deliberate fake like ‘Piltdown Man’, a human skull and an ape’s jaw. Dr Xu said:‘For science, this is a disaster. When pieces are stolen and smuggled out, sometimes blocks of fossils are matched together mistakenly. That can be a big mistake, and it misleads the public.’

After that, scientists in China claimed to have discovered yet another faked tail—this one added by a Chinese farmer to a flying pterosaur. Apparently this one has fooled the editors of Nature, another journal singled out by Dr Olsen (above) as overzealous to proselytize the dinosaur-to-bird theory.

For example, in 1996 there were headlines like ‘Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds.’ This was about a fossil called Sinosauropteryx prima. Creationist publications advised readers to be skeptical and keep an open mind. They were vindicated when four leading paleontologists, including Yale University's John Ostrom, later found that the ‘feathers’ were just a parallel array of fibres, probably collagen.

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’ The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. Later evidence indicated that ‘Mononykus was clearly not a bird … it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial digging theropod.’

No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned

Evolutionists go so far in this subject that they can even invent very different faces for the same skull. The three entirely different reconstructions made for the fossil called Zinjantropus is a famous example showing how persistent evolutionists are in producing these false masks.

Evolutionists engage not only in drawing and modeling tricks. Sometimes they commit deliberate forgeries.

The most famous of these frauds is the Piltdown fossil introduced in England in 1912 by an evolutionist named Charles Dawson. This fossil was presented as the most important transitional form between ape and man and was displayed in museums for more than thirty years. Experts who reexamined the fossil in 1949 discovered that it was a forgery that had been produced by attaching an orangutan’s jaw to a human skull.

“Nebraska Man”. was cooked up in 1922 on the basis of a single fossil tooth. It was soon revealed that the tooth that had been the source of inspiration for Nebraska Man in fact belonged to a wild pig. Many other fossil skulls have been presented as great evidence for evolution failed one by one.

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.

Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

One can observe great variation in a kind, and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves, and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.

But no new information was produced—these varieties have resulted from rearrangement, and sorting out, of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist!

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.
www.sciencedaily.com...

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate to this and why Richard Dawkins finally understands the reasons Natural Selection couldn't have happened. See below: the story of a town.

One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures." You may well be honored with academic awards for your clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light on the nature of humanity.

In summary:

If Noob can prove it, why then he must be pretty damn smart because not even Richard Dawkins says he can prove it.

"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

If he can't prove it how does noob say he can?

The Fact is, Noob is doesn't know what he is talking about much less spell or write what he doesn't know about it.

BOTTOM LINE:

Many of us believe things we can not prove such as Christians do with their belief in God and,,
as it would seem, atheists too and their belief,,

in certain aspects of evolution

NEXT UP! The Peanut Gallery! and the ridicule orchestra of Atheist's

[edit on 23-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Wow. Great point. Because we all know that you must have good grammar to be able to make an intellegent point. It's not like the two are seperate or anything.

If you had a similar program which pointed out contradictions and inconsistencies, I wonder how your Bible would fare... Actually I don't wonder, because I already know .
Oh well. You win some, you lose some.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
They also leave the theory of evolution, that regards life as the product of blind chance, utterly helpless.

Well that alone shows that you know nothing about evolution - pinning it on chance.
Thankyou, come again.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Scientists in many Western countries, particularly the United States, today reject Darwinism in favour of the fact of creation.

lol... Most leading scientists are atheists.
With over 80% of the U.S. being Christians, of course some scientists are going to be in favor of creationism - as their mommies and daddies taught it to them. That's what's known as indoctrination. Say it with me now : Indoctrination.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Natural Selection is not only discarded as a mechanism but has recently been admitted as flawed by Richard Dawkins himself. He realized that nothing about creation being what it is, could have come about the way it has without some mind behind it.

Discarded as a mechanism? How so? I would love evidence.
Where is your out of context quote of Richard Dawkins? I would like to see that as well.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Dave420 is notorious for saying "Clearly you have no clue about evolution"

Well clearly you don't lol... You think that evolution is based on "chance".

Originally posted by Aermacchi
"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"
If you can not prove it then don't buy it?

Many of us believe things we can not prove such as God and as it would seem, certain aspects

of evolution.

That's probably the funniest post evar! Do you really have such a thing as 'science writer' software? lol

Where did that quote come from, con? Your link is just to a google search. I can see that you're keen to emulate the scientific approach (cargo-cult science, heh) with the highly advanced software and everything, but that normally requires good citations.

So, can we have a proper reference for:

"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

Because it's making my BS detector vibrate.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Well clearly you don't lol... You think that evolution is based on "chance".

Aermacchi/conspiriology/MAINTAL is of the school of repetition makes true. We could call it the 'Head and Shoulders' approach - rinse, wash, repeat.



[edit on 23-12-2008 by melatonin]

Hi guys, OT at the local gathering establishment celebrating my Lord's birth (who cares if we got the date messed up

Been out for awhile, workin' on the 'honey-do' list...and boy is it long this yr!

Got my treo and have just read the last page...whew pretty intense...just wanted to say OT prayin' for all combatents....I'm gonna go and play another round of golden tee golf and wish all a Merry Christmas ....

Noob, hey my wife gave me this fiction novel...I don't think I've finished a book since college...it was really good, could you read it for OT's xmas gift?

its called WISDOM HUNTER...

OT

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Aermacchi
"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"
If you can not prove it then don't buy it?

Many of us believe things we can not prove such as God and as it would seem, certain aspects

of evolution.

That's probably the funniest post evar! Do you really have such a thing as 'science writer' software? lol

Where did that quote come from, con? Your link is just to a google search. I can see that you're keen to emulate the scientific approach (cargo-cult science, heh) with the highly advanced software and everything, but that normally requires good citations.

So, can we have a proper reference for:

"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

Because it's making my BS detector vibrate.

Well we can't have that now can we melatonin.

Here I don't know a better source than Dawkins

Yes, their is such a thing as a science writer. It is like whitesmoke's with a huge addon for science and law.

It's a great program mel you would like it i think

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well we can't have that now can we melatonin.

Here I don't know a better source than Dawkins

Cheers.

So this is the Dawkins quote?

Richard Dawkins: Well, my response was about Darwinism, which is my own field. Darwinism is the explanation for life on this planet, but I believe that all intelligence, all creativity, and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. That was my response.

And this is your version of his words:

"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

Do you notice any difference? In both actual words and meaning?

Yes, their is such a thing as a science writer. It is like whitesmoke's with a huge addon for science and law.

It's a great program mel you would like it i think

Heh, probably. Editing's such a bitch.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by melatonin]