Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[shmogie]

You can't or you don't know?

He has down a line that he has memorized, and his every effort is to steer the conversation that way. Tedious

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I don't have to support my claim. Interesting, you have stopped singing the praises of the terms and how important they are, to the opposite, ONLY after I explained to you what the reality is.

Are there Darwinist parrots ?

Yuri Filipchenko, the scientists who first coined the terms micro and macro evolution in 1927, lamented that he ever did so because of the confusion it caused in creationists...

A macro evolved species is just a species that has evolved from an earlier species through a series of micro evolved traits over long periods of time, ie thousands to millions of generations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO! Lucy was a hoax. You need to explain how you guys got the 3.2 million years

You would have to prove that bit of slander. But thanks for admitting that you have no clue as to what is and what is not scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence is simply evidence, usually of an empirical nature, that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Lucy supports the theory of evolution and therefore it is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. The sad thing is that creationists cannot find any scientific evidence that opposes the theory of evolution. And it is possible for such evidence to exist, if the theory is wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't choose to. Over the years in this forum I have listed a plethora of evidences, in many exchanges. I don't do it anymore. It is wasted effort. There is a verse about not casting pearls before swine. I have thrown many pearls many times. My arm is sore. The pigs will have to root around without my pearls

Apparently, people don't want what you are selling and calling pearls. Calling them swine doesn't help you much, either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What yes no question ? If you are talking about your cherished partial fossil, I have already answered it. I will again, NO !

Again, the implied condemnation "dishonest", applied to me and "almost all creationists". Knock this crap off or this is my last post in response to your nonsense.

I get tired of having to point out and having to respond with the sublte ad hominems.

Oh boy! That makes two admissions of not understanding the concept of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

The reason for that definition is because scientists are human and can be irrational at times too. There have been times that scientists have denied clear evidence. This definition helps to take human bias out of the argument.

Let's look at Lucy, it does not matter if she is "partial" or not. Does she fit the model predicted by the evolutionary paradigm? The answer is a clear yes. Therefore like it or not she is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't or you don't know?

Obviously I know. And obviously you two have been running away from that question. But thanks for finally answering it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, gaps. Well friend, gaps erode the theory everytime they occur. Some are MASSIVE gaps, that show you can;'t get there from here.

Hearsay evidence, you better get to your internet dictionary, you don't know what it is.

How so? Only creationists make the rather ignorant assumption that a fossil record should be complete. Since every new fossil found creates more "gaps" according to your logic you can't watch a movie, since that is only a series of pictures with an almost countless number of "gaps" in between them.

What you are ignoring as hard as possible is the pattern of fossils that are found. That pattern fits only into the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation that has not been refuted. Or perhaps I missed one. Go ahead and post any creationist explanations of the fossil record, I could use good laugh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Yes, there are of course "gaps" there will always be those". hardly an evidence at all, not even hearsay…

No, it is obvious to anyone that has studied geology at all. Continual deposition is not possible. Not only that, when it comes to land animals there are many environments that leave no fossil record to speak of. Gaps are to be expected. Finding something that is to be expected cannot refute a theory.

 

[Neb]

LOL, gaps. Well friend, gaps erode the theory everytime they occur. Some are MASSIVE gaps, that show you can;'t get there from here.


Hearsay evidence, you better get to your internet dictionary, you don't know what it is.

You need to follow the arrow up before commenting.

"Gaps" between the links is hardly an evidence at all...not even hearsay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to follow the arrow up before commenting.

"Gaps" between the links is hardly an evidence at all...not even hearsay.

Once again, I never claimed that gaps are evidence. I pointed out the fact that they do not harm the theory in any way at all. They are merely a straw that creationists grasp at. When one brings up "gaps" one is only demonstrating one's ignorance of geology.

 

[shmogie]

Yuri Filipchenko, the scientists who first coined the terms micro and macro evolution in 1927, lamented that he ever did so because of the confusion it caused in creationists...

A macro evolved species is just a species that has evolved from an earlier species through a series of micro evolved traits over long periods of time, ie thousands to millions of generations.

We aren't confused. It is very simple. A macro evolved species in a different family from another is an example of alleged macro evolution. We contend ( at least most of us ) That the links in the fossil record supporting alleged family to different family evolution is very tenuous. We accept evolutionary changes to environment below the family classification.,

Apparently, people don't want what you are selling and calling pearls. Calling them swine doesn't help you much, either.

