What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

There Is Evidence For God

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,927
Reaction score
2,514
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:

"Gareth J. Nelson > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false019871.html#footnote13
There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world." Extrait de:





There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
Of all these people you've quoted, which ones do NOT believe in evolution?
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,411
Reaction score
5,802
Points
1,830
You're a moron, of course.....but that's why you're a good candidate for Democrat voter.

No, wait......imbecile.


Natural selection occurs after random mutations produce slight differences in members of a species. Nearly every mutation is deleterious, but any that improve survivability will probably be retained.

Darwin believed, and Democrats as well, that said beneficial mutations eventually result in a new species.
That has never occurred.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



Being a Democrat voter and having an understanding of science, are two mutually exclusive conditions.


View attachment 517703
Actually, your time spent at the Henry Morris Skuul for the Silly leaves you at a disadvantage in a discussion of science matters. Darwin never claimed that ''beneficial mutations eventually result in a new species.'' I do wish you would be silent on matters you know nothing about. Much of what Darwin proposed still holds true. But it was incomplete. He knew little of genetics which was field of science after his lifetime. The current state of evolutionary theory is commonly called "Neo-Darwinism", and is the synthesis of many scientific fields.

All mutations have an impact on populations and speciation is the terms that defines major changes to populations over time. Speciation is common and has been observed over time. Be quiet, call Jimmy Swaggert for an intervention if your head is about to explode and please copy and paste that silly Dean Kenyon ''quote'' you dump into most every thread you damage with your profoundly displayed ignorance.










#824: Dean Kenyon


Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.
Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.

In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.

Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,320
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
If you read a textbook newer than the 19th century you'd know that there are plenty of examples of your 'intermediate' species. Google whale evolution.

You really need to get over your silly fixation with Darwin. To you he is the anti-Christ but to most of us he is a scientist who did careful research and got some things right and some things wrong.



Your education continues apace.

" Does the story end here? No, this is science, and the enquiring mind wants to know more. What group of early artiodactyls gave rise to whales, and can we find intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyls and Pakicetus? How did whales develop the specializations for hearing that first appeared in protocetids like Maiacetus? How did whales make the transition from foot-powered swimming in Maiacetus to tailpowered swimming in Dorudon? And how did a late Eocene Dorudonlike ancestor give rise to modern Mysticeti on one hand and Odontoceti on the other? When and how did whales make the physiological transitions listed in the table in figure 3? We still have much to learn!"






One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transi





Missing links

Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)

Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)

Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)

Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)








Fossil Evidence of Whale Evolution?

Answering Evolutionist Professors in the UK


by Dr. Terry Mortenson on March 25, 2014



The creature Pakicetus was initially regarded as a primitive whale, while further analysis confirms it was a land-dwelling mammal.

 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,927
Reaction score
2,514
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Your education continues apace.

" Does the story end here? No, this is science, and the enquiring mind wants to know more. What group of early artiodactyls gave rise to whales, and can we find intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyls and Pakicetus? How did whales develop the specializations for hearing that first appeared in protocetids like Maiacetus? How did whales make the transition from foot-powered swimming in Maiacetus to tailpowered swimming in Dorudon? And how did a late Eocene Dorudonlike ancestor give rise to modern Mysticeti on one hand and Odontoceti on the other? When and how did whales make the physiological transitions listed in the table in figure 3? We still have much to learn!"






One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transi





Missing links

Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)

Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)

Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)

Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)








Fossil Evidence of Whale Evolution?

Answering Evolutionist Professors in the UK


by Dr. Terry Mortenson on March 25, 2014



The creature Pakicetus was initially regarded as a primitive whale, while further analysis confirms it was a land-dwelling mammal.

The evolution of whales as understood by scientists (as opposed to theologians or people that died in the last century):

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.



Whale evogram


Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.



Ambulocetus and Pakicetus

dot_clear.gif

Skeletons of two early whales.


Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.



Oxygen isotope ratios for extant and extinct cetaceans

dot_clear.gif

Isotopic analyses help us figure out the likely habitats of extinct whales like Ambulocetus.


Whales that evolved after Ambulocetus (Kutchicetus, etc.) show even higher levels of saltwater oxygen isotopes, indicating that they lived in nearshore marine habitats and were able to drink saltwater as today's whales can. These animals evolved nostrils positioned further and further back along the snout. This trend has continued into living whales, which have a "blowhole" (nostrils) located on top of the head above the eyes.



Nostril migration in whales

dot_clear.gif

As whales evolved increasingly aquatic lifestyles, they also evolved nostrils located further and further back on their skulls.


These more aquatic whales showed other changes that also suggest they are closely related to today's whales. For example, the pelvis had evolved to be much reduced in size and separate from the backbone. This may reflect the increased use of the whole vertebral column, including the back and tail, in locomotion. If you watch films of dolphins and other whales swimming, you'll notice that their tailfins aren't vertical like those of fishes, but horizontal. To swim, they move their tails up and down, rather than back and forth as fishes do. This is because whales evolved from walking land mammals whose backbones did not naturally bend side to side, but up and down. You can easily see this if you watch a dog running. Its vertebral column undulates up and down in waves as it moves forward. Whales do the same thing as they swim, showing their ancient terrestrial heritage.

