Snowflakes....designed or accidents of nature?

[FearGod]

Its not some super natural event, it fits the laws of physics and is natural by its very nature. It is nature. Now you could say God cause it, but that would be supernatural event and cause. Then you can pick whatever God you want to believe in caused it. Science can't use the supernatural because we can observe or test for it. Things we use to think had supernatural causes, later turned out to have natural explanations.

By the way, again if you want to support the ID movement are you going to become a Christian, that is there real agenda?

I support logic, and ID should be involved regardless of religion labels.

Reality is different than what fact is.
Do you agree with me that 1+1 = 2 ?

 

[JayJayDee]

Whales evolved, as of course did all life on earth and still is evolving.

Morphed: When Whales had Legs

Thank you for providing this very informative video shawn001. This is the only one that would play on my iPad (apart from the little short one on the turkey.)

I watched it twice actually because I couldn't believe what I was seeing the first time. I even made notes because of the significance of what was presented.

I viewed this video without the pre-conceived idea that what I was watching was fact. It's amazing what you see without the blinkers.

It begins with...."50 million years ago".....and takes us through the discovery of a small piece of skull bone found in a remote archeological dig in Pakistan.
The team leader, Philip Gingerich, couldn't figure out what animal this bone belonged to. So he gets the computer imagery going to perform a "reconstruction" and says this gives us an "idea" of what the animal "might have" looked like, based on what they know about other mammals. So right away it is "assumed" to be a mammal and the computer image makes it "come to life". The only trouble is, it is not substantiated by anything other than the evolutionist's imagination.

What Gingerich says next is classic....."I think it would have four legs...it would probably have short hair and may have hooves." He said he "expected it to be wolf-like" but that he "could not identify the order of animals that it belonged to." Science facts or science fiction?

How do scientists know what bones belong to which creatures when they find them? This video made me think they are rather clueless.

Then the clincher! He spots an ear bone peculiar to one creature and "this can only mean one thing"! This land animal is a primitive whale with legs! Of course it is! Pakicetus is a land dwelling whale. Who then, it is assumed, ran short of food on land because of climate change and had to "quickly "seek food in the water, because the said climate change had boosted photosynthesis and the oceans now became a rich source of food.

"The ancient whale takes its first tentative steps into the water".....(dramatic music in the background of course)

Gingerich then says..."I think they started out as scavengers"...running along the shoreline "feeding on dead fish that had washed up". I wonder how many dead fish it took to feed this one animal. Who is apparently alone and without a mate.
The "next logical step" he said was that this creature would then move on to live fish.
Is "I think" a statement of scientific fact?

But poor old Pakicetus faced predators in the water and his poor swimming ability meant that he got eaten and became extinct......but wait, there's a miracle lurking!

Pakicetus disappears from the fossil record only to return with modifications. How does one return with modifications if one has disappeared off the face of the earth? Now that is a miracle!

Computer imagery again fills in the gaps in our imagination. The trouble is, the gaps are filled in by the imagination of others. Not facts, but supposition...nothing more than educated guessing....and stretching it at that.

If only these scientists had real proof for what they spout off as facts. If they had no idea what species the bones belong to then perhaps they need more skill to interpret the "evidence" they find instead of filling in the gaps with guesswork and supposition. This just proves what I have been saying all along.

You guys are soooo sucked in by these supposed men of science who really prove that it is their guesswork that is submitted as the "proof" for what they say. There is no real evidence.....it is all interpretation fuelled by imagination.

Watch it again yourself without the blinkers and see what I see.

Morphed:

from dinosaur to turkey

Now this one really made me laugh!

 

[Bunyip]

Thank you for providing this very informative video shawn001. This is the only one that would play on my iPad (apart from the little short one on the turkey.)

I watched it twice actually because I couldn't believe what I was seeing the first time. I even made notes because of the significance of what was presented.

I viewed this video without the pre-conceived idea that what I was watching was fact. It's amazing what you see without the blinkers.

