More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

[james bond]

LYING response.
Mutations are constant errors. Some may end up helping, many/most may not.
They are not "smart" and I never claimed so.
You Dishonest POS.



I already explained it with a 100% Response from an impeccable source.
(BTW, do you even have ANY evidence of your or anyone else's god?)
Again:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
- -

And Evolution already is an APPLIED science.
OOOOOOOOPS!
Google at all Brain-dead Bible boy?
No.
You are willfully Ignorant. Like a 12 IQ.

Applications of Evolution (!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution[/B]

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with Many Practical Applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.[3]

Contents​

• 1. Wider biology
• 2. Artificial selection
• 3. Medicine
• 4. Computer science
• 5. References

- - - - - - -- - - -


Wow what a BEATING You're getting you Lying Ignorant God Boy.
What a ******* beating.
Are you like Bond's fellow asylum inmate?
(Bond already lost several tonight and has moved on/deflected to Aliens/another conspiracy)

`

Evolution is a natural LIE. It doesn't take much to beat you like chicken drummettes.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a natural LIE. It doesn't take much to beat you like chicken drummettes.

Such an angry, self-hating religious extremist.

 

[surada]

All the examples given were not of vestige organs change which resulted in a different specie. Maybe early man did have a larger appendix because of diet, but they were still man.

here is a thought for you, what is the driving force of evolution? Survival of the fittest? As i understand that means those animals the compete the best for food sources survive those who don't die. Well that would mean that the number of animals would determine the amount of competition. Thus procreation would go against survival of the fittest. In other words an animal breeds other animals in direct competition with them. Who programmed animals to put procreation before survival?

Procreation is survival.

 

[abu afak]

Clyde 154 said:
Indeed trail and error mutations. Mutations are smart and intelligent but DNA is random. LMAO Show us an example of a mutated life that has been made complete and whole again.....adding back to the corrupted DNA.....demonstrate your TRAIL and ERROR, Oops! I (a mutation) made a mistake by trail, lets start all over again. Once a DNA is corrupted, its corrupted and incomplete, there is no TRAIL PERIOD. You can't demonstrate that......DNA gains new information with mutation, it never gains information.....it becomes imperfect, not whole, not complete because there was a break in a link.[/quopte]

LYING response.
Mutations are constant errors. Some may end up helping, many/most may not.
They are not "smart" and I never claimed so. I said 'trial and error.' (and a 'pile' of them)
You Dishonest POS.

Clyde 154 said:
I am still awaiting for you to present the LAW OF EVOLUTION. Science works with FACTS..........if there are no facts present there can be no LAWS. There is quite a bit of difference between APPLIED SCIENCE and THEORETICAL SCIENCE. One is based upon facts and quantifiable potential........the other is nothing but a philosophy pretending to be SCIENCE, its pseudo in nature, it exists only between the ears of someone, the reason you can't show us the LAW OF EVOLUTION.......you have presented nothing but speculation, assumption, conjecture based upon observing that which exists today while projecting the reality that exists today as a constant over the past eons void of having the empirical evidence to make those conjectures, assumptions, and speculations FACTS of SCIENCE. There is no such animal as the Law of Evolution.

I already explained it with a 100% Response from an impeccable source.
(BTW, do you even have ANY evidence of your or anyone else's god?)
Again:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."
- -
-
And Evolution already is an APPLIED science.
OOOOOOOOPS!
Google at all Brain-dead Bible boy?
No.
You are willfully Ignorant. Like a 12 IQ.

Applications of Evolution (!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution

Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with Many Practical Applications.[1][2] Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists.[3]

Contents​

• 1. Wider biology
• 2. Artificial selection
• 3. Medicine
• 4. Computer science
• 5. References

- - - - - - -- - - -


Wow what a BEATING You're getting you Lying Ignorant God Boy.
What a ******* beating.
Are you like Bond's fellow asylum inmate?
(Bond already lost several tonight and has moved on/deflected to Aliens/another conspiracy)

`

 

[surada]

Since your mind is closed you mock and say nothing.

