Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.

Is that why no one, yourself included, is producing any remarks on that block of text you just pasted? Yeah, just keep thinking that. In the meantime, perhaps you should use your own words.

I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.

And yet you still seem to be clueless on the basic tenants of evolution. So either you weren't a very good student, or you didn't go to a very good school. I mean, you've gotten it wrong more times than I can count. And I'm not talking about the finer points that you don't understand, I mean what the meaning of the word evolution is and what its boundaries are. You haven't gotten ANYTHING correct.

By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.

This is rather immature reasoning, don't you think? Make a point, and I'll respond. Meanwhile I can't help but point out how many topics in evolution you have not responded to or generally ignored, including the FACT that new information is produced in mutation, there is no difference between micro and macro evolution at the genetic level, and how all reproducible verifiable evidence all show evolution to be correct. I guess since you continue to ignore all those points they're all correct?

Also, Dr. Spetner supports evolution. Or did you miss that part while you were blindly copying and pasting?

You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.

But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You should read a biology book.

Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself. But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.

I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.

I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.

By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.

You are still having a hard time with this notion that nobody is readying your copy and paste jobs. You could hide the combination to your safe in there and we'd never know it, because we aren't reading it. I don't know what your intent is in posting that stuff, but my own perception is that, since you can't argue the issue on your own, you are simply trying to bury us in another person's words.

That's not going to work. If there is something salient you want to reference, why not just pick that out and go with it?

Whats there to get lost in , Either mutations are the engine to macroevolution or not.

Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second sentence. It has a number of citations at the bottom if you desire original sources.

But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.

Who cares? You don't even know what neo-darwinism is. You don't even know what EVOLUTION is yet, or what genetically differentiates macro from micro evolution. So, why do you care about the nitty gritty details that do not actually affect the greater concept, especially the genetics behind evolution?

Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?

Because that is by definition what macroevolution is. Again, you don't actually know what the term means, or how it's related to microevolution on a genetic level. Seeing as you have been avoiding the question as to what the difference between the two is at the genetic level, why are you so surprised that people who don't draw actually draw a distinction between the two know that macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution over time?

Oops! More questions you can't answer! Looks like you're running out of sidetracking topics to throw us off from figuring out how misguided you are on this topic. Hey you could always copy and paste the McDonalds menu, or maybe random unsupported opinions about other unrelated topics from some crazy fundamentalist website!

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second sentence. It has a number of citations at the bottom if you desire original sources.

But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.

Who cares? You don't even know what neo-darwinism is. You don't even know what EVOLUTION is yet, or what genetically differentiates macro from micro evolution. So, why do you care about the nitty gritty details that do not actually affect the greater concept, especially the genetics behind evolution?

Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?

Because that is by definition what macroevolution is. Again, you don't actually know what the term means, or how it's related to microevolution on a genetic level. Seeing as you have been avoiding the question as to what the difference between the two is at the genetic level, why are you so surprised that people who don't draw actually draw a distinction between the two know that macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution over time?

Oops! More questions you can't answer! Looks like you're running out of sidetracking topics to throw us off from figuring out how misguided you are on this topic. Hey you could always copy and paste the McDonalds menu, or maybe random unsupported opinions about other unrelated topics from some crazy fundamentalist website!

Ok thank you.

Dr. spetner said macroevolution has never been observed,do you agree ?

Macroevolution leads to a destinct new kind of species. That new species cannot breed back into what it came from correct ?

What new trait has shown up in humans that you consider macroevolution ?

If two different breeds can reproduce they're of the same species but yet they are classified as different species sometimes,why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second sentence. It has a number of citations at the bottom if you desire original sources.

But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.

Who cares? You don't even know what neo-darwinism is. You don't even know what EVOLUTION is yet, or what genetically differentiates macro from micro evolution. So, why do you care about the nitty gritty details that do not actually affect the greater concept, especially the genetics behind evolution?

Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?

Because that is by definition what macroevolution is. Again, you don't actually know what the term means, or how it's related to microevolution on a genetic level. Seeing as you have been avoiding the question as to what the difference between the two is at the genetic level, why are you so surprised that people who don't draw actually draw a distinction between the two know that macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution over time?

Oops! More questions you can't answer! Looks like you're running out of sidetracking topics to throw us off from figuring out how misguided you are on this topic. Hey you could always copy and paste the McDonalds menu, or maybe random unsupported opinions about other unrelated topics from some crazy fundamentalist website!