It begins with...."50 million years ago".....and takes us through the discovery of a small piece of skull bone found in a remote archeological dig in Pakistan.
The team leader, Philip Gingerich, couldn't figure out what animal this bone belonged to. So he gets the computer imagery going to perform a "reconstruction" and says this gives us an "idea" of what the animal "might have" looked like, based on what they know about other mammals. So right away it is "assumed" to be a mammal and the computer image makes it "come to life". The only trouble is, it is not substantiated by anything other than the evolutionist's imagination.

What Gingerich says next is classic....."I think it would have four legs...it would probably have short hair and may have hooves." He said he "expected it to be wolf-like" but that he "could not identify the order of animals that it belonged to." Science facts or science fiction?

How do scientists know what bones belong to which creatures when they find them? This video made me think they are rather clueless.

Then the clincher! He spots an ear bone peculiar to one creature and "this can only mean one thing"! This land animal is a primitive whale with legs! Of course it is! Pakicetus is a land dwelling whale. Who then, it is assumed, ran short of food on land because of climate change and had to "quickly "seek food in the water, because the said climate change had boosted photosynthesis and the oceans now became a rich source of food.

"The ancient whale takes its first tentative steps into the water".....(dramatic music in the background of course)

Gingerich then says..."I think they started out as scavengers"...running along the shoreline "feeding on dead fish that had washed up". I wonder how many dead fish it took to feed this one animal. Who is apparently alone and without a mate.
The "next logical step" he said was that this creature would then move on to live fish.
Is "I think" a statement of scientific fact?

But poor old Pakicetus faced predators in the water and his poor swimming ability meant that he got eaten and became extinct......but wait, there's a miracle lurking!

Pakicetus disappears from the fossil record only to return with modifications. How does one return with modifications if one has disappeared off the face of the earth? Now that is a miracle!

Computer imagery again fills in the gaps in our imagination. The trouble is, the gaps are filled in by the imagination of others. Not facts, but supposition...nothing more than educated guessing....and stretching it at that.

If only these scientists had real proof for what they spout off as facts. If they had no idea what species the bones belong to then perhaps they need more skill to interpret the "evidence" they find instead of filling in the gaps with guesswork and supposition. This just proves what I have been saying all along.

You guys are soooo sucked in by these supposed men of science who really prove that it is their guesswork that is submitted as the "proof" for what they say. There is no real evidence.....it is all interpretation fuelled by imagination.

Watch it again yourself without the blinkers and see what I see.




Now this one really made me laught!

That you don't understand something you refuse to educate yourself about is not much of an argument against it.

By the way - when you say that scientists do not have the evidence, but only their imagination there are only two possibilities;
1. That you are being deliberately false.
2. That you don't know what you are talking about.
There is no third possibility.

 

[FearGod]

That you don't understand something you refuse to educate yourself about is not much of an argument against it.

By the way - when you say that scientists do not have the evidence, but only their imagination there are only two possibilities;
1. That you are being deliberately false.
2. That you don't know what you are talking about.
There is no third possibility.

The third possibility is you being wrong.

 

[Bunyip]

The third possibility is you being wrong.

No. The entirety of the evolutionary sequences JayJayDee is challenging is based upon real physical evidence. Actual physical artifacts.

 

[FearGod]

No. The entirety of the evolutionary sequences JayJayDee is challenging is based upon real physical evidence. Actual physical artifacts.

The only fact is the small piece of bone and the rest is King Kong.

 

[Bunyip]

The only fact is the small piece of bone and the rest is King Kong.

Well no - that is the lie. There are millions of fossils, tens of millions. For humans alone more than 80 different species with thousands of specimens.

 

[FearGod]

Well no - that is the lie. There are millions of fossils, tens of millions. For humans alone more than 80 different species with thousands of specimens.

We're speaking about a specific thing and which is the fictional video.

 

[Bunyip]

We're speaking about a specific thing and which is the fictional video.

Evolution and the theory of evolution are drawn from a vast body of evidence, to dismiss it as imagination is to either lie, or to be ignorant of the facts.

 

[FearGod]

Evolution and the theory of evolution are drawn from a vast body of evidence, to dismiss it as imagination is to either lie, or to be ignorant of the facts.

Again, we were speaking about the fictional video and not about fossils and evolution, it was only one small piece of bone.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Again, we were speaking about the fictional video and not about fossils and evolution, it was only one small piece of bone.

