Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
LOL @Vibe..... and his humdrum crew.... "The neanderthal is running scared"Post that video you day you posted.
Piltdown Man was one skull, I figured you were talking about the whole thing though.
Did no one read Golds post?Say*
Say???
-
ALL OF THE FOSSIL EVIDENCES THAT ARE BEING PASSED OFF AS TRANSITIONAL HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED AS BEING SUCH.......EVERY SINGLE ONE
Archaeopteryx characteristics of a bird and a reptile.......BUT, if it was a transitional form between the two, why have multiple fossils of the middle phase of the transition been found and not a single fossil of any other stage of this particular transition have been found? and if that's not enough howcome fossils of both birds and reptiles have been found in the same general area of the Archaeopteryx fossils that are OLDER?????
Transitions happen in stages.......supposedly over millions of years, so whether it's tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, mudskippers, platypus lol, or any other creatures that are being claimed to be transitional are TOTALLY inconsistent with how the long transitions occur.
How many of y'all insistent negroes have met anybody who has met anybody who has come close to examining so much as a cast or a mold of these fossils that prove inter-class evolution?........NONE
The keepers/custodians of such artifacts keep telling you dumb ? ......."we've studied them,we've examined them, and they're legit, no we cant show you, but take our word for it, go dissect a frog or something and continue to let us fill in the rest of the story for you"
Y'all keep the faith though!
PEACE
-
The True Flesh wrote: »Archaeopteryx characteristics of a bird and a reptile.......BUT, if it was a transitional form between the two, why have multiple fossils of the middle phase of the transition been found and not a single fossil of any other stage of this particular transition have been found? and if that's not enough howcome fossils of both birds and reptiles have been found in the same general area of the Archaeopteryx fossils that are OLDER?????
There exists 12-18 different transitional species between saurians and avians some proceed Archaeopteryx some follow. Go to talk.origins.com and search for transitional forms for a more complete listing.
How then do you explain the existing of a dozen transitional forms between saurian and avians? If you deny they exist then you are delusional. If they are not transitional please explain what is a transitional form and why those remains that are identified as transitional are not?
If anyone is interested in studying the fossils they may though they may need to demonstrate an understanding of fossil handling. That is one of the powers of science people share their work and build upon previous contributions.
-
Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
-
For arguments sake, even if life emerged with divine interference, evolution from that point is still possible. Let me make it clear for you, ? . DISPROVE EVOLUTION OR SHUT THE ? UP
-
Post that video you day you posted.
O'tay
@Vibe,@Jaded Righteousness, Et al.
I think this video sums up some of brother Judah's comments...In European terms..but they are still playing catch up...."In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin never sought to unravel the mystery of where biological information comes from. For him, the origins of life remained shrouded in impenetrable obscurity. While the digital code in DNA first came to light in the 1950s, it wasn’t until later that scientists began to sense the implications behind the exquisitely complex technical system for processing and storing information in the cell. The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency."
http://youtu.be/TVkdQhNdzHU
-
Who gives a ? ? Evolution can and does take place within whatever possible explanation there is for life emerging in the first place. This is not a debate about the origin of life but the origin of species. Smarten up, ?
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Who gives a ? ?
Log off then ? !!!!
Nice diversion pal....
The debate is I.D. v. evolution.... ? ..
-
Then the original question is stupid and not well thought out for the simple fact that both can exist at the same damn time. There are plenty creationists who support evolution so you creationists dont even have to prove I.d. Just disprove evolution. Oh, thats right.. You can't. Sorry.
-
Smarten up, ?
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Who gives a ? ? Evolution can and does take place within whatever possible explanation there is for life emerging in the first place. This is not a debate about the origin of life but the origin of species. Smarten up, ?
Look at how this ? @Jaded Righteousness is playing himself....
Again, fool ass ? .... the thread is about creationists (I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creationist).....
If you cant respond without getting overly homotional.... kick rocks...........
-
Here's a question for theists who do not believe in evolution: why did ? create so many animals and life forms only to see them become extinct?
-
I already responded to that, ? . Too soon to celebrate.
-
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
-
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING.
Except that evolution takes life is a priori. Life is assumed by evolution. Life could have arose through divine miracle or natural processes. Life is inseparable from evolution. What started that life is independent of evolution.
-
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
blah blah blah. You still haven't disproven anything, G.
Ha. Frank Ocean Jr. Clever. And I'm saying that with extreme sarcasm. Because it wasn't clever at all. Calling me ? doesn't make me ? neither does it stop you from being homosexual. ? like you forever trying to prove some type of manhood that you lack. Insecure Judah? -
What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
Because it seems as though you are referring to something else. -
Oh look. I'm being flagged by an overly sensitive geek
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
Because it seems as though you are referring to something else.
http://youtu.be/40cOy-i_7zM
-
Judah, nice try. Think long and hard about your next post please
-
Where in this twenty-nine minute and fifty-four second video is the definition mentioned?Gold_Certificate wrote: »
What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?
abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common ? sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. ? the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a ? THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, ? , i used scientific standards, lil' ? . by its very nature n the world of science as a ? theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. ? you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist ? windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, ?
Because it seems as though you are referring to something else.http://youtu.be/40cOy-i_7zM -
you could skip to 1:35 -2:40 if you like....
-
No definition of Evolution appears at the time stamp you mention. Instead one of the concept of evolution is discuss namely that with evolution there is no need for a designer. While it is possible a designer exists the process of natural selection an take place without one. Here is a respected biologists definition.
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 -
If you're referring to "natural selection"--which was mentioned in the timeframe you specified--that is only an explanation of one of the mechanisms behind the observable process of biological evolution; however, "natural selection" is not the definition for "biological evolution".you could skip to 1:35 -2:40 if you like....
Is that what you were referring to as the definition for "evolution"?
If so, it would be incorrect. -
LOL........
I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......
"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."
This discussion has been closed.