Extending a parable is extending a parable. Many times people don't want what you are selling, but that doesn't stop you from putting it on the market. Most of what you say is of little help to you either. Here is another parable for you, do you recall the one about rocks and glass houses.............?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

We aren';t confused. It is very simple. A macro evolved species is just a species that has evolved from an earlier species through a series of micro evolved traits over long periods of time, ie thousands to millions of generations.

Extending a parable is extending a parable. Many times people don't want what you are selling, but that doesn't stop you from putting it on the market. Most of what you say is of little help to you either. Here is another parable for you, do you recall the one about rocks and glass houses.............?

I finished your comment above (in red) since you failed to finish it...

 

[Neb]

No, it is obvious to anyone that has studied geology at all. Continual deposition is not possible. Not only that, when it comes to land animals there are many environments that leave no fossil record to speak of. Gaps are to be expected. Finding something that is to be expected cannot refute a theory.

"The Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology is another Darwin's theory of the gap. It's like a theory needs another theory to justify a theory. It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories. IOW, your theory of evolution is flawed.

 

[shmogie]

I finished your comment above (in red) since you failed to finish it...

Thanks, but I finished it properly. Having MS makes typing and hitting the right keys on some days difficult and tiresome, this is one of those days

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology is another Darwin's theory of the gap. It's like a theory needs another theory to justify a theory. It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories. IOW, your theory of evolution is flawed.

No, it is just an observation. You don't seem to understand geology at all.

In fact creationists almost always get uniformitarianism wrong. It is simply a statement that the same physical laws that exist today existed in the past.

The "gap theory" is a creationist theory, not a scientific one.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

"The Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology is another Darwin's theory of the gap. It's like a theory needs another theory to justify a theory. It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories. IOW, your theory of evolution is flawed.

First of all, a fact is a point of data that is either not in dispute, or is indisputable

It is a fact that evolution happens, that biodiversity and complexity do increase, and that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance; both in the scientific literature, and in practical application.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur, and are inherited by the descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages back over myriad generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development as well as through chronologically correct placement in successive stages revealed in the geologic column.

It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby, or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.

It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly observed, and documented dozens of times both in the lab, and in naturally controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have ALL withstood critical analysis and peer review.

It is also a fact that the Theory of Evolution is THE ONLY explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support, or measurable validity, and that no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory...

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, a fact is a point of data that is either not in dispute, or is indisputable

It is a fact that evolution happens, that biodiversity and complexity do increase, and that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance; both in the scientific literature, and in practical application.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur, and are inherited by the descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages back over myriad generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development as well as through chronologically correct placement in successive stages revealed in the geologic column.

It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby, or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.

It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly observed, and documented dozens of times both in the lab, and in naturally controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have ALL withstood critical analysis and peer review.

It is also a fact that the Theory of Evolution is THE ONLY explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support, or measurable validity, and that no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory...

And just to reassure our Christian members here, the fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute Christianity. No one has claimed that. It only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis abut then the fact that Noah's Ark never happened does that too. For some reason almost all Christians do not have a problem with a spherical Earth even though the Bible never describes the Earth as a sphere and in both word and deed tells us that the Earth is flat. Those parts of the Bible are just not read literally.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

And just to reassure our Christian members here, the fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute Christianity. No one has claimed that. It only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis abut then the fact that Noah's Ark never happened does that too. For some reason almost all Christians do not have a problem with a spherical Earth even though the Bible never describes the Earth as a sphere and in both word and deed tells us that the Earth is flat. Those parts of the Bible are just not read literally.

A small quibble, life isn't the product of evolution, the diversity of life is the product of evolution. Life is the product of abiogenesis, another one of god's natural laws and processes... ;-)

 

[Subduction Zone]

A small quibble, life isn't the product of evolution, the diversity of life is the product of evolution. Life is the product of abiogenesis, another one of god's natural laws and processes... ;-)

Yep, my bad. Often I say "life as we see it". And I am willing to discuss abiogenesis once one understands evolution. If a person can't do that then there is no point in going back to how life first appeared.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Yep, my bad. Often I say "life as we see it". And I am willing to discuss abiogenesis once one understands evolution. If a person can't do that then there is no point in going back to how life first appeared.

Creationists hang on your every word, until they find something they can disagree with and then the rest of what you've said is completely ignored as they begin replying with their first objection...