No, you need to get the definition of both terms correct ,as Dr. Spetner explained in his essay.

Microevolution
•evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies
Subspecies are different species within a group that has been isolated . Example,lions and tigers.

Macroevolution
•evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. above the species level.

Spetner: At the outset, I shall establish an important and necessary guideline in this discussion of evolution. The word evolution is generally used in at least two different senses, and the distinction between them is important. On the one hand, the word evolution is used to denote the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source. It is the grand sweep of evolution that is supposed to have led from a simple beginning, something perhaps simpler than a bacterium, to all organisms living today, including humans. This descent is supposed to have occurred through purely natural means. Neo-Darwinian theory (NDT), which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection. I shall denote the word evolution used in this sense as Evolution A. When evolution is discussed for popular consumption, it is most often Evolution A.

The second sense in which the word evolution is used is to denote any kind of change of a population. The change can sometimes occur in response to environmental pressure (artificial or natural selection), and sometimes it can just be random (genetic drift). I shall denote the word used in this second sense as Evolution B. Evolution B has been observed. Evolution A is an inference, but is not observable. The distinction between these two meanings of evolution parallels the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, but the two pairs of terms are not identical. Evolution A is certainly what is called macroevolution, but what is called macroevolution is not identical with Evolution A. In any case, I prefer to use the A and B to avoid having to carry whatever baggage might go with the macro/micro distinction.

The distinction between these two meanings of evolution is often ignored by the defenders of Neo-Darwinian evolution. But the distinction is critical. The claim is made for Evolution A, but the proof offered is often limited to Evolution B. The implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A. But this is not so. Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy. Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved. NDT is generally accepted to be that theory. The strength of the circumstantial evidence for Evolution A can therefore be no better than the strength of NDT


So with the two terms cleared up please answer my earlier questions.

 

[konradv]

And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.

Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.

I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.

Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us? I'll speak for myself, please. You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea. That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata. Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?

I have no idea.

I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.

What is your view on polystrate trees ?

Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]

Evidence for "a flood", perhaps, but no proof of a global one. It also doesn't explain why you don't find trilobite and dolphin fossils together. NO, I haven't forgotten that you've been trying to avoid the question with distractions us about something irrelevant (a flood) in hopes that the real topic (evolution) will be forgotten. Sounds like intellectual cowardice to me.

 

[geauxtohell]

Whats there to get lost in , Either mutations are the engine to macroevolution or not.

About 5000 words on a computer screen.

Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?

Again, you mistakenly think that "macroevolution" is some sort of discrete event where once species goes "pop" like a kernal of corn and a novel species emerges due to a single mutation.

That's not how it happens. It's is in fact a long sequence of microevolutionary events. If you really understand genetics and how mutations function, I think you would get this (if you were truly interested in getting it). Since most mutations are deletarious, the more mutations an organism has during it's development increases the chances that it won't live to pass on any beneficial phenotypes it has.

Again, since humans define the terms "microevolution", "macroevolution", and "species" this really becomes an asinine semantics debate.

The larger question, do species change in form and function over time is an irrefutable "yes".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us? I'll speak for myself, please. You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea. That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata. Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?

I have no idea.

I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.

What is your view on polystrate trees ?

Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]

Evidence for "a flood", perhaps, but no proof of a global one. It also doesn't explain why you don't find trilobite and dolphin fossils together. NO, I haven't forgotten that you've been trying to avoid the question with distractions us about something irrelevant (a flood) in hopes that the real topic (evolution) will be forgotten. Sounds like intellectual cowardice to me.

Well there is world wide evidence for the global flood and the person in the video touched on that.

How could a flood 7,000 feet above sea level not affect the rest of the globe ?

What do you think it means that dolphin fossils and trilobite fossils are not found together ?

Fossils of dolphins have been found in limestone where trilobites have been found care to explain what point you're trying to make ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Whats there to get lost in , Either mutations are the engine to macroevolution or not.

About 5000 words on a computer screen.

Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?

Again, you mistakenly think that "macroevolution" is some sort of discrete event where once species goes "pop" like a kernal of corn and a novel species emerges due to a single mutation.

That's not how it happens. It's is in fact a long sequence of microevolutionary events. If you really understand genetics and how mutations function, I think you would get this (if you were truly interested in getting it). Since most mutations are deletarious, the more mutations an organism has during it's development increases the chances that it won't live to pass on any beneficial phenotypes it has.

Again, since humans define the terms "microevolution", "macroevolution", and "species" this really becomes an asinine semantics debate.

The larger question, do species change in form and function over time is an irrefutable "yes".

How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?

If anything went poof i believe "God did it" you have not been able to show all life was the result of a long gradual natural process.

The fossil record even shows that was not how it happened according to Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould.

If we find fossils that are dated to over 100 million years old, why do they show no change from current living organisims ?

http://www.living-fossils.com/2_1.php

 

[konradv]

Fossils of dolphins have been found in limestone where trilobites have been found care to explain what point you're trying to make ?
------------------------

Not without proof of your contention. Any such juxtaposition has always been shown to be a result of disturbance of layers or uneven erosion, most famously known in the "footprint" picture that is purported to be proof of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/paluxy.htm

Whatever you're citing is undoubtedly something of that nature. Care to provide us with a link?

 

[geauxtohell]

How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?

Don't give yourself any credit. You haven't facilitated any sort of educational process here. We both understand what the terms are and we both understand why "macroevolution" is a silly concept to get wrapped up on for the reasons I referenced above. The fact that you don't makes it doubtful that you are going to educate either of us.

If anything went poof i believe "God did it" you have not been able to show all life was the result of a long gradual natural process.

Great. You are entitled to your religious beliefs. I won't even try to argue that with you, as they are personal. As for all the rest, we've made our arguments. You just ignore them. Though the things we are saying can be found in any basic biology textbook if you really want a rehash. We don't have to break new ground as we are arguing the status quo.

The fossil record even shows that was not how it happened according to Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould.

Really? I've got a feeling that whatever quotes you produce are the result of a famous "quote mining" operation that creationists are famous for. By all means, post the quotes. Jut know that there are groups that spend their time tracking this kind of B.S., so if you are going to try and pull some wazoo academically dishonest B.S., expect to get further smacked down and laughed at.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Dr. spetner said macroevolution has never been observed,do you agree ?

No one has OBSERVED the sun being formed. So by your logic the sun doesn't exist, right? Clearly if no one has sat down and watched it like paint drying, it doesn't exist. For that matter, the paint on your walls doesn't exist either, right? Have you ever directly observed a person growing in a womb and being born? How do you know people are real?!

Once again you make the unbelievably naive mistake in believing that if you don't directly observe something, it isn't real. This is ridiculous, as the examples above point out. There is insurmountable evidence that the sun exists, that people exist, and that evolution exists. The above quote shows you still don't understand the things you blindly copy and paste.

Macroevolution leads to a destinct new kind of species. That new species cannot breed back into what it came from correct ?

And again I ask and you ignore: what is the genetic difference?

If two different breeds can reproduce they're of the same species but yet they are classified as different species sometimes,why ?

That's the question we've been asking you. You can't explain why. There is no biological reason for it.

As I've mentioned before and you ignored: species were initially defined based on how the organism looks, and sometimes whether they can mate with another organism. When genetics came about, we were able to see into the underlying makeup of an organism, and found there actually isn't a definitive biological thing that differentiates species. The only thing that matters is how close the DNA match to each other, and there is no set cutoff. Thus lions and tigers, while different in their appearance, social habits, hunting habits, and many other aspects, genetically and thus evolutionarily have not diverged too far from one another, thus they can mate.

Now, what's your answer for your own question? Let's see if you also like to avoid your own.

How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?

Until you get it right. We're asking you for oranges and you keep bringing us apples. No, it doesn't matter how many times you bring us an apple, you're still wrong.

To reiterate why you're wrong on this topic: you continue failing to actually describe what makes one species genetically different from another, even though your definitions continually refer to it. Here's a hint: none exists, which is why the distinction in your definition doesn't actually separate the terms. "Species" is a man made term not inherent to biology.

You then go on to produce some hand waiving by saying lions are tigers are really "sub-species." OK, what's the genetic difference between a species and a "sub-species" then? You see how ridiculous this is getting? Your made up terms with vague definitions require more made up terms with no genetic definition just to sound mildly plausible. Such is the dishonesty of creationists: no transparency, no reproducible evidence, completely unable to address verifiable evidence, and made up indistinct "definitions."

If we find fossils that are dated to over 100 million years old, why do they show no change from current living organisims ?

Living-Fossils.com

Because you still don't understand the concept of evolution, as this example shows.

I think the kicker in all of this is that you feel you must remain ignorant and uneducated on these topics because you think it somehow helps your soul to stay dumb. That is, after all, the running theme of many religions. Don't eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge is bad! Don't ask too many questions. If you find something you don't understand, then God did it and you can't question it! The sun revolves around the Earth!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fossils of dolphins have been found in limestone where trilobites have been found care to explain what point you're trying to make ?
------------------------

Not without proof of your contention. Any such juxtaposition has always been shown to be a result of disturbance of layers or uneven erosion, most famously known in the "footprint" picture that is purported to be proof of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/paluxy.htm

Whatever you're citing is undoubtedly something of that nature. Care to provide us with a link?

All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together.

Soft Tissue Fossil Treasure Trove Found in China 12/22/2010
Dec 22, 2010 — Live Science announced a major new fossil find in China with some 20,000 fossils. It was found in a 50-foot thick layer of limestone

The fossils are exceptionally well-preserved, with more than half of them completely intact, including soft tissues. Apparently they were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death....
Ninety percent of the fossils are bug-like creatures, such as crustaceans, millipedes and horseshoe crabs. Fish make up 4 percent, including the “living fossil” known as the coelacanth, which is still alive today nearly 250 million years later. Snails, bivalves (creatures including clams and oysters), squid-like belemnoids, nautilus-like ammonoids and other mollusks make up about 2 percent of the fossils.
Other major fossils found include marine reptiles and “dolphin-bodied ichthyosaurs” (see photo accompanying the article with amazing detail evident). Reporter Charles Q. Choi did not elaborate on whether the “soft tissues” included original material or, more likely, impressions of anatomical parts in rock. The site, named the Luoping Site, is in southwest China.
Once again, a fossil graveyard is found, indicating rapid burial and exquisite preservation. What they didn’t mention about coelacanth is that it is a classic living fossil that was thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago), only to be found in 1938 swimming comfortably off the coast of South Africa. And that’s not the only case of so-called “Lazarus taxa,” rising from the dead. Who can really believe that (1) coelacanths never left another fossil for 65 million years, and (2) the soft tissues in these fossils were never disturbed for 250 million years?
Evolutionists keep the fogma machines (05/14/2007) running to distract the real message of the bones. They bring in imaginary dinosaur feathers, slowly migrating continents, mass extinctions and hundreds of millions of years. If we had not been so brainwashed into accepting this weird stretched-out chronology founded by Sir Lyell Lot and his cronies, we would laugh at such notions. Look past the Darwin promissory notes (06/26/2010, 02/24/2010) and reckless drafts on the bank of time (07/02/2007), and let the collateral earn its own interest.

Creation-Evolution Headlines

Trilobite fossils

Trilobite Fossil Preparation

Trilobite fossils in the Grand Canyon red rock limestone.

Grand Canyon Rock Layers

In wyoming ?

Ichthyosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SmarterThanHick]

not reading copied and pasted blocks of text. make a point or don't bother.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dr. spetner said macroevolution has never been observed,do you agree ?

No one has OBSERVED the sun being formed. So by your logic the sun doesn't exist, right? Clearly if no one has sat down and watched it like paint drying, it doesn't exist. For that matter, the paint on your walls doesn't exist either, right? Have you ever directly observed a person growing in a womb and being born? How do you know people are real?!

Once again you make the unbelievably naive mistake in believing that if you don't directly observe something, it isn't real. This is ridiculous, as the examples above point out. There is insurmountable evidence that the sun exists, that people exist, and that evolution exists. The above quote shows you still don't understand the things you blindly copy and paste.

Macroevolution leads to a destinct new kind of species. That new species cannot breed back into what it came from correct ?

And again I ask and you ignore: what is the genetic difference?


That's the question we've been asking you. You can't explain why. There is no biological reason for it.

As I've mentioned before and you ignored: species were initially defined based on how the organism looks, and sometimes whether they can mate with another organism. When genetics came about, we were able to see into the underlying makeup of an organism, and found there actually isn't a definitive biological thing that differentiates species. The only thing that matters is how close the DNA match to each other, and there is no set cutoff. Thus lions and tigers, while different in their appearance, social habits, hunting habits, and many other aspects, genetically and thus evolutionarily have not diverged too far from one another, thus they can mate.

