Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
mike the wiz

My I.D Syllogism

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

As good or better than anyone else.. 

Evolutionism is a science fiction Novel about "long ago and far away" there is nothing to "understand "   You guys keep forgetting the name of this website..

Ok, you think that evolution is a fairytale. What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming that a person that died in 1981 can have had a good understanding of the current Star Wars universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2020 at 6:29 PM, Blitzking said:
Quote

"No duplicity. Your poor understanding of evolution (just like the young man in your cartoon) is no valid argument against the ToE. It's just your poor understanding of it. Study what you're arguing against"

HKW ABOUT THESE PEOPLE....?

ACCORDING TO YOU, THEY MUST HAVE A "POOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION" AS WELL AS NEEDING TO "STUDY" SO THEY CAN "KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING AGAINST" ISNT THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, THEY DONT BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTIONISM IS TRUE BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE AS MUCH KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT AS YOU DO RIGHT?

 

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells molecular biologist, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."

(Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."

(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination."

(Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)

"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 purely the product of the imagination."

(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."

(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)

"The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."

(Dr. Louis Agassiz, Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]

"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."

(Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

 

I GUESS THEY JUST NEEDED MORE STUDY LIKE YOU HAVE..

HKW ABOUT THESE PEOPLE....?

ACCORDING TO YOU, THEY MUST HAVE A "POOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION" AS WELL AS NEEDING TO "STUDY" SO THEY CAN "KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING AGAINST" ISNT THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, THEY DONT BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTIONISM IS TRUE BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE AS MUCH KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT AS YOU DO RIGHT?

You are not Dr. David N. Menton,  Dr. Johnathan Wells,  Dr. Duane Gish,  or any other of these people. You still need to study the ToE if you want to argue against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Perpetual_student said:

HKW ABOUT THESE PEOPLE....?

ACCORDING TO YOU, THEY MUST HAVE A "POOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION" AS WELL AS NEEDING TO "STUDY" SO THEY CAN "KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ARGUING AGAINST" ISNT THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, THEY DONT BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTIONISM IS TRUE BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE AS MUCH KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT AS YOU DO RIGHT?

You are not Dr. David N. Menton,  Dr. Johnathan Wells,  Dr. Duane Gish,  or any other of these people. You still need to study the ToE if you want to argue against it.

I have studied it.. More than you have I'm sure..

That's the problem.. The more one studies it WITH OPEN EYES, the more apparent it becomes that the whole fairytale of Evolutionism is a hoax on steroids that even YOU can't support with scientific evidence...

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

Ok, you think that evolution is a fairytale. What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming that a person that died in 1981 can have had a good understanding of the current Star Wars universe.

That's a good point.. 

But in 1981 Evolutionism was a science fiction novel. Just like Star wars is a science Fiction Novel.. Just because people with a shared neurotic agreement happen to edit it and rewrite it or even give up and try a new novel like they are now doing with "The Third Way" DOESN'T MAKE IT REALITY!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

I have studied it.. More than you have I'm sure..

That's the problem.. The more one studies it WITH OPEN EYES, the more apparent it becomes that the whole fairytale of Evolutionism is a hoax on steroids that even YOU can't support with scientific evidence...

You have studied it? Good.

Tell us then what empirical evidence convinced you that the ToE is wrong.   And I'm asking you for evidence. Not a silly quote, no cartoon. Evidence. What evidence convinced you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perpetual_student said:

You have studied it? Good.

Tell us then what empirical evidence convinced you that the ToE is wrong.   And I'm asking you for evidence. Not a silly quote, no cartoon. Evidence. What evidence convinced you?

 NO ONE HAS DISPROVED EVOLUTION! 

And no one ever will.. That is because it is not FALSIFIABLE (look up "Empirical Scientific Method" for more info).. Fairytales and Science Fiction Novels about "Long ago and far away" CANNOT BE DISPROVED as there is no way to Independently Test, Observe, Falsify, Repeat, or Confirm them. ..  It is like trying to disprove whether Santa Claus used to deliver presents to every good girl and boy from 1500 through 1900 when he decided to stop doing so because the invention of cars scared him so he no longer does so...  No one would ever be able to prove what I just claimed as "Fact", Wrong (Go ahead and try) Unfortunately for you, We have CORROBORATING  (Which means more than one example) HARD DATA that confirm that Dinosaurs did NOT live "100 Million Years ago" But indeed lived only Thousands of years ago..

We have KNOWN Bio-degradation rates (Empirical Science!) that clearly demonstrate that even under the BEST conditions, Red Blood Cells would be GONE after only 100,000 years..But, Evolutionists try to pretend that the HARD DATA don't actually confirm, WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CONFIRM!!    Here they are... Enjoy... Now you get to tell us why we find RED BLOOD CELLS and MEASURABLE CARBON 14 CONTENT in Dinosaurs.  Anyone who continues to believe in Evolutionism (Slow Microbe to Man) do so NOT because they actually think it is true, they do so because they have a strong emotional attachment to the myth MAINLY because its IMPLICATIONS happen to align with their philosophical worldview!  "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/   

 

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Blitzking said:

That is because it is not FALSIFIABLE

Ummm yes it is mr goldfish going round a bowl. Your violent, planet scouring yet bizarrely efficient flood managed a 100% success rate at separating out and laying down a perfect fossil order, right ? All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). But you won't stop to consider that will you, just banging on and on about your make believe corroborating hard data. (like we don't have dozens of independent lines of hard data that long ago dispelled any notion that the earth is a mere 6000 yrs old). You care little for truth Blitz, just your emotional need for Genesis to be literally true else somehow your life is empty, which is really quite a sad and unnecessary mindset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wibble said:

Ummm yes it is mr goldfish going round a bowl. Your violent, planet scouring yet bizarrely efficient flood managed a 100% success rate at separating out and laying down a perfect fossil order, right ? All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). But you won't stop to consider that will you, just banging on and on about your make believe corroborating hard data. (like we don't have dozens of independent lines of hard data that long ago dispelled any notion that the earth is a mere 6000 yrs old). You care little for truth Blitz, just your emotional need for Genesis to be literally true else somehow your life is empty, which is really quite a sad and unnecessary mindset.

"Your violent, planet scouring yet bizarrely efficient flood managed a 100% success rate at separating out and laying down a perfect fossil order, right ? "

Yeah, it is SO "Perfect" that it REQUIRED for all of the preposterous ad hoc explanations to be invented in order to explain it away!! LOL.. You know.. like "Hopeful Monsters" (Saltation) "Punctuated Equilibrium", "500 Million Year Old Living Fossils", "Convergent Evolution" Etc.Yeah your "perfect fossil order" is indeed perfect .. It proves the worldwide flood of Noah !!!  PERFECTLY!!

 

 

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' "

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

 

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

 

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

 

"The facts of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear "suddenly" in the first fossil ferrous strata (Cambrian) of the earth with their distinct specializations indicating that they were all created almost at the same time."

(Professor Enoch, University of Madras)

 

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."

(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")

 

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and òö0senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)ĺ

 

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences."

(Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

 

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."

(Dr. Steven Jay Gould

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blitzking said:
11 hours ago, wibble said:

Ummm yes it is mr goldfish going round a bowl. Your violent, planet scouring yet bizarrely efficient flood managed a 100% success rate at separating out and laying down a perfect fossil order, right ? All you need is that one rabbit in the Cambrian (or one of many thousands of equivalents) and its game over for evolution. But none has ever been found (and never will). But you won't stop to consider that will you, just banging on and on about your make believe corroborating hard data. (like we don't have dozens of independent lines of hard data that long ago dispelled any notion that the earth is a mere 6000 yrs old). You care little for truth Blitz, just your emotional need for Genesis to be literally true else somehow your life is empty, which is really quite a sad and unnecessary mindset.

"Your violent, planet scouring yet bizarrely efficient flood managed a 100% success rate at separating out and laying down a perfect fossil order, right ? "

Yeah, it is SO "Perfect" that it REQUIRED for all of the preposterous ad hoc explanations to be invented in order to explain it away!! LOL.. You know.. like "Hopeful Monsters" (Saltation) "Punctuated Equilibrium", "500 Million Year Old Living Fossils", "Convergent Evolution" Etc.Yeah your "perfect fossil order" is indeed perfect .. It proves the worldwide flood of Noah !!!  PERFECTLY!!

There you go dodging the question again as usual. You haven't a clue how to explain the stratigraphical fossil order have you. For example, amongst the fossilised dragonflies and other creatures that inhabited the lush forests of the Carboniferous, never ever do we find a single bone of a bird or mammal. Weird huh ? Explain exactly how this repeated phenomenon of the fossil record proves the worldwide flood of noah "perfectly" ? I'll await your latest non answer.

As for your "preposterous ad hoc explanations", give me an example of an evolutionary biologist arguing the case for "hopeful monsters". Why is punctuated equilibrium preposterous ? What is preposterous about a tiny fraction of forms (such as the jellyfish phenotype) remaining outwardly similar for 500 my while the vast majority of animals in the Cambrian assemblage do not have a modern counterpart (you always ignore that part, just fixate on jellyfish). Yes, most things existing then we have classified into the phyla represented by modern species because we like to classify things but if you went scuba diving in the Cambrian seas what you saw would look alien in contrast to today. Convergent evolution ?  What's preposterous about arriving at a similar destination when there are similar environmental drivers ? Give me one example and explain why it is preposterous (you won't be able to).

Things aren't preposterous just because you say they are Blitz. Perhaps try to provide some reasoning rather than just relying on emotive language all the time.

I see you've provided another long list of your favourite quotes (the Colin Paterson one I've explained to you before how you are misrepresenting him - he was referring to the fact that you can't assert that a particular fossil is a directly ancestral to another named group (that's why we don't put transitionals at the nodes of cladograms) - but you just ignore and carry on regardless)).

Since you think quotes carry such weight in arguments, here's your favourite creationist again (Todd Wood)

Quote

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blitzking said:

 

Blitzking, since you like quotes so much, here is another one

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

And you know what I do link to the direct original source;

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Perpetual_student said:

Blitzking, since you like quotes so much, here is another one

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

And you know what I do link to the direct original source;

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

Do you disagree with this part?

"Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Do you disagree with this part?

"Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

 

Do you agree with this part?

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, wibble said:

There you go dodging the question again as usual. You haven't a clue how to explain the stratigraphical fossil order have you. For example, amongst the fossilised dragonflies and other creatures that inhabited the lush forests of the Carboniferous, never ever do we find a single bone of a bird or mammal. Weird huh ? Explain exactly how this repeated phenomenon of the fossil record proves the worldwide flood of noah "perfectly" ? I'll await your latest non answer.

As for your "preposterous ad hoc explanations", give me an example of an evolutionary biologist arguing the case for "hopeful monsters". Why is punctuated equilibrium preposterous ? What is preposterous about a tiny fraction of forms (such as the jellyfish phenotype) remaining outwardly similar for 500 my while the vast majority of animals in the Cambrian assemblage do not have a modern counterpart (you always ignore that part, just fixate on jellyfish). Yes, most things existing then we have classified into the phyla represented by modern species because we like to classify things but if you went scuba diving in the Cambrian seas what you saw would look alien in contrast to today. Convergent evolution ?  What's preposterous about arriving at a similar destination when there are similar environmental drivers ? Give me one example and explain why it is preposterous (you won't be able to).

Things aren't preposterous just because you say they are Blitz. Perhaps try to provide some reasoning rather than just relying on emotive language all the time.

I see you've provided another long list of your favourite quotes (the Colin Paterson one I've explained to you before how you are misrepresenting him - he was referring to the fact that you can't assert that a particular fossil is a directly ancestral to another named group (that's why we don't put transitionals at the nodes of cladograms) - but you just ignore and carry on regardless)).

Since you think quotes carry such weight in arguments, here's your favourite creationist again (Todd Wood)

 

"There you go dodging the question again as usual."

No, I simply pointed out that there is no order of fossils that support the fairytale of Evolutionism, You expect to find bunny rabbits down where the clams are buried to falsify your fantasy because you believe there is a "Geologic Column"  I already pointed out the there is no Geologic Column so you are basing your "fossil order" on a myth.. 

You haven't a clue how to explain the stratigraphical fossil order have you.

There is no order, It is a mess.. (Except you wont find bunnies and humans buried down where the clams lived..)

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. NO PALEONTOLOGIST DENIES THAT THIS IS SO . IT IS SIMPLY A FACT, DARWINS THEORY AND THE FOSSIL RECORD ARE IN CONFLICT"

(Dr. David Berlinsky)

"Since you think quotes carry such weight in arguments, here's your favourite creationist again (Todd Wood)"

Would you like to see the letter I sent to Todd Wood? (Please say yes!) LOL..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

"There you go dodging the question again as usual."

No, I simply pointed out that there is no order of fossils that support the fairytale of Evolutionism, You expect to find bunny rabbits down where the clams are buried to falsify your fantasy because you believe there is a "Geologic Column"  I already pointed out the there is no Geologic Column so you are basing your "fossil order" on a myth.. 

Of course there is an order that supports evolution, as has been shown to you on here many times. Only a wilfully ignorant person could deny such a thing. Even CMI agree there is an order ...

Quote

CMI: Creationists agree there is a general order in the fossils

.... but then try to explain the obvious away with silly things like differential escape. They have to take these desperate measures due to the denialist mindset embodied in the AiG statement that Perpetual Student gave you in the earlier post.

1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

You haven't a clue how to explain the stratigraphical fossil order have you.

There is no order, It is a mess.. (Except you wont find bunnies and humans buried down where the clams lived..)

Nope definitely not a mess but you wouldn't know that because you haven't read a secular book about fossils in your life and neither do you observe fossiliferous rocks out in the field. The rabbit in the (pre) Cambrian asked for by J B S Haldane is just a catchy placeholder for any number of equivalents, for example, there are no fish (nor clams) in Precambrian rock either. Where are they all ? And the birds and mammals in the Carboniferous which you predictably couldn't answer.

 

2 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead.

Explain why there shouldn't be gaps in the fossil record.

2 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"Since you think quotes carry such weight in arguments, here's your favourite creationist again (Todd Wood)"

Would you like to see the letter I sent to Todd Wood? (Please say yes!) LOL..

No thanks, I saw your sneering, pompous letter the last time you posted it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wibble said:

Of course there is an order that supports evolution, as has been shown to you on here many times. Only a wilfully ignorant person could deny such a thing. Even CMI agree there is an order ...

.... but then try to explain the obvious away with silly things like differential escape. They have to take these desperate measures due to the denialist mindset embodied in the AiG statement that Perpetual Student gave you in the earlier post.

Nope definitely not a mess but you wouldn't know that because you haven't read a secular book about fossils in your life and neither do you observe fossiliferous rocks out in the field. The rabbit in the (pre) Cambrian asked for by J B S Haldane is just a catchy placeholder for any number of equivalents, for example, there are no fish (nor clams) in Precambrian rock either. Where are they all ? And the birds and mammals in the Carboniferous which you predictably couldn't answer.

 

Explain why there shouldn't be gaps in the fossil record.

No thanks, I saw your sneering, pompous letter the last time you posted it

"Of course there is an order that supports evolution,"

I guess you subscribe to the Joszeph Goebbels school of philosophy..LOL..

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING!

BY JIM THINNSEN

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING!!

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 500 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So evolution happens....

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

"It is impossible bu micro-mutation to form any new species"

Richard Goldschmidt

EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST AND INVENTOR OF HOPEFUL MONSTERS

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, wibble said:

Thanks for that Dodgeking

Not Dodging.. Just calling this statement of yours an ignorant lie.. 

"Of course there is an order that supports evolution,"

 

It is completely false as I CLEARLY demonstrated by exposing the reason WHY!

If there IS a pattern, it SURE DOESNT support Evolutionism!!! 

Here is is again for our readers.. Enjoy!

 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING!

BY JIM THINNSEN

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING!!

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 500 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So evolution happens....

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

"It is impossible bu micro-mutation to form any new species"

Richard Goldschmidt

EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST AND INVENTOR OF HOPEFUL MONSTERS

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2020 at 8:29 PM, Blitzking said:

Not Dodging.. Just calling this statement of yours an ignorant lie.. 

"Of course there is an order that supports evolution,"

 

It is completely false as I CLEARLY demonstrated by exposing the reason WHY!

If there IS a pattern, it SURE DOESNT support Evolutionism!!! 

You clearly demonstrated zilch as usual. The ToE could be falsified by the discovery of any of the many thousands of out of place fossils I have alluded to. The fossil record displays a general pattern of increasing complexity, starting with no life, then single celled organisms, multicellular invertebrates, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, humans. If you think that supports instant creation of all these things to be later swept up and dumped by a global flood then you are deluding yourself. If you were intellectually honest you would concede that this pattern is supportive of evolution but alas you are not so you won't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, wibble said:

You clearly demonstrated zilch as usual. The ToE could be falsified by the discovery of any of the many thousands of out of place fossils I have alluded to. The fossil record displays a general pattern of increasing complexity, starting with no life, then single celled organisms, multicellular invertebrates, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, humans. If you think that supports instant creation of all these things to be later swept up and dumped by a global flood then you are deluding yourself. If you were intellectually honest you would concede that this pattern is supportive of evolution but alas you are not so you won't...