As whales began to swim by undulating the whole body, other changes in the skeleton allowed their limbs to be used more for steering than for paddling. Because the sequence of these whales' tail vertebrae matches those of living dolphins and whales, it suggests that early whales, like Dorudon and Basilosaurus, did have tailfins. Such skeletal changes that accommodate an aquatic lifestyle are especially pronounced in basilosaurids, such as Dorudon. These ancient whales evolved over 40 million years ago. Their elbow joints were able to lock, allowing the forelimb to serve as a better control surface and resist the oncoming flow of water as the animal propelled itself forward. The hindlimbs of these animals were almost nonexistent. They were so tiny that many scientists think they served no effective function and may have even been internal to the body wall. Occasionally, we discover a living whale with the vestiges of tiny hindlimbs inside its body wall.



Skeleton of Dorudon

dot_clear.gif

Skeleton of the early whale Dorudon. Notice the tiny hind limbs at left below the tail.


This vestigial hindlimb is evidence of basilosaurids' terrestrial heritage. The picture below on the left shows the central ankle bones (called astragali) of three artiodactyls, and you can see they have double pulley joints and hooked processes pointing up toward the leg-bones. Below on the right is a photo of the hind foot of a basilosaurid. You can see that it has a complete ankle and several toe bones, even though it can't walk. The basilosaurid astragalus still has a pulley and a hooked knob pointing up towards the leg bones as in artiodactyls, while other bones in the ankle and foot are fused. From the ear bones to the ankle bones, whales belong with the hippos and other artiodactyls.



Comparing ankle bones of extinct whales and modern pronghorn
dot_clear.gif
Ankle and foot bones of Basilosaurus
dot_clear.gif

At left, the ankle bones of two middle Eocene protocetid archaeocetes, Rodhocetus balochistanensis (left) and Artiocetus clavis (right) from Pakistan, compared to those of the pronghorn Antilocapra americana (center). At right, the ankle region and foot of Basilosaurus. The pulley part of the astragalus (outlined) connects to the tibia and fibula.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
1,101
Points
210
Mutations are random but they are NOT the mechanism of change in organisms. The mechanism of change in organisms is natural selection and natural selection is NOT random.

Didn't they teach you anything in your private schooling? Your 'reputation' remains intact.
This is both false and misleading. You're unwittingly conflating pre-genetic, Darwinian gradualism and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Natural selection is not the only mechanism of change. The adaptive radiation of change primarily entails the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.

(It also entails the mechanisms of random and non-random mating. The latter are ancillary, but let's keep things simple)

Natural selection is the overarching regulatory mechanism of change relative to the latent and randomly expressed changes (the primary and ancillary mechanisms: gene flow, genetic drift, random mating and non-random mating) within any given population against the demands of the prevailing environment. Adaptive radiation is real. It is observable. The gratuitous extrapolation of evolutionary transmutation is not.

In the face of the fossil record, the sane grasp that evolution would require a complex set of vast and rapidly accumulated and conserved genetic mutations, but the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations entail catastrophic loses of information and function. Those that survive, entail loses of information as well, but the essential function is retained, albeit, in the form of a more complex genetic pathway of rudimentary parts as opposed to the original whole.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,411
Reaction score
5,802
Points
1,830
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzze stop pretending you know anything.

You clearly don't.....you're a government school grad who cluelessly votes Democrat.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. 百盈彩票|百盈彩登录网址


a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
As usual, the dishonest religious extremist has ''quote mined'' from fundie websites that edit, oarsevand alter ''quotes'' to fit their agenda. The phony ''quote'' allegedly by Eldredge is one the hyper-religious hack has used before, after being exposed as a fraud.

The bolded passages are what the religious hack has edited out.

In the passages quoted, Eldredge and Tattersall are discussing the merits of gradualism, something the religious hack has left out, as we can see:

The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories.
That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved.
Note the claim that the fossil record supports evolution.

-
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
1,101
Points
210
The fossil record clearly shows the new species have appeared. Where did they come from?
I've already answered this question. Why do you assume naturalism is true? That is the pertinent question.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
54,999
Reaction score
10,477
Points
2,070
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
You forgot to post any evidence of gods.

Nor will you. Because there isn't any. There cannot be evidence of gods, because gods are magic. That's what magic is. There cannot be evidence for or against magic. Magic defies natural laws and determinism. The concept of evidence relies fully on natural laws and determinism.

You disqualify yourself from the use of the concept of evidence, when you introduce magic. So you are left with faith. I.E., belief without evidence.

Why the charade? Does this embarrass you? It should.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,411
Reaction score
5,802
Points
1,830
Your education continues apace.

" Does the story end here? No, this is science, and the enquiring mind wants to know more. What group of early artiodactyls gave rise to whales, and can we find intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyls and Pakicetus? How did whales develop the specializations for hearing that first appeared in protocetids like Maiacetus? How did whales make the transition from foot-powered swimming in Maiacetus to tailpowered swimming in Dorudon? And how did a late Eocene Dorudonlike ancestor give rise to modern Mysticeti on one hand and Odontoceti on the other? When and how did whales make the physiological transitions listed in the table in figure 3? We still have much to learn!"






One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transi





Missing links

Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)

Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)

Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)

Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)

One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)








Fossil Evidence of Whale Evolution?

Answering Evolutionist Professors in the UK


by Dr. Terry Mortenson on March 25, 2014



The creature Pakicetus was initially regarded as a primitive whale, while further analysis confirms it was a land-dwelling mammal.

Do you not understand why people point and laugh when you ''quote mine'' from the charlatans at AIG?
 

Stann

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
1,257
Reaction score
705
Points
893
Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.
Religion is a belief system, it cannot and must not be taken as fact. That's why it's a belief system, it cannot be proven. The simple multiplicity of religions proves man's origin not god's.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
1,101
Points
210
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzze stop pretending you know anything.

You clearly don't.....you're a government school grad who cluelessly votes Democrat.

1. Even the fossil record definitively rejects the concept of speciation. There is absolutely no sign in the record of the countless intermediate species that should have once lived according to Darwinism. It has now been acknowledged that Darwin's claim that these fossils would be found in the future is definitely incorrect. 百盈彩票|百盈彩登录网址


a. “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

b. " To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics

c. It was not the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity. It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record. Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
Actually, speciation is legitimate. It does not have the same meaning in the evolutionist's and creationist's lexicon.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
54,999
Reaction score
10,477
Points
2,070
Actually, speciation is legitimate. It does not have the same meaning in the evolutionist's and creationist's lexicon
Right. Intelligent, educated people call it "hypothesis". Then they go a step further than the religious folks and demand the hypothesis be tested. An easy way to separate the religious charlatans from the honest intellectuals.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,320
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
You forgot to post any evidence of gods.

Nor will you. Because there isn't any. There cannot be evidence of gods, because gods are magic. That's what magic is. There cannot be evidence for or against magic. Magic defies natural laws and determinism. The concept of evidence relies fully on natural laws and determinism.

You disqualify yourself from the use of the concept of evidence, when you introduce magic. So you are left with faith. I.E., belief without evidence.

Why the charade? Does this embarrass you? It should.



You called this god.

1627390396853.png
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,320
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Religion is a belief system, it cannot and must not be taken as fact. That's why it's a belief system, it cannot be proven. The simple multiplicity of religions proves man's origin not god's.


So the Founders of this nation and the basis of Western Civilization were wrong, and you're right?



Dennis Prager made this significant comment....
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”


And the Democrat Party called their candidate god, Jesus and the messiah.



Quite a disagreement between the Judeo-Christian folks, and your religion, Militant Secularism....and you've chosen your gods.




1627391173998.png

1627391201915.png



Interesting, huh?
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,291
Reaction score
1,101
Points
210
Wheels are much more efficient than legs on areas like flat plains, that is one reason why cars are faster than horses. The fossil record shows that most species come into being and then disappear. Is God continuously creating new species every time a new island or sea appears? Can't he get it right the first time?

There are no mathematic or engineering problems with evolution and in fact engineering supports evolution far better than it does creationism.

Sorry to say but it is naturalism that has helped us understand the world around us, not religion.

So God doesn't exist and naturalism and, subsequently, evolution is necessarily true because of entropy and because there are no wheeled animals. Got it.

Beam me up, Scotty. This cat is not to be taken seriously.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,320
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So God doesn't exist and naturalism and, subsequently, evolution is necessarily true because of entropy and because there are no wheeled animals. Got it.

Beam me up, Scotty. This cat is not to be taken seriously.


He is an apologist for the Democrat Party and their religion, Militant Secularism.

History means nothing to that sort.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,609
Reaction score
45,320
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Irrelevant red herring from someone incapable of intelligent points when taken out of her copy paste comfort zone. You start threads, then you wilt like lettuce in the sun whenever anyone doesnt reaffirm your copy paste tourettes outburst.


Yet you kneel when ordered to do so by your party.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,927
Reaction score
2,514
Points
245
Location
Virginia
In the face of the fossil record, the sane grasp that evolution would require a complex set of vast and rapidly accumulated and conserved genetic mutations, but the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations entail catastrophic loses of information and function. Those that survive, entail loses of information as well, but the essential function is retained, albeit, in the form of a more complex genetic pathway of rudimentary parts as opposed to the original whole.
Not always the case. There is a well documented case of a bacterium that has a long, thin, external structure. The loss of a single protein in the attachment structure causes the structure to rotate. The result is locomotion, an entirely new function and useful enough to benefit new generations and give rise to new species. Isn't nature clever?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
14,927
Reaction score
2,514
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I've already answered this question. Why do you assume naturalism is true? That is the pertinent question.
You mean why do I believe my own eyes and not what you tell me?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$166.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top