Arguments Against Organic/Biological Evolution

[McBell]

ALTER2EGO -to- MESTEMIA:

You can whine to your heart's content. The rule of evidence says that the person presenting evidence is required to select the specific portions that are to be brought to the attention of another person. Select it by quoting verbatim or by summarizing, and then give the page number where the info came from in case the opposing side wants to go and read the original. That's how it works.

If you were to appear in a court of law and handed a judge a stack of papers and tell the judge: "Read all of it and you will eventually find the evidence." Guess what would happen? The judge would throw your evidence out. Nobody has time to waste searching though pages to find YOUR evidence for you. That's your job. You're the one trying to convince me that I'm wrong.

Once again you are confused.
You are the one whining about the evidence not being presented how you want it presented.

to be completely honest with you, i see no reason to present it how you want it for you to still completely ignore it.

now run along home and claim your victory.

 

[McBell]

Creationists want to tell you what to think about evolution without they themselves learning much of anything about evolution.

For evidense in support of my statement, see Alter2Ego and the last 200 creationists before her to pass by this board.

The problem is that creationists try to tell you that the nonsense they call evolution is evolution and then they attack said nonsense.

The fact is that whatever that nonsense is that Alter2ego is arguing against is not evolution.
I have no idea what it is, but it is not evolution.

And did you notice how she completely ignored my numbered post?
I find it most flattering that she cannot even bring herself to address it with bull ****.

 

[Sunstone]

ALTER2EGO -to- SUNSTONE:

I'll pass. You're the one trying to prove me wrong; remember? You go do the research and get your old rebuttals from wherever they happen to be.

Not that they will do you any good because I've debunk several evolutionists with scientific evidence. One of them at another website couldn't take it, and so he started inventing fake arguments as he went along--accused me of quote hacking, insisted on giving his definition of what the paleontologists meant, and more or less hopped, skipped, and jumped all over the place.

But he still could not overcome the fact that all the paleontologists admitted there is no evidence in the fossils showing one type of animal evolved into an entirely different animal. And some of the paleontologists who made these admissions were pro-evolution.
.

So you make up your facts as you go along? Or are you going to cite your sources?

 

[McBell]

Not that they will do you any good because I've debunk several evolutionists with scientific evidence. One of them at another website couldn't take it, and so he started inventing fake arguments as he went along--accused me of quote hacking, insisted on giving his definition of what the paleontologists meant, and more or less hopped, skipped, and jumped all over the place.
.

You are going to have to provide something other than your word for this.
Cause the two other websites I seen you posting on you repeatedly had your arse handed to you.

 

[Sunstone]

The problem is that creationists try to tell you that the nonsense they call evolution is evolution and then they attack said nonsense.

The fact is that whatever that nonsense is that Alter2ego is arguing against is not evolution.
I have no idea what it is, but it is not evolution.

And did you notice how she completely ignored my numbered post?
I find it most flattering that she cannot even bring herself to address it with bull ****.

Basically, she ignores any evidence that doesn't suit her fancy. And she's unwilling to learn anything about evolution.

 

[fishy]

Alter dear, you can't even compete with silly................sorry.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Would you like to address this fallacy, I've been asking.

ALTER2EGO -to- FISHY:

I gave the correct definition of "organic evolution" in my opening post, and you keep insisting it's a fallacy, while you want me to explain it to you! I don't give lessons to hard-headed people. Go do your own research, because I won't help you.

I will post more scientific evidence on this topic at another time. Meanwhile, you can go and look through the "rebuttals" that your pal SUNSTONE says is on this website. He said there are 200 pages of rebuttals. Maybe he can help you out.

 

[Sunstone]

ALTER2EGO -to- FISHY:

I gave the correct definition of "organic evolution" in my opening post, and you keep insisting it's a fallacy, while you want me to explain it to you! I don't give lessons to hard-headed people. Go do your own research, because I won't help you.

I will post more scientific evidence on this topic at another time. Meanwhile, you can go and look through the "rebuttals" that your pal SUNSTONE says is on this website. He said there are 200 pages of rebuttals. Maybe he can help you out.

