Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

Against your compelling and authoritative "Fuck dumbshit you didn't..., no, fundie creationists truly are too ignorant to debate.

The mark of someone who truly understands a subject is their ability to debate well for all sides involved.

Your conceit and hubris prevent you from even going to the bother of listening, much less understanding anything.

You are an embarrassment to modern civilization as your ignorance is shameful and repulsive.

The mark of someone who truly understands a subject is their ability to debate well for all sides involved... and debates with tactics involving "Fuck dumbshit you didn't...,

How clever of you to endorse such inspiring debate.

We are not in a debate since you refuse to read and respond to what people post that is contrary to your own beliefs.

You are nothing more than an internet bully and a moral fraud.

 

[Hollie]

As usual, you make no sense. "Secularism" has nothing to do with the facts of evolutionary science and paleontology.

They have bearing on the predisposition of the individual scientists in question. For example, the quickness with which Piltdown Man was accepted as genuine by gullible secularists who were also scientists demonstrates.

Your young earth creationism being challenged causes you to react with pith and vinegar just as what's-his-name does.

You silly ignoramus, I am not a young Earth Creationist.

But of course, you know what I think better than I do, no doubt, roflmao.

You have issues understanding what you are.

Let's just agree that you're confused and befuddled.

Did you know that the fossil record is compiled among a worldwide conspiracy of evilutionists who sneak out under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels and plant the fossil evidence? You knew that right?

 

[Hollie]

The mark of someone who truly understands a subject is their ability to debate well for all sides involved.

Your conceit and hubris prevent you from even going to the bother of listening, much less understanding anything.

You are an embarrassment to modern civilization as your ignorance is shameful and repulsive.

The mark of someone who truly understands a subject is their ability to debate well for all sides involved... and debates with tactics involving "Fuck dumbshit you didn't...,

How clever of you to endorse such inspiring debate.

We are not in a debate since you refuse to read and respond to what people post that is contrary to your own beliefs.

You are nothing more than an internet bully and a moral fraud.

I admit that I am at a loss to refute "Fuck dumbshit you didn't...

Why don't you take that on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So which theory do you believe ?

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

Or, "the gawds did it". But your silly conspiracies work too.

Your dogmatic site again.

You have yet to answer the question time to ignore you once again.

 

[Hollie]

So which theory do you believe ?

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

Or, "the gawds did it". But your silly conspiracies work too.

Your dogmatic site again.

You have yet to answer the question time to ignore you once again.

There is no answer other than "the gawds did it".

In the 4,000 years or so since the animals left Noah's Ark, there simply would not have been time available for the fossil record as we know it.

Therefore, the fossil record is a conspiracy and the gawds are proven true.

We should burn those atheistic evilutionist science frauds at the stake.

How you miss the Dark Ages, eh?

 

[Hollie]

So which theory do you believe ?

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

Or, "the gawds did it". But your silly conspiracies work too.

Your dogmatic site again.

You have yet to answer the question time to ignore you once again.

Ignore once again? That's like the 15th time now.

Cheer up. When you feel safe from your humiliation at being confronted with the lies, falsified "quotes" and creationist nonsense you previously posted and which I linked you to, you may return for another drubbing.

Do your gawds really approve of lies, falsified "quotes" and such behavior?

 

[daws101]

another so what statement by Ywc ... misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc.

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.

You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

 

[daws101]

Hollie punctuated equilibrium refutes gradualism it is stasis in the fossil record.

In other words organisms appear to have suddenly appeared not that they gradually evolved over a large time span that your theory say's happened.

I ask you what theory of evolution do you believe lol ?

another so what statement by Ywc ...
there is no evidence linking punctuated equilibrium to creationism.
punctuated equilibrium does not refute gradualism:the actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

Misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with quantum evolution, saltationism, catastrophism, and with the phenomenon of mass extinction, and is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism. It is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism (in the strict and literal sense of biological continuity). This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly (relative to the species geological existence), changes are still occurring incrementally, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches, a large amount) over 70,000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is seven years, then the given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000 generations).

Punctuated Equilibrium is frequently contrasted with phyletic gradualism, though critics, notably Richard Dawkins, have argued that phyletic gradualism is merely a straw man. Eldredge and Gould's advocacy of the theory brought punctuated equilibrium much attention, especially since they phrased it in terms that made it appear to be a radical re-thinking of evolutionary theory. The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis." Some detractors among evolutionary biologists wryly termed punctuated equilibrium "evolution by jerks." (It is now sometimes referred to by the slang "punk eek," with no negative connotations implied.) The actual differences between the various evolution theorists were not as large as they were made to appear. Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
PALEAUTONOMY.COM: Evolution - Punctuated Equilibrium

liar liar pants on fire!

Quote from your link.

"Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin's ideas regarding evolution, but accords with others."

yeah and? Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.
put on your man pants an admit you're talking out your ass.

 

[daws101]

So which theory do you believe ?

Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.

 

[daws101]

They don't want to debate or engage in any reasonable discussion. All they want to do is vent, ridicule and gloat over their 'wins'.

Just a bunch of poop throwing libtard clowns with very few exceptions.

As expected, those screeching the loudest against the factual data and hard (pun intended) evidence for transitional fossils are the Christian fundies.


But then again, who else but the Christian fundies are loading their posts with "poop". AS their sacred cows are marched into the glaring light of scrutiny, they do tend to get angry, vicious and begin hurling obscenities.