You aren't thinking it thru.

 

[james bond]

Such an angry, self-hating religious extremist.

The easiest victory was to disprove long time and life from non-life. Radioisotope dating does not match calendar year and its assumptions are unknown. How else could C14 and soft tissue in fossils still remain after "billions" of years? There has never been life from non-life. Creationist Louis Pasteur disproved life from non-life with his swan neck experiment; He saved lives with germ theory. Darwin was a weak scientist and his ideas fell from favor over time. We also know that there are no anatomical vestiges; Only old people believe that. You shouldn't get your science ideas from National Geographic -- 4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative – Return Of Kings. It'll make one degenerate.

So what does Jimmy say about it? You seem to follow him.

 

[abu afak]

The easiest victory was to disprove long time and life from non-life. Radioisotope dating does not match calendar year and its assumptions are unknown. How else could C14 and soft tissue in fossils still remain after "billions" of years? There has never been life from non-life. Creationist Louis Pasteur disproved life from non-life with his swan neck experiment; He saved lives with germ theory. Darwin was a weak scientist and his ideas fell from favor over time. We also know that there are no anatomical vestiges; Only old people believe that. You shouldn't get your science ideas from National Geographic -- 4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative – Return Of Kings. It'll make one degenerate.

So what does Jimmy say about it? You seem to follow him.

You DISHONEST SINNING MORON.
Already refuted.
But you have no debate left so you LIE/SIN alot. You're going to Hell. (according to your own goofy take)
You LOST
Again,
C14 is NOT the only Radioisotope.
Some go out many Millions of years.
AGAIN:

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contents​

• 1 Fundamentals
  
  • 1.1Radioactive decay
  • 1.2Decay constant determination
  • 1.3Accuracy of radiometric dating
  • 1.4Closure temperature
  • 1.5The age equation
• 2 Modern dating methods
  
  • 2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating metho
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer

`

James Bond is a raging LIAR/sinner who keeps DISHONESTLY ignoring and getting Beaten/GUTTED by facts.
He's a Disgrace to Christianity.
He's lost Scores of times in this thread alone.
Hundreds in the last few threads on this topic.


`

 

[Hollie]

The easiest victory was to disprove long time and life from non-life. Radioisotope dating does not match calendar year and its assumptions are unknown. How else could C14 and soft tissue in fossils still remain after "billions" of years? There has never been life from non-life. Creationist Louis Pasteur disproved life from non-life with his swan neck experiment; He saved lives with germ theory. Darwin was a weak scientist and his ideas fell from favor over time. We also know that there are no anatomical vestiges; Only old people believe that. You shouldn't get your science ideas from National Geographic -- 4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative – Return Of Kings. It'll make one degenerate.

So what does Jimmy say about it? You seem to follow him.

"long time".

I suppose that's a technical term you learned at the Jimmy Swaggert Madrasah.

 

[james bond]

You DISHONEST SINNING MORON.
Already refuted.
But you have no debate left so you LIE/SIN alot. You're going to Hell. (according to your own goofy take)
You LOST
Again,
C14 is NOT the only Radioisotope.
Some go out many Millions of years.
AGAIN:

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contents​

• 1 Fundamentals
  
  • 1.1Radioactive decay
  • 1.2Decay constant determination
  • 1.3Accuracy of radiometric dating
  • 1.4Closure temperature
  • 1.5The age equation
• 2 Modern dating methods
  
  • 2.1 Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating metho
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer

`

James Bond is a raging LIAR/sinner who keeps DISHONESTLY ignoring and getting Beaten/GUTTED by facts.
He's a Disgrace to Christianity.
He's lost Scores of times in this thread alone.
Hundreds in the last few threads on this topic.


`

I keep winning because I tell the truth about science. it's you who is the sinner, liar, and simpleton who trusts lies. I must really get deep down to your soul since you continue to post and highlight me in S&T. Furthermore, you don't know about the assumptions made of radiometric dating -- Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray - creation.com.

