Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

As to gradual change we can see it in specific bedding. Chalk deposits have foraminifera evolving as one gets closer and closer to the surface. There are other similar examples. Just because it is change that you do not understand does not mean that it did not happen.

By the way, why this odd fixation with the fossil record? Is it some sort of sexual fetish of yours?

I've already stipulated that life is change. Life is consciousness.

And I've made it quite clear that it is obvious life quickly adapts to changing environment without experiencing speciation. Since life IS change and no niche is stable then single celled organisms like foraminifera can appear to change gradually as their niche changes. Simple animals and plants have simple consciousness so are more at the whim of change than more complex (in structure) life forms.

In other words this is the first time you've tried to support your belief in gradual change and you have failed. You never won an argument because you never engaged in an argument. It is mostly just semantics and obfuscation and then you continually have claimed to win points you never even made.

I will avoid responding to whatever word game that has nothing to do with this post you offer as rebuttal. You are wrong and you have nothing to support your claims.

The people who don't agree with you are not brain dead, brain washed, or brain impaired and can see right through your word play.

 

[cladking]

Amazing how many people think they are infallible.

This is the most frightening change in my lifetime.

Science has become a religion and every practitioner is the holiest of all thou's. The priests called "Peers" are not even allowed to study or experiment except within the confines of Holy Doctrine.

This is a religion which at its base says the strong are destined to triumph and the weak to die.

I can't imagine anything scarier than modern society where liberty is out civil rights are in and the economy wastes many times more than is used. Like lemmings we march in lockstep to the sea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've already stipulated that life is change. Life is consciousness.

And I've made it quite clear that it is obvious life quickly adapts to changing environment without experiencing speciation. Since life IS change and no niche is stable then single celled organisms like foraminifera can appear to change gradually as their niche changes. Simple animals and plants have simple consciousness so are more at the whim of change than more complex (in structure) life forms.

In other words this is the first time you've tried to support your belief in gradual change and you have failed. You never won an argument because you never engaged in an argument. It is mostly just semantics and obfuscation and then you continually have claimed to win points you never even made.

I will avoid responding to whatever word game that has nothing to do with this post you offer as rebuttal. You are wrong and you have nothing to support your claims.

The people who don't agree with you are not brain dead, brain washed, or brain impaired and can see right through your word play.

Okay so now you are contradicting your earlier claims.

Perhaps the problem is that you expect to see extreme change in a short pan of time. That simply does not happen. Creationists always need to be reminded that there is no "change of kind" in evolution. We can see that in our own evolution. We have a good fossil record of from "Lucy" to us. The various transitional species tend to have overlapping brain sizes etc..

And no, I gave you links more than once on various examples of slow change. You just denied them or ignored them The failure was all yours. You keep trying to use a strawman version of evolution. When on points out that your version of evolution is not the one that is proposed by biologists you lose the argument.

It is simply amazing how much "nothing" that you have. By your own standards you lost. You never support your clams with actual scientific sources. I do, until I tire of the hypocrisy of the person that I am debating against.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the most frightening change in my lifetime.

Science has become a religion and every practitioner is the holiest of all thou's. The priests called "Peers" are not even allowed to study or experiment except within the confines of holy doctrine.

This ois a religion which at its base says the strong are destined to triumph and the weak to die.

I can't imagine anything scarier than modern society where liberty is out civil rights are in and the economy wastes many times more than is used. Like lemmings we march in lockstep to the sea.

LOL "Peers" again

 

[YoursTrue]

This post makes no sense. What does it matter what the Bible says? The Bible is not a science book. If one reads it literally that is the easiest version of Christianity to refute. There are events in the Bible that are laughably wrong. For example do you believe the Noah's Ark myth?

As the world draws near to a close, it's too bad you don't believe in God. So long for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As the world draws near to a close, it's too bad you don't believe in God. So long for now.

Really? End times. Do tell. Even if a God exists I am probably safe. You on the other hand should be rather worried.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay so now you are contradicting your earlier claims.

Perhaps the problem is that you expect to see extreme change in a short pan of time. That simply does not happen. Creationists always need to be reminded that there is no "change of kind" in evolution. We can see that in our own evolution. We have a good fossil record of from "Lucy" to us. The various transitional species tend to have overlapping brain sizes etc..

And no, I gave you links more than once on various examples of slow change. You just denied them or ignored them The failure was all yours. You keep trying to use a strawman version of evolution. When on points out that your version of evolution is not the one that is proposed by biologists you lose the argument.

It is simply amazing how much "nothing" that you have. By your own standards you lost. You never support your clams with actual scientific sources. I do, until I tire of the hypocrisy of the person that I am debating against.

When you can show evidence and reason behind the Lucy situation please do. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? End times. Do tell. Even if a God exists I am probably safe. You on the other hand should be rather worried.

In your situation via evolution, what's to remain of you?

