Reply With Quote
You could start here.
To answer your question:
I conclude you have never read anything, because you have never demonstrated that you even remotely understand anything having to do with the theory of evolution.
You can't state it in your own words, and you have never talked about any of the evidence in a way that isn't cartoonishly simple or outright incorrect.
Every snarky question, CAPS ridden post, and dodge merely provides another little pebble of evidence. Plink. Plink. Plink.
You could start here.
You could start here.
You could start here.
You could start here.
Or ya could cool the kiddie crap and answer the question why do we see so many holes in evolution?
But you won't watch any of it.
Why is that?
To answer your question:
I conclude you have never read anything, because you have never demonstrated that you even remotely understand anything having to do with the theory of evolution.
You can't state it in your own words, and you have never talked about any of the evidence in a way that isn't cartoonishly simple or outright incorrect.
Every snarky question, CAPS ridden post, and dodge merely provides another little pebble of evidence. Plink.
You could try explaining ring species, why humans have ONE less chromosome pair than the apes we are so closely related to, marsupial geographic grouping, isolated island biomes, the relationship between morphology and genetics.
But you won't.
Why is that?
the same reason you won;t watch this.
Or read this....
Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.
The Imaginary Family Tree of Man
The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:
1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus)
2. habilis
3. erectus
4. sapiens
Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus , that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus . Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.
By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > habilis > erectus > sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, habilis and erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article led "Latest erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"
Furthermore, sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.
Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.
Time for work.
I predict you will continue not learning, and keep up with copy and paste understanding. You won't read anything, learn anything, or bother watching anything I post, just like the conspira s when I try to tell them that yes, we really did land on the moon.
You can stand in the same corner as Cosmored, and keep adding pebbles to the pile with each dodge and snarky question.
Plink. Plink. Plink.
Maybe if you weren't a little...Prick. Prick. Prick. about it I might have watched a video or two, but being you're a little asshole, off.
I give what I am given. If you say I am being an asshole, then I will stop. Easy enough.
Ultimately, I am more interested in the truth than anyone's ego. Back to work. Those spreadsheets won't annotate themselves.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-30-2015 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Being more respectful. Always a good thing to work for.
lol immediate self-contradiction meltdown.
One of the first things I argued about on the internet, when there first was an internet to argue on, was evolution. This is almost 20 years ago.the same reason you won;t watch this.
Or read this....
Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.
The Imaginary Family Tree of Man
The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed:
1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus)
2. habilis
3. erectus
4. sapiens
Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile").
Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus , that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus . Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.
By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > habilis > erectus > sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, habilis and erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article led "Latest erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 ± 2 to 53.3 ± 4 thousand years ago" and this "raise[s] the possibility that H. erectus overlapped in time with anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Southeast Asia"
Furthermore, sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) and sapiens sapiens (modern man) also clearly co-existed. This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that one is the ancestor of the other.
Intrinsically, all the findings and scientific research have revealed that the fossil record does not suggest an evolutionary process as evolutionists propose. The fossils, which evolutionists claim to be the ancestors of humans, in fact belong either to different human races, or else to species of ape.
Then which fossils are human and which ones are apes? Is it ever possible for any one of them to be considered a transitional form? In order to find the answers, let us have a closer look at each category.
A lot of this was new to me at the time, and I enjoyed, and still do, learning about science and weighing the merits of new ideas.
In all that time, I have found, invariably, that such arguments tend to boil down to either ignorance, or dishonesty. Along the way, I have learned a great deal about the evidence, and gotten to be pretty sharp at finding the flaws.
Neither the video, nor the website have anything really new to say.
The thing that galls me is that you post things like this, and expect me to address them, but you will not do the same to anything I would post.
That is the behavior of the conspira s and zealots. Harun Yahya is pushing the same creationist lies and ignorance about evolution as his Christian counterparts. He is worse at dressing up is bias though.
How many of his claims do you want me to debunk? One? Two? Ten?
Not all claims are equal, as I have pointed out.
