Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[THE LIGHT]

you must have truth-block activated on your browser.

i'm only giving you shit because you cant avoid transitional fossils in any study of fossils, in any biology book. any search engine will return thousands of results.

start here (links to missing links):

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look into this stuff on your own to be a credible detractor. if you feel that your faith requires defense from evolution theory, you had better know your enemy, lite.

See, that wasn't that hard now was it? At least it shouldn't have been.

But those are found nowhere on that page now were they?

 

[antagon]

the first link was the first link on the results page, actually. i think wiki and google are in cahoots.

 

[THE LIGHT]

you must have truth-block activated on your browser.

i'm only giving you shit because you cant avoid transitional fossils in any study of fossils, in any biology book. any search engine will return thousands of results.

start here (links to missing links):

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look into this stuff on your own to be a credible detractor. if you feel that your faith requires defense from evolution theory, you had better know your enemy, lite.

Besides the fact that Wikipedia isn't a very credible source, which is evidenced by it's unscientific definition of fossils, there are no transitional fossils shown there. Most of what is shown there are just fictitional renderings of a what evolutionists hope an pray happened and even then, the transitions that are said to be occuring are slight alterations within kinds. Wikipedia even admits to "the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

 

[THE LIGHT]

the first link was the first link on the results page, actually. i think wiki and google are in cahoots.

Either wiki pays google a lot to be the first on the list which is usally the case or they are in cahoots as you say.

 

[edthecynic]

the first link was the first link on the results page, actually. i think wiki and google are in cahoots.

Either wiki pays google a lot to be the first on the list which is usally the case or they are in cahoots as you say.

You are stupidly buying into Stuttering LimpTard's tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
All paid links are shaded in color and clearly labeled as "sponsored links" in the upper right hand corner of the shading.

 

[antagon]

wikipedia is as credible as its sources, lite. do you contest the sources in the articles? with which alternatives?

your dismissive posture doesnt transfer to science. there is a requirement to research things. was there a technical difficulty which prevented you from acknowledging the fossils that were on the page? renditions, furthermore, are based on fossils which are negatives or which are partial. fossils from different specimen are not assembled together, but 3d or 2d renditions are used to bridge the gaps in the sometimes millions of years old biomaterial. does that make them so incredible to you?

'eryops' comes to mind as one of the most popular transitional fossils. most are found in the US. there are hundreds. many are whole. you look 'eryops' up. i think eryops megacephalus. 'eryops' for sure

your questioning the credibility of evidences presented you by tossing it out without careful consideration draws a line of sincerety for me. as i said earlier, when i studied biology formally, the internet wasnt as robust as it is now. comparing the formal study to the accessibility of info on the internet, even from wikipedia specifically, i find the latter to be impressive and not lacking credibility as you claim. in science, peer review makes such challenges by providing contrary resources or discrediting information. do that; at least look into the sources of the articles. nobody's impressed with brushing off a wiki article at face value.

 

[antagon]

the first link was the first link on the results page, actually. i think wiki and google are in cahoots.

Either wiki pays google a lot to be the first on the list which is usally the case or they are in cahoots as you say.

You are stupidly buying into Stuttering LimpTard's tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
All paid links are shaded in color and clearly labeled as "sponsored links" in the upper right hand corner of the shading.

cool it guys. there's no evil conspiracy. nothing about their relationship discredits either one. google lists the best info first, so hopes its algorithm. wiki is either explicitly or incidentally that info.

wear this foil hat, cynic.

Google Donates $2 Million for Wikipedia - Bringing Wikimedia's raised funding for 2010 to a cool $10 million - Softpedia

 

[THE LIGHT]

the first link was the first link on the results page, actually. i think wiki and google are in cahoots.

Either wiki pays google a lot to be the first on the list which is usally the case or they are in cahoots as you say.

You are stupidly buying into Stuttering LimpTard's tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
All paid links are shaded in color and clearly labeled as "sponsored links" in the upper right hand corner of the shading.

LimpTard's??? That's a new one.

 

[edthecynic]

Either wiki pays google a lot to be the first on the list which is usally the case or they are in cahoots as you say.

You are stupidly buying into Stuttering LimpTard's tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
All paid links are shaded in color and clearly labeled as "sponsored links" in the upper right hand corner of the shading.

LimpTard's??? That's a new one.

Yes, I'm satirizing MessiahRushie's use of the word "celebutard," which was deemed as acceptable by Celebutard Palin, the self anointed defender of the retard community.
Tardification is good clean satire according to Celebutard Palin.

