The Big Bang and Evolution

[ChristineM]

Then why does whale evolution show a series of intermediates?

Talk is cheap; post some evidence. Let me assure you, you do not have the ability to cause me to be incensed.



Sweetie that cite does support creationism but the do it with proven science. Talk Origins does not provide any evidence fore what they say---prove me wrong.



That simply is not true. Someone can say something they BELIEIVE is true, but it is not. They are not lying, they are misinformed. Lying id deliberate.



You already have. You said all fossils are intermediate. I just showed you several intermediate fossils determined by evolutionists linking a land animal to whales. That is so absurd it is sad for anyone to accept it as evidence.

When you said all fossils are intermediates, you were not lying although your sttement is wrong.

That my dear is called transition, that series of changes you say doesn't exist yet you proudly use a photo of transitional stages to deny transitional stages... Interesting.

Honey you initiated the claim regarding science and religion, it falls to you to provide evidence to back your claim. While you are at it evidence that god's exist would also help your empty cause. As for my evidence, Google is your friend.

Please provide evidence that the site uses science to back it's claims, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Why now we have it, you provide evidence you claim is absurd. Again interesting. And yet you believe blindly in God magic with no evidence whatsoever.

I said transitional and I was correct, the evidence is manifest

 

[viole]

Real science proves/disproves theories. That an offspring can acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of the parents contradicts KNOWN genetics.

Well, are you aware of how many mutations any human being has? Mutations that, by necessity, are not inherited from her parents.

And by the way: according to your theory, we should have exactly the same genes that were in the body of Noah and family. Were there chinese people in Noah family? Or was maybe either Adam or Eve chinese? Or black? Or one with blue eyes and the other with one brown eye and a gree eye?

NOTHING in science contradicts the Bible. Where the Bible speaks of science, it is accurate.

Nothing by necessity. Because you guys define science as that discipline that does not contradict the Bible. When it does, you mark it arbitrarily as not science. And evolution is not the only one. You must exclude most of it.

Like that guy who thinks many people entered the highway the wrong way, because he finds himself on that highway and everybody else is driving towards him.

For instance: do you agree with the Bible that oxygen existed before the stars?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

That reply button is a bit of a pain for sure, only caught me out once but I'm sure it will happen again

I think i got this now. Now i have to just get caught up on the ongoing conversations and I'm watching sanmario with interest. He seems to have a preference for only replying to those he feels he can manipulate and i also sense a misogynistic streak as wide as the I-10 freeway. (8 lanes).
I don't worry about you, though. You'll cook his brain and he'll either drop off or get himself in trouble. I read all the rules twice and he's come close to breaking one already.
No proselytizing or attempting to convert other users.
Now i'm having trouble finding the list of rules under this site's Founder's message, which lists them a in detail.

 

[ChristineM]

I think i got this now. Now i have to just get caught up on the ongoing conversations and I'm watching sanmario with interest. He seems to have a preference for only replying to those he feels he can manipulate and i also sense a misogynistic streak as wide as the I-10 freeway. (8 lanes).
I don't worry about you, though. You'll cook his brain and he'll either drop off or get himself in trouble. I read all the rules twice and he's come close to breaking one already.
No proselytizing or attempting to convert other users.
Now i'm having trouble finding the list of rules under this site's Founder's message, which lists them a in detail.

My goodness, you have read 'all' the rules?

I spotted a nice Facebook meme this morning. There is a gang in my neighbourhood who goes around Shanghaiing members by threatening all sorts of nastiness. Anyway enough about church..;-)

Sanmaro seems to be a bit of an ineedaman with a little $$$bull combined. He's really quite pathetic and has no idea who's strings he's trying to pull.

Glad you are getting the hang. It is a wee bit confusing at first, but certainly interesting, I've had more fun her in a few days than on topix in a month. But of course I've been unable to post properly on topix for 3 weeks.. ;-)

 

[omega2xx]

OK... given that there has been life on the planet for about four billion years, that there is an estimated 8.7 billion species on the planet today and over 99% of all species are extinct and a god started designing and creating different species four billion years ago.

You can't prove any of that . In fact you can't even make a good guess.

How many different species did this god design and create and when? Remember, all the animals above must have been separately designed and created.

You are missing the point. You said all fossils are intermediate. All in whale evolution are separate and distinct with no links joining them. This will be true in any animal you want to show its evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

No, **your** problem is this: bacteria are not **species**.

Then why do evolutionists always use this example lto try and prove evolution?

Your comment is complaining that mammals remain ... mammals. You demonstrate here, that you seriously have no clue how biology classification works.

Not true. When ring species is the subject I ALWAYS say the salamanders remained salamanders, not mammals. Same with gulls. I don't need to know how biology classifications work. I know the salamanders remained salamanders. The classification is irrelevant.

Humans *have* observed evolution in bacteria, including evolution into new species.... of _bacteria_<<

No the haven't.

You need to study-up on what constitutes "species" before making such statements.

No I don't. I am not sure you understand what s species is. You haven't shown it so far.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That my dear is called transition, that series of changes you say doesn't exist yet you proudly use a photo of transitional stages to deny transitional stages... Interesting.

Honey you initiated the claim regarding science and religion, it falls to you to provide evidence to back your claim. While you are at it evidence that god's exist would also help your empty cause. As for my evidence, Google is your friend.

Please provide evidence that the site uses science to back it's claims, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Why now we have it, you provide evidence you claim is absurd. Again interesting. And yet you believe blindly in God magic with no evidence whatsoever.

I said transitional and I was correct, the evidence is manifest

Hola. Nice to see you here.

 

[omega2xx]

That my dear is called transition, that series of changes you say doesn't exist yet you proudly use a photo of transitional stages to deny transitional stages... Interesting.

Are you really suggesting that each different species made the evolution in one generation? Interesting.

Honey you initiated the claim regarding science and religion, it falls to you to provide evidence to back your claim. While you are at it evidence that god's exist would also help your empty cause. As for my evidence, Google is your friend.

I have not mentions religion. This is a discussion about science, not religion. Stick tdo the subject swettie

Please provide evidence that the site uses science to back it's claims, this is called putting your money where your mouth is.

Go to the site and ask for the evidence on any subject you want to.

Why now we have it, you provide evidence you claim is absurd. Again interesting. And yet you believe blindly in God magic with no evidence whatsoever.

And you reject it exactly the same way I accept it---By faith alone. However I reject evolution on the laws of genetics, why seem to be a mystery to you.

I said transitional and I was correct, the evidence is manifest

Only if the change happened in one generation. Otherwise all the examples were distinct and separate species.

It is amusing to have you evos try to explain how as nose evolved into a blowhole,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All this is becoming ever more apparent scientifically. Darwinism made sense 150 years ago, it wasn't a bad guess if you were trying to find a way to explain life by simple unguided spontaneous processes, very fashionable in that day

But if you remove that philosophical restriction, and simply follow the evidence where it leads, in the 21st C information age, as opposed to the 19th C Victorian age, it points fairly emphatically to life developing according to specific design information, not relying on the blind luck of merely random mutations.

The scientific community disagrees. Their interpretation of the evidence says that evolution did and still does occur.

I agree.

Notice that it doesn't matter that I agree. The scientists don't care what either of us thinks about their areas of expertise. We're not in the debate. These side debates we have in venues like this are irrelevant to the scientists.

But their opinions should not be irrelevant to us.

 

[omega2xx]

Well, are you aware of how many mutations any human being has? Mutations that, by necessity, are not inherited from her parents.

The number is irrelevant. Mutations change characteristics, not species.

And by the way: according to your theory, we should have exactly the same genes that were in the body of Noah and family. Were there chinese people in Noah family? Or was maybe either Adam or Eve chinese? Or black? Or one with blue eyes and the other with one brown eye and a gree eye?

I have not offered a theory, but I will give you one now. Adam and Eve had all of the genes necessary for every human characteristic we have today. For all we know Adam was black and Eve was white. For all we know one may have been Chinese. It is all irrelevant---Genes determine every human characteristic and mutations will not change the species. You can't give me one example of a mutation being the cause for a change of species. Keep in mind that time will not alter the laws of genetics.

Nothing by necessity. Because you guys define science as that discipline that does not contradict the Bible. When it does, you mark it arbitrarily as not science. And evolution is not the only one. You must exclude most of it.

Not true. I NEVER introdouce religion into a discussion of evolution. You just assume Christians do and some might, but not me.

For instance: do you agree with the Bible that oxygen existed before the stars?<<


The subject is evolution. Stick to that. If you want to talk about what the Bible teaches, start a thread on the subject.

 

[ratiocinator]

The number is irrelevant. Mutations change characteristics, not species.

And what are the differences between species that aren't characteristics?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When you can prove one thing in the TOE, get back to me.