What happens when you find the claims of one side are all lies? What then?
Let's start with the very first section of Haruns website.
http://antidarwinism.com/whatisdarwinism.html
This is a strawman fallacy. It attempts to project all the failings of religion onto a scientific theory.The roots of evolutionist thought go back as far as antiquity as a dogmatic belief attempting to deny the fact of creation. Most of the pagan philosophers in ancient Greece defended the idea of evolution. When we take a look at the history of philosophy we see that the idea of evolution cons utes the backbone of many pagan philosophies.
However, it is not this ancient pagan philosophy, but faith in God which has played a stimulating role in the birth and development of modern science
Scientific inquiry is, by definition, the opposite of dogma.
Claims about ideas or arguments that distort those ideas and arguments are strawman fallacies.
One doesn't really have to read on much further to find others. Appeal to authority, ad hominem, and on, and on.
Here we have both a strawman and an appeal to incredulity.
The theory of evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis, this is a strawman.
The "plentiful coincidences" is just another form of the "it is just too impossible to have happened that way" argument, already addressed multiple times.
The bottom line is it really doesn't matter, it's just a topic guaranteed to knock out 140 pages. Something most do have an opinion about. But the Evolutionaries or the Bible Thumpers really can't prove anything so it just goes around in circles. Everyones picking the side they feel better with.
When you read about God and religion it's always certainties, when you read about evolution it's always alot of reaching and guesses and maybe's. With neither above criticiizm. Both with holes a mile wide.
I go with the Designer/Supreme Being thing because it just makes more sense to me. I will never ever under any cir stances believe fishy ancestors, nor will I believe in a God who dumps His children to go play hide and seek.
But, it really doesn't matter how it all came about and other than using the topic to stir internet pots I never talk or think about it.
Last edited by Avante; 04-30-2015 at 12:44 PM.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
A whole range of evidence is available.
Again, I dont' even have to work very hard to find the scientific answers.
This stuff is very easy to read, very easy to verify.
This is the easiest, most common claim. It offers a testable assertion with clear yes/no dichotomy.
We have millions of transitional forms.
The creationist answer to finding a letter between A and C is, "well where is B.1, huh, tell me that?", essentially a shifting of goal points.
When one side is so very obviously dishonest Avante, and the other side isn't, what does that tell you about the strengths of their arguments or assertions?
Honestly, it suits me fine to show how dishonest one side is.
As noted before, belief has consequences.
What happens when you find the claims of one side are all lies? What then?
What would that change in my life, yep...nothing. I don't go to any church, I wouldn't miss Christmas or Easter, as an adult they are just a hassle. I'd just as soon dump both, save some $$$.
Most people today believe in some God, very very few agree with you, but you don't care, right?
Well, its already pretty obvious you don't care what is true. I figured that out a long time ago.
It is just as obvious you are an ignorant about the subject. You seem to enjoy wallowing in that ignorance.
Yet you cry foul when someone points out the mudpit you are wallowing in. (shakes head)
You wanna try going one on one with me in...
NCAA football
world art
world literature
boxing
Pro football
music
blues...specific
track
the sci fi novel
trivia in the movies
pro rasslin'
why not, ignorance?
Is it ignorance or lack of interest? Evolution like religion is just a fun topic not to be taken too seriously since nobody really has any absolutes truths.
Proving I was right.
Took you long enough to admit it. First honest thing you have said.I conclude you have never read anything, because you have never demonstrated that you even remotely understand anything having to do with the theory of evolution.
You can't state it in your own words, and you have never talked about any of the evidence in a way that isn't cartoonishly simple or outright incorrect.
Every snarky question, CAPS ridden post, and dodge merely provides another little pebble of evidence. Plink. Plink. Plink.
Nobody cares about you guy, right, wrong who cares? Now bet it you're becoming a bore.
Not falling for it, sorry.
My interests lie elsewhere.
We might talk about sci-fi, but given your behavior here, I am disinclined.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
