Creationists

[daws101]

Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?

wrong again!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ignorance! Pure ignorance!

Cambrian explosion

The consensus on the cambrian explosion is quite different then you understand. Its not the evolution of most animals we see today. Its the evolution of things like crustaceans and fish, not dogs and cats.

Darwins black box

Irreducible complexity? Really? How many times does that have to be disproved? The flagella is partially a Type III secretion system, 10 of the proteins function as a "needle" to inject toxin in some bacteria. So its not an example of irreducible complexity.

Usually tackling the problem of irreducible complexity requires knowledge of how proteins, cells, and even the human body work (remember when i had to teach you about the brain?). I think thats the problem were running into with this argument.

Genetics

UGH! The genetic mutation behind darwins finches isnt known??? really??

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

protein BMP4 controls the structure of the beak during gestation. Again, the claim that "mutations in developmental genes are always harmful" is a giant simplification. more likely a change in the protein leads to a small change in the structure of some skeletal feature.

Note: I deleted everything but your sources, because i think they might say something about the quality of your copy-pasta. Esta no muy bueno señor....

If you are so concerned with copying and pasting why do you do it ?

Lol the only thing i copied was the URL for that link you fool. Cool little dance around my rebuttal, though.

Typical. State something that isnt true to avoid factual debate.

Oh that wasn't you copying and pasting graphs and comments from the sites. Do i need check all your postings and see which sites they come from because many times you don't give credit either.

You do Plagiarize I have noticed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"peer reviewed"

Really? i doubt that, and if so i doubt his peers had very good things to say.

But what do you mean the body structures are still the same today? They arent, because theyre much more evolved. The Cambrian explosion is basically the transition from colonies of cells to full fledged multicellular organisms. Its not a short period of time either, its about 100 million years.

Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well you can think you see god all you want, the fact is you will die without proof. Because most likely he doesnt exist.

But what if darwin is wrong? Well see, my faith isnt evolution. Thats where you and i diverge, i dont form my opinions on faith.

If darwin is wrong, my opinion on the afterlife is no different. Your personality is just electrical connections in the brain. The concept of a soul comes from the feeling that your personality and your mind are separate from your body. While complex, its still biochemistry none-the-less.

So if darwin's wrong im still going to be certain in what i believe happens after death: nothing. Your neurons stop firing and you will be dead.

Maybe ,maybe not.

I should have posted this article sooner.

27. TWENTY OBJECTIONS ADMITTED

Evolutionists themselves, even including Darwin, admit as many as 20 objections to his theory. Darwin states the first four and Prof. V. L. Kellogg sums up the remaining 16 on pp. 247-52 of "Readings in Evolution." Among them are:

1. There must have been innumerable transitional forms in the formation of new species. No convincing evidence of these missing links exists.

2. Natural selection can not account for the instinct of animals such as that of the honey bee, "which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematics.":

4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species.

5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited.

6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance.

7. Variation is so slight as to be imperceptible, and, therefore, cannot account for the "survival of the fittest." If the same progressive changes do not occur generally, if not universally, in the numbers of the same species in the same period, no new species can arise. Such general changes do not occur.

8. Natural selection could not make use of initial slight changes. "What would be the advantage of the first few hairs of a mammal, or the first steps toward feathers in a bird, when these creatures were beginning to diverge from their reptilian ancestors?"

9. Even if Darwinism should explain the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the survival of the fittest, which is far more important.

10. Darwin says, "I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important but not the exclusive means of modification." Many scientists think it of very little importance, and that it is not true.

11. "The fluctuating variations of Darwinism are quantitative, or plus and minus variations; whereas, the differences between species are qualitative." Growth and development in one species does not produce a new species, which must be of a different kind. Miles Darden, of Tennessee, was 90 inches tall, and weighed 1000 pounds, but remained a member of the human species, though he was as high and heavy as a horse. So did the giant Posius, over 10 feet tall, who lived in the days of Augustus.

