Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by John Matrix
Wow. Now I see where all the government funding has gone. Evolutionists have been spending a lot of money, time and effort on expanding their propaganda machine to further push their brainwashing.

Meanwhile, Creation Scientists struggle along without government funding on a fraction of the budget that Evolution scientists get.

www.icr.org...

Don't worry
Since there's no such thing as a creation scientist, they don't need the money
The symmetry is so perfect, it makes you believe a higher power had something to do with the funding

reply to post by littlebunny

Explain how I'm wrong… PROVE… nothing I've shown discredits evolution. What I did show and prove is evolution has been and continues to be built off lies!

Could you please make dot points of every claim you've made where you've proven evolution has been and continuously is built off lies?

Please make dot points of every attempt you've made where you have apparently discredited evolution. Thx.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Daniem

 

Some people believe everything they read when it goes against the existance of God.

How does this change your stance?
Many people including myself who believe evolution to be true based on evidence, also are NOT athiest.... So now what? what happens to your argument?

Originally posted by John Matrix
jrod:

you can put all the videos you want up here from the government funded scientists who's careers and funding hang on their evolution Faith preaching, but I won't buy into it. I chose to educate myself on BOTH sides of this debate a long time ago, and it's all speculation.

With all due respect, that comment is absurd. The US gov't has not funded such a thing and the past 8 years under Bush has actually funded anti-evolutionists aka creationist/intelligent design.

We "evolutionist" are not attacking your beliefs, it is your side attacking us for using reason.

Oh come on people. Why don't we take the people who think the Earth is flat, center of the Universe, Creation, so forth in one room. Then take people who believe in science and reality in another. Then give them both IQ tests and see who scores higher. Thus proving one side is full of morons and the others full of non morons. Wouldn't say smart just not as dumb as the other side.

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by littlebunny

 

Explain how I'm wrong… PROVE… nothing I've shown discredits evolution. What I did show and prove is evolution has been and continues to be built off lies!

Could you please make dot points of every claim you've made where you've proven evolution has been and continuously is built off lies?

Please make dot points of every attempt you've made where you have apparently discredited evolution. Thx.

Umm, there are only 30 pages... I would suggest 25 thru 29, but that would just be a suggestion... You're welcome!

Originally posted by jrod
Evolution vs Creation is always a dead horse. Check out this youtube video that deals with the debate.

All I have to say is BURN THE WITCHES !!!
BURN THE WITCHES !!!

Seriously, good vid thanks for posting

Originally posted by littlebunny
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by littlebunny

 

It's funny how you don't understand what you've even posted

Nothing you've shown discredits evolutionary research. At best you've shown modifications to the theory not the invalidation of it.

I could go on and on explaining why you're wrong but you won't believe me as it would, in your mind, conflict with your set of beliefs and we can't have that now can we

The reality is that when a belief is more important then reality, bad things can happen (ie the inquisition, salem witch trials, Evolution (added for effect) etc...)

What a bunch of crap! I triple double dog dare you to: Explain how I'm wrong… PROVE… nothing I've shown discredits evolution. What I did show and prove is evolution has been and continues to be built off lies! You can't just say I'm wrong simply because you wish it so!

No but I can say you're wrong because you are. Let's say for arguments sake that the handful of items you've posted are fraudulent. That doesn't make all the other science that has been shown factual over and over fraudulent does it? Ever hear the following?
"don't throw the baby out with the bath water"

I realize you have to deny the truth about evolution because if you didn't your make believe world would fall apart...

Actually not at all. If evolution were proven completely false tomorrow, I'd think it would be incredibly fascinating as it would give me an opportunity to learn something completely new. I would thrive on the completely new frontier laid out before me.

However, those of us who are interested in finding truth are not going to lay down so you can live in your hate everything and deny anything that discredits Evolution, simply because its your religion. Hell to the NO!

What makes you think I hate everything? I don't hate religion at all if that is what you're implying. FYI, I was raised Catholic and am not an athiest as I have stated a number of times.

