What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Amill coming up with ways to test one's hypothesis by speaking to what would disprove it, is the scientific way. Evos may not like it but it's the way it is.

That's right. And that's what "evolutionists," the pioneer scientists who demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that ToE is correct did--over 50 years ago. They made prediction after prediction after prediction, literally thousands of them, based on ToE, and they turned out to be correct. Every one. ToE is consistent with all of the data, and explains a huge class of phenomena. That's why it was accepted as the basis of modern biology.

Nothing you posted yet has been inconsistent with ToE. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

And no amount of your smoke will change that fact.

You keep pointing out that evolutionary theory changes, and new and different data is discovered. Yup, that's true, obvious, and means one thing. Evolution is science. It does not in any way change the fact that ToE is extremely well-supported and well-established.

 

[Autodidact]

In fact the evidence these days strongly supports a biblical creative event. .

Yup, and all those biologists, geologists, astronomers, cosmologists, archeologists, anthropologists, physicists, linguists and paleontologists are just too stupid to see it! I wonder what's wrong with them?

 

[wilsoncole]

Yup, and all those biologists, geologists, astronomers, cosmologists, archeologists, anthropologists, physicists, linguists and paleontologists are just too stupid to see it! I wonder what's wrong with them?

They are not stupid - just thoroughly DECEIVED!
"We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." (1 John 5:19)
You might find this amusing, but you cannot deny the fact that, despite all that knowledge, men of science do what they do for the money, keeping their discoveries secret until they get their price, are unable to live in peace and seem to be bent on destroying all life on earth, including their own. What would you call that - stupidity or deception? Or both?
ToE is based, unequivocally, on conjecture.
You admit the uncertain nature of science, yet you are quite certain that the scientific "explanation" for life's diversities are correct.

You have no way of explaining how it all got started - how life began - just "poofed" into existence.

What I find amusing is the attempt by evolutionists, to avoid having to explain, not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. You claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, that they are different branches of science. Not true! If you will insist, then please tell me what "branch" of science accomodates abiogenesis.

Nothing alive can possibly evolve unless it first comes to life.
Abiogensis is not a different type of science for the simple reason that it all has to do with biology - both evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You have no way of explaining how it all got started - how life began - just "poofed" into existence.

Please do not confuse the magical "poofing" of Creationism with the biochemical process of abiogenesis.

 

[fantome profane]

They are not stupid - just thoroughly DECEIVED!
"We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." (1 John 5:19)
You might find this amusing, but you cannot deny the fact that, despite all that knowledge, men of science do what they do for the money, keeping their discoveries secret until they get their price, are unable to live in peace and seem to be bent on destroying all life on earth, including their own. What would you call that - stupidity or deception? Or both?
ToE is based, unequivocally, on conjecture.
You admit the uncertain nature of science, yet you are quite certain that the scientific "explanation" for life's diversities are correct.

You have no way of explaining how it all got started - how life began - just "poofed" into existence.

What I find amusing is the attempt by evolutionists, to avoid having to explain, not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. You claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, that they are different branches of science. Not true! If you will insist, then please tell me what "branch" of science accomodates abiogenesis.

Nothing alive can possibly evolve unless it first comes to life.
Abiogensis is not a different type of science for the simple reason that it all has to do with biology - both evolution and abiogenesis.

I don’t understand why abiogenesis is even an issue. It seems to me that this is one point on which evolutionists and creationists are in agreement, but if this is not the case please show me where the disagreement is. Which of the following three statements do you not agree with? If you agree with all three statements then abiogenesis is not an issue.

1. There was a time on this earth when there was no life

2. There is life on this earth now

3. Therefore there must have been a point in time when life began on this earth.

Where is the disagreement on any of this?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don’t understand why abiogenesis is even an issue. It seems to me that this is one point on which evolutionists and creationists are in agreement, but if this is not the case please show me where the disagreement is. Which of the following three statements do you not agree with? If you agree with all three statements then abiogenesis is not an issue.

1. There was a time on this earth when there was no life

2. There is life on this earth now

3. Therefore there must have been a point in time when life began on this earth.

Where is the disagreement on any of this?

Indeed!
The objective and empirical evidence for biological evolution does not rely on WHERE life originated, be it God, abiogenesis, or any other means.
Creationists seem to think that biological evolution is an attempt to disprove God, it is not. It is an observation of how life today originated from a common ancestor(s).