12. "There is a growing skepticism on the part of biologists as to the extreme fierceness of the struggle for existence and of the consequent rigor of selection." Overproduction and shortage of space and food might sometime be a factor of importance, but has it been so in the past? Has it affected the human race?

13. Darwin proposed the theory of gemmules. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "This theory was not satisfactory even to Darwin and is now only of historical interest."

14. Darwin's subsidiary theory of sexual selection has also been rejected by scientists as worthless.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that Darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting Darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the British Museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." Is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist, said: "There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

Prof Virchow, of Berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

Prof. Fleishman, of Erlangen, who once accepted Darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

Prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "The theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency There is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

Dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of NY Academy of Medicine, said: "The Darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

Sir William Dawson, an eminent geologist, of Canada, said: "The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...Paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in Scripture."

The foremost evolutionists, Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, repudiated Darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George Mivert, late professor of biology in the University College of Kensington, calls Darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

Dr. James Orr, of Edinburgh University, says: "The greatest scientists and theologians of Europe are now pronouncing Darwinism to be absolutely dead."

Dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "The idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." Does this apply to H. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of Geology, in Harvard University, said: "It is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

Prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "Most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly Darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

Sir Charles Bell, Prof. of the University College of London, says: "Everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

These testimonies of scientists of the first rank are a part of a large number. Many of them and many more, are given in Prof. Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution," McCann's "God or Gorilla," Philip Mauro's "Evolution At the Bar," and other anti-evolution books. Alfred McCann, in his great work, "God or Gorilla," mentions 20 of the most prominent scholars, who do not accept Darwinism. Yet they say, "All scholars accept evolution."



For full article.

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved

Yea argue against darwins 150 year old understanding of evolution, thatll make you sound smart. Learn the modern theory of evolution, and by that i mean after the discovery of genetics and proteins.

Im not going to refute that post point by point, because every time i do that you ignore it. I'm not going to waste an hour of my life teaching you biology when your going to ignore the entire post anyways, just like last time.

Because you can't ,you don't have the evidence to.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A better wall of text.

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

Another

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

now imagine God.

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! Youwerecreated's very candid admission that this "God" of his must be imagined; is actually IMAGINARY!

Dreamer ,nothing but a dreamer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.

Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
(This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).


In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book?

EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS

Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points?


Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution


The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS





Education


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS



Publications


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS


For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

"I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God." CUE BUZZER........so you are NOT a biologist , paleontologist, geologist,physicist or a practitioner of any of the hard sciences ?
NO?
THEN YOUR THEORIES ON EVOLUTION MAKE ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A ONE LEGGED MAN IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST.

Oh boy

 

[Youwerecreated]

the bible is the word of men. Literally. Moses, matthew, john, etc...; men.

In their words--words of men, not the word of god--is where you have placed your conviction of certainty. You're just wrong again. So terribly, terribly, wrong again. Always, always, wrong; yet so certain you're right. Such is the nature of faith: the conviction of absolute certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in valid verifiable evidence and/or valid logic has been established; the obstinate strength of resolute denial of valid verifiable evidence and valid logic is the "validating" quality of faith.

your mind is so shut by obdurate faith, that it is shut also to god.

Sorry about your superstitious luck, retard.

they were inspired by god.

2ti 3:16 all scripture is god-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

now let's consider contradictions of your theory.

evolution contradictions - unexplained mysteries discussion forums

contradictions to the theory of evolution

caught in contradictions, pz myers claims "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" (and therefore predicts nothing) (updated) - evolution news & views

does entropy contradict evolution?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hv-rqcdhew]evolution bloopers hoaxes and contradictions - youtube[/ame]

there you go you mental midget.

does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?

You must have missed these guys comments.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."

the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."

dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

 

[daws101]

Living fossils.

Living-Fossils.com

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?

it's not an opinion.
and don't start that shit about no observation.
when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?

 

[LOki]

[T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

An insurmountable

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."

An unambiguous

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.

Maybe not so much.

"PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​

Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.

Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]

A

delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double

, if you will.

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.