I googled your user name as you said to and we find that you were murdered because of trying to murder the prophet, Muhammed. It was a stab to the kidney that killed Abu Afak. Ugghhh! Prolonged kidney failure is not painful, but the way your namesake got it would be. That said, I think the most painful would be seeing your perfect spiritual self being tossed in the Lake of Fire and watching your biggest enemy here (according to you) being blessed with The Rapture.

 

[abu afak]

I keep winning because I tell the truth about science. it's you who is the sinner, liar, and simpleton who trusts lies. I must really get deep down to your soul since you continue to post and highlight me in S&T. Furthermore, you don't know about the assumptions made of radiometric dating -- Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray - creation.com.

I googled your user name as you said to and we find that you were murdered because of trying to murder the prophet, Muhammed. It was a stab to the kidney that killed Abu Afak. Ugghhh! Prolonged kidney failure is not painful, but the way your namesake got it would be. That said, I think the most painful would be seeing your perfect spiritual self being tossed in the Lake of Fire and watching your biggest enemy here (according to you) being blessed with The Rapture.

You've been defeated on EVERY Fact a dozen times.
You have nothing to say except the Big Lie "I'm winning" 100 times and post deflections like 'Ancient Alien' youtubes.
You've totally gone in the tank now that you realize/I've demonstrated your ideas//idiot fallacies are all wrong.

You're a posting criminal and charlatan.
You're not "Jimmy Swaggert" (who has some morals/sanity)..
James Bond is the Evangelical Charles Manson... a truth-murdering Lunatic.
`
`

 

[james bond]

You've been defeated on EVERY Fact a dozen times.
You have nothing to say except the Big Lie "I'm winning" 100 times and post deflections like 'Ancient Alien' youtubes.
You've totally gone in the tank now that you realize/I've demonstrated your ideas//idiot fallacies are all wrong.

You're a posting criminal and charlatan.
You're not "Jimmy Swaggert" (who has some morals/sanity)..
James Bond is the Evangelical Charles Manson... a truth-murdering Lunatic.
`
`

I've won because of your intellectual weakness. Your first sentence is way wrong as facts are those boring, needling, and troubling things that BOTH sides can use. For example, I provided the greatest creation scientists and their accomplishments such as the scientific method, laws of thermodynamics, quantum theory of light, and more. You could not counter with any atheist scientists! If there was one, then it came from me and was the guy nobody remembers who used radiometric dating to show old universe and Earth in the 1950s. Before that, the atheist scientists thought of an infinite universe which turned out to be a fat lie.

So, what did the ATHEIST SCIENTISTS accomplish off the top of your head? I've already won with Darwin and that social Drawinism led to eugenics, Nazism, Hitler, and the Holocaust. Here's a list for you since you don't know -- The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists. Anything observable as dark energy and dark matter doesn't count? If you want to count invisibility, then I can say the arm of God stretches out the heavens like a curtain in the shape of a tent.

 

[james bond]

You're a posting criminal and charlatan.
You're not "Jimmy Swaggert" (who has some morals/sanity)..
James Bond is the Evangelical Charles Manson... a truth-murdering Lunatic.`

Let know if you get STABBING pains in the kidney area will you, abu afak? Ouch. It could mean your absolute proof is near.

 

[james bond]

"long time".

I suppose that's a technical term you learned at the Jimmy Swaggert Madrasah.

4 WAYS NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC IS FURTHERING A DEGENERATE LEFTIST NARRATIVE​

Are you a degen... oops, subscriber?

 

[Wuwei]

I've won because of your intellectual weakness. Your first sentence is way wrong as facts are those boring, needling, and troubling things that BOTH sides can use. For example, I provided the greatest creation scientists and their accomplishments such as the scientific method, laws of thermodynamics, quantum theory of light, and more. You could not counter with any atheist scientists! If there was one, then it came from me and was the guy nobody remembers who used radiometric dating to show old universe and Earth in the 1950s. Before that, the atheist scientists thought of an infinite universe which turned out to be a fat lie.

