[sassyT]

John, why should I need to repost everything over and over and over again? This is the same approach that you have used elsewhere, and no matter how many times I post it, you deny that it has been posted, or claim that you cannot see it.

Why don't you defend your position by presenting the evidence that you believes supports your position, or provide evidence that you believe refutes what others post on here. That would be a more effective approach than simply denying everything.



I don't think that spamming and harassing is any more acceptable on here than the last board you were on.

Lol.. I thought I was the only one who observed this. Having an intelligent debate with someone like John is virtually impossible. He is so zealous about his beliefs that it completely blinds him to reality. He refuses to acknoledge any evidence that is contrary to his beliefs and fails to either give evidence for his beliefs or refute yours with facts. :rolleyes:

[lobrobster]

Fact # 1 There is no Fossil evidence for the claims made by the theory

This statement is just wrong. And it remains wrong no matter how many times you decree it to be true. There exists tons of fossil evidence to support evolutionary theory.

Fact # 2 There is zero evidence that a little mythical warm soup/pond (where all living things came from) ever existed

No evidence for water, huh? Again, we don't know exactly how life got started, but we know very well what happened after it did.

Fact # 3 There is no evidence that a little one cell creature crawled out of this soup and morphed into every living thing we see today.

And no one has ever made such a claim! I honestly can't tell if this statement stems from ignorance, or if you're purposely misrepresenting the facts out of desperation.

Fact # 4 There is no evidence that a wolf like creature evolved into the whales we see today.

There IS evidence that whales were once land mammals. And the fact that they are now mammals living in the sea is indisputable.

Fact # 5 There is no evidence that a random mutation can add "new" information to a species (outside its genus)

I'm not even sure what false information you're trying to inject here. It takes a lot more than a mutation to genetic code for a new species to arise.

Fact #6 There is no evidence than humans share a common ancestor with palms trees and carrots.

Yes... There is... It's called DNA. Look it up if you haven't heard of it.

I could just go on.. but I won't.

Thank you. It's really frustrating to read so much misinformation in just one post.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

This statement is just wrong. And it remains wrong no matter how many times you decree it to be true. There exists tons of fossil evidence to support evolutionary theory.

There are fossils yes but do they prove evolution? No, because Darwinists have not been able to make the distinction between "transitional" creatures and extinct lineages. So for example the famous Tiktaalik which Darwinists claim to be a transitional fossil, however they are unable to tell us how this animals is differenct from lob fin fish seen today. Thus Tiktaalik could very well be an extinct species of the lob fin fish genus because there is nothing that distinguishes it as a "ransitional" fossil.

No evidence for water, huh? Again, we don't know exactly how life got started, but we know very well what happened after it did

c'mon lobro.. of course there is evidence for water.. but what evidence is there that water was once a promordial vegie soup?

And no one has ever made such a claim! I honestly can't tell if you are really this ignorant of how The Theory of Evolution works, or are purposely misrepresenting the facts out of desperation. Your desperation shows.

I think you are the one who needs to do a little more research on your beliefs because the darwinists do claim this ameoba is mother of all living things.

There IS evidence that whales were once land mammals. And the fact that they are now mammals living in the sea is indisputable.

What evidence? Dawinists found a fossil head of a wolf like creature and claimed it is the ancestor of a whale. They have even found one fossil tooth and made up a whole story of evoltionaray ancestry based on this one tooth. I can also find a fossilised tooth in my back yard and claim it is the link between pigs and man. :rolleyes:

I'm not even sure what false information you're trying to inject here. It takes more than a mutation to genetic code for a new species to arise.

We have already established that new species do arise, no refuting that, but what does it take for a new genus to arise? What hard evidence of this can you give? Or is you evidence just a "inference"?

Yes... There is... It's called DNA. Look it up if you haven't heard of it.

Again Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer". SO DNA is not a valid argument for evolution because it also explains a common creator.