Good luck selling us on the notion that you know anything about evolution. You don't even know what the word means. Worse, you're unwilling to learn what it means.

 

[McBell]

I will post more scientific evidence on this topic at another time. Meanwhile, you can go and look through the "rebuttals" that your pal SUNSTONE says is on this website. He said there are 200 pages of rebuttals. Maybe he can help you out.

more?
I would find it most impressive if you were to actually start presenting scientific evidence.
Thus far all you have done is pound your chest in a most impressive demonstration of self puffery, quote mine for your appeal to authority, and make bold unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Basically, she ignores any evidence that doesn't suit her fancy. And she's unwilling to learn anything about evolution.

What evidence? You haven't presented any.

 

[McBell]

I gave the correct definition of "organic evolution" in my opening post

I have no idea where you got that definition but the correct definition appears in post #19.

You do know that evolution and spontaneous generation are two completely different and unrelated things, right?

 

[Alter2Ego]

So you make up your facts as you go along? Or are you going to cite your sources?

I did cite my sources. I quoted four different paleontologists and clearly identified them, their publications, and the page numbers. Go back and look at my opening post and tell me I'm not right.

 

[Sunstone]

What evidence? You haven't presented any.

That's the dumbest thing I've heard yet. You are the person who by her remarks is providing all the evidence I need for my claim creationists do not want to learn anything about evolution, while still telling you what you should think about it.

 

[Sunstone]

I did cite my sources. I quoted four different paleontologists and clearly identified them, their publications, and the page numbers. Go back and look at my opening post and tell me I'm not right.

You failed to even define evolution correctly.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

As stated by one thinking person:"If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists."


That's right. It was people from within Darwin's own ranks that saw his massive errors about animals evolving into different species. If Darwin's claims were correct, scientists would have found a colossal amount of evidence in the fossil record showing organisms transitioning--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Below is a partial list of scientists who expose the flaws in the fossil record.

1."Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


2."What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)


3."All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between MAJOR GROUPS are CHARACTERISTICALLY ABRUPT. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


4."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.)

 

[Sunstone]

DNA, anyone?

 

[Revoltingest]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

As stated by one thinking person:"If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists."

This isn't evidence against evolution. Tis in the nature of progress in science that anyone who challenges the status quo will meet resistance.
Even Albert Einstein initially rejected aspects of quantum mechanics, but the latter survived popular skepticism. Science can be messy & dramatic.
The TOE doesn't persist just because of opinion. It prevails because it makes testable predictions, ie, it is useful.

 

[McBell]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

As stated by one thinking person:"If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists."


That's right. It was people from within Darwin's own ranks that saw his massive errors about animals evolving into different species. If Darwin's claims were correct, scientists would have found a colossal amount of evidence in the fossil record showing organisms transitioning--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Below is a partial list of scientists who expose the flaws in the fossil record.

1."Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


2."What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)


3."All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between MAJOR GROUPS are CHARACTERISTICALLY ABRUPT. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


4."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.)

I am wondering if you are ever going to present an argument against evolution.
This is getting rather boring listening to you rattle on and on against your strawmen.

Sad that you are to lazy to get your own quote mines.
Is it plagiarism to use another persons quote mines without giving them credit for the mining?

You even stole a quote mine from the Jehovah Witnesses...
Shame shame shame

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't do links.

Which translates to "I don't do research", meaning your viewpoint is willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. You have no business attempting to discuss or debate a topic that you're woefully uninformed and uneducated about.

 

[Alter2Ego]

I am wondering if you are ever going to present an argument against evolution.
This is getting rather boring listening to you rattle on and on against your strawmen.

Sad that you are to lazy to get your own quote mines.
Is it plagiarism to use another persons quote mines without giving them credit for the mining?

You even stole a quote mine from the Jehovah Witnesses...
Shame shame shame

Plagiarism refers to quoting someone's writings and not giving the person credit for the quotation. I clearly identified all of my sources in my Opening Post. I suggest you go to one of the online dictionaries and look up the meaning of "plagiarism."