Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children

[Jose Fly]

I'm over 50

Well that's not good.

Unless you can recreate the event you are just guessing essentially.

This is why I've always said, if I'm ever on trial for a crime without eye-witnesses, I want a jury full of creationists. Since no one saw what happened and forensic scientists didn't recommit the crime, the creationists must acquit!

Look, I do a fair amount of primitive skills stuff. It makes me very skeptical about the so-called experts that study this stuff by the book. I think we have a lot of educated morons out there that think they know a lot, but actually just parrot what a professor said in a classroom.

Thankfully your opinion only matters to you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What you fail to present is compelling evidence to make your case that man did not evolve from single celled organisms

It's literally impossible.
Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection that has no goals.
To believe that a random system can get from here to there requires one to leave their common sense behind.
National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis: “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired."

Pierre-Paul Grasse: “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity'” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

Our cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA.
Again belief that this happened by a series of genetic mistakes is absurd to the nth degree.

The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, not transitional forms
And that's just a few if the obvious problems with the ToE

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is why I've always said, if I'm ever on trial for a crime without eye-witnesses, I want a jury full of creationists. Since no one saw what happened and forensic scientists didn't recommit the crime, the creationists must acquit!

Oh it's much worse than that. The forensic scientist can gather actual DNA, fingerprints, etc. A bone is just a bone, and if you have no matching bone in the current animal population, there's a huge amount of guesswork, as to what animal you are looking for.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh it's much worse than that. The forensic scientist can gather actual DNA, fingerprints, etc. A bone is just a bone, and if you have no matching bone in the current animal population, there's a huge amount of guesswork, as to what animal you are looking for.

You'll understand if I rely on actual paleontologists to describe how they do their work, rather than the obviously ignorant musings of an anonymous creationist on a religious message board.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You'll understand if I rely on actual paleontologists to describe how they do their work, rather than the obviously ignorant musings of an anonymous creationist on a religious message board.

Sure, trust the " experts" to always get everything right, because they have such a good track record... Well, um, scratch that last part....

 

[McBell]

Sure, trust the " experts" to always get everything right, because they have such a good track record... Well, um, scratch that last part....

I have a whole hell of a lot more trust in the experts than I do in some random internet user who has thus far gotten more wrong than right.

But hey, to each their own, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, trust the " experts" to always get everything right, because they have such a good track record... Well, um, scratch that last part....

We all "trust the experts" with lots of different things. And when it comes to science, we certainly don't trust anonymous creationists on internet boards, especially when they don't even know the basics of how science works.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We all "trust the experts" with lots of different things. And when it comes to science, we certainly don't trust anonymous creationists on internet boards, especially when they don't even know the basics of how science works.

We also don't trust that Jose knows what he's talking about...

 

[Jose Fly]

We also don't trust that Jose knows what he's talking about...

As you shouldn't. This is a religious message board after all, so anyone looking for info regarding science definitely needs to go to actual scientific sources.

Anyone who says "I got my information on science from ReligiousForums.com" should be laughed at.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It's literally impossible.

Obviously not, because it happened and IS happening.

Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection that has no goals.

You guys are so good at ignoring one half of the mechanism (or the other half) when ranting against evolution. It is random mutations AND natural selection combined. You rail against something you don't understand. You may be able to convince yourself that you are correct, but you can't convince a jury. In fact, Evolution has been in front of the courts on many occasions, and the creationists have always lost.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

To believe that a random system can get from here to there requires one to leave their common sense behind.

Except it happens; and can be traced back through genetic sequencing; and can be replicated in computer programs.

National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis: “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired."

I take it you do not research the sources of your quotes. I guess that's okay, because in my cursory research, I found anti-Creationist sites that wrote her off as a Creationist, but she is not. Lyn Margulis is an "evolutionist". She holds to a theory called "symbiosis in evolution". While primarily rejected, her work in advancing evolutionary theory eventually won her significant awards, Dawrin-Wallace Medal.

She did not question evolution. She questioned the mechanisms by which evolution happened.

You have quoted an evolutionist to further creationism. How quaint.

Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia

(Research time: 15 minutes)

By the way: She is also wrong. The vast majority of mutations are completely benign; such as mutations of red hair and green eyes. Every human being has an average of 175 genetic mutations.

Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans..

Pierre-Paul Grasse: “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity'” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

Pierre-Paul was a proponent of a now discredited theory of evolution called "neo-Lemarkian Evolution" which postulated that an organism's behavior affected traits it would pass to its offspring. He was wrong about that too. And again, he was an evolutionist, not a creationist; so again, you have quoted an "evolutionist" to support Creationism.

(Research time: 5 minutes)

The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, not transitional forms

EVERY form is a transitional form ... including US. Of course, in spite of the thousands of transitional forms out there, you will ignore them to hold to your narrative, jam your fingers in your ear, and yell, "nya nya nya nya nya!"

 

[Wildswanderer]

Obviously not, because it happened and IS happening.

Oh, you have seen molecules to men evolution?

 

[Wildswanderer]

She did not question evolution. She questioned the mechanisms by which evolution happened

As well she should because they don't work.

 

[Wildswanderer]

EVERY form is a transitional form ... including US. Of course, in spite of the thousands of transitional forms out there, you will ignore them to hold to your narrative, jam your fingers in your ear, and yell, "nya nya nya nya nya!"

Well of course every form is transitional, because you said it was! That's all it takes is somebody on the internet saying it's true to convince me!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Oh, you have seen molecules to men evolution?

Science can explain it.

As well she should because they don't work.

If she had invalidated ToE, it would be front page news. Her tenacity added to the pool of knowledge.

Well of course every form is transitional, because you said it was! That's all it takes is somebody on the internet saying it's true to convince me!

Nothing will convince you because your mind is closed. You are indoctrinated.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Science can explain it.

Only " science" doesn't. Science plus a lot of supposing and guessing explains it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe not explicitly, but that's the take away.

Not apparently to anyone who actually understands it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But in the field all are already committed to the evolution paradigm. So it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with your exact conclusions they still aren't going to step outside the box.

Because it makes sense, all the evidence from multiple fields of science compiled by multiple independent groups of scientists over 150+ years all points to it and because it's the backbone of biology.

Present some evidence that falsifies it and you'll become rich and famous. Got any?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then why should we believe in universal common ancestry?

Because the evidence points directly to it.
Like how the evidence points to your great-great-great-grandmother being a distant relative of yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Miss the point much?
You believe something that is all a lot more complicated than a computer just created itself. What is the difference whether it's biological or not?

No, you missed the point.

Animals are biological organisms that reproduce offspring. Computers are not biological organisms and do not produce offspring. So your analogy fell apart.

P.S. The hallmark of design is not complexity. It's simplicity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The stop is when an organism can not change past a certain point because it doesn't have the genetic information to do so.
All of life’s complex features,, are said to be encoded in the DNA of living organisms. Building new features thus requires generating new information in the genetic code of DNA.
There are systems which require many parts — and therefore many mutations — to be present — all at once — before providing any survival advantage to the organism.
Random mutation and unguided natural selection cannot generate the genetic information required to produce irreducibly complex structures.
In fact most mutations are shutting something off, not turning something on. So even if a mutation is beneficial, it can be a loss I'm genetic information, not a gain.
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism, says that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism."
Darwin apparently also recognized this problem, as he wrote in Origin of Species:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Little did he know just how complex DNA would be.

Oh, no. Quote mining!

Quote-Mining: An Old Anti-Evolutionist Strategy | National Center for Science Education