Oh when will poor old evolutionists find the missing link or links? Over a hundred years and still no real evidence of transmigration of species.

Like the lady from the Wendy's commercial said "Where's the Beef".

Lucy, somebody has some splainin to do.

Not only was this story posted months ago, but you're still retarded.

Seriously, BK, the only thing I learned from this thread is that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory or the scientific method.

One thing is for certain. We came from somewhere, and it's a farfetched idea (to say the least) that some dude in the sky put us here...

What is farfetched is to think that some how a bunch of chemicals joined together out of randomness and formed complex structures like DNA or that eyeballs just appeared where none had existed before.

In all of nature we can see Gods design not a random accident that modified itself over time into more complex things.

The first living thing that existed on this planet would have had to consume energy, excrete waste and reproduce. I am sorry it is too far fetched for me to believe your bullshit theory.

yup old news ...here we go again!

But, I will humor you Buzkilla. Kinda like I do for retards on the short bus.

You obviously have a lot of reading to do.

I will make it easy for you though.

Start here and get back to me on whether we have found any missing links yet.

Funny you should ask Lucy for some "splainin"... Lucy is the most famous "missing link".

I am sorry it is too far fetched for me to believe your bullshit theory.

#5 | Posted by buzkiller

Doesn't matter if you do or not. Doesn't really matter if Evolution is true or not.

Disproval of Evolution is not proof of Creation.

I am sorry it is too far fetched for me to believe your bullshit theory.

#5 | Posted by buzkiller

But it's not too far fetched for you to believe that some magic super being just wished it all out of nowhere?

#6 donner
...like I do for retards on the short bus....You obviously have a lot of reading to do.

I will make it easy for you though.

Start here and get back to me on whether we have found any missing links yet.

You've obviously completely missed the bus. In fact, apparently someone has already done the thinking for you. Why should someone "start with" secular humanist BS when they have already expressed enough intelligence to deterine farfetched is to think that some how a bunch of chemicals joined together out of randomness and formed complex structures like DNA or that eyeballs just appeared where none had existed before. In all of nature we can see Gods design not a random accident that modified itself over time into more complex things.

"Not only was this story posted months ago, but you're still retarded."
#2 | Posted by LetUsPrey

"Mar 02, 2010" WTF?

Check it out. The Ada story is old, his source is just lame

Ida. Whatevah.

Donnerboy, the reference to Lucy having some splainin to do has to do with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez of I love Lucy. Of course you are too stupid to pick up on that.

TFDNIHILIST wrote,

"Disproval of Evolution is not proof of Creation."

I have not disproved evolution. Those who believe in it simply have not provided any serious evidence to prove it ever happened. I simply keep pointing out that lack of evidence and the evolution nuts go crazy.

As for creation I cannot prove it since I was not there when it happened. I simply believe based on faith and a lack of facts to prove any other possibility.

"Not only was this story posted months ago, but you're still retarded."
#2 | Posted by LetUsPrey

"Mar 02, 2010" WTF?
#10 | Posted by KBM at 2010-03-03 10:34 PM"

I think LetUsPrey is refering to this:

Buzz, if anything, let me suggest you Start Here (though you're already on the right track).

Answers in Genesis?

LOL HOLY SHIT that's hilarious.

AiG is a joke.

Of course you are too stupid to pick up on that.

Of course you're too stupid to see that he did, but that he was commenting on the irony of the fact that Lucy is also the most famous fossil.

Those who believe in it simply have not provided any serious evidence to prove it ever happened. I simply keep pointing out that lack of evidence and the evolution nuts go crazy.

Probably because you make stupid comments like there's no evidence to support that evolution has happened when there is in fact massive amounts of data supporting evolution.

And the only reason you make such stupid comments is because of your non-evidence based belief in God, not because you've actually attempted to educate yourself.

I simply believe based on faith and a lack of facts to prove any other possibility.

You're willfully ignorant and proud of it.

In all of nature we can see Gods design not a random accident that modified itself over time into more complex things.
The first living thing that existed on this planet would have had to consume energy, excrete waste and reproduce. I am sorry it is too far fetched for me to believe your bullshit theory.

#5 | POSTED BY BUZKILLER

"If i'm not smart enough to understand it then it must not be true. Therefore, a man in the sky did it."

We dont understand all of evolution, but through SCIENCE and the power of OUR OWN BRAINS (at least the smart ones) hopefully someday we will.

Funny how righties and science are becoming sworn enemies. It's like being opposed to critical thinking.

Speaksoftly, why is it that evolution nuts like yourself try to belittle someone who disagrees with you. Science is not my enemy.

In fact I wish some of you evolution believers would bring some science to the table.

Here's you a couple of question for starters.

1. How did the first living thing on earth reproduce? Where did it get the design to reproduce?

2. Did the first living thing on earth consume energy? Where did it get the ability to carry out this function?

3. What was the first living thing to have sight? How and why did it devolope this trait?

BUZ

Your answers may lie in cutting edge science called quantum physics. I'm reading a book right now called THE FIELD by Lynn McTaggart that may answer some of your big questions.

As i stated before, we are moving forward in knowledge. Just cause we dont know something yet, doesnt mean we wont ever know it.

If i belittle you i apologize, but when people attack evolution and climate change, it sets us back as a species, and that irritates me.

Buzz is living, breathing proof that SOME men descended from apes. (In the sense that shit descends when it leaves the monkeys ass.)

In fact I wish some of you evolution believers would bring some science to the table.

LOL

Here's you a couple of question for starters.

A bunch of loaded questions that were made to not have definitive answers so you can claim victory.

1. How did the first living thing on earth reproduce? Where did it get the design to reproduce?

There's a lot of experimental evidence showing RNA molecules can catalyze the replication of themselves and other chemical reactions (they are called ribozymes), the smallest of which is only 5 nucleotides long.

And where did they get the design? LOL you have no evidence to make the assumption of design yet you expect it to be absolute.

You clearly have NO idea how science actually works.

2. Did the first living thing on earth consume energy? Where did it get the ability to carry out this function?

Who knows. What's this have to do with evolution?

3. What was the first living thing to have sight? How and why did it devolope this trait?

The evolution of the eye is well characterized.

Look it up.

Additionally, i dont discount the existence of a creator, who may have needed to do nothing but establish a few basic rules to set everything into motion. But i dont claim to know for sure, nor should anyone who values truth.

But the book i cited does lay out theories for complex evolution (like eyeballs)n and the origins of life that do not necessarily require a participating diety.

Its a dense book, and full of science and big words. I can see why some might prefer a 2000 year old text for all their answers.

"when will poor old evolutionists find the missing link or links?"

I guarantee you it'll be before anyone finds any proof Moses ever lived.

Actually, it's this.

"Where did it get the design to reproduce?"

MIT? CalTech??

People that believe in a mythical ark that can hold two of not only every creature alive today BUT also the ones that went extinct (like the dodo) have a lot of nerve talking about "evidence".

The only people stupider than GW deniers and Holocaust deniers are evolution deni......What was that? You say they are the SAME people?

Never mind.

"People that believe in a mythical ark that can hold two of not only every creature alive today BUT also the ones that went extinct (like the dodo) have a lot of nerve talking about "evidence"

Especially when you take into account the fact elephants, for example, eat about 6 times their body size each year in food, polar bears would have had to migrate to Noah and then migrate back to the Arctic Circle, and the carnivores would've eaten some of the other animals.

Although maybe that's what happened to the dodo. And the unicorn.

Anyone believing evolution is too complex to be possible never passed a probability and statistics class, or at least didn't deserve to pass.

Anyone believing evolution is too complex to be possible never passed a probability and statistics class, or at least didn't deserve to pass.

Posted by Danforth

Riiight. Everyone knows that the Model T evolved into the '10 Mustang UNGUIDED, thru probability.. just as basic elements just happened to evolve UNGUIDED into Pamela Anderson. Arrogant, naive psuedointellectual pinheads.

FTA: ...most of the conflict about the specimen has been claims made in the documentary, not in the research article.

Pretty much THIS.

Spud remembers the initial skepticism when this story first broke. The DR covered it. We also covered it a couple months later when the over-blown, sensationalistic and unscientific claims of the documentary were thoroughly debunked.

And now months later BK suddenly "discovers" the story?

Lawls!

And posts it in a misguided effort to try and deny the central tenet and most provable aspect of modern biological science?

Oh, the lulz around this place are endless.

Thank Yew, DR!

Evolution, in some sense, happens everyday.

Deal with it.

Be Well.

Ha! The four google ads on this page atm are for "Creation Seven Days", "Evidence of God", "The 7 Days of Creation" and Spud's personal favorite "Planet of the Apes".

Not making that up.

^_^

Be Well.

Riiight. Everyone knows that the Model T evolved into the '10 Mustang UNGUIDED, thru probability.. just as basic elements just happened to evolve UNGUIDED into Pamela Anderson. Arrogant, naive psuedointellectual pinheads.

~GA

Riiiight. Because technological evolution and biological evolution are EXACTLY the same thing!

FAIL Flag.

Be Well.

Dumbfork wrote,

"I guarantee you it'll be before anyone finds any proof Moses ever lived."

What does Moses have to do with lack of evidence of macroevolution?

What proof would you except for the existance of Moses? Moses is written of repeatedly in the first 5 books of the old testament.

Also why is it everytime an evolution nutbag like yourself can't answer a simple question about your theory you attack religion? It doesn't take belief in a religion to disbelieve evolution. The lack of real evidence is sufficient unto itself to disbelieve evolution.

This is how evolutionists react when there theory is questioned.

1. They attack the person who questions them. "Dumb son of a bitch backwards hicks didn't learn shit in school."

2. Then they jump right to the next talking point without botherin to answer yet again. "We hate religion therefore we don't need to answer any stinking questions about evolution."

3. Last but not least comes there final attack. "Just because we can't answer cogent questions doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. Did we mention they taugth us in school that evolution is real."

This is how evolutionists react when there theory is questioned.

No, this is...

FTA: "This is just the correction process in science," says Chris Kirk of the University of Texas in Austin, an author on the new JHE paper. "One group makes extraordinary claims, and other researchers see whether the evidence supports them, or as in this case, where it doesn't."

Evolution is a very real and observable phenomenon.

The lack of real evidence is sufficient unto itself to disbelieve evolution.

There is nothing but evidence for the theory of evolution all backed up by our new and greater understanding of genetics.

Pretending evolution isn't real in this day and age is the equivilant of believing in a flat earth or heliocentrism or Sarah Palin's intelligence.

ie. Freakin' nutso.

Be Well.

What proof would you except for the existance of Moses? Moses is written of repeatedly in the first 5 books of the old testament.
#34 | Posted by buzkiller

i guess this means luke skywalker was real too since he was written of repeatedly in star wars( another book fo fiction like the old testament.)

i bet 2000 years from now there will be people like BK that swear he was real and divine.

Oh please,

At least Science was honest enough to find and admit the mistake.

#30 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2010-03-04 03:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

How long ago do you think God Made Adam?

Why did He make all those other creatures first, and let them rule the planet for billions of years?

Speaksoftly, why is it that evolution nuts like yourself try to belittle someone who disagrees with you.

#18 | Posted by buzkiller at 2010-03-04 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag IRONY

Did the first living thing on earth consume energy?

How is this one of your gotcha questions? Every living thing consumes energy. Without energy there would be no life.

Riiight. Everyone knows that the Model T evolved into the '10 Mustang UNGUIDED, thru probability.. just as basic elements just happened to evolve UNGUIDED into Pamela Anderson.

The fact that you used this tired, ridiculous and inaccurate analogy shows you lack even a basic understanding of evolution.

Lacking to the point that anything you say on the topic can pretty much be discounted out of hand.

Arrogant, naive psuedointellectual pinheads.

You don't have a leg to stand on when accusing others of being arrogant, naive and pseudointellectual. Being willfully ignorant but acting like you're not makes you all of those and more.

The lack of real evidence is sufficient unto itself to disbelieve evolution.

This is only true if

a. you don't look for it
b. you don't acknowledge it

Neither one means you are correct.

#34 | POSTED BY BUZKILLER
"What proof would you except for the existance of Moses? Moses is written of repeatedly in the first 5 books of the old testament."

And Gilgamesh is all over the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Check out The Iliad. Athena, Achilles, Hector, etc.

Everyone knows that the Model T evolved into the '10 Mustang UNGUIDED, thru probability.

Worst example ever.

"Worst example ever."