When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION in the species' gene pool.

Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

 

[Youwerecreated]

played football.i played on a national paintball team.-ywc

if that's true, then was it after helmet's were introduced to the game?

Well I am no spring chicken but I am not that old. Football had helmets the paitball team we had masks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok since it was so easy to refute some of your points i had to.

"4. The offspring of such nearly related species as can be crossed are sterile, showing that nature discourages and in no wise encourages the formation of new species."

See: Mule

"5. The changes resulting from the use and disuse of organs are not inherited."

And if you think evolution says they are you should hit yourself in the head with a hammer


And this is my favorite:

"6. Since Darwinism eliminates design, it is only the exploded ancient heathen doctrine of chance."

OH WHAT A GREAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

"darwinism eliminates design." Oh im convinced!

First you have not refuted anything you give opinions but that is not refutation. That is a lie that evolutionist predicted fish living in a cave would lose their eyes that poor fish was the result of deformity through mutations. Mules are sterile and they are selectively bred by man. The reason they are sterile is they reached the limits of their dna compatibility that is the dna barrier you deny exists.

He hasn't ,all he has done is given opinions that proves nothing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?

wrong again!

Really do you know what you are talking about ?

Look for yourself.

Living-Fossils.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

How many times do i have to explain the same things to you over and over. If you would have read my point by point refutation of your idiocy you would have read the part about living fossils.

Evolution says some fish evolved into terapods. It does not say all fish evolve into terapods, that would be strange.

Besides, living fossils usually live in isolated environments. If a fish lives in an underwater cavern, it wont evolve into an air breathing terapod in a billion years. The environment necessary is just not there for it to happen.

Living fossils are wonderful evidence of evolution, because we find them in environments evolution predicts we should!

Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?

it's not an opinion.
and don't start that shit about no observation.
when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?

Unless you observe something you can only give an opinion. You violate the science method if you can't test, study, and observe.

 

[daws101]

I would like to introduce you to someone and his argument against your theory.

Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?
(This article comes from JohnDePoe.com to whom we are grateful).


In 1859 Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of the Species. This publication sent the public in an uproar and has continued to do so to the present day. Why all the commotion over one book?

EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS

Are you willing to follow the evidence where it points?


Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?: The Evidence Against Evolution


The author.

John M. DePoe


I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God. I may have even worked out some constructive answers to those questions.


Curriculum Vitae


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS





Education


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS



Publications


EDIT: SEE LINK / COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL SHOULD NOT EXCEED 3 PARAGRAPHS


For his research.

Philosophical Research & Interests

"I am an Assistant Professor at Marywood University’s philosophy department. I have spent a lot of time pondering questions about knowledge, mind, and God." CUE BUZZER........so you are NOT a biologist , paleontologist, geologist,physicist or a practitioner of any of the hard sciences ?
NO?
THEN YOUR THEORIES ON EVOLUTION MAKE ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A ONE LEGGED MAN IN AN ASS KICKING CONTEST.

Oh boy

a degree in philosophy"Definition of PHILOSOPHY
1a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>
4a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
See philosophy defined for English-language learners »
See philosophy defined for kids »
Examples of PHILOSOPHY
Her degree is in philosophy and religion.
The group eventually split over conflicting political philosophies.
Her main cooking philosophy is to use only fresh ingredients.
There's plenty of blame to go around: poor regulation, eight years of a failed Republican economic philosophy, Wall Street-friendly Democrats who helped stymie reform, misguided bipartisan efforts to promote home ownership, Wall Street greed, corrupt CEOs, a botched rescue effort, painfully fallible central bankers. —Daniel Gross, Newsweek, 9 Mar. 2009

do you see anywhere in that definition anything even close to the scientific credentials needed to TEST EVOLUTION.
If you do ,then then you must have taken too many shots to the head when you allegedly played football.

 

[Youwerecreated]

[T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

An insurmountable

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."

An unambiguous

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a

delivered to Youwerecreated.



A

delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double

, if you will.



Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Don't bate and switch with me boy.

