The Big Bang and Evolution

[omega2xx]

I doubt this to the highest level of doubt possible. The fact that you project your own misunderstanding onto me?

Increases the level of doubt....

I was educated in the public school system of high school and college. They only teach evolution and the ALL teach it as proven. I did not accept evolution long before I became a Christian. After I became a Christian I started looking at the evidence offered to support evolution and found much of it is not supported by real science. For example there are no examples of mutations and natural selection being a mechanism for a change of species.

There is no way a rabbit can inherit stronger legs. Thee have the legs of it parents and that will not change. If natural selection was true, it might help the rabbit survive, but a new set of legs will NEV ER caused it to become anything other than a rabbit and it will never produce anything other than other rabbits. Natural selection is actually anti science.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you? What is your definition?

Why do you ask for definitions when every one has a dictionary they can refer to? Look the definition up yourself and I will accept its definition.

 

[Valjean]

I was educated in the public school system of high school and college. They only teach evolution and the ALL teach it as proven. I did not accept evolution long before I became a Christian. After I became a Christian I started looking at the evidence offered to support evolution and found much of it is not supported by real science.

You must have slept through class if you missed the supporting evidence. I'm also sure no science teacher taught that science "proved" anything.

Omega, you've made it abundantly clear that you're unable to process information, that it goes in one ear and out the other. Things get explained to you over and over in this thread; your misconceptions and errors are pointed out, and you keep repeating them.
I assume you were just as obtuse when you took that biology class.

For example there are no examples of mutations and natural selection being a mechanism for a change of species.

You must have slept through class if you missed the supporting evidence.[/quote]

There is no way a rabbit can inherit stronger legs. Thee have the legs of it parents and that will not change. If natural selection was true, it might help the rabbit survive, but a new set of legs will NEV ER caused it to become anything other than a rabbit and it will never produce anything other than other rabbits. Natural selection is actually anti science.

Didn't you ever observe a litter of puppies? Didn't they vary -- in color, body type, temperament, coat length? Why couldn't a rabbit kit also be born with stronger legs than its litter-mates?
I don't understand your inability to understand that small changes can accumulate into bigger changes.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why do you ask for definitions when every one has a dictionary they can refer to? Look the definition up yourself and I will accept its definition.

But you don't.

species

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Cambrian Explosion, and the sheer diversity of organisms! Both lend credence to separate creative actions!

There are lots of problems with that argument, though I will give you credit for at least knowing that it is.

The Cambrian explosion covers a geologic period of some 20 million years... And there are evidences of soft organisms predating that period, which is what should be expected before hard-bodied organisms (which lend themselves more often to fossilization) would have evolved. And whatsmore, there are no highly complex organisms found in the Cambrian layers, which is a fact that does not mesh well with the argument for creation as presented by modern monotheists.

But, ignoring all that, the Cambrian Explosion can be considered evidence for a great period of organismal expansion, but I'd like to see you make the connection between biological diversification on the one hand and an almighty creator deity on the other. There is a very large gap between point A and point B that you are not accounting for.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There hasn't been a new species since time began.

Prove it. What? You cannot actually do that?

Meanwhile science has proved that not only have new species occurred, they are happening even today.

One of the most obvious proofs? The Common Cold, and the annual Flu Vaccine.

If, as YOU CLAIM, new species do not happen? Then? All anyone would ever need, is the one (1) vaccine-- and never- ever again, would they experience another Common Cold.

Is this the case? Think carefully before you reply (and inadvertently lie again)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Since there are no intermediate fossils,

Lie. My links prove you are lying. Sorry, but that's the Facts, Jack.

ALL fossils-- no exceptions-- ALL are transitional.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Try this: Only if they use it correctly. l know how to define it, do you?

What is "it". Here? We see a Classic Case of Narcissism: in this poster assumes that the world truly does revolve around him/her, and everyone just "naturally" remembers what the fork he/she was talking about, before.

I cannot be bothered to go back and look; the poster has already established a strong track record for trollish behavior, and repeating the same lies over and over, in spite of strong refutation by several others herein.

So I find I simply do not care what "it" is in the above.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I was educated in the public school system of high school and college. They only teach evolution and the ALL teach it as proven.

That is because it is proven. The only thing about evolution that isn't proven beyond all doubt? Is some of the finer details of the mechanisms involved.

DNA proves evolution happened. Fossil record proves evolution happened. Cladistic similarities prove evolution happened. Hybrid Vigor, among closely related sub-species proves evolution happened.

And so on-- hundreds of thousands of people for over 100 years, have worked to DISPROVE evolution-- that is what actual science does-- yes, yes--- I know you are 100% unfamiliar with actual science. Not my problem; your ignorance is not proof, here.

But in all that scientific activity to disprove evolution? Has only served to prove it all the more.

For evolution to be false? Would require a level of Conspiracy, involving millions of people, over more than one hundred years-- and NOT ONE PERSON CHANGE HIS OR HER MIND TO REVEAL THE CONSPIRACY.

That simply does not happen--- humans are not that perfect.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't understand your inability to understand that small changes can accumulate into bigger changes.