I love what I did to your last sentence because that equals truth! Evolution and the way you believers of evolution behave is just like the witch trials, the inquisition... Evolutionist are nothing but blind radical believers in a science that is mostly madeup make believe, lies and conjecture that is not grounded in hard science, PERIOD!

Fine then please post scientific data that disproves evolution. If you can't do that then your statement is completely baseless.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to prove, for you to do, what you said you could!

--Charles Marcello

I'm sorry, what was I supposed to prove? Seriously, please tell me and I'll do my best to answer your question(s). I do try and go out of my way to answer anyone's questions I can. It would be nice if you also did that by the way

reply to post by andre18


I always ask creationists "Ok, there's a theory of gravity, right?" They usually respond with a yes. Then I say, "That doesn't mean that gravity doesn't work."

Ok well in your first point on page 25, you said “None of these links are proof! They are fossils”

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Every single fossil is transitional. There is no such thing as a final evolved form, we are evolving even now.

those who believe in Evolution say are transitional or proof of such. But they most certainly are not proof of transitional anything

Whale evolution - Pakicetidae, Ambulocetidae, Remingtonocetedae, Protocetidae, Basilosauridae, Dorudontidae

How are transitional fossils not proof of transitional fossils???? It would appear when you’re given the evidence you still won’t accept it no matter how much is presented to you.

Where is the transition from having legs to only having back legs and no front legs. From having legs to a blow hole on top of the head and no nose, where are those fossils... Oh that's right they don't exist.

Do you understand how extremely rare fossils are? Just to have found the fossils we have is fantastic but you shouldn’t expect every single fossil of every single species of every singe creature that has ever existed to be found. When something dies, it is usually disassembled, digested, and decomposed. Only rarely is anything ever fossilized, and even fewer things are very well-preserved. Because the conditions required for that process are so particular, the fossil record can only represent a tiny fraction of everything that has ever lived.

The link itself even says it has more to do with dinosaurs then today’s modern birds

Of course, because it isn’t of today’s birds. It’s a dinosaur evolving into an early set of what are now birds. You wouldn’t expect it to look like an actual bird because it isn’t – it’s the transition between.



darwinwasright.homestead.com...

The most famous one was the first ever recognized as such. Archaeopteryx lithographica was discovered in 1860. It was the first of many lines of evidence revealing that birds had evolved from dinosaurs. So Darwin’s theory was first vindicated while he was still alive. Of course creationists will never accept that, and still complain that archaeopteryx can’t be intermediate because we can’t prove it’s the single crown species from which all other birds emerged. But it doesn’t have to be, and that’s not what transitional means. In biology, species can be precisely identified genetically. But in paleontology, they’re determined morphologically.

So creationists argued that Archeaopteryx still doesn’t qualify because it’s “100% bird”. But they’re difficult to pin down as to why they say this, because this animal, like all other quasi-birds of that age, lacks many definitive features of modern birds, and it retains so many distinctly saurian features that when the last Archaeopteryx was found in the 1960s, the traces of its feathers weren’t immediately evident, and it was thus mistaken for a small dinosaur called Compsognathus.

But creationists continue to use every excuse they can think of to dismiss Archaeopteryx as an intermediate species. They complained that its lungs weren’t right to be transitional, or that it had the wrong kind of pelvis. They even tried to imply that every such fossil found so far were fakes. They think any excuse will do, and they’ve done the same attempting to summarily dispute every additional intermediary ever seen since. No matter what, creationists will not admit that anything we ever find can fulfill Darwin’s prediction of transitional intermediates.

This is why creationists demand only monstrous absurdities or issue challenges they know still couldn’t be satisfied no matter how true evolution may be; because they know already that whatever they insist on seeing today we may show them tomorrow, and if that happens, they’ll have to make up new excuses for why it still doesn’t count. So they won’t request to see anything evolution actually requires, and they usually won’t define any criteria they would accept either, because they already know they won’t accept anything even if we show them everything they ever ask for.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18

How are transitional fossils not proof of transitional fossils???? It would appear when you’re given the evidence you still won’t accept it no matter how much is presented to you.