 

[logical4u]

your very fundamental misunderstanding is with the use of the word *fact*. whats the point of the term 'theory' if you talk about teaching the theory of evolution as fact? i digress to my point that education has failed to even drive home the basics, like what a theory is. being one such victim, you're ahead of yourself worrying about a specific theory without understanding the term 'theory' in the first place. after you're apprised of its meaning, you could look into its application: essentially a precept to explore and by which hypotheses can be drawn and vetted.

a declaration of fact, such like what fundamentalist religious doctrines may state, is not, per sa, scientific. that is the issue is i have with teaching creationist dogma in a science classroom. it operates outside of science by virtue of its (oft supernatural) bases and conjecture that it is incontrovertible. maybe history or anthropology, philosophy or religion class. i had a religious education for years, and it was never necessary for my science teacher to go on about god, as all that was studied in it's own depth elsewhere. we still had grades to keep up in religion as well. the discipline of scholarship should bend to your skepticism about evolution too?

as to the tug-of-war between fundamentalists and atheists, that is a whole separate argument. neither will ever find the tools for accounts of the supernatural to substantiate the natural, or the natural to measure the supernatural. from my perspective, those struggles are for idiots. while most researchers abide by a religious tradition and subscribe to evolution at the same time, the vast majority of people have moved past the quest for one paradigm to compete with the next. i cant speak for this entire majority, but i find them to compliment eachother. the scientist who's out to disclaim god through science is debasing his trade to the same extent that a preacher is debasing god through the denial of natural science. after all, didn't god supply us with the wherewithal to observe nature, moreover create nature in the first place? my faith isnt threatened by that science, nor my knowledge of the world by my knowledge of God. many people share this mindset; part of our day and age.

as for your perception of creationists and their wellbeing... well,

Where did I suggest teaching creationism (intelligent design) as fact? I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.

Nowhere did I suggest that religious instruction should be 'taught' in science class.

evolution is already taught as a theory, buddy, and in science classes. it is a theory of science, whereas creationism is a religious theory. that's the conundrum which led me to conclude you aimed to put religious theory beside scientific theory and in a science class. it is a proposition which i find unacceptable.

you don't have to reveal your insecurities to make your argument. ..and i challenge the idea that you have taken the time to examine the evidence before making your judgment. can you explain why biodiversity has been shown to increase as well as decrease in the last 200 million years? if there were a single creation event like i believe, and the bible puts forth, there would have to be speciation to account for that, thereafter - your macroevolution. what evidences controvert that?

I know, now you will go back to the argument of 'selective breeding' (micro-evolution) to 'force' the 'acceptance' of macro-evolution (one species 'magically' changing into one or more species). You will go to bed 'believing ' that you are intellectually superior, because you 'know' that you have evolved from an ape-like ancestor...maybe you did?

if i had a crystal ball too, i would have predicted you'd have no answer to my earlier challenge to present which mechanisms prevent microevolution from bringing about macroevolution. shouldnt there be glaring evidence of that? like finite biodiversity - evidenced by an extinction-driven decline in biodiversity since the dawn of time?

i dont see it as being a matter of intellect as much as a concern of honest application of intellect. will you only accept information you want to hear? are you projecting righteousness you have on me? you're the cat who proposed people who dont believe in evolution were better off; that shit was funny, man.

I don't know, and until there is a much better presentation of evidence for the case of macro--evolution, I don't 'believe'.

doubting thomas

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.
Because 'you' doubt I have studied evolution to 'your' satisfaction is probably true. I read and listen until the information becomes more like a fairy tale than fact: If, then if, If, then if.... When people say that: logically, micro evolution (selective breeding) leads to macro evolution is not true. There is no fossil evidence of a mammal changing species. With the more simple animals, there are ‘scientific’ arguments over fossils being ‘evolved’ or separate species. When ‘scientists’ claim to find ‘a missing link’, it is rarely more than one or two bones that are too old to correctly identify by DNA and the ‘scientist’ will draw a FICTIONAL representation and ‘present’ it as the way the animal may have looked. ‘Some’ of those bones have been identified by other ‘scientists’ as a totally different species (like a four legged vs two legged).
IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

 

[logical4u]

What evidence of creation is there?

The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.

For the sake of argument, say, there is a 'Creator'. If that Creator set the planet in place, formed the basins for the oceans and made the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, created all the 'life' on the planet... in essence MADE the physical laws (what you call science), wouldn't you think that would be important to mention in 'science class'? In the Bible, the 'Creator' described doing the above. Men that would elevate themselves 'above' Him. want to argue that His work is irrelevant. They 'try' to humiliate those that 'believe' in Him 'over' simple men (that would be the men that cannot: set the planet in place, form the basins for the oceans and make the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, create all the 'life' on the planet).

