Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

The suppositions and/or speculations do require some type of verification. Fossils do not verify the theory. They do not provide the necessary essential information to verify (ok forget the word prove) the speculation.

When you say foolish things like this you disqualify yourself from debate. Fossils do confirm the theory. I can explain to you why and how they do. But since you made your claim first please justify your claim that they do not confirm the theory. If you cannot do so or refuse to do so you only confirm that you are once again breaking the Ninth Commandment.

 

[cladking]

Fossils do confirm the theory.

OH!

Which fossil or group of fossils shows species change because of survival of the fittest?

Which fossil or group of fossils shows species change gradually?

For people with all the answers some sure don't seem to have any answers at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OH!

Which fossil or group of fossils shows species change because of survival of the fittest?

Which fossil or group of fossils shows species change gradually?

For people with all the answers some sure don't seem to have any answers at all.

LOL! Try again. "Survival of the fittest" is not a proper term . If you can ask a question properly I will answer it. But when you screw the pooch in your question you lose the right to expect an answer.

 

[cladking]

LOL! Try again. "Survival of the fittest" is not a proper term . If you can ask a question properly I will answer it. But when you screw the pooch in your question you lose the right to expect an answer.

First time a believer ever answered a question. Sortta.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First time a believer ever answered a question. Sortta.

What are you talking about? You and @YoursTrue appear to be the only "believers" here right now. You were rude, you demanded an answer. That does not work.

Try again, Why is it so hard for some people to be honest? You have been corrected on the phrase countless times over.

 

[cladking]

Asking questions of a believer in science they can't answer is very rude.

 

[blü 2]

Asking questions of a believer they can't answer is very rude.

Why?

Especially when a statement by that believer has previously implied knowledge, such as an opinion about the modern theory of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We can use words to communicate effectively.

The capacity for language evolved in man, and it seems that the ideas corresponding to the parts of speech are innate - things (nouns) with features (adjectives) in relationships with one another (prepositions) act (verbs), and these parts of speech appear nearly universal, but the particular languages with their lexicons and grammars were invented.

I wrote, "An argument wouldn't be compelling to the scientific and educated lay community for a century-and-a-half if it were wrong." If it were wrong, it would be falsified.

What beliefs are those?

How does this relate? Nobody argued that hand washing was harmful. It just wasn't known to be helpful and it hadn't been tested because there had been no reason to suspect that there were living things on those hands that could kill.

They work for me and others. So does science. So does language.

What does that mean? Exactly alike? No, they won't. But they'll still be thinking in nouns and verbs, they'll still be doing math, and they'll still believe that life evolved on earth.

The contradictory claim that words have both an infinite number of meanings and that words have a single fixed meaning doesn't make any sense to me. This example is one of many contradictions that are often presented in the same post or group of posts. How would you reconcile or address that sort of thinking? It seems like the same sort of "all over the place" claims of creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL! Try again. "Survival of the fittest" is not a proper term . If you can ask a question properly I will answer it. But when you screw the pooch in your question you lose the right to expect an answer.

This isn't a recent line with creationists, but every time I see it offered it is as if it were never before uttered and hadn't been previously addressed hundreds of times. Each creationist makes the claims they do as if they were the first person to come up with the idea when they are tired old chestnuts.

You could probably just search this forum and find answers to the questions about fossils and an even greater number of creationists fielding the same questions about them over and over again. Brand new every time of course.

I wish there were creationist views with a little more dimension being posted instead of the same stale, old rinse and repeat talking points.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about? You and @YoursTrue appear to be the only "believers" here right now. You were rude, you demanded an answer. That does not work.

Try again, Why is it so hard for some people to be honest? You have been corrected on the phrase countless times over.

You're kidding, right? you say @cladking was rude to demand an answer? Huh? Like you and others don't? hmm? help me out here.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe "creationists" may have different definitions of what "creationism" means. Or maybe you do. Who knows?

 

[cladking]

You're kidding, right? you say @cladking was rude to demand an answer? Huh? Like you and others don't? hmm? help me out here.

I never expect any answer from any believer is science so I am never disappointed. "Demanded an answer", yeah, right. They will never answer this question or show a single experiment because they have nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Asking questions of a believer in science they can't answer is very rude.

Are you trying to play stupid? You have to know what was wrong with your question. If you were being "honest" you only showed that you do not even know enough about evolution to ask rational questions about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why?

Especially when a statement by that believer has previously implied knowledge, such as an opinion about the modern theory of evolution.

I enjoy the irony of being called a believer by someone that only has a belief system that they have evered offer here. A bizarre belief system, but belief is all it appears to be. It doesn't break Weitzenhoffer's rule.

 

[cladking]

I believe "creationists" may have different definitions of what "creationism" means.

It's not creationism when everything springs magically from a point and life evolves with no consciousness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never expect any answer from any believer is science so I am never disappointed. "Demanded an answer", yeah, right. They will never answer this question or show a single experiment because they have nothing.

Now you are projecting again. Just because you do not have any evidence for your rather crazy beliefs does not mean that others lack evidenc.e

Come on, at least try to be honest. It really does not hurt that much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never expect any answer from any believer is science so I am never disappointed. "Demanded an answer", yeah, right. They will never answer this question or show a single experiment because they have nothing.

Now you are projecting again. Just because you do not have any evidence for your rather crazy beliefs does not mean that others lack evidenc.e

Come on, at least try to be honest. It really does not hurt that much.

It's not creationism when everything springs magically from a point and life evolves with no consciousness.

You mean that it is even worse??

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you trying to play stupid? You have to know what was wrong with your question. If you were being "honest" you only showed that you do not even know enough about evolution to ask rational questions about it.

Well, he is here. Let him explain how fossils don't support the theory of evolution. That isn't a challenge for a scholar to show us where science is wrong in detail with examples, evidence and experiments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're kidding, right? you say @cladking was rude to demand an answer? Huh? Like you and others don't? hmm? help me out here.

That is not what I said at all. You should know better.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you are projecting again. Just because you do not have any evidence for your rather crazy beliefs does not mean that others lack evidenc.e

Come on, at least try to be honest. It really does not hurt that much.

You mean that it is even worse??

Don't be so quick to dismiss these empty claims. Perhaps we can expect to see a sound definition and description of consciousness and how it is required for life. I can't wait to see the experiments that show this. Of course, it will be claimed that "all experiments" show this, but I would appreciate a focus on the experiments that deal directly in defining consciousness, showing that it is present in all living things, is required for evolution to take place, etc.

I'm sure it will be fascinating and enlightening.