 

[gnostic]

There is no evidence that shows-demonstrates-tests and forbid the word, proves that humans evolved from fish, and/or plants. There is definitely evidence that populations can arise with short legs or long legs for the majority, based on interbreeding.

That’s the level of no education in biology I would expect from creationists.

Making ridiculous ignorant and false assumptions.

No one ever stated that humans from plants, but your Genesis did, as Genesis 2 Adam was created from soil.

So basically you are projecting creation of Adam falsely to the theory of evolution.

Humans were always reproduced the natural ways, as every other mammals: sexual reproduction - the fertilization of sperm and egg into one new cell - zygote - which are then followed by cell division, which then lead many cells to the development of the human embryos. Ultimately, it lead to childbirth of infant.

No human was ever made from soil. That’s a fiction that Genesis copied from the Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths, believing that soil.

Human have the same cells cells as other mammals, where each cells contain organelle of mitochondrial DNA.

Plants don’t have mitochondrial organelles in their cells. Their organelles are chloroplast organelles, which have chlorophyll, the function of photosynthesis.

Humans and all other animal kingdoms (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc) don’t have chloroplasts in their cells. Humans are not capable of photosynthesis.

So for to to demand proof of humans evolving from plants, is nothing more than strawman claims and your utter lack of understanding of even basic biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you can show evidence and reason behind the Lucy situation please do. Thanks.

There is no point. You would deny it since you do not understand the concept. If you want to demand evidence you have to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

...

So for to to demand proof of humans evolving from plants, is nothing more than strawman claims and your utter lack of understanding of even basic biology.

oh isn't that interesting to say the least.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no point. You would deny it since you do not understand the concept. If you want to demand evidence you have to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Whatever...

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your situation via evolution, what's to remain of you?

Poorly asked question. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. What is going to happen to them?

But what is going to happen to me is the same thing that happens to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh isn't that interesting to say the least.

Really? Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever...

Why are you afraid to learn? Is it because you know that you would have to lie when you denied the evidence if you did so?

 

[rational experiences]

In the beginning there was no human.
When the reaction ended there was no human either.

In a humans beginning and end the same place it's said is a human.

A human never began a human never ended was a humans own scientific relativity teaching.

Reason science does not exists.

A deceased human isn't an end it's destruction.

To practice science you have to be a human.

Human given numbers is the owner of all the numbers used to say human DNA.

You cannot use those numbers again.

Reason. Mass exists not numbers.

Man adds up numbers first....not science it's just a calculus.

Man subtracts mass minuses presence numbers to say now I change.

So numbers taken from numbers says man makes a human status not a monkey.

Now a natural human which we all are first looks at humans then looks at monkey. Says we are not a monkey.

Science not existing practiced never made that statement.

Just a human did. We see first so conscious aware makes the statement.

Relativity of science hence introduced medical science. Anyone who wants to argue I need to prove their consciousness is missing. Not about any animal.

And so they did.

The reason heavy metals from man's technology blew across from the east when veda technology blew first.

By the time it came into Egyptian atmosphere burning their heavens the huge storms lightning strikes blew up their technology too.

Memory gone about the actual occurrence. Man tried to write conclusively of the event.

Overheat earths heavens man's technology like Japan proved overheats too. Nuclear blows.

Men said the God in the heavens hence changed biology...as it did.

But biology has to exist first to be changed.

And it's not science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it does have to do with evolution. I don't know what he meant by his reported last words, I can only guess. But if my guess is right, it does have to do with the theory of evolution. Anyway, have a good night.

How does the death of Richard Belzer have anything to do with the theory of evolution regardless of what he may have said at the end?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay so now you are contradicting your earlier claims.

Perhaps the problem is that you expect to see extreme change in a short pan of time. That simply does not happen. Creationists always need to be reminded that there is no "change of kind" in evolution. We can see that in our own evolution. We have a good fossil record of from "Lucy" to us. The various transitional species tend to have overlapping brain sizes etc..

And no, I gave you links more than once on various examples of slow change. You just denied them or ignored them The failure was all yours. You keep trying to use a strawman version of evolution. When on points out that your version of evolution is not the one that is proposed by biologists you lose the argument.

It is simply amazing how much "nothing" that you have. By your own standards you lost. You never support your clams with actual scientific sources. I do, until I tire of the hypocrisy of the person that I am debating against.

Projection seems to be a common paradigm utilized by some here.

I've lost interest in engaging some people that just repeat the same nonsense over and over despite being constantly corrected on it. It sure doesn't encourage discussion. It shuts it down.

I was going to take a drink every time there was a repeat of what Denis Noble says, but not enough time has passed for that much alcohol to exist in the universe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL "Peers" again

The reality as a conspiracy theory paradigm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As the world draws near to a close, it's too bad you don't believe in God. So long for now.

I don't think it is. I know some groups keep claiming it, but then nothing happens and they crawfish and claim that's not what they meant and then just make new claims.