You can choose to 'believe' men. I choose to believe 'men' that spoke with the Lord, many over thousands of years with a consistant message, not a Johnny come lately with his own version to raise money to fund his 'explorations and discoveries'.

does this suffice to demonstrate you believe religious beliefs should be taught alongside science?

science is not the physical laws, but the study of them. you have let semantics challenge your faith, brother. analyzing what science puts forth, i doesnt challenge whether or not there's divinity at play in nature, but rather studies it as it is. by projecting science to be the physical laws and scientists the men that cant form the basins of the oceans, you have willingly misinterpreted science in order to take a faith-based objection to it.

that is fundamental to your learning block on the topic of evolution. i see science as being a demonstration of how great God is. i see myself as a creation of God. that i can be studied by science, have heredity from my ancestors, and have some of the same genes that the most basic life on the planet posses is only a tribute to the infinite genius at work.

i find it offensive that some, few, christians, of all people, are setting a boundary on understanding life through science - and in the name of god.

I find it offensive that people claiming to be Christians are offended by Christians that do not jump on the band wagon when it comes to 'believing' scientific theories. There are scientific discoveries that glorify G*d and strengthen faith. Evolution is just not one of them. When you can use biology to predict colors of offspring in different colored parents, it can be proven. It can be repeated. When you define 'quarks' and show them to exist, it is an experiment that can be repeated, proven. The work on light, electro-magnetic forces, strong and weak forces, energy, waves are all scientific work that I find facinating. Because some person (that had other reasons for presenting a great story), said so, and more 'scammer scientists' used the same theory for fame, fortune or power does not impress me. I question their findings and I question their motives.
IMHO, it is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where you find a piece that looks like it should fit, but just doesn't quite make it. If you put it to the side, eventually you will find the right piece and the one you thought went there, fits perfectly in a different part of the scene. To me, the 'evolutionists' just keep pushing the puzzle piece in the wrong spot and wondering why they can't finish the puzzle.

 

[antagon]

Where did I suggest teaching creationism (intelligent design) as fact? I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.

Nowhere did I suggest that religious instruction should be 'taught' in science class.

evolution is already taught as a theory, buddy, and in science classes. it is a theory of science, whereas creationism is a religious theory. that's the conundrum which led me to conclude you aimed to put religious theory beside scientific theory and in a science class. it is a proposition which i find unacceptable.

you don't have to reveal your insecurities to make your argument. ..and i challenge the idea that you have taken the time to examine the evidence before making your judgment. can you explain why biodiversity has been shown to increase as well as decrease in the last 200 million years? if there were a single creation event like i believe, and the bible puts forth, there would have to be speciation to account for that, thereafter - your macroevolution. what evidences controvert that?

if i had a crystal ball too, i would have predicted you'd have no answer to my earlier challenge to present which mechanisms prevent microevolution from bringing about macroevolution. shouldnt there be glaring evidence of that? like finite biodiversity - evidenced by an extinction-driven decline in biodiversity since the dawn of time?

i dont see it as being a matter of intellect as much as a concern of honest application of intellect. will you only accept information you want to hear? are you projecting righteousness you have on me? you're the cat who proposed people who dont believe in evolution were better off; that shit was funny, man.

I don't know, and until there is a much better presentation of evidence for the case of macro--evolution, I don't 'believe'.

doubting thomas

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.

that's just the problem, logic. there is not an extinction driven decline, exclusively. biodiversity is tracked in both directions. i said that there would be an extinction-driven decline if there was a single creation event like the bible has put forth, and which i subscribe to, and there was, at the same time, no evolution. but there isnt, exclusively, a decline.

If, then if, If, then if.

these are logical operators. these present a fairy-tale to you? that you stop listening when presented logic is the theme which prevents your seeing validity in scientific arguments... not the arguments themselves.

When people say that: logically, micro evolution (selective breeding) leads to macro evolution is not true.

on micro and macro evolution: given heredity and adaptation (microevolution), and the reality that these are affected at the genome level, when such an adaptation occurs which precludes heredity, speciation, (macroevolution) has occurred. again, where is the barrier which prevents an adaptation affected by a genetic mutation, from also effecting the viability of combination during an attempted reproduction? instead, creatures with genetic evidence of mutual or linear heredity coexist, but cant breed. fossil evidence indicates such populations emerged where they did not exist millions of years prior, and which have phenotypes transitional to creatures prceeding/proceeding them.