No shit.
The Model T was a much better car.

FF.

"Oh when will poor old evolutionists find the missing link or links? Over a hundred years and still no real evidence of transmigration of species.

Like the lady from the Wendy's commercial said "Where's the Beef".

Lucy, somebody has some splainin to do."

Creationism has been around for thousands of years and not a scrap of evidence exists to support it.

It is interesting that you are capable of critical thinking where it pertains to what others believe but can't apply the same standards to your own beliefs. Well maybe not so much interesting as annoying and hypocritical....

Fucking idiot. Evolution is the only reason that people are having a debate over what lineage to place the fossil in.

The concept of a phylogeny wouldn't exist if not for the theory of evolution. Buzzkiller is apparently too fucking stupid to realize that the critics mentioned in this article are using evolutionary concepts to claim that Ida is not a direct human ancestor. They want to place Ida in the haplorrhine lineage because of morphological similarities between Ida and other haplorrhines. Since the fossil is 47 million years old and the last common ancestor of humans and haplorhines lived about 60 million years ago, it couldn't be a direct human ancestor if it is in the haplorrhine lineage.

If evolution were not valid, none of these statements could be made and this debate over the ancestry of Ida would not be taking place. This form of debate is an integral part of the scientific process. The bible thumping morons here should take note that each claim is backed by physical evidence and experimentally validated concepts of evolution. The same cannot be said of any insipid creationist rant. A creationist has no evidence whatsoever... only a collection of arguments from ignorance.

The fact that buzkiller thinks this is some sort of refutation of evolution only goes to show the unfathomable depths of his stupidity.

Here's you a couple of question for starters.

Here's one for you...

Who did Eve's sons take as their wives?

3. What was the first living thing to have sight? How and why did it devolope this trait?

I'll take, "Questions creationists won't answer for themselves" for $100, Alex.

For $200: If god designed us and designed our eyes --in his image-- and set out to give us "dominion" over the Earth and other animals, why did we get such crappy eyes?

For $300: Why do birds, cats, rodents, and some insects, have far superior day and night vision to god's chosen mammals?

For $400: Why are the light sensors in the back and the nerves at the front?

For $500: Why do so many people need corrective lenses?

Double Jeopardy: Why do cave animals lose their eyes over generations but retain the DNA sequences necessary to form eyes?

Disproval of Evolution is not proof of Creation.

#7 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2010-03-03 08:23 PM

For $200: If god designed us and designed our eyes --in his image-- and set out to give us "dominion" over the Earth and other animals, why did we get such crappy eyes?

1. Because you don't understand what "in his image" means
2. If there were no challenge and it were automatic, would it really be a challenge to subdue if we are all superior in every practical way?

For $300: Why do birds, cats, rodents, and some insects, have far superior day and night vision to god's chosen mammals?

1. Based of the misunderstanding of the phrase "in his image" you made this false deduction.
2. Do you necessarily need superior eyes to overcome something?
3. Speaking from a Biblical sense are we still perfect? or are we degrading?

For $400: Why are the light sensors in the back and the nerves at the front?

1. Because that is where they are. Because that is how it works in our situation.
2. If you are arguing that there is a God and from that standpoint, he could choose to develop something whatever way is desired.

For $500: Why do so many people need corrective lenses?

1. Again are we still perfect? No
2. We are degrading
3. We abuse our eyes and do not take care of it, thus they get worse and need correction.
4. Drudge Retort

Double Jeopardy: Why do cave animals lose their eyes over generations but retain the DNA sequences necessary to form eyes?

1. Their eyes fall out or stop developing? They have empty sockets where their eyes used to be after generations?
2. They no longer need them in the dark, their eyes degrade and as the independent nature forms inside the cave, there is no need to go outside into the light. Thus the offspring grow up in the darkness and their eyes never develop to the light and thus cannot process it. Structures exist, however they are not exercised enough to function properly.
Same would happen with humans eyes if there were to be in the dark all the time without light exposure.

#52 | Posted by BluSky at 2010-03-04 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

These aren't the final answer, but some simple ones.

"What proof would you except for the existance of Moses? Moses is written of repeatedly in the first 5 books of the old testament."

So? Middle Earth has a few books written about it, too.

Middle Earth has a few books written about it, too.

Yeah, you've got a point... there's as much evidence for the existence of god as there is for the existence of Tom Bombadil.

Danforth, historical refences in the Bible have been proven again and again. Places, dates, and timelines have historical accuracy when it comes to the Bible. The rest of what is written is taken on faith.

David was once considered a fable by the like of people like you but now is known by other archaelogical findings.

David was once considered a fable by the like of people like you but now is known by other archaelogical findings.

Like what? None of them prove anything more than the fact that the hebrews were living in judea and had a male leader. You've done nothing to validate your hocus pocus.

As I mentioned before, the fact that you think this story somehow undermines evolution is a hilariously epic fail on your part. A little information is a dangerous thing... especially in the hands of someone who is too fucking stupid to properly interpret it.

Like what? None of them prove anything more than the fact that the hebrews were living in judea and had a male leader.

#58 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-03-04 02:48 PM

"Moses is written of repeatedly in the first 5 books of the old testament."

"Never heard of him."
~Egypt

We have Ramses, we win.

"historical refences in the Bible have been proven again and again. Places, dates, and timelines have historical accuracy when it comes to the Bible."

What...you mean like Egypt actually exists?

Where is Moses written about historically, outside the Bible? What about the plagues of Egypt? No records of rivers of blood, or locusts, or first-born male children all dying in one night, and all from a culture that kept records of harvest bushels???

"The rest of what is written is taken on faith."

I have no problem with that, but the fact is, large groups of people will leave a trail after 40 days. There has never been unearthed any proof whatsoever of a large group of people traveling the desert for 40 years. And if you really believe they woke each day in the desert to find manna, you're right...it's taken on faith.

"David was once considered a fable by the like of people like you but now is known by other archaelogical findings."

Then it shouldn't be hard to find archaeological findings of Moses, should it? Or contemporaneous history -- outside of the Bible -- of Moses, plagues, or a generation of Egyptian first-born male children dying on the same night.

"historical refences in the Bible have been proven again and again. Places, dates, and timelines have historical accuracy when it comes to the Bible."

Really? Lot? Methuselah? Cain and Abel? Joshua standing around as the walls of Jericho came tumbling down? Jonah and the big fish? Daniel in the lions' den? Joseph as an advisor to pharaoh? Moses, the plagues in Egypt, and the Ten Commandments, as well as the burning bush? Even the historical existence of Jesus.

Dates and timelines?

Please. Get serious.

"historical refences in the Bible have been proven again and again. Places, dates, and timelines have historical accuracy when it comes to the Bible."

Really? Or is it simply people hammering reality in to their view of it?

Do the initial reports start using a lot of words like "possibly" or "potentially" that are dropped by believers until it's taken as absolutely true?

I'm guessing more often than not that's what's happening.

1. Because you don't understand what "in his image" means

Would you mind sharing the truth about "in his image" with the rest of us? Since you claim to know god's meaning...

2. If there were no challenge and it were automatic, would it really be a challenge to subdue if we are all superior in every practical way?

I'm not asking for radar, sonar, and UV spectrum, not even "superior" skills, but being able to see as well as the animals that will eat me seems like a no-brainer for an "intelligent" creator that loves me.

1. Again are we still perfect? No
2. We are degrading

So you agree with Darwin, "We bare the stamp of our lowly origins"?

3. We abuse our eyes and do not take care of it, thus they get worse and need correction.

In what way has a child born with poor eyesight "abused" its' vision?

Structures exist, however they are not exercised enough to function properly.
Same would happen with humans eyes if there were to be in the dark all the time without light exposure.

Structures exist, however they are not exercised enough to function properly.

Not anywhere close to the truth.

Many lack the structures themselves due to changes in the expression and regulation of developmental gene expression (I think it's through a pathway called hedgehog). So it's not even that things are "degrading," which is a canard thrown out there by Michael Behe, but the developmental pathway has changed (adapted! gasp!) to the new niche the animal is living in.

Which, by the way, is evolution.

Fucking idiot. Evolution is the only reason that people are having a debate over what lineage to place the fossil in.

