Great Hoaxes of Science. Spoiler Alert: Most are about Evolution and/or early man

[alang1216]

What we find are BOTH flight and flightless birds as evidence. It doesn't appear to be flightless turning into flight ones no matter how long people have watched them.

How long have people watched them? Only in your world do thing happen miraculously fast.

This is what your atheist scientists have claimed as birds from dinosaurs (which was proven wrong already).

I've seen no such 'proof'.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Until they used the methods of science to examine the data,

You might want to move on to another of the creationer clown shows with the Piltdown Man cut and paste. Another correction made by science.

So, you used a large portion of the stereotypical creationer ''science is all one big conspiracy theory'' rants with Shinichi Fujimura. I just gave you Piltdown Man so I expect Haeckel's drawings next.

​

That's three which covers the usual cut and paste, ''science is all one big conspiracy theory'', used by the typical creationer.

I'm neither a creationer, nor typical.

I'm glad you know about the hoax of Haeckel's drawings. FWIW, they are still being taught in public school textbooks about evolution. Even exposed hoaxes are not to be questioned in the religion of Darwinism.

Haeckel's idea that embryos go through development phases that parallels the species' evolutionary development. That's a "kewl story," but nothing more than a story.

Not all of evolution is fraudulent. Most of it is simply conjecture based on the supposed "simplicity" of early life compared to modern life. The overwhelming majority of Darwinian theory consists of untestable ideas about how that happened.

I only hesitate to say that 100% of Darwinian theory is untestable ideas, because I am waiting for someone - anyone - to show me any part of Darwinism that is a) testable, and b) inconsistent with any other explanation for the evolution of species.

Hollie?

 

[Hollie]

I'm neither a creationer, nor typical.

I'm glad you know about the hoax of Haeckel's drawings. FWIW, they are still being taught in public school textbooks about evolution. Even exposed hoaxes are not to be questioned in the religion of Darwinism.

Haeckel's idea that embryos go through development phases that parallels the species' evolutionary development. That's a "kewl story," but nothing more than a story.

Not all of evolution is fraudulent. Most of it is simply conjecture based on the supposed "simplicity" of early life compared to modern life. The overwhelming majority of Darwinian theory consists of untestable ideas about how that happened.

I only hesitate to say that 100% of Darwinian theory is untestable ideas, because I am waiting for someone - anyone - to show me any part of Darwinism that is a) testable, and b) inconsistent with any other explanation for the evolution of species.

Hollie?

All the above is a cavalcade of your greatest hits screaming out, "I don't understand what I'm arguing against''.

Nothing in your comments ever address specifics. I'm afraid you simply shuffle sentences in your formula ''Darwinism'' rants that are standard fare from all of the online ID'iot creationer ministries.

Show me anything that points to your supernatural gods as having any connection to the rational, natural world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not all of evolution is fraudulent.

Haha, no, you don't get to slither out of your nonsense with this ridiculous equivocation. The theory of evolution states that evolution is the origin of all species. That all species that are alive today share a common, single-celled ancestor. You either accept that as the fact that it is, or you do not. There is no in between

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nothing in your comments ever address specifics.

It is rare for a Darwinist to be specific, so how can I address the specifics of Darwinism?

Name three specific things about Darwinism that are true?

Not "it's all real!" or some other nonsense. Some true facts that we know about Darwinian evolution and how we know them?

 

[james bond]

How long have people watched them? Only in your world do thing happen miraculously fast.


I've seen no such 'proof'.

Lol, I'm the one who is saying "I've seen no proof." There are no skeletal or fossil evidence of them changing. Furthermore, we have no human observations of this change. What we have are both flight and flightless birds now, so the evidence shows that is what it was in the past. The skeletal record backs it up.

What does your fossil record show? Your side can only deal with fossils. I don't think it shows any change and shows that they both lived in the past. Birds didn't come into being from dinosaurs as fossil evidence shows they both lived together at the same time. Otherwise, you would be able to show fossil records of this change, but you don't have it as usual. You deal with invisible evidence lol.

 

[Hollie]

It is rare for a Darwinist to be specific, so how can I address the specifics of Darwinism?

Name three specific things about Darwinism that are true?

Not "it's all real!" or some other nonsense. Some true facts that we know about Darwinian evolution and how we know them?

It's not surprising that the ID'iot creationer dodged the challenge to identify anything supernatural about their ideology. As we see with regularity, the sum total of the creationer argument amounts to ''Darwinisn isn't true.''.

When ID'iot creationers are tasked with refuting ''Darwinism'', they usually respond with ignorance such as ''Darwinism can't reproduce the first life'', which, of course, has nothing to do with Darwinism.

I supposed we're left, as usual, with the ID'iot creationers hoping someone will entertain their conspiracy theories.

 

[james bond]

I supposed we're left, as usual, with the ID'iot creationers hoping someone will entertain their conspiracy theories.

Your side has provided no fossil evidence for flight birds changing to flightless. That's all your side can deal with and there are no fossils showing that. You believe in invisible evidence that does not exist. How often do we find "fossil" evidence? We have plenty of skeletal evidence that it didn't happen as well as both types of birds existing today.

It's the usual evolutionists believing something happened when they have no fossil evidence. Most of the time, we do not have fossil evidence. This time, none whatsoever. Much of the time, you people are LIARS. We have skeletal evidence to show both existed. The evos cannot deal with skeletal evidence which is more plentiful and that doesn't even show this. Life does not show this lol. You and your side are an embarrassment.

 

[james bond]

When ID'iot creationers are tasked with refuting ''Darwinism'', they usually respond with ignorance such as ''Darwinism can't reproduce the first life'', which, of course, has nothing to do with Darwinism.

I supposed we're left, as usual, with the ID'iot creationers hoping someone will entertain their conspiracy theories.

Observation, skeletal, written and even fossil records are against Darwinism. There were no observed, skeletal, written and fossil record of major changes of one species becoming another, i.e. no transitional records.

"For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution.

I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking."

Don't the Fossils Prove Evolution?

For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past...

www.icr.org

Otherwise, give us three examples with the listed fossil records.

 

[Hollie]

Observation, skeletal, written and even fossil records are against Darwinism. There were no observed, skeletal, written and fossil record of major changes of one species becoming another, i.e. no transitional records.

"For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution.

I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking."

Don't the Fossils Prove Evolution?

For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past...

www.icr.org

Otherwise, give us three examples with the listed fossil records.

Copying and pasting from charlatans at the ICR clown show.

Don't be an accomplice to fraud.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's not surprising that the ID'iot creationer dodged the challenge to identify anything supernatural about their ideology. As we see with regularity, the sum total of the creationer argument amounts to ''Darwinisn isn't true.''.

It's more like "please provide details of Darwinism that are verifiable" answered by silence for a quick change of subject.

When ID'iot creationers are tasked with refuting ''Darwinism'', they usually respond with ignorance such as ''Darwinism can't reproduce the first life'', which, of course, has nothing to do with Darwinism.

Really? How would Darwinism be possible if there were no life?

I supposed we're left, as usual, with the ID'iot creationers hoping someone will entertain their conspiracy theories.

So you got nothing to support your Darwinian beliefs. Check.

 

[james bond]

Copying and pasting from charlatans at the ICR clown show.

Don't be an accomplice to fraud.

As per you MO, you can't read neither creation nor evolution articles to make intelligent comment on them.

The evolution side has no explanation of how catastrophism affected their uniformitarian Earth. Surely, in millions and billions of years something would've happened as we know. The Earth tells us what we need for life. There is no evolution here. Thus, we should be able to take what we know and apply them to other planets that we can study or visit. Do you even understand this? Of course not. You think like a flat Earther lol. It goes back to momma and poppa.

 

[Hollie]

It's more like "please provide details of Darwinism that are verifiable" answered by silence for a quick change of subject.

Really? How would Darwinism be possible if there were no life?

So you got nothing to support your Darwinian beliefs. Check.

You're simply copying and pasting the same rhetorical comments you have dumped into several threads you have opened previously. Your comments are boilerplate ID'iot creationer attempts to challenge biological evolution.

As your comments have been addressed previously, I'll task you with going back through this thread and your earlier threads so you can cut and paste a history of your comments which were addressed earlier and appear again in this thread.

On the other hand, a) please provide evidence of your supernatural gods. From there we can move on to, b) evidence of your supernatural gods intervening in the natural world, and, c) evidence of their supernatural creation.

I'm, you know, tingling with excitement to see you present some evidence for supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

As per you MO, you can't read neither creation nor evolution articles to make intelligent comment on them.

The evolution side has no explanation of how catastrophism affected their uniformitarian Earth. Surely, in millions and billions of years something would've happened as we know. The Earth tells us what we need for life. There is no evolution here. Thus, we should be able to take what we know and apply them to other planets that we can study or visit. Do you even understand this? Of course not. You think like a flat Earther lol. It goes back to momma and poppa.

What a mess.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You're simply copying and pasting the same rhetorical comments you have dumped into several threads you have opened previously. Your comments are boilerplate ID'iot creationer attempts to challenge biological evolution.

Yet, you obsessively respond to all of my threads. One day, I'll make one, then a day later make another, then a half-day later make a third, then six hours later, then three hours, then, etc. Just to see if there is an interval between my threads short enough that you will be able to resist responding.

As your comments have been addressed previously, I'll task you with going back through this thread and your earlier threads so you can cut and paste a history of your comments which were addressed earlier and appear again in this thread.

I reject your tasking. Why should I when you cannot resist replying to me?

On the other hand, a) please provide evidence of your supernatural gods. From there we can move on to, b) evidence of your supernatural gods intervening in the natural world, and, c) evidence of their supernatural creation.

I will absolutely do that.

Just as soon as you link to one single post in which I claimed that there were supernatural gods.

I'm, you know, tingling with excitement to see you present some evidence for supernaturalism.

I think the tingling with excitement has another cause . . .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet, you obsessively respond to all of my threads

Why are trolls all so goddamn stupid?

You created this sockpuppet account and spam these idiot threads FOR ATTENTION.
.Then you get it and think you can make a point by whining like a little bitch about it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why are trolls all so goddamn stupid?

I don't know. Why are you?

You created this sockpuppet account and spam these idiot threads FOR ATTENTION.
.Then you get it and think you can make a point by whining like a little bitch about it.

What whining? I love watching you idiots stress out. I even took you off of ignore to watch the show.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't know. Why are you?

What whining? I love watching you idiots stress out. I even took you off of ignore to watch the show.

Haha, and the self soothing begins.. flame out, log into the other account, spread some Russian propaganda

Rinse, repeat

 

[alang1216]

Lol, I'm the one who is saying "I've seen no proof." There are no skeletal or fossil evidence of them changing. Furthermore, we have no human observations of this change. What we have are both flight and flightless birds now, so the evidence shows that is what it was in the past. The skeletal record backs it up.

You're only seeing what you want to see. If we look at old rock layers we find no flightless birds yet in younger layers we do find flightless birds. Where did they come from?

What does your fossil record show? Your side can only deal with fossils. I don't think it shows any change and shows that they both lived in the past. Birds didn't come into being from dinosaurs as fossil evidence shows they both lived together at the same time. Otherwise, you would be able to show fossil records of this change, but you don't have it as usual. You deal with invisible evidence lol.

Admit it, you'd only accept evolution if it was witnessed by people. You can't accept there was a time when there was no people when that is exactly what the fossil records shows.

 

[Hollie]

Yet, you obsessively respond to all of my threads. One day, I'll make one, then a day later make another, then a half-day later make a third, then six hours later, then three hours, then, etc. Just to see if there is an interval between my threads short enough that you will be able to resist responding.

I reject your tasking. Why should I when you cannot resist replying to me?

I will absolutely do that.

Just as soon as you link to one single post in which I claimed that there were supernatural gods.

I think the tingling with excitement has another cause . . .

You obsessively press your un-informed, anti-science conspiracy theories. You're replying to me so who, really, is obsessed?

I was fully aware you would resist my tasking. That's stereotypical for those who peddle their ID'iot creationer nonsense but have no supportable argument. Absent slogans and material ID'iot creationers cut and paste from ID'iot creationer ministries, there is just no defendable argument to be had for magic and supernaturalism.

Weed whacking through the landscape of Disco-tute groupies leaves one disappointed that the Disco-bots can't seem to churn out a single bot who can offer a coherent thought defending their version of hyper-religious fundamentalism.