There is no fossil evidence of a mammal changing species. With the more simple animals, there are ‘scientific’ arguments over fossils being ‘evolved’ or separate species. When ‘scientists’ claim to find ‘a missing link’, it is rarely more than one or two bones that are too old to correctly identify by DNA and the ‘scientist’ will draw a FICTIONAL representation and ‘present’ it as the way the animal may have looked. ‘Some’ of those bones have been identified by other ‘scientists’ as a totally different species (like a four legged vs two legged).

you've got a similar impediment to the block that the lyte has with fossil records. you can challenge my thoughts on the validity of renditions separately. what say you of eryops as a missing link study? it's been nicely preserved (by God's grace) in our southwestern desert. this creature is available in whole, well preserved fossils, it possesses adaptations from creatures preceding it, and precedes further adapted creatures which exist today. its existence can be isolated to a frame in time, and thus is not consistent with the decline model you adhere to. it constitutes an addition to the planet's biodiversity.

the challenge wasn't to concur or support that folks 2000+ years ago believed there to be only a decline in biodiversity. it remains to offer an explanation for the recorded increases in biodiversity. what explains that?

IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

take that up with atheists about atheism. discuss the science of biology and the nature of God's creation with me.

 

[antagon]

The order of the world and the seasons. The variety of life. The efficiency of the 'system' of 'nature'.
All these point to a 'designer'. If it was simply evolution, the species would not be as 'varied' or numerous. If a plant 'evolved' to produce fruit, and an animal 'evolved' that complemented the plant (nourished it and spread seed), why would either evolve from that 'state'? There would not be the range of diversity that is on this planet.

For the sake of argument, say, there is a 'Creator'. If that Creator set the planet in place, formed the basins for the oceans and made the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, created all the 'life' on the planet... in essence MADE the physical laws (what you call science), wouldn't you think that would be important to mention in 'science class'? In the Bible, the 'Creator' described doing the above. Men that would elevate themselves 'above' Him. want to argue that His work is irrelevant. They 'try' to humiliate those that 'believe' in Him 'over' simple men (that would be the men that cannot: set the planet in place, form the basins for the oceans and make the crust of the earth that will rise above the ocean crust, put the seasons in place, create all the 'life' on the planet).

You can choose to 'believe' men. I choose to believe 'men' that spoke with the Lord, many over thousands of years with a consistant message, not a Johnny come lately with his own version to raise money to fund his 'explorations and discoveries'.

does this suffice to demonstrate you believe religious beliefs should be taught alongside science?

science is not the physical laws, but the study of them. you have let semantics challenge your faith, brother. analyzing what science puts forth, i doesnt challenge whether or not there's divinity at play in nature, but rather studies it as it is. by projecting science to be the physical laws and scientists the men that cant form the basins of the oceans, you have willingly misinterpreted science in order to take a faith-based objection to it.

that is fundamental to your learning block on the topic of evolution. i see science as being a demonstration of how great God is. i see myself as a creation of God. that i can be studied by science, have heredity from my ancestors, and have some of the same genes that the most basic life on the planet posses is only a tribute to the infinite genius at work.

i find it offensive that some, few, christians, of all people, are setting a boundary on understanding life through science - and in the name of god.

I find it offensive that people claiming to be Christians are offended by Christians that do not jump on the band wagon when it comes to 'believing' scientific theories.

1. i'm 'claiming' now, because i don't jump on your bandwagon? that bullshit can take a hike. 2. its just the field you've come to bat on. you have extended your argument to discredit evolution on what you claim to be a scientific basis, but which does not have any scientific validity. failing science, i feel some christians usurp God to shelter their ignorance, and that is retrograde to my belief, indeed.

There are scientific discoveries that glorify G*d and strengthen faith. Evolution is just not one of them. When you can use biology to predict colors of offspring in different colored parents, it can be proven. It can be repeated. When you define 'quarks' and show them to exist, it is an experiment that can be repeated, proven. The work on light, electro-magnetic forces, strong and weak forces, energy, waves are all scientific work that I find facinating. Because some person (that had other reasons for presenting a great story), said so, and more 'scammer scientists' used the same theory for fame, fortune or power does not impress me. I question their findings and I question their motives.
IMHO, it is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where you find a piece that looks like it should fit, but just doesn't quite make it. If you put it to the side, eventually you will find the right piece and the one you thought went there, fits perfectly in a different part of the scene. To me, the 'evolutionists' just keep pushing the puzzle piece in the wrong spot and wondering why they can't finish the puzzle.

theory=/=hypothesis. prove/repeat relativity. prove/repeat evolution. not going to happen. ever. that does not invalidate the hypotheses which support each, or the value the theory has in driving hypotheses.

i similarly present to an atheist's argument against my faith, that their quest for a provable god is absurd. some concepts simply require God's omnipresence and omniscience to verify. evolution would require omnipresence across the last 200,000,000 years, and granular omniscience of the genomes of life to verify with certainty. bunch of theories like that.

what about evolution weakens faith?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Where did I suggest teaching creationism (intelligent design) as fact? I simply suggested that 'both' creation and evolution were taught as 'theories'.