Now, what's your answer for your own question? Let's see if you also like to avoid your own.

How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?

Until you get it right. We're asking you for oranges and you keep bringing us apples. No, it doesn't matter how many times you bring us an apple, you're still wrong.

To reiterate why you're wrong on this topic: you continue failing to actually describe what makes one species genetically different from another, even though your definitions continually refer to it. Here's a hint: none exists, which is why the distinction in your definition doesn't actually separate the terms. "Species" is a man made term not inherent to biology.

You then go on to produce some hand waiving by saying lions are tigers are really "sub-species." OK, what's the genetic difference between a species and a "sub-species" then? You see how ridiculous this is getting? Your made up terms with vague definitions require more made up terms with no genetic definition just to sound mildly plausible. Such is the dishonesty of creationists: no transparency, no reproducible evidence, completely unable to address verifiable evidence, and made up indistinct "definitions."

If we find fossils that are dated to over 100 million years old, why do they show no change from current living organisims ?

Living-Fossils.com

Because you still don't understand the concept of evolution, as this example shows.

I think the kicker in all of this is that you feel you must remain ignorant and uneducated on these topics because you think it somehow helps your soul to stay dumb. That is, after all, the running theme of many religions. Don't eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge is bad! Don't ask too many questions. If you find something you don't understand, then God did it and you can't question it! The sun revolves around the Earth!

Yes my views are based on 3,500 year old writings, and these writings are supported by the evidence.

Your views are based on speculation, that is not supported by the evidence.

Ask all the questions you like but be real about the answers.

Should we now show all the problems with the dating methods to further show the fairytale of evolution ?

So what the difference in the DNA is similar from organism to organism, it just shows what the creator was capable of producing using similar substance to create life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

not reading copied and pasted blocks of text. make a point or don't bother.

I am trying to make a point showing that trilobite fossils are found in limestone the same as dolphin fossils. I am still trying to figure out why they need to be found together.

Did you bother to read about the graveyard of fossils found in limestone discovered in china containing many different marine organisms both small and large.

Both sides said it was due to a cataclysmic event.

Yeah more evidence of the global flood.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Yes my views are based on 3,500 year old writings, and these writings are supported by the evidence.

Wait did you SEE those texts originally being written? NO!? Wait how do you know they exist then?

Your views are based on speculation, that is not supported by the evidence.

Should we now show all the problems with the dating methods to further show the fairytale of evolution ?

Oh you have the evidence. Excluding the man-made writings, what evidence do you have? You were the one who just pointed out how 100 million year old fossils resemble modern life. But now you're claiming we can't even date that old. Do you see how you are inconsistent? How you pick and choose which logic or rules apply and ignore the same rules and logic when it's convenient? This is why your argument has been demolished time and time again. You lack integrity, and honesty. Are these the morals you are taught by your religion? To lie? To mislead? To promote ignorance and demote education? To ignore evidence and simple questions? Is this really the pinnacle of intelligent achievement of your religious teachings?

Every bit of technological advancement around you, from the cars on the street to the very computer you are using to come here were developed from the application of verifiable evidence produced from the scientific method, exactly as our knowledge of evolution has been produced.

In the end, you are incapable of refuting either the method or the evidence. You can't even examine the evidence! But you still think it's wrong for some unknown unexplained reason. How sad.

So what the difference in the DNA is similar from organism to organism, it just shows what the creator was capable of producing using similar substance to create life.

You're still missing the point. It's not just that it's similar, it's that the less similar it is, the less compatible two organisms are, without a set cutoff. You already agree with "microevolution" even though you still don't know what it is, which means you already agree that those differences are a result of mutation creating new information that separate organisms genetically.

I look forward to you contradicting yourself further, and propagating misinformation and lack of education. You truly are a great representative for your religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes my views are based on 3,500 year old writings, and these writings are supported by the evidence.

Wait did you SEE those texts originally being written? NO!? Wait how do you know they exist then?

Your views are based on speculation, that is not supported by the evidence.

Should we now show all the problems with the dating methods to further show the fairytale of evolution ?