So, what did the ATHEIST SCIENTISTS accomplish off the top of your head? I've already won with Darwin and that social Drawinism led to eugenics, Nazism, Hitler, and the Holocaust. Here's a list for you since you don't know -- The 25 Most Influential Living Atheists. Anything observable as dark energy and dark matter doesn't count? If you want to count invisibility, then I can say the arm of God stretches out the heavens like a curtain in the shape of a tent.

Your list of 25 atheists are not all well known in science. Here is a list off the top of my head of the top physicists of the last century. None of them are creationists. Some are deists and some are atheists. All quotes are from Wikipedia. However whether they are YEC or atheists means absolutely nothing. This is a science forum and they should be judged by their science. I have no idea why you take so much glee in promoting creationist scientists of well over 100 years ago.

Albert Einstein
Relativity, Quantization of electromagnetic energy
"He said he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy.[175] He did not believe in a personal god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve."

Erwin Schrödinger
Quantum Mechanics
"Schrödinger had a deep interest in philosophy, and was influenced by the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and Baruch Spinoza."

Paul Dirac
Quantum electrodynamics
"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality."

Stephen Hawking
Black holes, etc.
"No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either."

Peter Higgs
The Higgs Boson
"Higgs is an atheist."

Wolfgang Pauli
neutrino, beta decay, modern quantum mechanics
"He is considered to have been a deist and a mystic."

Richard Feynman
Quantum mechanics, path integral formulation
"religion which has been in the past and still is, therefore, a source of moral code as well as inspiration to follow that code.”

John Archibald Wheeler
quantum mechanics, general relativity
"Wheeler and Hegner were founding members of the Unitarian Church of Princeton"

Max Planck
Quantization of electromagnetic energy
"... Planck's deism, which omitted all reference to established religions and had no more doctrinal content than Einstein's Judaism."

.

 

[Hollie]

4 WAYS NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC IS FURTHERING A DEGENERATE LEFTIST NARRATIVE​

Are you a degen... oops, subscriber?

Such an angry, self-hating religious extremist.

 

[james bond]

Your list of 25 atheists are not all well known in science. Here is a list off the top of my head of the top physicists of the last century. None of them are creationists. Some are deists and some are atheists. All quotes are from Wikipedia. However whether they are YEC or atheists means absolutely nothing. This is a science forum and they should be judged by their science. I have no idea why you take so much glee in promoting creationist scientists of well over 100 years ago.

Albert Einstein
Relativity, Quantization of electromagnetic energy
"He said he had sympathy for the impersonal pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza's philosophy.[175] He did not believe in a personal god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve."

Erwin Schrödinger
Quantum Mechanics
"Schrödinger had a deep interest in philosophy, and was influenced by the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and Baruch Spinoza."

Paul Dirac
Quantum electrodynamics
"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality."

Stephen Hawking
Black holes, etc.
"No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either."

Peter Higgs
The Higgs Boson
"Higgs is an atheist."

Wolfgang Pauli
neutrino, beta decay, modern quantum mechanics
"He is considered to have been a deist and a mystic."

Richard Feynman
Quantum mechanics, path integral formulation
"religion which has been in the past and still is, therefore, a source of moral code as well as inspiration to follow that code.”

John Archibald Wheeler
quantum mechanics, general relativity
"Wheeler and Hegner were founding members of the Unitarian Church of Princeton"

Max Planck
Quantization of electromagnetic energy
"... Planck's deism, which omitted all reference to established religions and had no more doctrinal content than Einstein's Judaism."

.

Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Theory and he Father of Modern Physics. He believed in God -- Revelation (religion) - Conservapedia.

Currently, the creation scientists are deliberately left out from submitting papers. Thus, science is biased and we have two approaches to science. My main point is the Bible states the truth was replaced with a lie and this is what happened.