Nowhere did I suggest that religious instruction should be 'taught' in science class.

evolution is already taught as a theory, buddy, and in science classes. it is a theory of science, whereas creationism is a religious theory. that's the conundrum which led me to conclude you aimed to put religious theory beside scientific theory and in a science class. it is a proposition which i find unacceptable.

you don't have to reveal your insecurities to make your argument. ..and i challenge the idea that you have taken the time to examine the evidence before making your judgment. can you explain why biodiversity has been shown to increase as well as decrease in the last 200 million years? if there were a single creation event like i believe, and the bible puts forth, there would have to be speciation to account for that, thereafter - your macroevolution. what evidences controvert that?

if i had a crystal ball too, i would have predicted you'd have no answer to my earlier challenge to present which mechanisms prevent microevolution from bringing about macroevolution. shouldnt there be glaring evidence of that? like finite biodiversity - evidenced by an extinction-driven decline in biodiversity since the dawn of time?

i dont see it as being a matter of intellect as much as a concern of honest application of intellect. will you only accept information you want to hear? are you projecting righteousness you have on me? you're the cat who proposed people who dont believe in evolution were better off; that shit was funny, man.

I don't know, and until there is a much better presentation of evidence for the case of macro--evolution, I don't 'believe'.

doubting thomas

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.
Because 'you' doubt I have studied evolution to 'your' satisfaction is probably true. I read and listen until the information becomes more like a fairy tale than fact: If, then if, If, then if.... When people say that: logically, micro evolution (selective breeding) leads to macro evolution is not true. There is no fossil evidence of a mammal changing species. With the more simple animals, there are ‘scientific’ arguments over fossils being ‘evolved’ or separate species. When ‘scientists’ claim to find ‘a missing link’, it is rarely more than one or two bones that are too old to correctly identify by DNA and the ‘scientist’ will draw a FICTIONAL representation and ‘present’ it as the way the animal may have looked. ‘Some’ of those bones have been identified by other ‘scientists’ as a totally different species (like a four legged vs two legged).
IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

Don't you love how they get a full blown computer rendering from one or two bones?

 

[antagon]

evolution is already taught as a theory, buddy, and in science classes. it is a theory of science, whereas creationism is a religious theory. that's the conundrum which led me to conclude you aimed to put religious theory beside scientific theory and in a science class. it is a proposition which i find unacceptable.

you don't have to reveal your insecurities to make your argument. ..and i challenge the idea that you have taken the time to examine the evidence before making your judgment. can you explain why biodiversity has been shown to increase as well as decrease in the last 200 million years? if there were a single creation event like i believe, and the bible puts forth, there would have to be speciation to account for that, thereafter - your macroevolution. what evidences controvert that?

if i had a crystal ball too, i would have predicted you'd have no answer to my earlier challenge to present which mechanisms prevent microevolution from bringing about macroevolution. shouldnt there be glaring evidence of that? like finite biodiversity - evidenced by an extinction-driven decline in biodiversity since the dawn of time?

i dont see it as being a matter of intellect as much as a concern of honest application of intellect. will you only accept information you want to hear? are you projecting righteousness you have on me? you're the cat who proposed people who dont believe in evolution were better off; that shit was funny, man.
doubting thomas

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.
Because 'you' doubt I have studied evolution to 'your' satisfaction is probably true. I read and listen until the information becomes more like a fairy tale than fact: If, then if, If, then if.... When people say that: logically, micro evolution (selective breeding) leads to macro evolution is not true. There is no fossil evidence of a mammal changing species. With the more simple animals, there are ‘scientific’ arguments over fossils being ‘evolved’ or separate species. When ‘scientists’ claim to find ‘a missing link’, it is rarely more than one or two bones that are too old to correctly identify by DNA and the ‘scientist’ will draw a FICTIONAL representation and ‘present’ it as the way the animal may have looked. ‘Some’ of those bones have been identified by other ‘scientists’ as a totally different species (like a four legged vs two legged).
IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

Don't you love how they get a full blown computer rendering from one or two bones?

'bullshit' come to mind as a term to describe both your criticisms of the fossil record. ignoring the thousands of specimen which exist in convincing semblance, you guys harp on the illustrations.

not only do they merely illustrate rather than comprise the evidence they represent, but your claims of gross inaccuracies and gratuitous creative license are unsupported. some splashes of color on illustrations not relevant to the findings themselves, convince you that the world is flat, after all. that is akin to discrediting the commandments over liberties with moses' coif in illustrations or the golden rule over Jesus' likely inaccurate caucasian appearance in western renditions.

really? no substantive answers to the gaping holes in your contentions? more willful ignorance?