Have you people NO Shame? You find fossils, then say they are transitional, when in fact you found fossils of completely different creatures that don't exist anymore, and then magically claim ancestral history to present day creatures. There is ZERO proof they are transitional from this to thus. What you have is pure speculation, when in fact they are just fossils you people claim are transitional with ZERO proof... That is the only fact!

I am sick and tired of science doing this... Science is becoming more of a joke then a search for objective truth. How freaken embarrassing!

BTW, reposting the same stuff over and over again, doesn’t make it more true every time you post it. Rather, it just proves how frequently evolutionist have to say the same lies over and over again just so they can go on believing. And you people say you aint a religion! whatev--er!

--Charles Marcello

reply to post by littlebunny


So repeating the same creationist dogma over and over is different?
Go figger

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by andre18

 

How are transitional fossils not proof of transitional fossils???? It would appear when you’re given the evidence you still won’t accept it no matter how much is presented to you.

Have you people NO Shame? You find fossils, then say they are transitional, when in fact you found fossils of completely different creatures that don't exist anymore, and then magically claim ancestral history to present day creatures. There is ZERO proof they are transitional from this to thus. What you have is pure speculation, when in fact they are just fossils you people claim are transitional with ZERO proof... That is the only fact!

I am sick and tired of science doing this... Science is becoming more of a joke then a search for objective truth. How freaken embarrassing!

BTW, reposting the same stuff over and over again, doesn’t make it more true every time you post it. Rather, it just proves how frequently evolutionist have to say the same lies over and over again just so they can go on believing. And you people say you aint a religion! whatev--er!

--Charles Marcello

I'll ask you again. Prove all scientific data related to evolution is a lie. That is your claim. If you can't back up your claim, you're making a false, irresponsible claim with absolutely no basis in fact.
So which is it?
Is evolution a lie or is your claim a lie? Pick one and support it.

OK all you evolutionists agree with scientists right? I think that's a safe statement.

Here's a few more statements I think it's safe to say you all agree to, unless I've read all your posts wrong.

Evolutionists claim "all known scientific evidence supports evolution”

Evolutionists claim "“virtually every reputable scientist in the world, agrees with evolution.”

Right?

Here's a list:

• Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus
Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept
of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, U.
of Idaho • David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case
Western U. • Theodor Liss, PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. •
Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of
British Columbia • Walter Bradley, Prof. Emeritus of
Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown,
Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, Trinity Western
(Canada) • Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry &
Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School •
Theodore Saito, Project Manager, Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD
Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology
and the Natural Sciences • S.William Pelletier,
Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, U. of
Georgia • Keith Delaplane, Prof. of Entomology, U. of
Georgia • Ken Smith, Prof. of Mathematics, Central
Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche, Prof. of Biology,
Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner, Asst. Prof.
of Biomedical Engineering, U. of Texas, Austin • Brian
J.Miller, PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Simpson College • Donald
F. Calbreath, Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College
Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad.
School• Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member • Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U. • Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton • Michael
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois • Tony Mega, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus
of Biology, San Francisco State • Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath • Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado • Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College • William A. Dembski, PhD
Mathematics-U. of Chicago • George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener, Prof. of
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington • Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München • Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis • Joseph Atkinson,
William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton
• Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum
Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof.,
Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas • Chris Grace,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith,
Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State •
Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science,
M.I.T. • Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor • John
L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular
Biology, U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie, Assoc.
Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U.
of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia •
Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics &
Engineering, Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski, PhD
Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author • Neil
Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials
Engineering, U. of Auckland • John Bloom, Assoc.
Prof., Physics, Biola U. • James Graham, Professional
Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National
Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner,
Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos
National Laboratory • Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U.
of Iowa • Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science,
Biola U. • Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist,
St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute • Joseph
W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin,
Superior • James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm •
Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas • Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School •
William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri • Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse
U. • Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof.
of Biology, Huntington College • Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion
Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington • Rafe Payne, Prof.
& Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U. • Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College




ALL these scientists have signed their name to this statement.

"WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF
CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY
OF RANDOM MUTATION
AND NATURAL SELECTION
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
COMPLEXITY OF LIFE.
CAREFUL EXAMINATION
OF THE EVIDENCE FOR
DARWINIAN THEORY
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”

Still say it's an accepted fact?

Cheers.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK all you evolutionists agree with scientists right? I think that's a safe statement.

Here's a few more statements I think it's safe to say you all agree to, unless I've read all your posts wrong.

Evolutionists claim "all known scientific evidence supports evolution”

Evolutionists claim "“virtually every reputable scientist in the world, agrees with evolution.”

Right?

Here's a list:


Still say it's an accepted fact?

Cheers.

So you have about 80 people on the list. Just curious but is there a list of people who have signed on FOR evolution? And if so, how long is that list ?

80 people aren't very much. that's the equivalent of a semi-busy lunch at taco bell.
To put the APROX. 80 people into perspective, post the list of people who are FOR evolution and their stats. You can do that right? So we can compare apples to apples.

Also keep in mind that nowhere in that list, are there any arguments against the science behind evolution Why not post evidence to contradict evolution?

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolutionists claim "all known scientific evidence supports evolution”

No there are exceptions which are still being investigated by scientific means, rather than just giving up and resorting to having a belief in the opposite

Evolutionists claim "“virtually every reputable scientist in the world, agrees with evolution.”

Wrong, Im an evolutionist and know for a fact that not every scientist believes in evolution. I work for the Australian Met Bureau, and the head of our department is a staunh creationist.....that was a very ignorant comment (from both perspectives)


[edit on 4/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]

One thing I find VERY amusing is that certain people want evolution to not be real. Let's say, for arguments sake the evolution is completely wrong. SO what? It doesn't prove the existence of god. So now you still need to prove god is real. Remember you keep demanding proof that evolution is real so by your own logic you must now demand proof that god is real GOOD LUCK If you find proof of god, you'll be on top of the world my friends )

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK all you evolutionists agree with scientists right? I think that's a safe statement.

Here's a few more statements I think it's safe to say you all agree to, unless I've read all your posts wrong.

Evolutionists claim "all known scientific evidence supports evolution”

Evolutionists claim "“virtually every reputable scientist in the world, agrees with evolution.”

Right?

Here's a list:


Still say it's an accepted fact?

Cheers.

So you have about 80 people on the list. Just curious but is there a list of people who have signed on FOR evolution? And if so, how long is that list ?

80 people aren't very much. that's the equivalent of a semi-busy lunch at taco bell.
To put the APROX. 80 people into perspective, post the list of people who are FOR evolution and their stats. You can do that right? So we can compare apples to apples.

Also keep in mind that nowhere in that list, are there any arguments against the science behind evolution

Why not post evidence to contradict evolution?

I cut the list short so I could put it all on one post, that was about half of it.

I KNOW there are MANY more scientists that support it. And just like you they won't listen to the ones that say it needs to be researched more before people call it a FACT, they won't listen to their own.

My contention is that it isn't fact, that there needs to be research before people can call it fact.

Quit calling it a fact.

It's crazy to try to hold on to the "evolution is a fact" thing, when it isn't.

It makes you sound worse than any "fanatical creationist".

I haven't heard ANY creationist on this thread say creationism is fact. I've heard them possibly say the facts fit better with creationism, but they stop there.

Just because a theory has some facts in it, doesn't make it a fact as a whole.

Originally posted by jfj123
One thing I find VERY amusing is that certain people want evolution to not be real. Let's say, for arguments sake the evolution is completely wrong. SO what? It doesn't prove the existence of god. So now you still need to prove god is real. Remember you keep demanding proof that evolution is real so by your own logic you must now demand proof that god is real

GOOD LUCK

If you find proof of god, you'll be on top of the world my friends

)

I don't want evolution to be real or not real.

If i told you God is a fact, I'd sound just as crazy as you do. I couldn't do that because I can't prove it. Regardless of my beliefs, I wouldn't try to cram it down your throat as fact.

Or I'd sound like you.


[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just because a theory has some facts in it, doesn't make it a fact as a whole.

Just because a book says that everything was created by a god, does not make it true.