Lovely, lovely folks them-there good xtians.

CC200: Transitional fossils

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.


Response:
1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Good for you, Hollie-dog. But I am not arguing for YEC or any of its variations.

I am simply pointing out that science is not ever at rest and in stasis. Science is constantly churning, revising and adapting to new evidence...except for dogmatic people like you who always seem to filter what you believe through your secularist lenses first.

Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before Eldredge and Gould alerted their colleagues to the prominence of stasis in the fossil record, most evolutionists considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.[7][19][20] George Gaylord Simpson for example believed that phyletic gradual evolution (called horotely in his terminology) comprised "nine-tenths" (90%) of evolution.[21] Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the putative causes of stasis. Gould was initially attracted to I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis. However this hypothesis was rejected over time,[22] as evidence accumulated against it.[23] Other plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,[24][25] stabilizing selection,[26] the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,[27] constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,[26] normalizing clade selection,[28] and koinophilia.[29][30]

Evidence for the existence of stasis has also been corroborated from the genetics of sibling species, species which are morphologically indistinguishable, but whose proteins have diverged sufficiently to suggest they have been separated for millions of years.[31] According to Gould "stasis may emerge as the theory's most important contribution to evolutionary science."[32]

Philosopher Kim Sterelny adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process."[33]

The fossil record includes well documented examples of phyletic gradualism and punctuational evolution. As such, much debate persist over the prominence of stasis in the fossil record.

ha

ha ha ha : Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This was a tactic of evasion and slithering by ywc.

He challenged me to post evidence of his lies and falsified creationist "quotes". After posting about half a dozen, he tried desperately to change the topic.

You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

 

[daws101]

Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists. I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra. Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one. This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?" His response was, "yes." Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.

That ignoramuses like you think that the arguments in favor of an eternal Creator are the equivalent of some bullshit fantasy you pull out of your ass, just demonstrates beyond question that you do not have the foggiest notion of what the Abrahamic faiths teach about the Creator.

You would be better off reading a while more before further displaying what ignorance you labor under on this topic.

reading what? more unprovable axioms more religious treatises based on the original false premise?

 

[daws101]

You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

rather than admit he's full of shit, ywc goes for the hackneyed and false CONSPIRACY PLOY.
sorry slapdick that won't wash....

 

[Youwerecreated]

So which theory do you believe ?

Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.

Really in his own words.


"The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

What did he just say ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

rather than admit he's full of shit, ywc goes for the hackneyed and false CONSPIRACY PLOY.
sorry slapdick that won't wash....

I really wish we could meet in person.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute. "

No, I am not curious as to why mankind universally creates gods. Man need to find a reason for the randomness of life. Why does that one die, and that one live? There must be something that causes us to thrive, while they starve. The planets move in predictable patterns, Therefore, some superior force controls them. All the acncient religions focused on astrology, from the druids to the azteks, to the Egyptions. One must make sense of a random world, in which seemly unfair things happen all the time. That is why almost half the nation still believes the the JFK killing was a conspiracy. Man can not accept that the most powerful man in the world was brought down by a twentysomething year old loser with a $10 rifle.

I used to live in Vegas. I played blackjack a lot, just for entertainment. Everyone in Vegas believes that there are hidden patterns to random events. Even I began to believe after about three years that I would always win on the hand following being delt a natural blackjack, and that I would lose on the hand following a "push". I sat at a table one night where a woman would get out of her chair, and flap her arms and cluck like a chicken, every time she was delt a blackjack, because she believed it was "good luck". The azteks needed a god who would bring them victories over their enemies. They were not about to leave that up to chance, so they created one, and sacraficed victims to him. The superstition stopped being a superstition, and became a religion. Then the preisthood class was formed. They had an inside track, because they could predict the longest day of the year and the shortest day of the year, as well as comets. Obviously, only people who can speak to gods can do this. My grandmother believed that if she had to walk to the bus stop tomorrow, all she had to do was to pray that it would not rain the night before. She eventually got to the state of mind that she did not recall the failures in her prayers, only the sucesses. The same thing is true of gamblers in Vegas. They will tell you about the $6,000 jackpot they won, but fail to remember the $7,000 they lost in the preceeding 2 months.

I am not going to convice you that there is no spirituality, or god, just as I could not convice the Catholic church that the pope is not infalable. The truth is that there are some of us who can live with the randomness and unfairness of life, while most people simply can't handle it, and choose to believe that it is all an ordered universe and that god simply works in mysterious ways.

 

[daws101]

So which theory do you believe ?

Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.

Really in his own words.


"The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

What did he just say ?

still trying to wiggle out

Saltationism[edit]
The punctuational nature of punctuated equilibrium has engendered perhaps the most confusion over Eldredge and Gould's theory. Gould's sympathetic treatment of Richard Goldschmidt,[34] the controversial geneticist who advocated the idea of "hopeful monsters," only exacerbated the matter, which lead some biologists to conclude that Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[35][36][37][38] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism.[39] In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[40] Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.[41]


Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[35][36][37][38] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism.[39] In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know

 

[daws101]

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

rather than admit he's full of shit, ywc goes for the hackneyed and false CONSPIRACY PLOY.
sorry slapdick that won't wash....

I really wish we could meet in person.

IT would be a hoot to see you make an ass of yourself in public.

 

[daws101]

There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.

dreamin' is free.