In that particular video, yes. You are dealing with a video that shows one example about how this gentleman reached developed his first hypothesis. Based on that little piece of bone, which he would have been familiar with from spending the majority of his adult life studying it, he made some conclusions that you obviously think are nothing short of fantasy.

But now it's your turn.
Have there, or have there not, been more substantial fossils found which fully support his original hypothesis? (Careful here, because the validity of your "science is faith" argument, and really the entire foundation of your push back against science, hinges on your research skills.)

Based purely on the video, I can see how you might feel like you've achieved a "gotcha" moment, as they only show you what seems like little insignificant pieces of random bone. But do you really think that the entirety of known whale evolution is based on what you see in a simple "introductory" educational video? I think the fact that you guys are focusing so heavily on this perceived mistake is just proof of your general ignorance of the subject...

 

[JayJayDee]

In that particular video, yes. You are dealing with a video that shows one example about how this gentleman reached developed his first hypothesis. Based on that little piece of bone, which he would have been familiar with from spending the majority of his adult life studying it, he made some conclusions that you obviously think are nothing short of fantasy.

shawn, this is a classic example of what I have read in every article on the topic of organic evolution. Those desensitized to the language may not see what others do.....the inference...suggestion and supposition stated as fact.

But now it's your turn.
Have there, or have there not, been more substantial fossils found which fully support his original hypothesis? (Careful here, because the validity of your "science is faith" argument, and really the entire foundation of your push back against science, hinges on your research skills.)

I have no desire to paw through any more material on a subject that I find to be ridiculous.....any more than I would expect you to paw through scripture to find the truth that I see there.

But I will highlight what I mean by posting the contents of another link that you supplied.....

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving

Jessica Hullinger

1. WE DRINK MILK

Historically, the gene that regulated a human's ability to digest lactose shut down as they were weaned off of their mother's breast milk. But when we began domesticating cows, sheep and goats, being able to drink milk became a nutritionally advantageous quality, and people with the genetic mutation that allowed them to digest lactose were better able to propagate their genes.

A 2006 study suggests this tolerance for lactose was still developing as early as 3,000 years ago in East Africa. That genetic mutation for digesting milk is now carried by more than 95 percent of Northern European descendants.

My conclusion? One study "suggested" is not a statement of scientific fact. If humans adapted, then they adapted.
And with all the GMO's in the world (thanks once again to science) we had better find a way for our bodies to adapt again to these altered genes that we are putting into them.

2. WE'RE LOSING OUR WISDOM TEETH

Our ancestors had much bigger jaws than we do, which helped them chew a tough diet of roots, nuts and leaves. And what meat they ate they tore apart with their teeth, all of which led to worn down chompers that needed replacing. Enter the wisdom teeth: A third set of molars is believed to be the evolutionary answer to accomodate our ancestors' eating habits.

Today, we have utensils to cut our food. Our meals are softer and easier to chew, and our jaws are much smaller as a result, which is why wisdom teeth are often impacted when they come in — there just isn't room for them. Like the appendix, wisdom teeth have become vestigial organs. One estimate says 35 percent of the population is born without wisdom teeth, and some say they will disappear altogether.

My conclusion? Wisdom teeth are a pain for most people. Again, look at the language....."believed to be" is not a statement of scientific fact. "Estimates" aren't either.
If we adapt to do without them, then we adapt....

As for the function of the appendix.....

"The appendix is not a vital organ and medical researchers still debate its exact function in our bodies. One hypothesis suggests that it is a vestigial remnant of a once larger cecum. This larger cecum would have been used by vegetarian ancestors to digest cellulose from plants. Supporters of this hypothesis therefore conclude that the appendix no longer serves any purpose for us.

Another hypothesis suggests that the appendix acts as a storage area for beneficial bacteria during times of illness. Beneficial bacteria living in the appendix could survive being flushed out of the large intestine by diarrhea. The appendix would therefore help a person to recover more rapidly from illness by enabling the bacteria to re-colonize the intestines after the illness has passed."

Appendix - Anatomy Pictures and Information

The jury is out on this one.


3. WE'RE RESISTING DISEASES

In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy. "This seems to be an elegant example of evolution in action," says Dr. Ian Barnes from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway. "It flags up the importance of a very recent aspect of our evolution as a species, the development of cities as a selective force."

My conclusion? "Seems to be" is not a statement of scientific fact. And whilst humans maybe developing resistance to certain strains of bacteria, they are dropping like flies from cancer and heart disease because science is more interested in developing biological weapons for taking lives than they are in saving them. Genetically modified food crops and food legally classified as pesticide is scary. I am sure you are aware of what large wealthy corporation are doing with our food supplies.

4. OUR BRAINS ARE SHRINKING

While we may like to believe our big brains make us smarter than the rest of the animal world, our brains have actually been shrinking over the last 30,000 years. The average volume of the human brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cubic centimeters, which is equivalent to a chunk the size of a tennis ball.

There are several different conclusions as to why this is: One group of researchers suspects our shrinking brains mean we are in fact getting dumber. Historically, brain size decreased as societies became larger and more complex, suggesting that the safety net of modern society negated the correlation between intelligence and survival. But another, more encouraging theory says our brains are shrinking not because we're getting dumber, but because smaller brains are more efficient. This theory suggests that, as they shrink, our brains are being rewired to work faster but take up less room. There's also a theory that smaller brains are an evolutionary advantage because they make us less aggressive beings, allowing us to work together to solve problems, rather than tear each other to shreds.

My conclusion? Pick a theory. Again no facts.


5. WE HAVE BLUE EYES

Originally, we all had brown eyes. But about 10,000 years ago, someone who lived near the Black Sea developed a genetic mutation that turned brown eyes blue. While the reason blue eyes have persisted remains a bit of a mystery, one theory is that they act as a sort of paternity test. “There is strong evolutionary pressure for a man not to invest his paternal resources in another man’s child,” says the lead author of a study on the development of our baby blues. Because it is virtually impossible for two blue-eyed mates to create a brown-eyed baby, our blue-eyed male ancestors may have sought out blue-eyed mates as a way of ensuring fidelity. This would partially explain why, in a recent study, blue-eyed men rated blue-eyed women as more attractive compared to brown-eyed women, whereas females and brown-eyed men expressed no preference.

My conclusion? One theory...one study...does not = scientific fact....pick a study.

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss

Based purely on the video, I can see how you might feel like you've achieved a "gotcha" moment, as they only show you what seems like little insignificant pieces of random bone. But do you really think that the entirety of known whale evolution is based on what you see in a simple "introductory" educational video? I think the fact that you guys are focusing so heavily on this perceived mistake is just proof of your general ignorance of the subject...

You really need to see how much of what you accept as "fact" is only suggestion......you do know about the power of suggestion, don't you? Add peer pressure to that well known quirk of human nature and voila! You have theory masquerading as science and blindly accepted because everyone else does. Who are the sheep?

Look at the wording and you will find it in all the works that try to persuade others to accept that there is no Creator.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Have you ever written a dissertation, thesis, research paper, five paragraph essay, or short story before?

http://www.losmedanos.edu/core/documents/OneHundredWaystosaySaid.pdf

Ways to Say Said Vocabulary Word Bank - EnchantedLearning.com

Another Way to Say “Said”

 

[Monk Of Reason]

shawn, this is a classic example of what I have read in every article on the topic of organic evolution. Those desensitized to the language may not see what others do.....the inference...suggestion and supposition stated as fact.



I have no desire to paw through any more material on a subject that I find to be ridiculous.....any more than I would expect you to paw through scripture to find the truth that I see there.

But I will highlight what I mean by posting the contents of another link that you supplied.....

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving

Jessica Hullinger

1. WE DRINK MILK

Historically, the gene that regulated a human's ability to digest lactose shut down as they were weaned off of their mother's breast milk. But when we began domesticating cows, sheep and goats, being able to drink milk became a nutritionally advantageous quality, and people with the genetic mutation that allowed them to digest lactose were better able to propagate their genes.

A 2006 study suggests this tolerance for lactose was still developing as early as 3,000 years ago in East Africa. That genetic mutation for digesting milk is now carried by more than 95 percent of Northern European descendants.