The concept of a phylogeny wouldn't exist if not for the theory of evolution. Buzzkiller is apparently too fucking stupid to realize that the critics mentioned in this article are using evolutionary concepts to claim that Ida is not a direct human ancestor. They want to place Ida in the haplorrhine lineage because of morphological similarities between Ida and other haplorrhines. Since the fossil is 47 million years old and the last common ancestor of humans and haplorhines lived about 60 million years ago, it couldn't be a direct human ancestor if it is in the haplorrhine lineage.

If evolution were not valid, none of these statements could be made and this debate over the ancestry of Ida would not be taking place. This form of debate is an integral part of the scientific process. The bible thumping morons here should take note that each claim is backed by physical evidence and experimentally validated concepts of evolution. The same cannot be said of any insipid creationist rant. A creationist has no evidence whatsoever... only a collection of arguments from ignorance.

The fact that buzkiller thinks this is some sort of refutation of evolution only goes to show the unfathomable depths of his stupidity.

#50 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-03-04 12:47 PM

Thank you! I've been screaming this response since I clicked on this damned thread. Of course, it will be completely ignored by evolution-deniers.

Of course you are too stupid to pick up on that.

Of course you're too stupid to see that he did, but that he was commenting on the irony of the fact that Lucy is also the most famous fossil.

Thank you jpw for seeing what I did there. I got busy with actual work....

I luv these evolution threads on the DR... it really separates the men from the monkeys!

The difference between the Monkeys and the Men is obvious.

The Men read both sides of the controversy and THEN make a decisions as to which is more likely.

decision (singular)

The Bible has been debunked thousands of times over. Do theists care? No!

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-04 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

You look at both sides of the controversy? Pull the other one.

Stupid evolutionists! "Ida" evolved from lemurs, not humans. Now that there is scientific proof Ida evolved from lemurs and not humans maybe you'll see the foolishness of your crazy evolution theory. Hahahahaha!

Hey, wait a minute...

#15 jpw
AiG is a joke.

Who'd have thunk it. What a wild coincidence. JPW thinks Genesis is a joke. Of course the same JPW had no comment at two very solid samples posted from there in the last few weeks.

Consider the source of the critic for the validity of criticism, DR.

The biblical god can do anything except stand up to logic. No believer can ever debate using logic. It will always come down to "faith" for them.

You look at both sides of the controversy? Pull the other one.

#70 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-03-04 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag

No one who looks at both sides of the controversy would ever come down on the side of Genesis---there simply isn't the supporting logic. The only people who can be truly said to have evaluated the subject are atheists. To be able to reject the brainwashing since childhood takes courage and logic.

Eve was essentially a clone of Adam. Such a beginning for humanity would not have been viable. The gene pool was way too shallow.

It will always come down to "faith" for them.

Yep. Like believing a statute of St. Joseph buried upsidedown in my backyard will make my house sell really fast once it's listed.

You go St. Joe! lol

Amen

Who'd have thunk it. What a wild coincidence. JPW thinks Genesis is a joke. Of course the same JPW had no comment at two very solid samples posted from there in the last few weeks.

Yes, I think holding the Bible up as a valid source of criticism against actual science is a joke.

As for the "two solid examples," I have no idea what you're talking about.

Consider the source of the critic for the validity of criticism, DR.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm betting this comment will come back you bite you in the ass.

Oh, and ad hominem.

Yep. Like believing a statute of St. Joseph buried upsidedown in my backyard will make my house sell really fast once it's listed.

You go St. Joe! lol

Amen

#77 | Posted by CalifChris at 2010-03-04 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

That has been scientifically proven to work. The important criteria is the depth it is buried. As usual.

Brownjenkem wrote,

"Since the fossil is 47 million years old and the last common ancestor of humans and haplorhines lived about 60 million years ago, it couldn't be a direct human ancestor if it is in the haplorrhine lineage."

How do you know what the age of the fossil is? Are you telling me you trust the same people who couldn't determine what species it might be related to to also date? Do you even know what test they used to date it? Was it radioactive carbon dating? Could a test like that be accurate since we don't know how much radiation the fossil has been exposed to since it lived? I buy and sell diamonds for a living. All green diamonds have been exposed to natural radiation. Yet science tells us that diamonds form deep under ground over millions if not billions of years of intense heat and pressure. Now if a diamond buried deep under ground can show exposure to radiation what about a fossil? If the fossil was exposed to radiation then no test could accurately show its age.

"each claim is backed by physical evidence and experimentally validated concepts of evolution."

Really, then why did they get it wrong in the first place?

Really, then why did they get it wrong in the first place?

Why did who get it wrong?

The researchers who filled their work with caveats and qualifiers or the guys who wrote up the story which deliberately over-sold it and sensationalized it?

Be Well.

JPW, did this eyeless creature turn into another species. Well then you are talking about microevolution and I am still talking about macroevolution.

Not one single fossil exist which definitively shows evolution from one species into a entirely new species. "Where are all the inbetween fossils that must surely exist if evolution is real"? Darwin supposed this same question. Yet none of you have the guts to look for the answer.

Some Famous quotes for you evolutionists:

"The Darwinian Theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature."

Prof Fleisman Zoologist

"(The Theory of Evolution) is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. It is utterly destitute of proof."

Sir William Dawson
Canada greatest geologist

"Unfortuneately for Darwins future reputation, everyone of his arguments is contradicted by fact."

Prof L.T. More, University of Chicago

"The pathetic thing is we have scientist who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."

Dr. Robert Millican, Physicist

"Darwins theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted."

Dr. Richard Goldschmidt Univ of California

Natural Selection can only act on those biological properties that already exist: it cannot create properties to meet adaptational needs."

E.R. Nobel, G.A. Nobel, G.A. Shed, and A.J. McInnis

The known fossil record is not, and never has been in accordance with gradualism"

Steven M. Stanley, John Hopkins University

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkey with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about."

Fred Hoyle, Astronomer

Believing that life came by chance is like believing that a boeing 747 resulted from a tornado going through a junkyard."

Chandra Wickramsinghe

"It is legitimate to ask whether much science is to be found in this field(human origins) at all.

Solly Zuckerman, materialist
One of Britians most influential scientist

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could be thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

Michael Denton Microbiologist

"Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable."

Sir Arthur Klein
Regarded as Britians greatest evolutionist

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural...
We take the side of science in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior committment to materialism."
"We Cannot let a divine foot in the door"

Richard Lewinton, Darwinist

Buzz, I hope you checked out those quotes, because:

1. If even one is made up, you will lose all credibility in the argument

2. Arguments from authority are weak, yet heavily favored here on the DR by those who cannot think. If they do not have sufficient authority they will be disregarded in preference of arguments from conjecture and unreasonable thought.

3. Copy and past from the opposition is frowned upon more heavily than the lack there of from the proposition.

Also,

Whether you are a creationist, or an evolutionist, facts only matter when they are convenient. It is the human way, especially for scientists.

You will only show your lack of understanding if you continue this argument by proposing a definite 6 - 24 hour day creation.

If you are going to question the evolution and move to creation, you have to be open to the means of the creation. If you are not, you are pointlessly and hypocritically raising a putrid stink over your own inability to think about the topic at hand, and thus will be no more informed than the group that you are opposing.

Buzkiller simply can not win a debate based on logic. Simple biblical questions will make him retreat and say "Faith faith faith".

That evolution exists is not a theory---it is a fact. When people speak of the "Theory of Evolution" they are talking about HOW it happens---not THAT it happens.

The mere fact the 99% of all living organisms that ever existed on this planet--including plants--- have become extinct, proves that evolution exists.

I don't think that Buzzkill would disagree with you that Evolution exists. He is talking specifically about the how evolution exists.

He understands your theory rhetoric, however he disagrees with you on the HOW it happens. He says micro only, you say micro and macro.

JPW, did this eyeless creature turn into another species.

Yes it did/is.

Well then you are talking about microevolution and I am still talking about macroevolution.

A false distinction made by Creationists/IDers when they were painted into a corner by actual evidence showing evolution to occur.

Not one single fossil exist which definitively shows evolution from one species into a entirely new species.

Of course not, how would you expect a single individual to show that? It's a gradient of fossils over time that show the evolution from one species to another.

That gradient does exist and is quite beautiful if you take the time to look at some of the examples.

"Where are all the inbetween fossils that must surely exist if evolution is real"? Darwin supposed this same question. Yet none of you have the guts to look for the answer.

