Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Nik]

LOL, he's not even a scientist. He's a lecturer who makes a living preaching to the converted.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Catholics believe in evolution...

 

[Nik]

Catholics believe in evolution...

They also believe that god exists. Win some, lose some.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

There is only assumptions and interpretation. No actual evidence.

"I do not think that word means, what you think it means."

 

[Delita]

That's what those dumb evilutionists think! They think the monkeys decided to grow bigger brains and turn into us! If monkeys changed into humans, then WHY are there still monkeys living today?

Evolution is a conspiracy perpetrated on us by the liberal academia and leftist scientists because they are in rebellion against God. Boycott schools! Don't believe their "facts" and "science"! Learning and knowledge are Satan's Autobahn to HELL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is only assumptions and interpretation. No actual evidence. You believe it as evidence, just as many Christians believe the bible as evidence of God.

You're a fuckin' moron, and you don't know what "evidence" is. Plain and simple.

The nested hierarchy of genetic interrelatedness is not an "assumption." It is a demonstrable fact as certain as the paternity tests used in criminal and civil court.

There is no way to test either theory, therefore both theories are as reliable.

Bull-motherfucking-SHIT. You obviously didnt read the information was supplied to you, because throughout the whole fucking thing they describe potential falsification and cofirmation by observation. That's precisely how theories are tested, you magnificent ignoramus.

It's a moot point because who cares? It changes nothing, it's just a silly continuing argument by evolutionists for people to take them seriously. They feel they need to keep pointing it out to shove it in anyone's face that doesn't agree with their interpretation.

The reason you keep hearing about it is because you are so unbelievable wrong, and there is an unfortunately growing number of people just like you that yearn to wallow in their own stupidity. Why you think ignorance is a virtue is beyond me.

Any alternate theories are immediately dismissed without any actual consideration. Is that rational?

There are no alternate theories. That you think you are only demonstrates (again) your superlative ignorance of science and its method.

Geoffrey Simmons, a biologist with more experience in the field than probably anyone in this discussion.

Geoffrey Simmons is an MD, not a biologist. As also pointed out he's quite the charlatan, who appears to have hooked you quite effectively.

No actually I will attempt at showing that what you call "evidence" I call faith in assumptions.

This is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The "assumptions" of science are no different than the "assumptions" you make when you retreive your car keys from the place you last left them, nor the "assumptions" you make while believing that you eyes accurately interpret a computer monitor and keyboard in front of you.

YOU DO NOT DOUBT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS IN ANY OTHER CASE EXCEPT THIS. Obviously, then, you are being dishonest.

The labels we put on the creatures of this earth are man-made, and the belief in evolution is just like any other religion. Hell, they show it off at atheist conventions which only enforces my point.

If reinforces the plethora of evidence demonstrating your monstrous ignorance. Evolution is as much a "religion" as gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, music or geometry.

Interpretation of fossils and genetics in no way proves a theory on a process that supposedly takes millions of years.

You think that because you don't know anything about genetics.

The book I mentioned several times shows a rational argument of why the theory doesn't make sense from a biological standpoint. Ignoring an opposing argument is not rational no matter what you think.

There are no rational opposing arguments. You're invited to be the first to supply one, if you think you have it.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Geoffrey Simmons, a biologist with more experience in the field than probably anyone in this discussion.

Not me. Internal medicine physicians are not biologists, they are clinicians. His opinion on evolution is as useful as my opinion on internal medicine. In both cases, a little bit of relevant knowledge is not a good thing...you wouldn't want me treating you. It is disingenuous for scientists and physicians who do not have any specialized knowledge of evolution to parrot themselves as authorities and experts when in fact they are not.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I don't believe in evolution, and the Newton's laws. I know both happens.

Don't succumb to the wordplay trap laid by science deniers.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The method by which populations of organisms change over time is not a moot issue. It is incredibly relevant to the welfare of humanity. I also disagree that the reasons for accepting evolution are not weak, but then again, I'm biased, since I enjoy researching and teaching it and doing so allows me a comfortable life, haha.