Never underestimate the power of willful and deliberate ignorance

 

[ArtieE]

Unless you have a better explanation. However you are still missing the point---there ain't no intermediate fossils.

Suppose a god sat down and personally designed and created all organisms. Exactly which organisms did he design and create over a period of four billion years? Is there a list?

 

[ArtieE]

I know what a species is. It is evident that you don't. There hasn't been a new species since time began. Tell me what this new species was and included the evidence to support you guess. Even yourf guess abou a billion years agbos isd wrong. Everyone knows it was 1.00359 billion years ago.

For those interested in speciation: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

 

[ArtieE]

Since there are no intermediate fossils, the fossil record does not support evolution.

Transitional fossils in Wikipedia. Just go there and search for intermediate. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Another list: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Suppose a god sat down and personally designed and created all organisms. Exactly which organisms did he design and create over a period of four billion years? Is there a list?

Apparently, this "designer" was on a Very Limited Budget, and could only afford the One Architect. The original "design" was then force-fit into every single biological niche, with little or no regard to how well the "design" was in each case.

Look at the human eye--which contains the same flaws that all mammalian, reptilian and amphibian eyes have: It is back-to-front. That is, the light-sensing mechanism is behind the actual retina, such that light has to pass through intervening structure, including blood vessels, nerve fibers and such. This vastly reduces the efficiency of light-gathering abilities.

Which in turn, forces another kludge to compensate-- you see a couple of "solutions" to the poor efficiency, in biological specimens who principally operate at night.

The worst of the lot? Ignore vision entirely, and shift to an active sonic system-- what a waste of resources!

But other kludges include making eyeballs grossly over-sized that what would be needed... IF.

IF the retina was not backwards...

But Wait! Some complain, "it has to be that way for some reason we don't understand."

No. It does not... the lowly SQUID has a forward-constructed eye. These squishy beasts possess a vastly superior eye "design" than all terrestrial backbone organisms. Including humans.

Apparently the "designer" had a love affair with squid, and liked them better than *all* the animals living on land...

 

[omega2xx]

You must have slept through class if you missed the supporting evidence. I'm also sure no science teacher taught that science "proved" anything.

What a silly remark. If that is the best you can do, you might win a debate with a cave man with 2 digit IQ, but not with me. To say science does not prove this is about as ignorant of science as one can be. Not only has science prove there is more than one blood type3, they can prove what type you have. All progress in science is built on the backs of what has been PROVED before.

Omega, you've made it abundantly clear that you're unable to process information, that it goes in one ear and out the other. [/QUOTE]

YAWN. Agree with the evos or you just can understand. How ignorant and self serving. You haven't impressed me with a great intellect. In fact you have clearly shown you do not understand even basic science and think opinions are evidence. I have a college degree which proves I can process information. You are more of a parrot than one who understand real science.

Things get explained to you over and over in this thread; your misconceptions and errors are pointed out, and you keep repeating them.

Your explanation are wrong and you don't know enough basic science to know it.

I assume you were just as obtuse when you took that biology class.
You must have slept through class if you missed the supporting evidence.

Didn't you ever observe a litter of puppies? Didn't they vary -- in color, body type, temperament, coat length? Why couldn't a rabbit kit also be born with stronger legs than its litter-mates?
I don't understand your inability to understand that small changes can accumulate into bigger changes.[/QUOTE]

You are so ignorant of science that you don't even know there is no gene for stronger legs. Your ignorance of genetics is more exposed if you think stronger legs can be a mechanism for a change of species.

Want a cracker?

 

[omega2xx]

But you don't.

That is the response I would expect from third graders on the playground.

species

Very good/

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

Speciation does not change the species. It makes some of the species infertile, which can happen through excessive interbreeding.

 

[ratiocinator]

Speciation does not change the species.

So much for "Look the definition up yourself and I will accept its definition."

speciation

The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

It makes some of the species infertile, which can happen through excessive interbreeding.

No, it doesn't. It leads to two independent species, both of which are fertile.

 

[omega2xx]

Prove it. What? You cannot actually do that?

You said there were, prove what you said first.

Meanwhile science has proved that not only have new species occurred, they are happening even today.

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. How about a source for that brilliant remark.

One of the most obvious proofs? The Common Cold, and the annual Flu Vaccine.

They aren't new, they are variation of the old.

If, as YOU CLAIM, new species do not happen? Then? All anyone would ever need, is the one (1) vaccine-- and never- ever again, would they experience another Common Cold.

Virus population are not static. They breed like animals do. It is like breeding a bull dog and a collie. the kids are not either one, but they are still dogs.

Is this the case? Think carefully before you reply (and inadvertently lie again)

Take you own advice.

 

[omega2xx]

Lie. My links prove you are lying. Sorry, but that's the Facts, Jack.

ALL fossils-- no exceptions-- ALL are transitional.

How silly and uninnforme

Lie. My links prove you are lying. Sorry, but that's the Facts, Jack.

ALL fossils-- no exceptions-- ALL are transitional.

How uninformed you are,

Your whale "experts" classify the 5 in the middle as transitional.