 

[logical4u]

evolution is already taught as a theory, buddy, and in science classes. it is a theory of science, whereas creationism is a religious theory. that's the conundrum which led me to conclude you aimed to put religious theory beside scientific theory and in a science class. it is a proposition which i find unacceptable.

you don't have to reveal your insecurities to make your argument. ..and i challenge the idea that you have taken the time to examine the evidence before making your judgment. can you explain why biodiversity has been shown to increase as well as decrease in the last 200 million years? if there were a single creation event like i believe, and the bible puts forth, there would have to be speciation to account for that, thereafter - your macroevolution. what evidences controvert that?

if i had a crystal ball too, i would have predicted you'd have no answer to my earlier challenge to present which mechanisms prevent microevolution from bringing about macroevolution. shouldnt there be glaring evidence of that? like finite biodiversity - evidenced by an extinction-driven decline in biodiversity since the dawn of time?

i dont see it as being a matter of intellect as much as a concern of honest application of intellect. will you only accept information you want to hear? are you projecting righteousness you have on me? you're the cat who proposed people who dont believe in evolution were better off; that shit was funny, man.
doubting thomas

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.

that's just the problem, logic. there is not an extinction driven decline, exclusively. biodiversity is tracked in both directions. i said that there would be an extinction-driven decline if there was a single creation event like the bible has put forth, and which i subscribe to, and there was, at the same time, no evolution. but there isnt, exclusively, a decline.
these are logical operators. these present a fairy-tale to you? that you stop listening when presented logic is the theme which prevents your seeing validity in scientific arguments... not the arguments themselves.

on micro and macro evolution: given heredity and adaptation (microevolution), and the reality that these are affected at the genome level, when such an adaptation occurs which precludes heredity, speciation, (macroevolution) has occurred. again, where is the barrier which prevents an adaptation affected by a genetic mutation, from also effecting the viability of combination during an attempted reproduction? instead, creatures with genetic evidence of mutual or linear heredity coexist, but cant breed. fossil evidence indicates such populations emerged where they did not exist millions of years prior, and which have phenotypes transitional to creatures prceeding/proceeding them.

There is no fossil evidence of a mammal changing species. With the more simple animals, there are ‘scientific’ arguments over fossils being ‘evolved’ or separate species. When ‘scientists’ claim to find ‘a missing link’, it is rarely more than one or two bones that are too old to correctly identify by DNA and the ‘scientist’ will draw a FICTIONAL representation and ‘present’ it as the way the animal may have looked. ‘Some’ of those bones have been identified by other ‘scientists’ as a totally different species (like a four legged vs two legged).

you've got a similar impediment to the block that the lyte has with fossil records. you can challenge my thoughts on the validity of renditions separately. what say you of eryops as a missing link study? it's been nicely preserved (by God's grace) in our southwestern desert. this creature is available in whole, well preserved fossils, it possesses adaptations from creatures preceding it, and precedes further adapted creatures which exist today. its existence can be isolated to a frame in time, and thus is not consistent with the decline model you adhere to. it constitutes an addition to the planet's biodiversity.

the challenge wasn't to concur or support that folks 2000+ years ago believed there to be only a decline in biodiversity. it remains to offer an explanation for the recorded increases in biodiversity. what explains that?

IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

take that up with atheists about atheism. discuss the science of biology and the nature of God's creation with me.

Your arguments are 'faith-based'. You have no more evidence than what non-atheists present as the 'existence' of their 'Creator'. You select 'fossils' out of 'millions' of years and lay them in a line and say look, this proves it. The other lines of 'fossils' are not similar; they do not follow the same pattern. If what men (scientists) said was 'true', don't you think there would be a definite pattern? Not species that are similar being laid side by side and someone saying look, this 'eventually' became this. LOOK for conclusive proof of species after species being laid out in lines demonstrating the same pattern at the same times. That 'pattern' does not exist. All the scientist can demonstrate acurately is severe changes in climate that had water where it is not now, ice where it is not now and creatures that no longer exist. They cannot tell you where life came from or what its purpose is, they can only make up stories based on little pieces they have found. You, choose to believe them. I do not.

You are a believer of men. Your faith has been placed in men. You will be disappointed in men. Good luck with that.

 

[logical4u]

does this suffice to demonstrate you believe religious beliefs should be taught alongside science?

science is not the physical laws, but the study of them. you have let semantics challenge your faith, brother. analyzing what science puts forth, i doesnt challenge whether or not there's divinity at play in nature, but rather studies it as it is. by projecting science to be the physical laws and scientists the men that cant form the basins of the oceans, you have willingly misinterpreted science in order to take a faith-based objection to it.

that is fundamental to your learning block on the topic of evolution. i see science as being a demonstration of how great God is. i see myself as a creation of God. that i can be studied by science, have heredity from my ancestors, and have some of the same genes that the most basic life on the planet posses is only a tribute to the infinite genius at work.

i find it offensive that some, few, christians, of all people, are setting a boundary on understanding life through science - and in the name of god.

I find it offensive that people claiming to be Christians are offended by Christians that do not jump on the band wagon when it comes to 'believing' scientific theories.

1. i'm 'claiming' now, because i don't jump on your bandwagon? that bullshit can take a hike. 2. its just the field you've come to bat on. you have extended your argument to discredit evolution on what you claim to be a scientific basis, but which does not have any scientific validity. failing science, i feel some christians usurp God to shelter their ignorance, and that is retrograde to my belief, indeed.

There are scientific discoveries that glorify G*d and strengthen faith. Evolution is just not one of them. When you can use biology to predict colors of offspring in different colored parents, it can be proven. It can be repeated. When you define 'quarks' and show them to exist, it is an experiment that can be repeated, proven. The work on light, electro-magnetic forces, strong and weak forces, energy, waves are all scientific work that I find facinating. Because some person (that had other reasons for presenting a great story), said so, and more 'scammer scientists' used the same theory for fame, fortune or power does not impress me. I question their findings and I question their motives.
IMHO, it is like doing a jigsaw puzzle where you find a piece that looks like it should fit, but just doesn't quite make it. If you put it to the side, eventually you will find the right piece and the one you thought went there, fits perfectly in a different part of the scene. To me, the 'evolutionists' just keep pushing the puzzle piece in the wrong spot and wondering why they can't finish the puzzle.

theory=/=hypothesis. prove/repeat relativity. prove/repeat evolution. not going to happen. ever. that does not invalidate the hypotheses which support each, or the value the theory has in driving hypotheses.

i similarly present to an atheist's argument against my faith, that their quest for a provable god is absurd. some concepts simply require God's omnipresence and omniscience to verify. evolution would require omnipresence across the last 200,000,000 years, and granular omniscience of the genomes of life to verify with certainty. bunch of theories like that.

what about evolution weakens faith?

Evolution implies there is no direction for life; it is a chaos based theory. Biblical teachings demonstrate that life was 'designed' and has a direction. The lion and the lamb will graze on grasses together in the new kingdom; this is at direct odds with the theory of evolution. "The creation" is made to be less with the claim that G*d made some one-celled animals and then look what happened.
It is in direct conflict with the Biblical statement that 'man' was created in His image. It weakens your faith in G*d and puts it in physical occurences (that are controlled by G*d). The 'evidence' of evolution is SWAG (scientific wild ass guess). Until evolution can be demonstrated (species changing into other species), I choose to put my 'faith' in the Glory of the Lord, not some little men with big egos.

 

[logical4u]

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.
Because 'you' doubt I have studied evolution to 'your' satisfaction is probably true. I read and listen until the information becomes more like a fairy tale than fact: If, then if, If, then if.... When people say that: logically, micro evolution (selective breeding) leads to macro evolution is not true. There is no fossil evidence of a mammal changing species. With the more simple animals, there are ‘scientific’ arguments over fossils being ‘evolved’ or separate species. When ‘scientists’ claim to find ‘a missing link’, it is rarely more than one or two bones that are too old to correctly identify by DNA and the ‘scientist’ will draw a FICTIONAL representation and ‘present’ it as the way the animal may have looked. ‘Some’ of those bones have been identified by other ‘scientists’ as a totally different species (like a four legged vs two legged).
IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

Don't you love how they get a full blown computer rendering from one or two bones?

'bullshit' come to mind as a term to describe both your criticisms of the fossil record. ignoring the thousands of specimen which exist in convincing semblance, you guys harp on the illustrations.

not only do they merely illustrate rather than comprise the evidence they represent, but your claims of gross inaccuracies and gratuitous creative license are unsupported. some splashes of color on illustrations not relevant to the findings themselves, convince you that the world is flat, after all. that is akin to discrediting the commandments over liberties with moses' coif in illustrations or the golden rule over Jesus' likely inaccurate caucasian appearance in western renditions.

really? no substantive answers to the gaping holes in your contentions? more willful ignorance?

'The public' is only given the 'fossils' that the 'scientists' want them to see. They hundreds of thousands of fossils that shed doubt on their....(your tem) bullshit, are destroyed or stored where the public has little access. You are a believer (in men).

 

[antagon]

Don't you love how they get a full blown computer rendering from one or two bones?

'bullshit' come to mind as a term to describe both your criticisms of the fossil record. ignoring the thousands of specimen which exist in convincing semblance, you guys harp on the illustrations.

not only do they merely illustrate rather than comprise the evidence they represent, but your claims of gross inaccuracies and gratuitous creative license are unsupported. some splashes of color on illustrations not relevant to the findings themselves, convince you that the world is flat, after all. that is akin to discrediting the commandments over liberties with moses' coif in illustrations or the golden rule over Jesus' likely inaccurate caucasian appearance in western renditions.

really? no substantive answers to the gaping holes in your contentions? more willful ignorance?

'The public' is only given the 'fossils' that the 'scientists' want them to see. They hundreds of thousands of fossils that shed doubt on their....(your tem) bullshit, are destroyed or stored where the public has little access. You are a believer (in men).

what would a fossil which sheds doubt on evolution theory entail?

i dont believe there is any motivation, furthermore, to hide or destroy any of the materials out there.

i think your idea about the doubting fossils or international conspiracy are comical and enable your penchant for ignoring the evidence there is for evolution. wouldn't there be more motivation to discover such evidences which would controvert evolution?

there's more money in pumping you guys with fuzzy logic than beating the dead horse evolution is for the science community.


what say you to the fossils which are available? the evidence which does exist? the evidence which controverts the logic in your micro-only, non-special evolution model?

 

[antagon]

There are explanations for "extinction-driven decline" in Judeo-Christian teaching. There are two books that explain it quite well: the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.

that's just the problem, logic. there is not an extinction driven decline, exclusively. biodiversity is tracked in both directions. i said that there would be an extinction-driven decline if there was a single creation event like the bible has put forth, and which i subscribe to, and there was, at the same time, no evolution. but there isnt, exclusively, a decline.
these are logical operators. these present a fairy-tale to you? that you stop listening when presented logic is the theme which prevents your seeing validity in scientific arguments... not the arguments themselves.

on micro and macro evolution: given heredity and adaptation (microevolution), and the reality that these are affected at the genome level, when such an adaptation occurs which precludes heredity, speciation, (macroevolution) has occurred. again, where is the barrier which prevents an adaptation affected by a genetic mutation, from also effecting the viability of combination during an attempted reproduction? instead, creatures with genetic evidence of mutual or linear heredity coexist, but cant breed. fossil evidence indicates such populations emerged where they did not exist millions of years prior, and which have phenotypes transitional to creatures prceeding/proceeding them.


you've got a similar impediment to the block that the lyte has with fossil records. you can challenge my thoughts on the validity of renditions separately. what say you of eryops as a missing link study? it's been nicely preserved (by God's grace) in our southwestern desert. this creature is available in whole, well preserved fossils, it possesses adaptations from creatures preceding it, and precedes further adapted creatures which exist today. its existence can be isolated to a frame in time, and thus is not consistent with the decline model you adhere to. it constitutes an addition to the planet's biodiversity.

the challenge wasn't to concur or support that folks 2000+ years ago believed there to be only a decline in biodiversity. it remains to offer an explanation for the recorded increases in biodiversity. what explains that?

IMHO, I think evolution ‘believers’ really have a problem with the possibility that there is a G*d, and that if they pretend hard enough, they will not have to answer for the lives that they have lived in the final judgments. You protest too much.

take that up with atheists about atheism. discuss the science of biology and the nature of God's creation with me.

Your arguments are 'faith-based'. You have no more evidence than what non-atheists present as the 'existence' of their 'Creator'. You select 'fossils' out of 'millions' of years and lay them in a line and say look, this proves it. The other lines of 'fossils' are not similar; they do not follow the same pattern. If what men (scientists) said was 'true', don't you think there would be a definite pattern? Not species that are similar being laid side by side and someone saying look, this 'eventually' became this. LOOK for conclusive proof of species after species being laid out in lines demonstrating the same pattern at the same times. That 'pattern' does not exist. All the scientist can demonstrate acurately is severe changes in climate that had water where it is not now, ice where it is not now and creatures that no longer exist. They cannot tell you where life came from or what its purpose is, they can only make up stories based on little pieces they have found. You, choose to believe them. I do not.

You are a believer of men. Your faith has been placed in men. You will be disappointed in men. Good luck with that.

i'm tiring of your questioning my beliefs. you are full of shit that my understanding of science has a negative impact on my understanding of God. if it weren't a separate argument i would question your faith on the basis that you feel it is challenged by science. i would challenge the consequence that your mentality promotes stupidity in God's name. but it is a separate argument. will you respect that, i wonder?

to clear up your misunderstanding of evolution theory, it does not pose a 'definite pattern', if i understand what you mean by that at all. which fossil evidence indicates that advanced creatures came before, or without connection to other, simpler critters. what say you to the shared genes which all creatures have (amoebas or humans), given that genes are communicated through heredity?

life is from God and allowed by God. does evolution change that? could any information gathered from the physical world challenge that? like the atheists, you see that potential. i say it is imaginary.