Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Like what? What's everlasting?

Like the state of one's soul.
www.news.com.au...
this could also be a title of interest to your research.
www.thebanneroftruth.com...

reply to post by PrimeLight


Oh, nice. And how does that disprove evolution?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Not here to disprove evolution as I believe in evolution...evolution of the soul, just as prone to further corruption and/or growth as the temporal condition of this worldly flesh, hence the links.

reply to post by PrimeLight


That's not what the topic is and you know it.

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by 1nf1del

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


Ever try a social gathering that isn't online? Go to a college and join a club. Go to the library and read up on the latest research. Email a professor or a scientist and ask them to clarify stuff for you. If they can't, ask them to point you to someone who can.

For someone who wants to understand, you don't seem to be trying too hard.

Because that would be like going to church to get an unbiased opinion on god. Why should I go somewhere outside my home on my free leisure time to just a dogmatic view because you are not comfortable with me here questing your beliefs, why is this such a problem for you?

Except that science presents facts and churches present... nothing.

How about logic?

We can't just say life is here and had to have come from somewhere therefore god! In the same way we can't say the universe is here and there had to be a beginning therefore big bang! Evolution relies on Abiogenesis to be a viable option, how can anybody rely on evolution if you can't prove how it started in the same way the big bang which is theory relies on a singularity which is only a hypothesis, so how can the big bang be theory when it relies on a singularity which perplexes even the brightest minds in science today and is itself a hypothesis stand on it's own merits?

If there was an omnipotent being wouldn't logic dictate that he would be outside time and space making time and the concept of a beginning and an end irrelevant? Time is only your perception of the motion and velocity of the galaxy you are in as well as gravitational effects from the sun, and again I'm not claiming there is a god but what does logic tell you?

reply to post by Wertdagf


I'm an idiot because I won't believe in a theory that relies on a very weak hypothesis because the conundrum it creates in that it disobeys it's laws? Obviously you are winning and I must concede because insults overrule logic on everything on the internet!

reply to post by 1nf1del


How exactly do churches provide logic?
www.britannica.com...
logic, the study of correct reasoning, especially as it involves the drawing of inferences.

What churches provide is comfort and faith to the already faithful. It doesn't ask you to look at the bible from your own perspective and ask questions. It's gives you the questions it already has the answers to. Logic is nothing I've ever encountered in church and my family was heavily involved, no Christmas and Easter Catholics. Science asks questions and then looks for the answers even if it doesn't like the answers it finds.

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

How exactly do churches provide logic?
www.britannica.com...
logic, the study of correct reasoning, especially as it involves the drawing of inferences.

What churches provide is comfort and faith to the already faithful. It doesn't ask you to look at the bible from your own perspective and ask questions. It's gives you the questions it already has the answers to. Logic is nothing I've ever encountered in church and my family was heavily involved, no Christmas and Easter Catholics. Science asks questions and then looks for the answers even if it doesn't like the answers it finds.

And there was nothing logical in my post at all? What created the singularity that was responsible for the big bang?

You all say the missing links are there. That evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and anyone like me who fails to see it is just ignorant and does not understand science. If that is true, then why do eminent evolutionists back up what I have said? And don't say I have taken this out of context:

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].

source

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You asked the question on 'everlasting' and it was promptly answered.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
You all say the missing links are there. That evolution has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and anyone like me who fails to see it is just ignorant and does not understand science. If that is true, then why do eminent evolutionists back up what I have said? And don't say I have taken this out of context:

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].

source

This particular piece of quote-mining has it's own page at TalkOrigins.
Patterson Misquoted

Lionel Theunissen actually wrote to Dr Patterson to clear this up, and his response clearly indicates that creationists are misquoting him.

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely, [signed]

Colin Patterson

What were you saying again?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


50+ pages in and you have still ignored my evidence behind evolution link. The websites you are sourcing to back your view are a joke. Between you and infidel, this thread has turned into a stand up comedy routine. I appreciate it. It made my day complete. How many lies from your sources have to be exposed before you'll start using more scrutiny?

reply to post by 1nf1del


thanks for avoiding the question. problem solved.

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Okay I've gotten some sleep and smoked a bowl, I understand what you 're saying, thank you for your patience, chemistry is where I'm getting tripped up as I haven't been able to devote enough time to it, but is the protein chain just random when serine clusters together?

Sorry but that's beyond my own limited understanding of the subject.

You would need to ask that question of a biochemist or molecular biologist..

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I notice that you have still not answered my question. Since I have asked you point blank numerous times and you continue to avoid it I can only assume that means you have no answer. As a result I have a new question for you. If you cannot identify that would make evolution impossible why do you believe that it is impossible?

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I notice that you have still not answered my question. Since I have asked you point blank numerous times and you continue to avoid it I can only assume that means you have no answer. As a result I have a new question for you. If you cannot identify that would make evolution impossible why do you believe that it is impossible?

I think I have answered it multiple times in regards to the DNA coding, the fact that there are no intermediate fossil proofs, that it's impossible to get proteins to be made by chance, the fact that no matter how many experiments have been tried, they have yet to produce a cell by chance.

So, I have laid out my case over and over, and just because I did not address my response to you did not mean it has not been answered. Then combine the glory of the world and the Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio, Phi and how it all fits in with the universe, nature, DNA I think a child can see that our world was designed and we did not just come about by some random chance.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Oh dear, he got caught telling the truth one time and then had to back track it. The facts stand. There is no proof of evolution.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
Oh dear, he got caught telling the truth one time and then had to back track it.

So when faced with Patterson's own words on the subject you resort to hand waving paranoid nonsense.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
The facts stand. There is no proof of evolution.

What facts? You have presented very little actual fact, only dishonest misrepresentations copied wholesale from creationist propagandists.

I've got to hand it to you, it's a nicely ironic title. You've produced nothing of any substance whatsoever, only distortions, half truths and pious frauds that a child could see through.

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by 1nf1del

 

thanks for avoiding the question. problem solved.

What does the church have anything to do with it, I don't believe in god I'm standing in between creationists and abiogeneticists pointing out the illogical argument both are bringing to the table and it's obvious to me which side every poster in this is on but apparently even though I've stated numerous times that I'm not a creationist you keep going back to the same thing and call me a creationist! I'll ask again what was illogical about what I said in the post you quoted?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


That still has not answered my question. You have admitted that adaptation occurs. Do you agree that these adaptations are the result of genetic mutations? If so what prevents numerous genetic mutations from accruing over many generations and as a result leading to wide spread differences that lead to a new species. This has nothing to do with the first cell, abiogenesis, Phi, or anything else you mentioned in your post. The question deals only with what prevents adaptation from becoming "macroevolution."