[Tj3]

Again Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer". SO DNA is not a valid arguement for evolution because it also explains a common creator.

Yep. When you look at BMW cars, and they are have a similar look to them, would we assume a common designer or that the cars evolved? I would assume a common designer.

There is an excellent book which examines this question and the evidence (or lack thereof) for evolution by a leading biochemist, Michael Behe called "The Edge of Evolution". It is an excellent book for those interested in looking at the scientific evidence surrounding evolution, and where the line is drawn between micr-evolution and macro-evolution.

[NeedKarma]

Michael Behe called "The Edge of Evolution". It is an excellent book for those interested in looking at the scientific evidence surrounding evolution, and where the line is drawn between micr-evolution and macro-evolution.

Not really: Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." [1] Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge[5][6][7][8] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[9]

[Tj3]

There are fossils yes but do they prove evolution? no, because Darwinists have not been able to make the distinction between "transitional" creatures and extinct lineages.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record was the most serious problem for his theory.

[Tj3]

Not really: Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not really what? Not really is not providing response with any substance.

Have you read his book? I have.

[lobrobster]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

There are fossils yes but do they prove evolution?

Sassy... You have already shown to know much more than some of your comments suggest, so I'm not going to stoop to baby talk like you *really* don't know some of these things you're asking.

Science never PROVES anything! You should already know this. However, we can make very strong inferences. A scientific theory is simply the best possible explanation we have to date. ToE is exactly that. Fossils infer, lead us to, point us in the direction of, what we already know about evolution. It fits together like a glove. The fossil(s) you are looking for will NEVER be found. There will always be an intermediate fossil you will claim doesn't PROVE antecedence for some prior species. As it is, we are very lucky to have any fossils, since it is very rare indeed for anything to die and go on to become fossilized. So I guess you just win.

c'mon lobro.. of course there is evidence for water.. but what evidence is there that water was once a promordial vegie soup?

Re-read what you wrote: That "there is zero evidence that a little mythical warm soup/pond (where all living things came from) ever existed".

Of course it existed! And surely you don't dispute the existence of carbon, zinc, hydrogen, and many other elements that existed in the atmosphere that eventually found their way into earth's water.

I think you are the one who needs to do a little more research on your beliefs because the darwinists do claim this ameoba is mother of all living things.

But this isn't what you said. You tried to twist it into something completely different. Namely, that a one celled organism CRAWLED onto land and morphed into a fully fledged animal! That's absurd and no accredited scientist has ever claimed this! This twisting of words is probably sufficient to fool a lot of people on here who don't know anything about evolution. My goal is to make sure you don't get away with it.

what evidence? Dawinists found a fossil head of a wolf like creature and claimed it is the ancestor of a whale. They have even found one fossil tooth and made up a whole story of evoltionaray ancestry based on this one tooth. I can also find a fossilised tooth in my back yard and claim it is the link between pigs and man. :rolleyes:

Hmm. I thought I read that whales are thought to be descendant from bears, or even hippos. I'm not familiar enough with whale evolution to say much one way or the other. What I CAN say with absolute certainty, is that no one is making up stories! There is hard evidence for why they suggested such links. Certainly it was a better explanation than, 'God did it'.

We have already established that new species do arise, no refuting that,.

What?! You admit that new species do arise? Then what do you suppose they arise from, if not other species?

Again Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer". SO DNA is not a valid argument for evolution because it also explains a common creator.

I don't interpret anything Sassy. I am not a scientist in this field. I do not claim to have a full understanding of these things. But I do bother to read a lot about it. As a layman I want to understand what I can. And I know enough to know that you get your info not from reading what real scientists have to say, but from Creationist propaganda. You simply twist words around and ask unanswerable questions to suit a preconceived agenda. As smart as you are, the only reason you don't accept evolution is because either you have been blindsided yourself by this propaganda, or you know full well what you're talking about and are deliberately trying to twist things to suit a fallacious argument. The more I become convinced that you're smarter than what you write, the more I think it's the latter.

[Capuchin]

Darwin himself said that the fossil record was the most serious problem for his theory.

Sure. 150 years ago.

[Capuchin]

Not really what? Not really is not providing response with any substance.

Have you read his book? I have.

Sadly, this book is handwaving creationist arguments dressed up as science. Scientists have suggested that he released this as a popular book because if he had submitted it as a paper to a journal, it wouldn't pass peer review. i.e. there's no science here, just moaning.

[sassyT]

Sure. 150 years ago.

150 years later his concern still hold true. ;)

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Science never PROVES anything! You should already know this. However, we can make very strong inferences. A scientific theory is simply the best possible explanation we have to date.

However the theory of evolution is NOT science it is a theory on origins. But if you say science never proves anything then why do you claim it is a fact. A fact is something that can be proven or demonstrated to be true and you have failed dismally to demonstrate that Macro evolution does occur.

ToE is exactly that. Fossils infer, lead us to, point us in the direction of, what we already know about evolution. It fits together like a glove. The fossil(s) you are looking for will NEVER be found. There will always be an intermediate fossil you will claim doesn't PROVE antecedence for some prior species. As it is, we are very lucky to have any fossils, since it is very rare indeed for anything to die and go on to become fossilized. So I guess you just win.

You see a fossil and because you believe it in evolution you "infere" it is a transitional fossil. So you interpretation of the fossil is biased by your belief Macro evolution is fact. This is just useless circular reasoning...

But this isn't what you said. You tried to twist it into something completely different. Namely, that a one celled organism CRAWLED onto land and morphed into a fully fledged animal! That's absurd and no accredited scientist has ever claimed this! This twisting of words is probably sufficient to fool a lot of people on here who don't know anything about evolution. My goal is to make sure you don't get away with it.

I am just going by what my Physical science prophessor told me. He said the amoeba crawled out of the promordial soup.

Hmm. I thought I read that whales are thought to be descendant from bears, or even hippos. I'm not familiar enough with whale evolution to say much one way or the other. What I CAN say with absolute certainty, is that no one is making up stories! There is hard evidence for why they suggested such links. Certainly it was a better explanation than, 'God did it'.

If you keep up with evolution propaganda, it get more and more absurd. They are now claiming a wolf is a whale's ancestor. National Geographic did a wonderful spread on the fossil "transitions" from a wolf-like creature to a whale. It doesn't take a 5 year old to know that his is absurd.

What?! You admit that new species do arise? Then what do you suppose they arise from, if not other species?

New species do arise within a given genus. But there is no evidence of the claims made by darwinism that new genera arise.

I don't interpret anything Sassy. I am not a scientist in this field. I do not claim to have a full understanding of these things. But I do bother to read a lot about it. As a layman I want to understand what I can. And I know enough to know that you get your info not from reading what real scientists have to say, but from Creationist propaganda. You simply twist words around and ask unanswerable questions to suit a preconceived agenda.

The fact that there are some "unanswerable questions" should tell you that it it impossible for the theory to be a fact.
You say i am into Creationists propaganda but i can also say you are into Darwinist Propaganda. Niether Creation nor Macro evolution have been proven factual. It is just a matter of subjective opinion as to what one finds more logical.
You subscribe to the Evolution theory, i don't because i have not encountered a single piece of evidence for it.
I believe in Creation because logic tells me the complex structures (that contain complex information and design) do not just appear from no where by random chance. For example this computer i am using.. logic tells me that an intelligent person engineered this computer. Logic tells me that even given billion of years, the computer can not just appear out of thin air by random chance. So why would i think that a human brain (which is able to do in split seconds what would take a computer years to do) would have appeared by random chance? Impossible.
LIke i said before it is just common sense.

[sassyT]

Nice...

[Fr_Chuck]

Post closed