My conclusion? One study "suggested" is not a statement of scientific fact. If humans adapted, then they adapted.
And with all the GMO's in the world (thanks once again to science) we had better find a way for our bodies to adapt again to these altered genes that we are putting into them.

This is significant actually. There have been several studies but this linked to one. We obviously have the ability to digest milk and certain populations around the world have even lost that ability over time. We know that we did not have it 50 thousand years ago based upon the fact that we know we hadn't domesticated cattle at that time.

However on GMO's there is currently zero scientific evidence that they are harmful. Genetically modified foods aren't what people seem to think. For example can you tell me in your own words without googling it what GMO is?

2. WE'RE LOSING OUR WISDOM TEETH

Our ancestors had much bigger jaws than we do, which helped them chew a tough diet of roots, nuts and leaves. And what meat they ate they tore apart with their teeth, all of which led to worn down chompers that needed replacing. Enter the wisdom teeth: A third set of molars is believed to be the evolutionary answer to accomodate our ancestors' eating habits.

Today, we have utensils to cut our food. Our meals are softer and easier to chew, and our jaws are much smaller as a result, which is why wisdom teeth are often impacted when they come in — there just isn't room for them. Like the appendix, wisdom teeth have become vestigial organs. One estimate says 35 percent of the population is born without wisdom teeth, and some say they will disappear altogether.

My conclusion? Wisdom teeth are a pain for most people. Again, look at the language....."believed to be" is not a statement of scientific fact. "Estimates" aren't either.
If we adapt to do without them, then we adapt....

And adaptation is evolution. Believed to be was just conservative wordplay. It is fact that our jaws were larger and that our current jaws are not as large today. The hypothesis being that our changed diet drove the change

As for the function of the appendix.....

"The appendix is not a vital organ and medical researchers still debate its exact function in our bodies. One hypothesis suggests that it is a vestigial remnant of a once larger cecum. This larger cecum would have been used by vegetarian ancestors to digest cellulose from plants. Supporters of this hypothesis therefore conclude that the appendix no longer serves any purpose for us.

Another hypothesis suggests that the appendix acts as a storage area for beneficial bacteria during times of illness. Beneficial bacteria living in the appendix could survive being flushed out of the large intestine by diarrhea. The appendix would therefore help a person to recover more rapidly from illness by enabling the bacteria to re-colonize the intestines after the illness has passed."

Appendix - Anatomy Pictures and Information

The jury is out on this one.

Somewhat yes. But the apendix is shrinking that we know for sure and its function (if any at all) is non-vital.

3. WE'RE RESISTING DISEASES

In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy. "This seems to be an elegant example of evolution in action," says Dr. Ian Barnes from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway. "It flags up the importance of a very recent aspect of our evolution as a species, the development of cities as a selective force."

My conclusion? "Seems to be" is not a statement of scientific fact. And whilst humans maybe developing resistance to certain strains of bacteria, they are dropping like flies from cancer and heart disease because science is more interested in developing biological weapons for taking lives than they are in saving them. Genetically modified food crops and food legally classified as pesticide is scary. I am sure you are aware of what large wealthy corporation are doing with our food supplies.

Seems to be again is conservative word play. We do have different genetic dispositions to resist different kinds of diseases. This is actually the most conclusive evidence that humans are still evolving. If you want proof then think about this for a bit. The humans that crossed the land bridge into the Americas at the earliest 13,500 years ago. Now far before that when humans first split into two groups in the Eurasian plains, one going into Europe and the other spanning across Asia, they began to evolve differently. Yes the physical features are the most obvious but the most drastic was their ability to resist diseases. The settlers that made first contact with the natives thousands and thousand of years later had such vastly different immune systems that the diseases that they carried over in their bodies wiped out entire civilizations. Disease killed more Natives than gun or sword.

4. OUR BRAINS ARE SHRINKING

While we may like to believe our big brains make us smarter than the rest of the animal world, our brains have actually been shrinking over the last 30,000 years. The average volume of the human brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cubic centimeters, which is equivalent to a chunk the size of a tennis ball.