Oh you have the evidence. Excluding the man-made writings, what evidence do you have? You were the one who just pointed out how 100 million year old fossils resemble modern life. But now you're claiming we can't even date that old. Do you see how you are inconsistent? How you pick and choose which logic or rules apply and ignore the same rules and logic when it's convenient? This is why your argument has been demolished time and time again. You lack integrity, and honesty. Are these the morals you are taught by your religion? To lie? To mislead? To promote ignorance and demote education? To ignore evidence and simple questions? Is this really the pinnacle of intelligent achievement of your religious teachings?

Every bit of technological advancement around you, from the cars on the street to the very computer you are using to come here were developed from the application of verifiable evidence produced from the scientific method, exactly as our knowledge of evolution has been produced.

In the end, you are incapable of refuting either the method or the evidence. You can't even examine the evidence! But you still think it's wrong for some unknown unexplained reason. How sad.

So what the difference in the DNA is similar from organism to organism, it just shows what the creator was capable of producing using similar substance to create life.

You're still missing the point. It's not just that it's similar, it's that the less similar it is, the less compatible two organisms are, without a set cutoff. You already agree with "microevolution" even though you still don't know what it is, which means you already agree that those differences are a result of mutation creating new information that separate organisms genetically.

I look forward to you contradicting yourself further, and propagating misinformation and lack of education. You truly are a great representative for your religion.

Historian Josephus wrote about Jewish history,Archeologists are confirming things recorded in the bible.They even had a calendar at those times,and the Jewish people were real good at recording their history there is no more thourough people on such matters. They were ordered by the prophets to record the lineage of each tribe of Israel.

Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable. The point is the fossils do not show any change over time but i really don't believe the fossils are as old as presented by evolutionist and paleontologist.

Yes,science has been able to accomplish some amazing things through the scientific method, but what you forget is no science method has been able to test and prove macroevolution.

How sad is it to take away credit for creation from the one who created all things through a theory built on speculation that turns out to be nothing more then smoke and mirrors .

What i believe is God gave the ability to adapt not change from one kind of organism to another.I believe he protected his creation by putting forth limits to adapting. The proof is when the limit is reached the offspring are usually sterile or organisms cannot cross breed at all. What makes creatures travel with creatures of their same kind ? I believe that is the order that God put into every walk of life. I do believe in microevolution change within a kind or group but that is as far as it goes. Evolutionist can't prove otherwise so they offer only unfounded,and unobservable explanations which has never resulted in what evolutionist said happened.

When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education. Teaching fairytales as fact i don't believe that is education we need.

Your rhetoric is actually funny.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable.

This is actually not true. Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating. We don't. It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used. That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though. Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.

This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists. Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.

Yes,science has been able to accomplish some amazing things through the scientific method, but what you forget is no science method has been able to test and prove macroevolution.

Except it has. You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.

How sad is it to take away credit for creation from the one who created all things through a theory built on speculation that turns out to be nothing more then smoke and mirrors .

I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors. In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence. Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information. Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?

What i believe is God gave the ability to adapt not change from one kind of organism to another.I believe he protected his creation by putting forth limits to adapting. The proof is when the limit is reached the offspring are usually sterile or organisms cannot cross breed at all. What makes creatures travel with creatures of their same kind ? I believe that is the order that God put into every walk of life. I do believe in microevolution change within a kind or group but that is as far as it goes. Evolutionist can't prove otherwise so they offer only unfounded,and unobservable explanations which has never resulted in what evolutionist said happened.

Yes, this is known as blind faith. It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance. It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you. I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs? Nothing. It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.

When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education.

Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable.

This is actually not true. Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating. We don't. It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used. That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though. Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.

This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists. Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.

Yes,science has been able to accomplish some amazing things through the scientific method, but what you forget is no science method has been able to test and prove macroevolution.

Except it has. You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.


I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors. In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence. Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information. Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?

What i believe is God gave the ability to adapt not change from one kind of organism to another.I believe he protected his creation by putting forth limits to adapting. The proof is when the limit is reached the offspring are usually sterile or organisms cannot cross breed at all. What makes creatures travel with creatures of their same kind ? I believe that is the order that God put into every walk of life. I do believe in microevolution change within a kind or group but that is as far as it goes. Evolutionist can't prove otherwise so they offer only unfounded,and unobservable explanations which has never resulted in what evolutionist said happened.

Yes, this is known as blind faith. It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance. It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you. I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs? Nothing. It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.

When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education.

Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.

All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.

Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.

Radiometric Dating Methods

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

My core beliefs have never been refuted. Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.

There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.

Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.