Why all these requests for proof? You came to your present position through faith, not evidence or proof, and no evidence or proof could move you from it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not true. When ring species is the subject I ALWAYS say the salamanders remained salamanders, not mammals. Same with gulls. I don't need to know how biology classifications work. I know the salamanders remained salamanders. The classification is irrelevant.

Oh, this is hilarious! So, you know that evolution can't change species but you don't care how species is defined!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Prove me wrong, or admit you can't.

I doubt that anybody would disagree with you. It is impossible to prove anything to you without your cooperation. Your part is to bring an open and impartial mind capable of evaluating evidence and sound argument. That means reviewing the evidence dispassionately and with the ability and willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. Nobody can make you see or understand what you a vested interest in not seeing or understanding.

 

[ArtieE]

You are missing the point. You said all fossils are intermediate. All in whale evolution are separate and distinct with no links joining them. This will be true in any animal you want to show its evolution.

And that would mean that a god must have designed and created all animals separately?

 

[ChristineM]

Hola. Nice to see you here.

Hi, how are you?

It took a couple of weeks of disbelief before accepting topix had built a wall around America. In the meantime rf was bring stubborn in sending me an activation email, it came a couple of days ago.

But I'm here now and so are several others

 

[ChristineM]

Are you really suggesting that each different species made the evolution in one generation? Interesting.



I have not mentions religion. This is a discussion about science, not religion. Stick tdo the subject swettie



Go to the site and ask for the evidence on any subject you want to.



And you reject it exactly the same way I accept it---By faith alone. However I reject evolution on the laws of genetics, why seem to be a mystery to you.



Only if the change happened in one generation. Otherwise all the examples were distinct and separate species.

It is amusing to have you evos try to explain how as nose evolved into a blowhole,

No but it seems you are plagiarising as an integral method of your objection to reality

Honey, been here before, if you cite religiously motivated websites then you get tarred with the same brush

Id prefer to go to real science sites like cern and the perimeter institute. That way i know the data is peer reviewed and accepted as valid.

More plagiarism? Genetics upholds evolution on 2 independent level's

What? Yes of course they were separate species, that evolved over time.

You appear to be going round and round in circles and not progressing. Evolution is observed, repeatedly on several levels, the observations, the evidence, the facts of evolution confirm the theory.

Your understanding is not required, nor is it needed

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Then why do evolutionists always use this example lto try and prove evolution?

Because bacteria DO EVOLVE to different species of bacteria. Once again, you demonstrate utter cluelessness with regards to cladistic nomenclature.

"bacteria" is not the same as "species". It is quite sad to witness such willful ignorance.

Not true. When ring species is the subject I ALWAYS say the salamanders remained salamanders, not mammals. Same with gulls. I don't need to know how biology classifications work. I know the salamanders remained salamanders. The classification is irrelevant.

False. Salamanders are not a **species**... they are a large group classification. **not** **species**.

And false-- classification IS NOT ONLY RELEVANT-- IT IS THE ONLY THING!

If you are going to discuss **species**!!!!

The logical fallacy you are engaging in is multiple fail: 1) strawman 2) false dichotomy 3) moving the goalposts

But the worst offense of all? You are changing the meaning of the word "species" IN MID SENTENCE!

You do not GET to define "species" to suit your own delusions. That's not how Evolution Works.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My goodness, you have read 'all' the rules?

I spent a good hour trying to find them-- then it hit me, there is likely an "introduce yourself" section where they are not only outlined, but in detail (which is missing in the ABOUT section).

I did a quick scan-through, and found the rules are typical for a heavily moderated forum. Nothing new, here.

Politeness is enforced.

I did note an odd set of rules with regards to linked-references. Apparently it's frowned upon to post links to outside resources?

That whole section was very unclear to me-- but I could not be bothered to post a question.

I figured I'd play with the place some, and if someone has an issue with my methods? I'd either adapt or leave.

I'm not wedded to this web page all that much, apart from finding good friends I had lost when topix did it's meltdown.

Facebook is where I mostly hang these days, anyway.

But we shall see how this venue goes. So far? I give it a 7 out of 10.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I doubt that anybody would disagree with you. It is impossible to prove anything to you without your cooperation. Your part is to bring an open and impartial mind capable of evaluating evidence and sound argument. That means reviewing the evidence dispassionately and with the ability and willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. Nobody can make you see or understand what you a vested interest in not seeing or understanding.

Hi, Doc! Good to see you thrashing the god-robots in your wonderfully Twain-like style.