Furthermore, the creationists can explain origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it and science and logic backs it up. Your side does not know. The Higgs Boson standard model is practically all they have shown. The rest hasn't been shown or not observable.

 

[abu afak]

Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Theory and he Father of Modern Physics. He believed in God -- Revelation (religion) - Conservapedia.

Currently, the creation scientists are deliberately left out from submitting papers. Thus, science is biased and we have two approaches to science. My main point is the Bible states the truth was replaced with a lie and this is what happened.

Furthermore, the creationists can explain origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it and science and logic backs it up. Your side does not know. The Higgs Boson standard model is practically all they have shown. The rest hasn't been shown or not observable.

Only proving You lie all day every day
Not all scientists are Atheists.
Some are sane secular Christians, Unlike you.
It's literalism that makes you ISIS-for-Jesus.

Of course Scientists ARE inordinately atheist/agnostic, as there is in INVERSE relationship between Religiosity and IQ.

"...A meta-analysis and an updated analysis by the same research group have found a measurable negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity.[4][5]​

​

Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

​

OR:​

​

Why Are Religious People (Generally) Less Intelligent?

Understanding the negative relationship between IQ and religiosity

www.psychologytoday.com

​

​

`​

 

[Wuwei]

Max Planck is the Father of Quantum Theory and he Father of Modern Physics. He believed in God -- Revelation (religion) - Conservapedia.

He was not a creationist and he wasn't the father of modern physics. This is from Wikipedia.

"... he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."

"At the end of the 1920s Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli had worked out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it was rejected by Planck, and by Schrödinger, Laue, and Einstein as well. Planck expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own child—unnecessary. This was not to be the case, however."

Currently, the creation scientists are deliberately left out from submitting papers.

They can submit any paper anywhere. But it would immediately be rejected in all real science journals if it is based on the Bible. Creationists have their own journals.

Furthermore, the creationists can explain origins of the universe, Earth, and everything in it and science and logic backs it up. Your side does not know. The Higgs Boson standard model is practically all they have shown. The rest hasn't been shown or not observable.

Nothing in the creationists ideas are observable. Science does not back up the opening chapter of the Bible which is unobservable. The creationist methodology is not science.

The Scientific Method:
Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.

The Creationist Method.
Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.

.

 

[james bond]

He was not a creationist and he wasn't the father of modern physics. This is from Wikipedia.

"... he did not promote Christian or Biblical views. He believed "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time."

"At the end of the 1920s Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli had worked out the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it was rejected by Planck, and by Schrödinger, Laue, and Einstein as well. Planck expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own child—unnecessary. This was not to be the case, however."

They can submit any paper anywhere. But it would immediately be rejected in all real science journals if it is based on the Bible. Creationists have their own journals.


Nothing in the creationists ideas are observable. Science does not back up the opening chapter of the Bible which is unobservable. The creationist methodology is not science.

The Scientific Method:
Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.

The Creationist Method.
Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.

.

Such idiocy. The scientific method was formed by a creation scientist. What you describe as "Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't." is the atheist science method. For example, WLC and I provided the KCA and there was no response. No response to the Athropic Principle either and its parameters were discovered by the atheist scientists. Today, the atheist scientists just ignore it. It means the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. I just gave you the proof and facts, but you'll ignore it because it isn't consistent with atheism and evolution. You can't present any examples like I can. What a loser you are. LOSER, LOSER, LOSER.

 

[james bond]

If I was an atheist and didn't agree with evolution, then what do I have left? I have no logical argument like KCA. I don't have a history of atheist scientists and their accomplishments. I would have to search the internet just to come up with atheist scientists who wrote more than papers and articles to become well known. My atheist science would have NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE like that in the scientific method with experiments. The famous Miller-Urey experiment to create life from non-life turned out amino acids, but not enough of them. Others experiments such as those from volcanoes or H2S discharge produced amino acids, too, but no proteins. Now, they want to go into space to further conduct these experiments as they now think life formed in space now lol.