Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

In other words, you're intellectually lazy and "the gods for it", answers questions regarding your embrace of fear and ignorance.

Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.

Your concession is duly noted.

BTW this link answered the question that you could not.

The evolution from the beginning

On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.

Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

Supported does not mean proven fact.

I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.

I didn't fail at anything.

 

[Hollie]

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

 

[Hollie]

Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.

Your concession is duly noted.

BTW this link answered the question that you could not.

The evolution from the beginning

On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.

Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

Supported does not mean proven fact.

I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.

I didn't fail at anything.

You actually failed with every post.

Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.

 

[Hollie]

Thank you for admitting you cannot answer the question.

Your concession is duly noted.

BTW this link answered the question that you could not.

The evolution from the beginning

On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.

Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

Supported does not mean proven fact.

I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.

I didn't fail at anything.

Proven fact means proven fact in connection with the facts of evolution.

Magic and supernaturalism is what defines your gods.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

 

[Hollie]

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Version 2 Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby [Last Update: January 7, 1996]

volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent.

Misunderstandings about evolution are damaging to the study of evolution and biology as a whole. People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds. The impression of it being a soft science is reinforced when biologists in unrelated fields speculate publicly about evolution.

This is a brief introduction to evolutionary biology. I attempt to explain basics of the theory of evolution and correct many of the misconceptions.

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia,is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Common Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Phenotype is the morphological, physiological, biochemical, behavioral and other properties exhibited by a living organism. An organism's phenotype is determined by its genes and its environment. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle, for example size differences. Large scale phenotypic changes are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are evolution.

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.

Organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies its own environment. At the least, organisms remove nutrients from and add waste to their surroundings. Often, waste products benefit other species. Animal dung is fertilizer for plants. Conversely, the oxygen we breathe is a waste product of plants. Species do not simply change to fit their environment; they modify their environment to suit them as well. Beavers build a dam to create a pond suitable to sustain them and raise young. Alternately, when the environment changes, species can migrate to suitable climes or seek out microenvironments to which they are adapted

 

[4Horsemen]

Never ask an Evolutionist about Creationism.

 

[UltimateReality]

More:

"What I’d like to suggest in this post is that Libby Anne’s belief in evolutionary naturalism springs from a faulty epistemology on her part, which leads her (and many other people with similar tendencies) to gullibly accept scientific “answers” to problems, which should be treated with skepticism. Specifically, Libby Anne fails to heed the following five maxims:

1. Scientific plausibility isn’t the same thing as scientific possibility. In order for a proposed explanation of an empirical phenomenon to be regarded as scientifically possible, it has to not only appeal to processes which are plausible, but also show that these processes are either sufficient to generate the phenomenon, or at least reasonably likely to do so, within the time available. The term “reasonably likely” means that the probability of success must exceed some minimum threshold.

2. Scientific inferences are adductive. When trying to account for an event, scientists look for the best possible explanation of that event.

3. Science is an open endeavor. There should be no restrictions at the outset on what kinds of explanations scientists are allowed to posit, when formulating hypotheses about the world. [Faulty Assumption that Naturalism can be the only possibility]

4. Speculative proposals require mathematical models to back them up. No process should be judged capable of generating an empirical phenomenon E, without either concrete evidence of P actually producing E, or (at least) a mathematical model showing that P is reasonably likely to generate E under ideal or simplified conditions. [Loki and Hollie continue to gullibly fall for explanations that posit this faulty epistemology regarding naturalistic origins]

5. Empirical evidence comes first. Psychological speculation isn’t evidence. Arguments based on empirical evidence should always trump hypothetical arguments based on psychological reasoning, when you’re doing science."

And yet the Flat-earther destroys her own argument by posting item #5.

The best case for refuting the arguments of the YEC'ers is to allow them to cut and paste from fundie websites and they will eventualiy refute themselves.

Your statement about #5 is inaccurate and therefore, flawed.

"In her blog article entitled, Young Earth Creationism and Me, Libby Anne is clearly impressed by the following argument for evolution:

…[M]any animals actually show evidence of very bad design.

There are several comments I’d like to make here.

First, even if Intelligent Design proponents had no good explanation for the instances of poor design cited by neo-Darwinian evolutionists, these awkward examples of bad design would still be trumped by the evidence from proteins and RNA, which demonstrate on mathematical grounds that life must have been designed. Why? Because that’s the way science works. Empirical evidence comes first. Show me a bio-molecule (such as a protein) which unguided natural processes couldn’t have put together in the time available, and I’ll have to infer a Designer. Arguments based on structures found in living things which appear to have been poorly designed can never over-rule that kind of evidence, because it’s based on solid empirical facts and mathematical calculations. Examples of poor design in living organisms rely on a hypothetical counterfactual about the Creator: “A Designer would never have done it that way.” Really? Do you know that? No, you don’t. Until you can find some rigorous way of quantifying the probability that a Designer would act in a certain way, your argument will not hold water.

Second, the fact that some features of living things were designed doesn’t mean that all of them were. Maybe proteins were designed, but the panda’s thumb wasn’t. Maybe the Designer only designed the first living thing – or the distinctive body plans for the major groups of organisms – and let Darwinian processes take over at lower taxonomic levels, meaning that species-specific traits were not designed. Who knows?

Third, even the most clear-cut cases of poor design are open to an alternative, design-friendly interpretation. Consider that most comical of anatomical imperfections, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, cited by Professor Richard Dawkins as excellent evidence for Darwinian evolution. Now, if the laryngeal nerve were just involved in controlling the larynx, then Dawkins might have a good point. The laryngeal nerve comes down from the brain and loops around the arteries near the heart and then goes back up to the larynx. In the giraffe, this seems like particularly bad design. However, the laryngeal nerve actually has several branches all along its length that go to the heart, esophagus, trachea, and thyroid gland. Thus it is involved in a whole system of control of various related organs. It would be very unintelligent to have a single nerve, controlling only the larynx. It would be more intelligent to have it control a lot of related systems all along its length (see this article .) Hence the laryngeal nerve, far from being a problem for intelligent design, actually vindicates it."

More examples here: Libby Anne: Portrait of an atheist feminist | Uncommon Descent

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.

 

[UltimateReality]

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Version 2 Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby [Last Update: January 7, 1996]

volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent.

Misunderstandings about evolution are damaging to the study of evolution and biology as a whole. People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds. The impression of it being a soft science is reinforced when biologists in unrelated fields speculate publicly about evolution.

This is a brief introduction to evolutionary biology. I attempt to explain basics of the theory of evolution and correct many of the misconceptions.

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia,is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Common Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Phenotype is the morphological, physiological, biochemical, behavioral and other properties exhibited by a living organism. An organism's phenotype is determined by its genes and its environment. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle, for example size differences. Large scale phenotypic changes are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are evolution.

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.

Organisms are not passive targets of their environment. Each species modifies its own environment. At the least, organisms remove nutrients from and add waste to their surroundings. Often, waste products benefit other species. Animal dung is fertilizer for plants. Conversely, the oxygen we breathe is a waste product of plants. Species do not simply change to fit their environment; they modify their environment to suit them as well. Beavers build a dam to create a pond suitable to sustain them and raise young. Alternately, when the environment changes, species can migrate to suitable climes or seek out microenvironments to which they are adapted

You really should follow your own advice rabid cut and paster...

Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

The questions have not been answered.

Face the fact, you cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.

Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.

 

[Hollie]

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.

There is proof of evolution.

There is no proof of your gods.

Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

On the contrary, evolution is firmly supported.

Thank you for admitting the failure of creationists to offer even the most basic of proofs for their gods.

Supported does not mean proven fact.

I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.

I didn't fail at anything.

You actually failed with every post.

Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.

Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?

 

[Hollie]

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

The questions have not been answered.

Face the fact, you cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.

Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.

The questions have been answered.

Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast,the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century. - Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology,2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

Yet none of this hogwash can be proven.

The fossil gap alone discredits evolution.

 

[Hollie]

Supported does not mean proven fact.

I'll concede that many people including yourself have bought into the evolutionist bullshit. But it still does not prove anything.

I didn't fail at anything.

You actually failed with every post.

Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.

Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?

Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution.

Basically, you failed at everything.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.

There is proof of evolution.

There is no proof of your gods.

Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.

No, there is perceived proof of evolution.

There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm afraid the questions having been answered is causing you such angst. As you have already demonstrated, your science loathing agenda causes you to recoil when your chains to the supernatural are debunked.

I don't expect you to be able to address proofs for gods, but your science loathing agenda
makes you appear quite desperate.

So, your concession to inadequacy is accepted.

The questions have not been answered.

Face the fact, you cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.

Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.

The questions have been answered.

Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.

My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You actually failed with every post.

Despite your conspiracy theory implicating universities and scientists across the globe accepting the fact of evolution, we've come to learn that the failure of creationists to price their gods is part of the problem they share with their invented conspiracies.

Specifically what is it you believe I failed at?

Specifically, you have achieved embracing fear and superstition. You have failed to denigrate science in favor of your gods and your have failed to make a case for your conspiracy theory whereby every major university in the world has accepted the fact of evolution.

Basically, you failed at everything.

I do not fear anything or anyone and I'm not at all superstitious.

Science (namely evultionary science) denigrates itself just fine without my help.

I have no conspiracy theory. I do have is facts.