There are several different conclusions as to why this is: One group of researchers suspects our shrinking brains mean we are in fact getting dumber. Historically, brain size decreased as societies became larger and more complex, suggesting that the safety net of modern society negated the correlation between intelligence and survival. But another, more encouraging theory says our brains are shrinking not because we're getting dumber, but because smaller brains are more efficient. This theory suggests that, as they shrink, our brains are being rewired to work faster but take up less room. There's also a theory that smaller brains are an evolutionary advantage because they make us less aggressive beings, allowing us to work together to solve problems, rather than tear each other to shreds.

My conclusion? Pick a theory. Again no facts.

Again they provided facts. The theory as to "why" is not fully substantiated but the fact that our brains have shrunk and may still be shrinking is fact.

5. WE HAVE BLUE EYES

Originally, we all had brown eyes. But about 10,000 years ago, someone who lived near the Black Sea developed a genetic mutation that turned brown eyes blue. While the reason blue eyes have persisted remains a bit of a mystery, one theory is that they act as a sort of paternity test. “There is strong evolutionary pressure for a man not to invest his paternal resources in another man’s child,” says the lead author of a study on the development of our baby blues. Because it is virtually impossible for two blue-eyed mates to create a brown-eyed baby, our blue-eyed male ancestors may have sought out blue-eyed mates as a way of ensuring fidelity. This would partially explain why, in a recent study, blue-eyed men rated blue-eyed women as more attractive compared to brown-eyed women, whereas females and brown-eyed men expressed no preference.

My conclusion? One theory...one study...does not = scientific fact....pick a study.

What part of this isn't considered fact. We know definitively that we have blue eyes and that they exist. We know what causes it is genetic and have isolated that gene. We know where it happened because of genetic tracing. There are several theories as to why it has persisted as a trait but we know it evolved and more or less where and when.

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving | Mental Floss



You really need to see how much of what you accept as "fact" is only suggestion......you do know about the power of suggestion, don't you? Add peer pressure to that well known quirk of human nature and voila! You have theory masquerading as science and blindly accepted because everyone else does. Who are the sheep?

Look at the wording and you will find it in all the works that try to persuade others to accept that there is no Creator.

Ironically the concept of religion is the oddity where people are forced to take up beliefs not based on evidence and shuns questioning and doubt. Everything that is believed to be scientific fact has been backed up and can be independently verified by whomever wishes. The only exception to this is the more high dollar tests but we can look at the evidence collected ourselves if we are unable to preform the experiments.

Its like saying why trust a map? A map might lie to you and why you would blindly believe it to be true is such foolishness. But we know that map is used all the time and if the map was wrong then people would know and correct it. Similarly with science. We can explain everything that we "know" and more than that we can explain "why" we know it.

 

[outhouse]

AIP facts of evolution.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Nothing you say, can refute a single word, nor any source you choose will change one of these FACTS.

 

[JayJayDee]

No. The entirety of the evolutionary sequences JayJayDee is challenging is based upon real physical evidence. Actual physical artifacts.

It's not the evidence that is at issue Bunyip....it is the interpretation of the evidence as is clearly demonstrated in both the video and the link that I addressed. The language is very misleading as we can all see.

 

[outhouse]

The language is very misleading as we can all see.

Your misleading.

Not the language.

....it is the interpretation of the evidence

Yet interpretations by the ignorant are for the most part worthless when combined with bias.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not the evidence that is at issue Bunyip....it is the interpretation of the evidence as is clearly demonstrated in both the video and the link that I addressed. The language is very misleading as we can all see.

The only misleading thing is you. You first deny that the evidence exists, then pretend that it is the interpretation you are challenging - not the vast body of evidence you keep pretending doesn't exist. Macro evolution is a proven fact, you denying the truth.

 

[idav]

It's not the evidence that is at issue Bunyip....it is the interpretation of the evidence as is clearly demonstrated in both the video and the link that I addressed. The language is very misleading as we can all see.

Yes and the trouble is anti-evolution doesn't provide an alternative. Any interpretation supports evolution one way or another.

 

[shawn001]

I support logic, and ID should be involved regardless of religion labels.

Reality is different than what fact is.
Do you agree with me that 1+1 = 2 ?

Then you would logically know ID is JUST a Christian movement.

"Reality is different than what fact is"

Say what?