Because we have the answer! We have the fossils showing the evolution of traits and the spread of physiological structures and forms. Hell, we can even look at a gap, figure out what time period that represents and find a fossil from that period that, *drum roll*, shows a mixing of traits exactly as we'd predict. (Yes, this has happened. It was done a few years ago)

Some Famous quotes for you evolutionists:

So what, those are individual opinions. I'm sure I could post reams of quotes about the invalidity of the Bible, would you then be swayed that the Bible is invalid? No.

Besides, what are the dates associated with the quotes? What level of knowledge did the speaker have regarding evolutionary theory (I notice many of them aren't even biologists)? Are the individuals religious and therefore more prone to bias towards melding the two?

There are a thousand and a half questions that make simply posting quotes stupid.

Listen to Redemption and don't bother.

If they do not have sufficient authority they will be disregarded in preference of arguments from conjecture and unreasonable thought.

Or in preference to arguments based in the scientific literature with actual data and predictions.

He understands your theory rhetoric, however he disagrees with you on the HOW it happens. He says micro only, you say micro and macro.

Anyone who adheres to the micro v. macro dichotomy only displays that they DO NOT understand evolutionary theory.

Again, the whole micro v. macro canard was started by ID proponents who were finally forced by weight of evidence to admit evolution happens. So they moved the goal post and made up some other ridiculousness to continue justifying their beliefs.

Pretty shitty of all those scientists and evolutionists to make up those quotes out of thin air, eh?

Again, the whole micro v. macro canard was started by ID proponents who were finally forced by weight of evidence to admit evolution happens. So they moved the goal post and made up some other ridiculousness to continue justifying their beliefs.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2010-03-05 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is a lie as there are many different facets to the argument of evolution itself. If i remember correctly, as soon as this Ada fossil came about there were at least two different sided of evolutionary scientists that interpreted the find in two contrary and different fashions to fit their desired method and HOW of the theory.

The concept of micro evolution and simple adaptation and macro evolution and complete change of species to other species has always been a part of the evolutionary debate.

Just because you don't like that fact, or hold that opinion does not mean that that fact has changed.

Pretty shitty of all those scientists and evolutionists to make up those quotes out of thin air, eh?

Yup.

That is a lie as there are many different facets to the argument of evolution itself. If i remember correctly, as soon as this Ada fossil came about there were at least two different sided of evolutionary scientists that interpreted the find in two contrary and different fashions to fit their desired method and HOW of the theory.

My memory is that there were two camps-the authors of the paper who made fantastical claims and a documentary of those claims, and the majority of the field who were skeptical of the claims by the authors and pissed at the documentary.

The concept of micro evolution and simple adaptation and macro evolution and complete change of species to other species has always been a part of the evolutionary debate.

There is more of a historical context than I was aware of.

Dumbfork wrote,
"I guarantee you it'll be before anyone finds any proof Moses ever lived."

What does Moses have to do with lack of evidence of macroevolution?
What proof would you except for the existance of Moses? Moses is written of repeatedly in the first 5 books of the old testament.
Also why is it everytime an evolution nutbag like yourself can't answer a simple question about your theory you attack religion? It doesn't take belief in a religion to disbelieve evolution. The lack of real evidence is sufficient unto itself to disbelieve evolution.
#34 | Posted by buzkiller at 2010-03-04 05:49 AM

We have a very abstract view of human evolution, but many other species we can find many links to, painting a fairly solidified picture of their genealogical history. Humans - no so much. Why is that? Does that indicate that none of evolutionary theory is applicable? Rather, does that indicate that human evolutionary theory is incomplete?

IF you believe in the Sumerian stories, history, art, religion and the hundreds of thousands of detailed tablets from their libraries they are indicating extra-terrestrial humanoids medically invented human from the available hominid species. Does this easily explain the absence of evidence regarding this claim - yes, why would aliens leave their tech behind and no, there is evidence in the form of the Sumerian and related cultures storehouse of knowledge. Does this easily explain the lack of a slowly evolving sapiens - yes, as there would be none. Does this negate the theories of evolution - not one iota.

That said, I'm not a believer in the creation myth - but it does have a variety of influences apparently grounded in factual history. Unfortunately, it's conflated with a wrongly interpreted history that religious zealots invented.

Mitochondrial data can only trace our existence back 143,000 years or so back. More evidence of pre-Diluvian cultures should help explain our presence.