 

[RedOne77]

They are not stupid - just thoroughly DECEIVED!

I guess all those years spent studying and being out in the field doing experiments have thoroughly deceived them into rejecting reality. Thank God there's true believers that know the truth and aren't persuaded by things like, evidence of all things.

You might find this amusing, but you cannot deny the fact that, despite all that knowledge, men of science do what they do for the money, keeping their discoveries secret until they get their price,

Yes, because all scientists live in big fancy houses and have lots and lots of money. I've always wondered why my dad turned down a professorship in the college of science to get a government job that just so happened to pay more.

unable to live in peace and seem to be bent on destroying all life on earth, including their own. What would you call that - stupidity or deception? Or both?

Yeah, all those scientists making advancements in medicine and quality of life, they must be possessed by some sort of demon wanting the destruction of the human race.

You have no way of explaining how it all got started - how life began - just "poofed" into existence.

I agree. Creationists have a much better explanation, God did magic to make life "poof" into existence.

What I find amusing is the attempt by evolutionists, to avoid having to explain, not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. You claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, that they are different branches of science. Not true! If you will insist, then please tell me what "branch" of science accomodates abiogenesis.

Preach it like it is! While you're at it evilutionists, what branch is of science is geology in? It certainly cannot be its own branch.

Nothing alive can possibly evolve unless it first comes to life.
Abiogensis is not a different type of science for the simple reason that it all has to do with biology - both evolution and abiogenesis.

Yeah, just like chemistry and physics are the exact same area of science. Keep it real, man, keep it real.
Peace.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh yeah, I'm totally in science to make a whopping lower middle-class lifestyle! :jiggy:
$30,000 a year (if I'm lucky) here I come! :woohoo:

Oh yeah....rollin' in the cash!

I had no idea I was so motivated by greed.... rather than love of learning and the zen-like joy of counting/classifying snails for hours on end.

wa:do

 

[Amill]

You might find this amusing, but you cannot deny the fact that, despite all that knowledge, men of science do what they do for the money, keeping their discoveries secret until they get their price, are unable to live in peace and seem to be bent on destroying all life on earth, including their own. What would you call that - stupidity or deception? Or both?

oh please. We all know that there are scientists out there who are dishonest but I hope you're not trying to say that all men of scientists are? I could make a similar claim by saying that all men who preach the word of god are doing it for the money.

There are even scientists who believe in evolution who are even ministers(Robert Bakker). He must really be out to destroy all life on earth(but not before raking in the cash).

Your "facts" are a joke.

 

[Autodidact]

They are not stupid - just thoroughly DECEIVED!

Because science doesn't work?

"We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one." (1 John 5:19)
You might find this amusing, but you cannot deny the fact that, despite all that knowledge, men of science do what they do for the money,

I certainly can, and do. If they wanted money, they'd go into business, not science.

keeping their discoveries secret until they get their price,

Do you know anything about science? Anything at all? Scientists are eager to publish their work, and compete avidly for the opportunity to do so.

are unable to live in peace

Yeah, those gangs of armed scientists roaming the streets of American cities are a real menace.

and seem to be bent on destroying all life on earth,

Are you perhaps confusing scientists with politicians?

including their own.

What do you think has done more to feed and cure more people, science, or religion?

What would you call that - stupidity or deception?

I call it completely, utterly, totally false.

Or both?
ToE is based, unequivocally, on conjecture.

I'm going to place a bet right now that you don't know what ToE says, or what evidence it's based on. Will you accept my bet?

You admit the uncertain nature of science, yet you are quite certain that the scientific "explanation" for life's diversities are correct.

As correct as anything science ever finds out ever is.

So you don't think science is a good way to learn about the natural world? It doesn't work, in your view?

You have no way of explaining how it all got started - how life began - just "poofed" into existence.

Start a thread.

What I find amusing is the attempt by evolutionists, to avoid having to explain, not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. You claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, that they are different branches of science.

Not different branches, different subjects in the same branch. One problem has been solved, the other one is still being worked on. Just because we don't know all of the species of smile molds in the world, doesn't mean we can't tell a tiger from an elephant. They're all biology, but different parts of Biology.

Not true! If you will insist, then please tell me what "branch" of science accomodates abiogenesis.

Biology, obviously.

Nothing alive can possibly evolve unless it first comes to life.

Individuals don't evolve; species do.

Abiogensis is not a different type of science for the simple reason that it all has to do with biology - both evolution and abiogenesis.

That's right, both are Biology.

 

[newhope101]

I don’t understand why abiogenesis is even an issue. It seems to me that this is one point on which evolutionists and creationists are in agreement, but if this is not the case please show me where the disagreement is. Which of the following three statements do you not agree with? If you agree with all three statements then abiogenesis is not an issue.

1. There was a time on this earth when there was no life

2. There is life on this earth now

3. Therefore there must have been a point in time when life began on this earth.

Where is the disagreement on any of this?

Actually your avatar is a great example of outdated thinking from around 10 years ago. The first guy, the chimp knuckle walker is out.

 

[newhope101]

That's right. And that's what "evolutionists," the pioneer scientists who demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that ToE is correct did--over 50 years ago. They made prediction after prediction after prediction, literally thousands of them, based on ToE, and they turned out to be correct. Every one. ToE is consistent with all of the data, and explains a huge class of phenomena. That's why it was accepted as the basis of modern biology.
What nonsense, A child can also prove there is a Santa Clause in that case. They predict if there is a Santa the milk will be gone, a present will be left, and their friends all get visits from Santa also, Mum and dad tell them it's true and they believe them because they should know. That sounds very similar to your ToE predictions. Only true to the immature mind that does not have access to all the information.


Nothing you posted yet has been inconsistent with ToE. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
Absolutely got that right...Every change (knucklewlaking ancestry & LUCA) illustrates previous evidence was not evidence at all. These are not just tweaks to current thinking. These are remarkable changes. There is no way to ever find anything that does not disprove Toe. We have already been all over the "pre cambrian Rabbit" scenario (see wiki). If you found a homo sapien dated to the pre cambrian period that still would not disprove your Toe, nor prove creation. More hypthosesis and models would ensue to explain it away.


Todays evidence is tomorrows folley.


And no amount of your smoke will change that fact.
The only assumption that has been consistent within your ToE theory for more than a couple of years is that we evolved from something, that evolved from something else. From whom (chimp), how (solely adaptive change), when (dates continue to be pushed back), why (mutation, deletion, genetic drift , adaptation,etc etc, the concept of gene has changed to gene family etc) are all up for grabs.


You keep pointing out that evolutionary theory changes, and new and different data is discovered. Yup, that's true, obvious, and means one thing. Evolution is science. It does not in any way change the fact that ToE is extremely well-supported and well-established.

Nope . Wrong again Auto..evolution is about flavour of the month.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually your avatar is a great example of outdated thinking from around 10 years ago. The first guy, the chimp knuckle walker is out.

If you are good maybe Santa will bring you a sense of humour for Christmas.

 

[newhope101]

Fantom Profane...It would be better if Santa brought your researchers some evidence that would stand the test of time.

My sense of humour is in check, I wouldn't bother debating evolution if I didn't like a good joke. You'd have to have a good sense of humour also to be able to swing from pillar to post with changing evidence and theories and not feel in some way that some hideous joke was perpetrated upon you with previous lies and false information.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autodidact
That's right. And that's what "evolutionists," the pioneer scientists who demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that ToE is correct did--over 50 years ago. They made prediction after prediction after prediction, literally thousands of them, based on ToE, and they turned out to be correct. Every one. ToE is consistent with all of the data, and explains a huge class of phenomena. That's why it was accepted as the basis of modern biology.

What nonsense, A child can also prove there is a Santa Clause in that case. They predict if there is a Santa the milk will be gone, a present will be left, and their friends all get visits from Santa also, Mum and dad tell them it's true and they believe them because they should know. That sounds very similar to your ToE predictions. Only true to the immature mind that does not have access to all the information.

No, it has nothing to do with your example. If you would like to review the ample, considerable, enormous, monumental evidence that caused ToE to be accepted as the foundational theory of modern Biology, I would be happy to start a thread just for you. I warn you, though, it will be a very, very long thread.


Nothing you posted yet has been inconsistent with ToE. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

Absolutely got that right...Every change (knucklewlaking ancestry & LUCA) illustrates previous evidence was not evidence at all.