"The ToE could be falsified by the discovery of any of the many thousands of out of place fossils I have alluded to."

Nah.. They would just rewrite the story like they have already done 100s of times... Any Science Fiction Novel about "long ago and far away" that can explain away DNA and measurable C14 in 80 million year old Dinosaur remains can explain away ANYTHING... All that would happen is "We didnt expect that" THEREFORE so and so creature must have evolved earlier (or later) and by a different family then we previously thought, Out would come the pencils and erasers and Voila, The Fairytale of Evolutionism (Amended for the 267th time) LOL.... Give it up,  Remember the name of the website you are on right now? Hint, it ISN'T "Evolution Scientific Fact" .com....

If you want people to tell you what you want to hear about Darwins myth, I suggest you go over to Talkorigins.. They will surely nod their head in agreement with what you say... We are too knowledgeable on the subject of origins here to allow for that...   Best Wishes!! JT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzking said:

"The ToE could be falsified by the discovery of any of the many thousands of out of place fossils I have alluded to."

Nah.. They would just rewrite the story like they have already done 100s of times... All that would happen is "We didnt expect that" THEREFORE so and so creature must have evolved earlier (or later) and by a different family then we previously thought,

More empty words from the Dodgeking.

There is no way that (say) a whale in the Cambrian could be justified. But if your creation myth were true we most certainly would have found bunny in the precambrian equivalents by now and evolution would be toast.

What would falsify creation for you Blitz ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wibble said:

More empty words from the Dodgeking.

There is no way that (say) a whale in the Cambrian could be justified. But if your creation myth were true we most certainly would have found bunny in the precambrian equivalents by now and evolution would be toast.

What would falsify creation for you Blitz ?

"There is no way that (say) a whale in the Cambrian could be justified" 

One would think that SHOULD be the case, HOWEVER I get the impression that if a whale was found in the Cambrian you somwhow believe that they would immediately STOP the presses, REWRITE all of the Biology textbooks and PROCLAIM  that Evolutionism has been disproved and expose it as a Fairytale in every single biology class in the land and close the chapter for good... LOL

How long did it take to FINALLY get Haekels KNOWN FAKE DRAWINGS  out of the Biology textbooks? OVER ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTY YEARS??....

Yeah, sure, tell me all about what would happen if a whale was found in the Cambrian (Assuming one hasn't already been found that is)

 

What would falsify creation for you Blitz ?

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof... I guess it might work with well meaning but less knowledgeable Creationists who dont know this subject very well.

Please allow me to remind you, Genesis is NOT being forced down every single public school biology student's throat as a "scientific theory and a fact' at taxpayer expense...  EVOLUTIONISM IS.... 

 

People who have forced themsleves to believe that Dinosaur DNA can last for 100 million years are going to have a problem with a Whale in the Cambrian? You are fooling nobody but yourself... Best Wishes JT 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"There is no way that (say) a whale in the Cambrian could be justified" 

One would think that SHOULD be the case, HOWEVER I get the impression that if a whale was found in the Cambrian you somwhow believe that they would immediately STOP the presses, REWRITE all of the Biology textbooks and PROCLAIM  that Evolutionism has been disproved and expose it as a Fairytale in every single biology class in the land and close the chapter for good... LOL

Carry on spinning that line Blitz, you'll be doing it for ever as nothing like this will ever be found. Due to the fact that evolution is true and creation is a long debunked myth that some people hold on to for emotional reasons.

14 hours ago, Blitzking said:

 

What would falsify creation for you Blitz ?

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof... I guess it might work with well meaning but less knowledgeable Creationists who dont know this subject very well.

Please allow me to remind you, Genesis is NOT being forced down every single public school biology student's throat as a "scientific theory and a fact' at taxpayer expense...  EVOLUTIONISM IS

How am I burden of proof shifting ? I've given you things that would clearly falsify evolution in response to your false claim that it is unfalsifiable. I was just interested to see if anything would falsify your belief, and predictably there isn't. If there is nothing that will falsify it in your mind, how can you know it is true ?

Of course genesis isn't taught to biology students. It is irrelevant to the subject and nothing to do with science. Evolution on the other hand is supported by multiple strands of scientific research, from genetics, fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology. There is no fathomable reason not to teach it to biology students; appeasing irate religious fundamentalists is not a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wibble said:

Carry on spinning that line Blitz, you'll be doing it for ever as nothing like this will ever be found. Due to the fact that evolution is true and creation is a long debunked myth that some people hold on to for emotional reasons.