 

[daws101]

they were inspired by god.

2ti 3:16 all scripture is god-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

now let's consider contradictions of your theory.

evolution contradictions - unexplained mysteries discussion forums

contradictions to the theory of evolution

caught in contradictions, pz myers claims "evolutionary theory predicts differences as well as similarities" (and therefore predicts nothing) (updated) - evolution news & views

does entropy contradict evolution?

evolution bloopers hoaxes and contradictions - youtube

there you go you mental midget.

does it surprise anyone that all the links are to non scientific web sites and all the authors are non scientists?

You must have missed these guys comments.

In view of these and other objections, is it any wonder that darwin's theory has been so largely rejected by the scientific world?

And is it not amazing that self-styled "scientists" hold on to their precious theory of evolution, as if these objections had no weight? They can not save evolution even by rejecting darwinism.

Dr. Etheridge, famous fossilologist of the british museum, one of the highest authorities in the world, said: "nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." is a man in that position not a credible witness?

Prof. Beale, of king's college, london, a distinguished physiologist, said: "there is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence."

prof virchow, of berlin, a naturalist of world wide fame, said: The attempt to find the transition from the .animal to man has ended in total failure. The middle link has not been found and never will be. Evolution is all nonsense. It can not be proved by science that man descended from the ape or from any other animal."

prof. Fleishman, of erlangen, who once accepted darwinism, but after further investigation repudiated it, said: "the darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it, in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but is purely the product of the imagination."

prof. Agassiz, one of the greatest scientists of any age, said: "the theory [of the transmutation of species] is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency there is not a fact known to science, tending to show that a single kind has ever been transmuted into any other."

dr. W. H. Thompson, former president of ny academy of medicine, said: "the darwinian theory is now rejected by the majority of biologists, as absurdly inadequate. It is absurd to rank man among the animals. His so called fellow animals, the primates--gorilla, orang and chimpanzee--can do nothing truly human."

sir william dawson, an eminent geologist, of canada, said: "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists, especially in the abrupt appearance of new forms under specific types, and without apparent predecessors...paleontology furnishes no evidence as to the actual transformation of one species into another. No such case is certainly known. Nothing is known about the origin of man except what is told in scripture."

the foremost evolutionists, spencer, huxley and romanes, before their death, repudiated darwinism. Haeckel alone supported the theory and that by forged evidence.

Dr. St. George mivert, late professor of biology in the university college of kensington, calls darwinism a "puerile hypothesis."

dr. James orr, of edinburgh university, says: "the greatest scientists and theologians of europe are now pronouncing darwinism to be absolutely dead."

dr. Traas, a famous paleontologist, concludes: "the idea that mankind is descended from any simian species whatever, is certainly the most foolish ever put forth by a man writing on the history of man." does this apply to h. G. Wells?

Dr. N. S. Shaler, professor of geology, in harvard university, said: "it is not yet proved that a single species of the two or three millions, now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly, by the operation of natural selection."

prof. Haeckel, a most extreme evolutionist, confesses: "most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particularly darwinism, is an error, and can not be maintained.

Prof. Huxley, said that evolution is "not proved and not provable."

sir charles bell, prof. Of the university college of london, says: "everything declares the species to have their origin in a distinct creation, not in a gradual variation from some original type."

fossilologist
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

 

[daws101]

living fossils show no change which a is an argument against your theory. All organisms have mutations but all these creatures show no change what kind of nonsense are you trying to pass off ?

wrong again!

Really do you know what you are talking about ?

Look for yourself.

Living-Fossils.com

Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar is a prominent Turkish intellectual. not a paleontologist !

 

[LOki]

Don't bate and switch with me boy.

TRANSLATION:

Ok. Don't make a hatchet job of English and non-sequitur with me, retard.

[T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

An insurmountable

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

Proponents of the Theory of Evolution do not assert that there are or "... make many different family trees."

It is in fact creationists who (in stolidly retarded denial of the genetic evidence) make many family trees based on their dopey baraminology.

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."

An unambiguous

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Yes your side claims that eldredge did not make the theory because of the lack of transitional fossils and that is a lie.

Maybe not so much.

"PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).

PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972)."​

Maybe it's time for you to STFU regarding what punctuated equilibrium is actually about, Junior.

Another example of CHRISTIAN Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

You example PROVES you to be unambiguously wrong. Those "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk" a far more suited to their environment--"genetically stronger" if you will--than their root stock would be in an environment that selected for "meatier cows and cows that produce more milk."

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Yet you cannot demonstrate I was wrong with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

What's up with that?

empirical evidence is observable evidence,list your observed evidence for macro-evolution.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]RING-FUCKING-SPECIES[/ame]

A

delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of CHRISTIAN Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double

, if you will.

Still no one offering a list of beneficial mutations that did not lead to a loss of the origional genetic information.

Mutation DOES NOT necessarily, in EACH AND EVERY CASE, "lead to a loss of the original genetic information" from a species' gene pool.

When a mutation is not lethal and inheritable, that mutation NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC DIVERSITY in the species' gene pool; since you equate increased genetic diversity with increased genetic information, for you this NECESSARILY means that non-lethal MUTATION NECESSARILY INCREASES GENETIC INFORMATION in the species' gene pool.

Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Once again you can see traits from both sides because genes have become fixed in each breed. That is because they only have genetic data to produce what they are.

Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.

Is this from mutations or evolution or simply cross breeding ?

CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of CHRISTIAN Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a definitive

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

 

[daws101]

Giving an opinion is not refutation do you understand this ?

it's not an opinion.
and don't start that shit about no observation.
when i check you so called sources NONE OF THEM HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO ANY MORE THEN SPECULATE. do you understand this?

Unless you observe something you can only give an opinion. You violate the science method if you can't test, study, and observe.

then that would mean all creation dogma is false... as you've never tested or observed or studied reading a badly written compendium of fairy tales and drawing false conclusions from them is not science

 

[daws101]

[T]here is the one question that you, or any Creationist, simply cannot answer. Rational people like me are not even asking for "proof" from intellectually incompetent and dishonest asshats like you, as [you] ask of us. It is the foundation of your "theory" yet you are just baffled by the request for an explanation for it--you have NO EXPLANATION! IT'S INEXPLICABLE!

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?​

The verifiable evidence of your paucity of intellectual integrity very strongly suggests that you are simply incapable of doing so; I'll take it as certain that you just won't.

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

An insurmountable

delivered to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

It is also evidence of Youwerecreated's "solid understanding" of Evolutionary Theory and Creation "Science."

An unambiguous

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!



Another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty and a

delivered to Youwerecreated.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of the nature and role of selection in altering a population's genome, and the relationship that alteration has on morphology and/or phenoype; a

delivered to Youwerecreated.



A

delivered to Youwerecreated; and his refusal to accept ring species as definitive evidence of macro-evolution is yet another example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty. A double

, if you will.



Another example od Youwerecreated's egregious lack of understanding and intellectual dishonesty; a

delivered to Youwerecreated. POW!

Lions and tigers are not different sub-species, or breed, of a species ... they are DIFFERENT species, and the lack of reproductive potency between ligers due to their genetics literally PROVES it.

CHRIST! AGAIN? Obviously what we're looking at is the result of a hybrid cross between different species; a lion and a tiger in this case.

No problem at all for evolution, completely expected and thoroughly consistent with the theory; but another insurmountable problem for Creationism as ligers fail to "bring forth in ... ahem ... "kind""--that is to say that though male lions and female tigers ARE the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat, apparently male ligers and female ligers are strangely NOT the same ... ahem ... "kind" of cat.

Care to explain that, Youwerecreated? You've had plenty of opportunity.

Apparently not.

Another example of Youwerecreated's gross misunderstanding of genetics and taxonomy, a prime example of Creationist intellectual dishonesty, and a difinitive

to Youwerecreated and his superstitious "theory." POW!

Don't bate and switch with me boy.

A little testy are we?