No, it's just additional evidence.

These are not just tweaks to current thinking.

Yes, they are.

These are remarkable changes.

Isn't science cool?

There is no way to ever find anything that does not disprove Toe.

Of course there is. There are so many things that would have falsified it, had they been true. But they weren't.

We have already been all over the "pre cambrian Rabbit" scenario (see wiki). If you found a homo sapien dated to the pre cambrian period that still would not disprove your Toe, nor prove creation. More hypthosesis and models would ensue to explain it away.

Well, if you would like another extremely long thread about what facts would have falsified ToE, I'm happy to meet you there as well. I'll start with the age of the earth.

Todays evidence is tomorrows folley.

So might as well stop doing science, as it's just a giant waste of time!


And no amount of your smoke will change that fact.

The only assumption that has been consistent within your ToE theory for more than a couple of years is that we evolved from something, that evolved from something else.

Not an assumption, a conclusion, and a huge one. Go back and read what you just wrote. That's ToE, and it remains, as you say, consistent.

From whom (chimp), how (solely adaptive change), when (dates continue to be pushed back), why (mutation, deletion, genetic drift , adaptation,etc etc, the concept of gene has changed to gene family etc) are all up for grabs.

Finally you're catching on.


You keep pointing out that evolutionary theory changes, and new and different data is discovered. Yup, that's true, obvious, and means one thing. Evolution is science. It does not in any way change the fact that ToE is extremely well-supported and well-established.

Nope . Wrong again Auto..evolution is about flavour of the month.

Actually, flavor of the century. That's about how long ToE has predominated in Biology.

Please learn how to use the quote function; it's only polite to follow community custom.

 

[Autodidact]

what you're asking us to believe, newhope, is that you, who know almost nothing about Biology and are unable or unwilling to master the simplest scientific concepts, are smarter than all the Biologists in the world.

 

[newhope101]

Oh gosh no Auto.. I am not here to get you clapping hands or changing your stance or anything like that.

What I hope to illustrate that one is not a moron to be skeptical about the evolutionary evidence. There is sufficient reason to challenge what these researchers claim at any time.

And I suppose to a lesser degree illustrate that Toe is in a theoretical state rather than being solid enough to be considered an irrefutable fact.

I feel I can tie in some creative basics into the evidence. However, that is not proof of creation either.

 

[outhouse]

Your not smarter then wiki lol and there is no debate on evolution

If you dont like it change it, thats the great part about wiki YOU can change it, that is if you have something thats not a oddball whack job sort of idea that no one else has. Good luck youll need it.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[10] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

 

[newhope101]

No, it has nothing to do with your example. If you would like to review the ample, considerable, enormous, monumental evidence that caused ToE to be accepted as the foundational theory of modern Biology, I would be happy to start a thread just for you. I warn you, though, it will be a very, very long thread.


Nothing you posted yet has been inconsistent with ToE. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
No, it's just additional evidence. Yes, they are. Isn't science cool? Of course there is. There are so many things that would have falsified it, had they been true. But they weren't. Well, if you would like another extremely long thread about what facts would have falsified ToE, I'm happy to meet you there as well. I'll start with the age of the earth.


So might as well stop doing science, as it's just a giant waste of time!


And no amount of your smoke will change that fact.
Not an assumption, a conclusion, and a huge one. Go back and read what you just wrote. That's ToE, and it remains, as you say, consistent. Finally you're catching on.


You keep pointing out that evolutionary theory changes, and new and different data is discovered. Yup, that's true, obvious, and means one thing. Evolution is science. It does not in any way change the fact that ToE is extremely well-supported and well-established.

Actually, flavor of the century. That's about how long ToE has predominated in Biology.

Please learn how to use the quote function; it's only polite to follow community custom.

You got it right again..Toe, the concept that we evolved from something has been the only thing that has remained constant. We've spoken about knuckle walkers and there are plenty of other changes to speak to , and we have eg LUCA, staged evolution opposed to smooth etc, So apart from the idea we evolved from something, everything else has changed as I indicated with the who, when, where and how. You just can't help but miss the point that changing evidence is not evidence at all.

My PC plays up is why I can't use quote sometimes.

 

[outhouse]

My PC plays up is why I can't use quote sometimes.

All the VIRUSES from creation websites