The fossil record, which provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota, is consistent with special creation: organisms are fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.

Can you completely rule out special creation, and if so why?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Here's a list of scientists that support special creation. There are quite a few biologists. A quite survey suggests that many have very strong academic credentials. This isn't an appeal to authority, but it sure appears that there are legitimate scientist that challenge the current ortodoxy in the scientific community.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

 

[Nik]

I don't believe in evolution, and the Newton's laws. I know both happens.

Don't succumb to the wordplay trap laid by science deniers.

You've sparked my curiosity, so I'll bite...

You're not just splitting hairs, right?

 

[Nik]

Here's a list of scientists that support special creation. There are quite a few biologists. A quite survey suggests that many have very strong acadmeic credentials. This isn't an appeal to authority, but it sure appears that there are legitimate scientist that challenge the current ortodoxy in the scientific community.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

You are a perfect example that higher education still cannot overcome the unrelenting power of brainwashing. The fact that they schlep their religion into everything they do, see, and think removes them from the "unbiased" column.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The fossil record, which provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota, is consistent with special creation.

Any conceivable arrangement of fossils would be consistent with "special creation." That's precisely why it's a useless hypothesis. Only a specific fossil record could be consistent with evolution. Guess which one we observe? Is it just a coincidence that we never find mammalian fossils in strata that date earlier than dinosaurs? It would be inconsistent with evolution if mammalian fossils predated dinosaurs. It would not be inconsistent with "special creation." Anything is consistent with "special creation."

...organisms are fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.

Upon what objective criteria do you determine an organism to be "fully formed" or "unfully formed"? What would an "unfully formed" organism look like?

And why wouldn't the plethora of homologous structures among fossils suggest an evolutionary trend? Why would chordates predate vertebrates and vertebrates predate mammals if not for an evolutionary trend?

Can you completely rule out special creation, and if so why?

No, you can't rule out special creation. It is unfalsifiable. So is the suggestion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, or that I myself created the universe 5 seconds ago, complete with the flawless illusion of an ancient past. You can't "completely rule out" those either. That's precisely the problem with them.

 

[Nik]

The fossil record, which provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota, is consistent with special creation: organisms are fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.

Can you completely rule out special creation, and if so why?

The universe is older than the earth. There's going to be a point at which the fossil record stops or is interrupted even though things existed before that record started (or what looks like the start of the fossil record right after major interruptions), like the mountains of scientific evidence pointing to planet-wide catastrophic asteroid impacts. Tunguska, Gulf of Mexico, blah blah blah.

But that doesn't fit into your agenda so you simply deny the evidence instead of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion -one of the primary things that separates real science with crackpot religious nutjobs.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Any conceivable arrangement of fossils would be consistent with "special creation." That's precisely why it's a useless hypothesis. Only a specific fossil record could be consistent with evolution. Guess which one we observe? Is it just a coincidence that we never find mammalian fossils in strata that date earlier than dinosaurs? It would be inconsistent with evolution if mammalian fossils predated dinosaurs. It would not be inconsistent with "special creation." Anything is consistent with "special creation."



Upon what objective criteria do you determine an organism to be "fully formed" or "unfully formed"? What would an "unfully formed" organism look like?

And why wouldn't the plethora of homologous structures among fossils suggest an evolutionary trend? Why would chordates predate vertebrates and vertebrates predate mammals if not for an evolutionary trend?


No, you can't rule out special creation. It is unfalsifiable. So is the suggestion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, or that I myself created the universe 5 seconds ago, complete with the flawless illusion of an ancient past. You can't "completely rule out" those either. That's precisely the problem with them.

Interestingly, the idea of falsifiability was first articulated by G.K. Chesterton, a creationist.

Please provide me with your definition of "unfalsifiable".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Here's a list of scientists that support special creation. There are quite a few biologists. A quite survey suggests that many have very strong academic credentials. This isn't an appeal to authority, but it sure appears that there are legitimate scientist that challenge the current ortodoxy in the scientific community.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Neat list. How many you think are on just the list of so-called "modern scientists?" 100? 120? I didn't count them.

Some real scientists over at the National Center for Science Education made a list too -- except they only wanted to list people named "Steve" (or Stephanie, Stephen, etc) in tribute to Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, who has written some very good essays on creation and evolution.

So far the list is up to 1141 Steves. How many Steves on your list?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Interestingly, the idea of falsifiability was first articulated by G.K. Chesterton, a creationist.

So? What difference does that make?

Please provide me with your definition of "unfalsifiable".

Huh? What part don't you get? The "un"? The "falsify"? The "able"? Put it together, genius.

 

[Nik]

Interestingly, the idea of falsifiability was first articulated by G.K. Chesterton, a creationist.

Please provide me with your definition of "unfalsifiable".

Why? We've given you links earlier in this thread and you just blew them off without even bothering to click, let alone read, let alone educate yourself.

What reassurance do we have from you that us taking our time to bother with your dumb ass will result in anything more than wasted time? As intelligent as we are, which is a lot, even we have not figured out how to reason with a bag of hammers.

You've already displayed a complete lack of interest in learning in this thread, so why would we think you'll do anything else but continue to turn a blind eye to reason?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The universe is older than the earth. There's going to be a point at which the fossil record stops or is interrupted even though things existed before that record started (or what looks like the start of the fossil record right after major interruptions), like the mountains of scientific evidence pointing to planet-wide catastrophic asteroid impacts. Tunguska, Gulf of Mexico, blah blah blah.

But that doesn't fit into your agenda so you simply deny the evidence instead of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion -one of the primary things that separates real science with crackpot religious nutjobs.

Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Do you accept the theory of punctuated equillbrium, ot do you subscribe to a different view of speciation?

 

[Nik]

Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Do you accept the theory of punctuated equillbrium, ot do you subscribe to a different view of speciation?

See? Avoiding the question. Typical theologian "I ain't got nothin" response.

Tell you what. When you read, then I'll bother. K? K.

 

[sandorski]

See? Avoiding the question. Typical theologian "I ain't got nothin" response.

Tell you what. When you read, then I'll bother. K? K.

Worse than a JW at the door.

 

[Gibsons]

You've sparked my curiosity, so I'll bite...

You're not just splitting hairs, right?

I think strangerguy is just pointing out the difference in accepting a theory as the best explanation based on known evidence vs. blind faith.

But maybe I should let him speak for himself.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

See? Avoiding the question. Typical theologian "I ain't got nothin" response.

Tell you what. When you read, then I'll bother. K? K.

Quotes from Darwin regarding the fossil record. Interesting stuff.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/darwin/darwin.htm

You reject special creation. Fine. So please explain your theory of how speciation occurs. I'm all ears.

 

[Nik]

Quotes from Darwin regarding the fossil record. Interesting stuff.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/darwin/darwin.htm

You reject special creation. Fine. So please explain your theory of how speciation occurs. I'm all ears.

When did I ever say that I reject special creation? When have I said ANYTHING about special creation? Please quote the post of mine where you draw your conclusion.

I refuse to read any link you give until you can prove that you clicked and read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Is it just a coincidence that we never find mammalian fossils in strata that date earlier than dinosaurs?

While your point about special creation being unfalsifiable is certainly true, this statement is not. Mammals and dinosaurs are actually about the same age. The oldest widely accepted dinosaur fossils are about 230Mya, while the oldest widely accepted true mammal fossils are about 220Mya.

Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Do you accept the theory of punctuated equillbrium, ot do you subscribe to a different view of speciation?

"Punk eek" was never intended to replace Darwinian evolution, it is the recognition that Darwinism struggles to accurately describe parts of the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is, essentially, genetic drift writ large. Natural selection isn't the only mechanism that drives evolution; modern biologists also recognize genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow as causes of evolution.

Interestingly, the idea of falsifiability was first articulated by G.K. Chesterton, a creationist.

Chesterton wrote about falsifiability before Karl Popper, but neither of these men were the first to articulate the idea. Bacon wrote about it hundreds of years before them, and there are Arabic texts that predate Bacon that also discuss it. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese wrote about it before the Arabs.