How am I burden of proof shifting ? I've given you things that would clearly falsify evolution in response to your false claim that it is unfalsifiable. I was just interested to see if anything would falsify your belief, and predictably there isn't. If there is nothing that will falsify it in your mind, how can you know it is true ?

Of course genesis isn't taught to biology students. It is irrelevant to the subject and nothing to do with science. Evolution on the other hand is supported by multiple strands of scientific research, from genetics, fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology. There is no fathomable reason not to teach it to biology students; appeasing irate religious fundamentalists is not a good one.

"Carry on spinning that line Blitz, you'll be doing it for ever as nothing like this will ever be found" 

Probably not as Dinosaurs never lived down there anyway..

But even they were found, nothing would happen... As I have clearly pointed out...

 

"How am I burden of proof shifting ? 

By asking me to demonatrate that the Genesis account is falsifiable when I don't require that Genesis be taught to YOUR kids in public school biology class at YOUR (taxpayer) expense but YOU require Evolutionism be taught to MY kids in public school biology class....

THEREFORE 

Either agree that Evolutionism should be removed from science curriculum and instead placed in philosophy or religious studies (Along with Genesis) OR stop with your hypocritical

"Ive given you things that would clearly falsify evolution in response to your false claim that it is unfalsifiable"

No, you have given me things that you CLAIMED would "falsify" "evolution"  (UCA for all flora and fauna), but I CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED that due to a long track record of making up ridiculous ad hoc explanations to "explain away" the UNEXPLAINABLE, ..Nothing could be further from the truth..... You think that the religious belief of Metaphysical Naturalism that allows for SOME comb jellyfish to evolve into humans while OTHER comb jellyfish REMAIN comb jellies, 100 MYO Dinosaur DNA, Abiogenesis, FINELY  SORTED stata laid down over "millions of years", FINELY TUNED  Universe from "nothing" chaotically exploding and on an on and on.Is going to have ANY problem with a bunny in the Cambrian pea patch??? Are you serious?? Come on.. Save it for someone else.. I'm not buying that kettle of stinky fish nor should you expect any thinking person to do so...

Like I said... The only person you are fooling is yourself..

 

"It is emphatically the case that life could not arise spontaneously in a primeval soup from its kind."

(Dr. A.E Wilder Smith, chemist and FORMER  EVOLUTIONIST was also an expert with chemotherapy, pharmacology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wibble said:

Carry on spinning that line Blitz, you'll be doing it for ever as nothing like this will ever be found. Due to the fact that evolution is true and creation is a long debunked myth that some people hold on to for emotional reasons.

How am I burden of proof shifting ? I've given you things that would clearly falsify evolution in response to your false claim that it is unfalsifiable. I was just interested to see if anything would falsify your belief, and predictably there isn't. If there is nothing that will falsify it in your mind, how can you know it is true ?

Of course genesis isn't taught to biology students. It is irrelevant to the subject and nothing to do with science. Evolution on the other hand is supported by multiple strands of scientific research, from genetics, fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology. There is no fathomable reason not to teach it to biology students; appeasing irate religious fundamentalists is not a good one.

"Of course genesis isn't taught to biology students. It is irrelevant to the subject and nothing to do with science."

Genesis has MUCH more to do with science then the fairytale of Evolutionism does, THEREFORE Evolutionism should DEFINITELY not be taught to biology students.. Will you join us in getting it removed from biology and taught in philosophy or religious studies where it belongs?

 

"Evolution on the other hand is supported by multiple strands of scientific research, from genetics, fossil evidence, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology."

Glad to see you finally admit (tacity of course) that there is ZERO scientific evidence to support the fairytale of Evolutionism... If there was, you would have simply said Scientific EVIDENCE instead of Scientific "RESEARCH".  

Allow me to remind you, that RESEARCH is not EVIDENCE..   

If you have suddenly found some scientific EVIDENCE to support "evolution" (UCA for all flora and fauna), Here is the thread where I asked for it.. Please join it and provide it... Until now NOBODY has done so..  Best wishes..JT

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 4:51 AM, Perpetual_student said:

uh huh.

for your information, there are ZERO transitional fossils between phyla.

furthermore they will never be found.

koonin specifically spelled this out in his paper.

koonin is the LEAD INVESTIGATOR at NIH and has access to all the data.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms