Evolution....Now a "Fact"???

[Hollie]

Explain the observations biologists have made in ring species. If evolution is a sham, why can't descendent populations breed with their original populations? The species don't change if evolution is a lie, so what's the deal?

Surely there's some mined quote you can find that gets to the heart of what's going on with ring species.

I believe I'll wait until you avail yourself of enough education in this subject to digest the points made about speciation, post #96.


Your understanding of same is far too elementary.

You're befuddled. It's ok to admit that.

When you're pressed to actually compose a coherent sentence, you're an abysmal failure.

 

[Roadrunner]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Bullshit, God said "Let there be light, and there was light", that set the whole process in motion.

Nothing inconsistent with Christianity .

 

[PoliticalChic]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link....

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....

Actually, no. Your demonstrated habit is to edit, alter and parse the "quotes" you steal from crank fundie websites.

I was putting the comments from Gould in context.

You're just dishonest.

It was in context, you imbecile: it introduced the topic, evolution, fact or theory.

So....you don't understand 'context,' either?

Embarrassed, huh?

 

[Hollie]

It's called science.

By all means present the last peer-reviewed scientific paper that rejected evolution as a concept.

Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.”
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
― Dara Ó Briain

 

[Hollie]

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link....

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....

Actually, no. Your demonstrated habit is to edit, alter and parse the "quotes" you steal from crank fundie websites.

I was putting the comments from Gould in context.

You're just dishonest.

It was in context, you imbecile: it introduced the topic, evolution, fact or theory.

So....you don't understand 'context,' either?

Embarrassed, huh?

Your phony "quotes" are never in context. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you accept that you are an accomplice to fraud.

I know, you hate being exposed as a fraud and a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right after you provide proof of one species becoming another.

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.”
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
― Dara Ó Briain

You're simply not equipped to deal with anything I've posted.

But...it is fun kicking you around.

 

[Hollie]

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.”
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
― Dara Ó Briain

You're simply not equipped to deal with anything I've posted.

But...it is fun kicking you around.

I deal with you fundie cranks by exposing your lies and fraud.

What's the matter, out of phony "quotes"?

 

[Hollie]

Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time...

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.”
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
― Dara Ó Briain

You're simply not equipped to deal with anything I've posted.

But...it is fun kicking you around.

“A merely symbolic religion does not threaten the ruling regime of materialistic science.”
― Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity



“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you mistake this for the Religion Forum?

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link....

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....

Actually, no. Your demonstrated habit is to edit, alter and parse the "quotes" you steal from crank fundie websites.

I was putting the comments from Gould in context.

You're just dishonest.

It was in context, you imbecile: it introduced the topic, evolution, fact or theory.

So....you don't understand 'context,' either?

Embarrassed, huh?

Your phony "quotes" are never in context. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you accept that you are an accomplice to fraud.

I know, you hate being exposed as a fraud and a liar.

First of all, I never lie.

And, fraud? What does that mean? Fraudulent about what? I state a point,and prove it...that's hardly fraudulent.

One would conclude that you've been noted for lying and being fraudulent, and thus try to apply it to others.
True?



Let's say that I did get quotes from whatever that source is you keep mumbling about....

....doesn't it ever occur to you that, since they are true and correct, the source is hardly consequential?

Today for example....I've documented the inadequacy of Darwin's theory....from known and reputable scientists...folks who've published in journals.....and all you can do is say they came from Hocus pocus...???

What kind of dope are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you get to junior high school you'll learn about the Scientific Method.

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.”
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
― Dara Ó Briain

You're simply not equipped to deal with anything I've posted.

But...it is fun kicking you around.

“A merely symbolic religion does not threaten the ruling regime of materialistic science.”
― Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity



“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

So glad you've mentioned Nancy Pearcey.....I read her "Saving Leonardo," one of the most enlightening works ever!

Reading...you should try that.

 

[Hollie]

Not at all. When your "quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist creation ministries, why would think anyone misunderstands your agenda?


“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design




“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.”
― Charles Darwin, Notebooks




“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

"...."quotes" are stolen from the most notorious of the fundamentalist blah blah blah...."


That's funny, in light of the fact that I embarrassed you with a quote from your own link....

OK.....time for you to get back into that straight jacket....

Actually, no. Your demonstrated habit is to edit, alter and parse the "quotes" you steal from crank fundie websites.

I was putting the comments from Gould in context.

You're just dishonest.

It was in context, you imbecile: it introduced the topic, evolution, fact or theory.

So....you don't understand 'context,' either?

Embarrassed, huh?

Your phony "quotes" are never in context. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you accept that you are an accomplice to fraud.

I know, you hate being exposed as a fraud and a liar.

First of all, I never lie.

And, fraud? What does that mean? Fraudulent about what? I state a point,and prove it...that's hardly fraudulent.

One would conclude that you've been noted for lying and being fraudulent, and thus try to apply it to others.
True?



Let's say that I did get quotes from whatever that source is you keep mumbling about....

....doesn't it ever occur to you that, since they are true and correct, the source is hardly consequential?

Today for example....I've documented the inadequacy of Darwin's theory....from know and reputable scientists...folks who've published in journals.....and all you can do is say they came from Hocus pocus...???

What kind of dope are you?

First of all, you are a demonstrated fraud. You're also a demonstrated liar.

You really don't understand how comically tragic it is that you and the YEC'ist cabal really believe your pointless conspiracy theories.

 

[Hollie]

Your pithy insults don't explain why observed populations are able to cross-breed with neighboring populations of the same species, but several generations later descendent populations care incapable of breeding with the original population. One of the hallmarks of a species is the ability to breed with others of its kind, so if the descendants are still the same species, why can't they mate with what is supposedly the same species?

9. So....evolution: is it a fact or a theory?


a. Well....to move beyond 'theory,' until alternative evidence is discovered, the Scientific Method is the test:

hypothesis is formed,

it is tested,

and the results of the test must be reproducible

voila! a conclusion......

It may then become a part of the panoply of scientific theories....




"Evolution" hasn't even met that level of authentication.

Elegant though it may be....it is merely conjecture....and conjecture that has not done well over time: lots of counter-evidence has been found.





b. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


OK....so, the change from one species into another has to be shown...and that process, able to be reproduced.

Hasn't yet.






10. Two quotes are relevant here.

a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu


"... there is no evidence for evolution..."


And this:

b. Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."


"...just so stories...."


Sooo.......It's been a fun afternoon, but...
...I'm gonna stick with "theory," rather than "fact."

“It is also worth noting that one can obtain a Ph.D. in any branch of science for no other purpose than to make cynical use of scientific language in an effort to rationalize the glaring inadequacies of tbe Bible. A handful of Christians appear to have done this; some have even obtained their degrees from reputable universities. No doubt, others will follow in their footsteps. While such people are technically "scientists," they are not behaving like scientists. They simply are not engaged in an honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. And their proclamations about God and the failures of Darwinism do not in the least signify that there is a legitimate scientific controversy about evolution.”
― Sam Harris





“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”
― Dara Ó Briain

You're simply not equipped to deal with anything I've posted.

But...it is fun kicking you around.

“A merely symbolic religion does not threaten the ruling regime of materialistic science.”
― Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity



“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

So glad you've mentioned Nancy Pearcey.....I read her "Saving Leonardo," one of the most enlightening works ever!

Reading...you should try that.

“In the Modern Age, there are still those who refuse to contradict a single word of the Bible, even though the Bible contradicts itself.”
― Jonathan Clements, Darwin's Notebook: The Life, Times, and Discoveries of Charles Robert Darwin

 

[Hollie]

Creationist conference at Michigan State University - The Panda s Thumb


Creationist conference at Michigan State University
By Matt Young on October 27, 2014 8:34 AM | 76 Comments (new)
According to an article in Science today, a creationist group has booked a room for a conference at Michigan State University. Science is more discreet than I have to be, but it appears that they duped a student group into booking a room for them, and they are scheming to hold another conference at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Science writes that the conference, scheduled for November 1 and
called the Origins Summit, is sponsored by Creation Summit, an Oklahoma-based nonprofit Christian group that believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible and was founded to “challenge evolution and all such theories predicated on chance.” The one-day conference will include eight workshops, according the event’s website, including discussion of how evolutionary theory influenced Adolf Hitler’s worldview, why “the Big Bang is fake,” and why “natural selection is NOT evolution.” Another talk targets the work of MSU biologist Richard Lenski, who has conducted an influential, decades-long study of evolution in bacterial populations.

All that old familiar nonsense.






Following the lecture, there will be a round table discussion regarding the effectiveness of prayer beads and bloody chickens feet in the treatment of illness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Evolution and creationism are not litmus tests to be a Christian.

All the rest of the argument is fluff.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If the competeing narratives are:

-Evolution's true
vs
-Genesis true, evolution's false

I'll comfortable with the evolution's true side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Evolution is the true side of the allegory told in Genesis.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't think PC is a YEC.

So far, what I have seen(at least on the first page) is a form of basic Skepticism.

Yes--Skepticism on how confident you can assert the validity of the theory of evolution based on the empirical evidence and observations that support it.

Shes not that confident about the evidence. I maybe a bit too confident about the evidence. But I do get PC's point.

Is it theory that still requires evidence to make it a fact or Is there already enough evidence on the theory to call it a fact?

At least P.C. suggest at least one piece of theoretically obtainable evidence that could bring her over--An experiment that observes the evolutionary process--i.e the changing of one species to another.

That is a pretty tall order. There is the wee problem to clarify: How would we know when we got a new species, if we do get a new species?

 

[ScienceRocks]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

No, actually, they are, when they are put in CONTEXT the shows life forms change over time.

But this isn't about science, it's about faith.

If Evolution is true, the bible is false.

If the Bible is false, then there is no God.

Bullshit, God said "Let there be light, and there was light", that set the whole process in motion.

Nothing inconsistent with Christianity .

The light was already ignited before the planet was fully formed. The sun formed first and the planetoids through gravity slowly came together. The first billion years was a very firely and violent time as tens of thousands of planetoids and asteroids slammed into our planet.

Yes, there was light, but it was more like hell.

 

[JoeB131]

You're not smart enough to know if it 'ain't so.'

Actually, everything I post in this forum is science, and critiques thereof.

Get rid of the hate and you might, finally, get an education.

You don't know what Science is.

And you live in a strange world where Evolution isn't true, FDR was a communist and there really wasn't genocide against Native Americans. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[JoeB131]