Post Reply
Page 2 of 15  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF LIFE - Question 10 - How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:22PM #11
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:13PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Following are two Evolutionists' answers and CMI's rebuttals.  Did anyone, here, give the same answer?



Don't you know? Didn't you read the thread? Why are you just mechanically reproducing CMI's questions, answers, and rebuttals? Do you ever think before you post?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:23PM #12
Blü
Posts: 24,649

iama, iama, iama


Creation scientists refuting evolution speculations are scientifically based.


Please don't be so freakin silly.


You know perfectly well that 'creation scientists' -


* aren't scientists


* have no interest in what's true in reality


* don't conduct scientific research, don't publish scientific papers, don't use scientific method in anything they do, don't know from beans about matters scientific


* are for the very large part morally repugnant humans, dishonestly feeding on the gullible


* in fifty years haven't laid a single tiny weeny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution


* or on geological or archeological dating methods, or any other part of science they oppose


* have been shown to be dingbat religionists in a series of legal cases, including Dover of happy memory.


and so on.


Yet knowing all that, you make a statement like the one above!


Shame!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2012 - 10:34PM #13
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

Wow, you (and the writer of that article) do not understand evolution at all.


Yes mutations continue to occur in species that are "living fossils." However, if they offer no reproductive superiority they are less likely to be fixed.


Despite the author's sneering dismissal of several lines of evidence, the evidence doesn't go away.


Also, that is the most eloquent example of an argument from ignorance that have read in a very long time.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 12:39AM #14
d_p_m
Posts: 9,578

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:13PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Rebuttal: So evolution explains if creatures don’t change, and it explains if they do! How convenient.




Yes, yes it does. Newton's laws of motion explain why some things fall to earth and why others do not.


Your problem is that you do not understand evolution well enough to use it, or you would know why species sometimes change quickly, and sometimes change very slowly.


Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 8:53AM #15
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

[/quote]


Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?


[/quote]


Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:04AM #16
amcolph
Posts: 17,150

Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:53AM, watcher59 wrote:


 


Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?




Only actual physical evidence supports evolution, and a book is never evidence of anything.  What a biology textbook would do for you is to explain what the theory of evolution actually says.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:32AM #17
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Only actual physical evidence supports evolution, and a book is never evidence of anything.  What a biology textbook would do for you is to explain what the theory of evolution actually says.


That's true to the extent of the statement. However, the statement is not complete. Textbooks go beyond merely stating the theory and attempt to explain the mechanics of evolution. Therein lies the problem. The mechanics are not clearly understood by even the most informed within the various disciplines. So, much guess work is required to 'connect the dots' as it were. Unfortunately, a SWAG is still a WAG. When I read the papers written by researchers they're doubts and the evidentiary gaps are stated. When I read a textbook, usually written by third hand analysts or complete laymen, the conclusions are presented as fact. The absence of objection from those with 'boots on the ground' implies agreement by default.

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:42AM #18
Blü
Posts: 24,649

watcher


The mechanics are not clearly understood by even the most informed within the various disciplines.


By what pipsqueak right does a Creationist uncomprehendingly demand an imagined perfection from science when the entire Creationist position is based on magic with no theory, hypothesis or even guess-of-the-week how magic works?


If anyone here has no idea what they're talking about, it's sure enough creationists.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 10:20AM #19
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Mar 29, 2012 -- 9:42AM, Blü wrote:


watcher


The mechanics are not clearly understood by even the most informed within the various disciplines.


By what pipsqueak right does a Creationist uncomprehendingly demand an imagined perfection from science when the entire Creationist position is based on magic with no theory, hypothesis or even guess-of-the-week how magic works?


If anyone here has no idea what they're talking about, it's sure enough creationists.





Are we getting testy?


You seem to be under the misconcpetion that I am a young earth creationist. I am not. In fact, I have no trouble accepting Darwinian evolution as a possible explanation of the origins of life. Likewise, I have no trouble accepting intelligent design as a possible explanation of the origins of life and the universe. I remain unconvinced that the two are mutually exclusive.


What I have problems with is that both sides of the debate insist their position is absolute when the arguments on both sides are based upon incomplete data. 


Not having a dog in this fight, I am free to be a bit more subjective than those who are invested in being right. I don't need to convince myself, or anyone else, that I'm right.


I'm curious why anyone, creationist or skeptic, doesn't have the right to challenge the conclusions of science? Is there some scientific papacy whose edicts are beyond question?

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 10:34AM #20
Midutch
Posts: 4,080

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:20AM, watcher59 wrote:

I'm curious why anyone, creationist or skeptic, doesn't have the right to challenge the conclusions of science? Is there some scientific papacy whose edicts are beyond question?


Because those "challenges" are, at best, uninformed and, at worst, flat out lies.


You have demonstrated that many of YOUR "challenges" are merely regurgitations of "creationist" talking points, and are, therefore, of the latter.


BTW, in the ten+ years that I have been involved in the SCIENCE vs. creationism "debates" there have been LOTS of people coming on to these "debate" boards claiming that they "don't have a dog in this fight". Inevitably, and without exception, it turns out they were lying and were "fundamentalist christian creationists" all along. In my experience, I have NEVER conversed or met someone who so railed and ranted against the ToE who wasn't a "fundamentalist christian or muslim creationist" (few of the latter since they are not very prevelant here in the US).


I could be wrong, but I would imagine that pretty much all of the other posters would concur with this observation.

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 15  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook