Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,513 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 921,027
Pageviews Today: 1,538,460Threads Today: 740Posts Today: 12,991
10:03 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

 
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
12/12/2018 01:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Good luck with your bubble puddle. Personally I would rather put my faith in The Mighty God of Israel.
 Quoting: musashi777


Mary Schweitzer (the woman who discovered the dinosaur soft tissue) is a christian. Like most Christians, she accepts evolution. Evolution does not equal atheism. Why can't you get that through your head? WTF is a bubble puddle?

Genesis is obviously not a literal historical account. A child can see that.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 12/12/2018 01:08 AM
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
12/12/2018 01:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:





The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been dysfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.
 Quoting: Icebear


You're still posting this garbage? It's wrong from the first sentence. I've refuted every argument in it multiple times and you just ignore me.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


Blah, blah, blah, monkey boy.
 Quoting: The Ghost of Comedian


Oh, that hurts. You believe that magic dirt had sex with its own rib and then after a few thousand years of incest you got here.
Kakarot

User ID: 77196278
Australia
12/12/2018 03:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
guys, evolution is Stupid. there are tree fossils growing through geologic layers. trex soft tissue. millions of puddles (none producing lifeforms). all life comes from life. the big bang requires more faith then anything, and here u two are bickering about odd toed equines, ive had enough. im going to get some pu$$y. good luck with ur even and odd toed behemoths. The only proof you need that God exists is the female form, and He's an artist to boot.


boom33
 Quoting: musashi777


Would you bet your life that you fully understand evolution? You cannot seriously think you know what evolution is surely


If you knew what evolution is then you would realize it wouldn't matter if they found a living T-Rex.

Just think about it, if ancient species were living only thousands of years ago they would have DNA in their fossils. DNA lasts millions of years. Creationists study fossils too, they have not found DNA in them. Thats because they are way older than millions of years.

Last Edited by Kakarot on 12/12/2018 03:49 AM
Kakarot
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/28/2018 11:53 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
guys, evolution is Stupid. there are tree fossils growing through geologic layers. trex soft tissue. millions of puddles (none producing lifeforms). all life comes from life. the big bang requires more faith then anything, and here u two are bickering about odd toed equines, ive had enough. im going to get some pu$$y. good luck with ur even and odd toed behemoths. The only proof you need that God exists is the female form, and He's an artist to boot.


boom33
 Quoting: musashi777


Would you bet your life that you fully understand evolution? You cannot seriously think you know what evolution is surely


If you knew what evolution is then you would realize it wouldn't matter if they found a living T-Rex.

Just think about it, if ancient species were living only thousands of years ago they would have DNA in their fossils. DNA lasts millions of years. Creationists study fossils too, they have not found DNA in them. Thats because they are way older than millions of years.
 Quoting: Kakarot



You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish....

I wish evolution existed just like in DBZ that would be so cool and make the world much more interesting!!! Kakarot, there can only be one prince of all sayans!

I would certainly bet my life that The Creator God built this simulation as a battle/testing ground to demonstrate the destructive interaction between good and evil. Would you bet ur life that there is no God??





Last Edited by musashi777 on 12/29/2018 12:06 AM
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/28/2018 11:59 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Good luck with your bubble puddle. Personally I would rather put my faith in The Mighty God of Israel.
 Quoting: musashi777


Mary Schweitzer (the woman who discovered the dinosaur soft tissue) is a christian. Like most Christians, she accepts evolution. Evolution does not equal atheism. Why can't you get that through your head? WTF is a bubble puddle?

Genesis is obviously not a literal historical account. A child can see that.
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Not "a" but "The" bubble puddle is the glorious creator of the Darwinist mythos. It was once struck by lightning in a magnificent flash of life bringing forth life in one miraculous instant. Ever since that legendary moment life flourished into a myriad of shapes and forms, until mankind developed the intellect to systematically manipulate and deconstruct mother natures fantastic work. duh.

Last Edited by musashi777 on 12/29/2018 12:06 AM
Kakarot

User ID: 77202221
Australia
12/29/2018 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
guys, evolution is Stupid. there are tree fossils growing through geologic layers. trex soft tissue. millions of puddles (none producing lifeforms). all life comes from life. the big bang requires more faith then anything, and here u two are bickering about odd toed equines, ive had enough. im going to get some pu$$y. good luck with ur even and odd toed behemoths. The only proof you need that God exists is the female form, and He's an artist to boot.


boom33
 Quoting: musashi777


Would you bet your life that you fully understand evolution? You cannot seriously think you know what evolution is surely


If you knew what evolution is then you would realize it wouldn't matter if they found a living T-Rex.

Just think about it, if ancient species were living only thousands of years ago they would have DNA in their fossils. DNA lasts millions of years. Creationists study fossils too, they have not found DNA in them. Thats because they are way older than millions of years.
 Quoting: Kakarot



You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish....

I wish evolution existed just like in DBZ that would be so cool and make the world much more interesting!!! Kakarot, there can only be one prince of all sayans!

I would certainly bet my life that The Creator God built this simulation as a battle/testing ground to demonstrate the destructive interaction between good and evil. Would you bet ur life that there is no God??




 Quoting: musashi777


the 2 aren't comparable

evolution is proven already. there is zero evidence of any god.
Kakarot
Wookiee666

User ID: 62421844
United States
12/29/2018 10:20 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
stupidhurts
Warning: Poster is a publicly confessed neophiliac. INTP-A

With chaos comes profit.

"Just because he’s been correctly predicting doom for decades and it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean he’s wrong." - some AC

"…I tasked a professional remote viewer to do this…" some AC from Finland.

"If the truth can destroy a thing, then let it be destroyed."

I never forgive and I never forget.
Wookiee666

User ID: 62421844
United States
12/29/2018 10:21 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...

Genesis is obviously not a literal historical account. A child can see that.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


But adults have killed over it.
Warning: Poster is a publicly confessed neophiliac. INTP-A

With chaos comes profit.

"Just because he’s been correctly predicting doom for decades and it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean he’s wrong." - some AC

"…I tasked a professional remote viewer to do this…" some AC from Finland.

"If the truth can destroy a thing, then let it be destroyed."

I never forgive and I never forget.
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/29/2018 11:01 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
guys, evolution is Stupid. there are tree fossils growing through geologic layers. trex soft tissue. millions of puddles (none producing lifeforms). all life comes from life. the big bang requires more faith then anything, and here u two are bickering about odd toed equines, ive had enough. im going to get some pu$$y. good luck with ur even and odd toed behemoths. The only proof you need that God exists is the female form, and He's an artist to boot.


boom33
 Quoting: musashi777


Would you bet your life that you fully understand evolution? You cannot seriously think you know what evolution is surely


If you knew what evolution is then you would realize it wouldn't matter if they found a living T-Rex.

Just think about it, if ancient species were living only thousands of years ago they would have DNA in their fossils. DNA lasts millions of years. Creationists study fossils too, they have not found DNA in them. Thats because they are way older than millions of years.
 Quoting: Kakarot



You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish....

I wish evolution existed just like in DBZ that would be so cool and make the world much more interesting!!! Kakarot, there can only be one prince of all sayans!

I would certainly bet my life that The Creator God built this simulation as a battle/testing ground to demonstrate the destructive interaction between good and evil. Would you bet ur life that there is no God??




 Quoting: musashi777


the 2 aren't comparable

evolution is proven already. there is zero evidence of any god.
 Quoting: Kakarot



It is true that they are incompatible. One thing is for sure two things for certain, the super symmetrical universe is a simulation for consciousness, and that the simulation did not appear through random processes. The universe is so fine tuned that to propose its origins stem from random occurrence's is foolish at best. No the name afforded this Creator is God.


Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
12/31/2018 10:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...


Would you bet your life that you fully understand evolution? You cannot seriously think you know what evolution is surely


If you knew what evolution is then you would realize it wouldn't matter if they found a living T-Rex.

Just think about it, if ancient species were living only thousands of years ago they would have DNA in their fossils. DNA lasts millions of years. Creationists study fossils too, they have not found DNA in them. Thats because they are way older than millions of years.
 Quoting: Kakarot



You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish....

I wish evolution existed just like in DBZ that would be so cool and make the world much more interesting!!! Kakarot, there can only be one prince of all sayans!

I would certainly bet my life that The Creator God built this simulation as a battle/testing ground to demonstrate the destructive interaction between good and evil. Would you bet ur life that there is no God??




 Quoting: musashi777


the 2 aren't comparable

evolution is proven already. there is zero evidence of any god.
 Quoting: Kakarot



It is true that they are incompatible. One thing is for sure two things for certain, the super symmetrical universe is a simulation for consciousness, and that the simulation did not appear through random processes. The universe is so fine tuned that to propose its origins stem from random occurrence's is foolish at best. No the name afforded this Creator is God.



 Quoting: musashi777


That's Hugh Ross. He believes in evolution! As I've told you many times now, people believe in God and evolution, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You just cover your ears and talk nonsense about 'bubble puddles.'

Your ignorance and closed mindedness are cartoonish. It's hard to believe you're real.
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/31/2018 10:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...



You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish....

I wish evolution existed just like in DBZ that would be so cool and make the world much more interesting!!! Kakarot, there can only be one prince of all sayans!

I would certainly bet my life that The Creator God built this simulation as a battle/testing ground to demonstrate the destructive interaction between good and evil. Would you bet ur life that there is no God??




 Quoting: musashi777


the 2 aren't comparable

evolution is proven already. there is zero evidence of any god.
 Quoting: Kakarot



It is true that they are incompatible. One thing is for sure two things for certain, the super symmetrical universe is a simulation for consciousness, and that the simulation did not appear through random processes. The universe is so fine tuned that to propose its origins stem from random occurrence's is foolish at best. No the name afforded this Creator is God.



 Quoting: musashi777


That's Hugh Ross. He believes in evolution! As I've told you many times now, people believe in God and evolution, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You just cover your ears and talk nonsense about 'bubble puddles.'

Your ignorance and closed mindedness are cartoonish. It's hard to believe you're real.
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Okay, if it wasn't a bubble puddle, do you think that maybe it was pan spermia? As in oh I don't know life was seeded on earth by a super civilisation?
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
12/31/2018 10:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...


the 2 aren't comparable

evolution is proven already. there is zero evidence of any god.
 Quoting: Kakarot



It is true that they are incompatible. One thing is for sure two things for certain, the super symmetrical universe is a simulation for consciousness, and that the simulation did not appear through random processes. The universe is so fine tuned that to propose its origins stem from random occurrence's is foolish at best. No the name afforded this Creator is God.



 Quoting: musashi777


That's Hugh Ross. He believes in evolution! As I've told you many times now, people believe in God and evolution, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You just cover your ears and talk nonsense about 'bubble puddles.'

Your ignorance and closed mindedness are cartoonish. It's hard to believe you're real.
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Okay, if it wasn't a bubble puddle, do you think that maybe it was pan spermia? As in oh I don't know life was seeded on earth by a super civilisation?
 Quoting: musashi777


I don't know. Let's talk about evolution, since that's the topic of your thread.

You accept that all equines evolved from a common ancestor (meaning that you already believe in evolution) but you draw the line when someone says that all Perissodactyla share a common ancestor. Why is that?
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/31/2018 10:32 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...



It is true that they are incompatible. One thing is for sure two things for certain, the super symmetrical universe is a simulation for consciousness, and that the simulation did not appear through random processes. The universe is so fine tuned that to propose its origins stem from random occurrence's is foolish at best. No the name afforded this Creator is God.



 Quoting: musashi777


That's Hugh Ross. He believes in evolution! As I've told you many times now, people believe in God and evolution, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You just cover your ears and talk nonsense about 'bubble puddles.'

Your ignorance and closed mindedness are cartoonish. It's hard to believe you're real.
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Okay, if it wasn't a bubble puddle, do you think that maybe it was pan spermia? As in oh I don't know life was seeded on earth by a super civilisation?
 Quoting: musashi777


I don't know. Let's talk about evolution, since that's the topic of your thread.

You accept that all equines evolved from a common ancestor (meaning that you already believe in evolution) but you draw the line when someone says that all Perissodactyla share a common ancestor. Why is that?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Because horses produce horses not rhinoceros'... Dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds, cats produce cats. I believe in adaptational evolution but not transitional evolution.
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
12/31/2018 10:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...


That's Hugh Ross. He believes in evolution! As I've told you many times now, people believe in God and evolution, but it's like talking to a brick wall. You just cover your ears and talk nonsense about 'bubble puddles.'

Your ignorance and closed mindedness are cartoonish. It's hard to believe you're real.
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Okay, if it wasn't a bubble puddle, do you think that maybe it was pan spermia? As in oh I don't know life was seeded on earth by a super civilisation?
 Quoting: musashi777


I don't know. Let's talk about evolution, since that's the topic of your thread.

You accept that all equines evolved from a common ancestor (meaning that you already believe in evolution) but you draw the line when someone says that all Perissodactyla share a common ancestor. Why is that?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Because horses produce horses not rhinoceros'... Dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds, cats produce cats. I believe in adaptational evolution but not transitional evolution.
 Quoting: musashi777


Do you understand that no evolutionist thinks a horse produced a rhino?
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/31/2018 10:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...



Okay, if it wasn't a bubble puddle, do you think that maybe it was pan spermia? As in oh I don't know life was seeded on earth by a super civilisation?
 Quoting: musashi777


I don't know. Let's talk about evolution, since that's the topic of your thread.

You accept that all equines evolved from a common ancestor (meaning that you already believe in evolution) but you draw the line when someone says that all Perissodactyla share a common ancestor. Why is that?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Because horses produce horses not rhinoceros'... Dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds, cats produce cats. I believe in adaptational evolution but not transitional evolution.
 Quoting: musashi777


Do you understand that no evolutionist thinks a horse produced a rhino?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Yes. What I am saying is that it is easy to ascertain that lions, tiger, cheetahs, leopards, bob cats, lynxes, panthers, house cats all have a feline common ancestor. just like whites, blacks, Asians, pigmies etc all came from a human common ancestor. Darwinists used to believe that black people were the transitional species between humans and apes, the bible written thousands of years prior never made such an outlandish claim......
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
12/31/2018 11:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...


I don't know. Let's talk about evolution, since that's the topic of your thread.

You accept that all equines evolved from a common ancestor (meaning that you already believe in evolution) but you draw the line when someone says that all Perissodactyla share a common ancestor. Why is that?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Because horses produce horses not rhinoceros'... Dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds, cats produce cats. I believe in adaptational evolution but not transitional evolution.
 Quoting: musashi777


Do you understand that no evolutionist thinks a horse produced a rhino?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Yes. What I am saying is that it is easy to ascertain that lions, tiger, cheetahs, leopards, bob cats, lynxes, panthers, house cats all have a feline common ancestor. just like whites, blacks, Asians, pigmies etc all came from a human common ancestor. Darwinists used to believe that black people were the transitional species between humans and apes, the bible written thousands of years prior never made such an outlandish claim......
 Quoting: musashi777


Why is it easy to ascertain this?

So you think that one common bird ancestor can produce everything from a penguin to an ostrich, even though penguins don't produce ostriches.

So how do you know rhinos and horses didn't descend from a common ancestor? Do you know that for certain?
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
12/31/2018 11:27 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...



Because horses produce horses not rhinoceros'... Dogs produce dogs, birds produce birds, cats produce cats. I believe in adaptational evolution but not transitional evolution.
 Quoting: musashi777


Do you understand that no evolutionist thinks a horse produced a rhino?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Yes. What I am saying is that it is easy to ascertain that lions, tiger, cheetahs, leopards, bob cats, lynxes, panthers, house cats all have a feline common ancestor. just like whites, blacks, Asians, pigmies etc all came from a human common ancestor. Darwinists used to believe that black people were the transitional species between humans and apes, the bible written thousands of years prior never made such an outlandish claim......
 Quoting: musashi777


Why is it easy to ascertain this?

So you think that one common bird ancestor can produce everything from a penguin to an ostrich, even though penguins don't produce ostriches.

So how do you know rhinos and horses didn't descend from a common ancestor? Do you know that for certain?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Good point, I don't know if all birds have a common ancestor, nor do I know for certain that horse and rhinos come from different ancestors. All that I am hypothesising is that when you look at a specie, canines for example, you have a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Chihuahua vs wolf vs Aztec hairless vs bulldog vs great dane. huge variations. As far as I know though, they all come from the same ancestor......

the reason I don't think horses and rhinos share a common ancestor is because I see no resemblance other than four legs and an odd number of toes. can they interbreed??
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
01/01/2019 01:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...


Do you understand that no evolutionist thinks a horse produced a rhino?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Yes. What I am saying is that it is easy to ascertain that lions, tiger, cheetahs, leopards, bob cats, lynxes, panthers, house cats all have a feline common ancestor. just like whites, blacks, Asians, pigmies etc all came from a human common ancestor. Darwinists used to believe that black people were the transitional species between humans and apes, the bible written thousands of years prior never made such an outlandish claim......
 Quoting: musashi777


Why is it easy to ascertain this?

So you think that one common bird ancestor can produce everything from a penguin to an ostrich, even though penguins don't produce ostriches.

So how do you know rhinos and horses didn't descend from a common ancestor? Do you know that for certain?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Good point, I don't know if all birds have a common ancestor, nor do I know for certain that horse and rhinos come from different ancestors. All that I am hypothesising is that when you look at a specie, canines for example, you have a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Chihuahua vs wolf vs Aztec hairless vs bulldog vs great dane. huge variations. As far as I know though, they all come from the same ancestor......

the reason I don't think horses and rhinos share a common ancestor is because I see no resemblance other than four legs and an odd number of toes. can they interbreed??
 Quoting: musashi777


The resemblance is greater than that. Genetically, rhinos are closer to horses than some fish are to other fish.

They can't interbreed, but neither can all birds, or all cats. We can directly observe speciation, the process where one population capable of interbreeding splits into two or more populations that can't interbreed. Therefor, we know that the inability to interbreed does not rule out the possibility of a common ancestor. This is a fact.

Scientists don't just look at two things and say 'obviously this is related and this isn't' based on the resemblance they observe. They create models and test them based on their predictions.
For instance, among mammals (including perissodactyla) it is the norm to have multiple toes. Horses have one toe. If they share a common ancestor, then the number of toes must have changed as these animals evolved, right?

Now we have two possibilities. Either the common ancestor had one toe, and every species except the horse evolved multiple toes, or the common ancestor had multiple toes and the horse line lost its toes after diverging. Which of these is more likely?
Because horses are the exception, (they have one toe and other perissodacytla don't) then Occam's razor would suggest that horses lost their toes, rather than all the other perissodactyla coincidentally gaining toes.

The fossil record supports this. What we see is a sequence. Fish appear, amphibians appear, reptiles appear, then Mammals appear and they diversify. Eventually we see a type of mammal that has distinct traits, these traits are found in all members of perissodactyla, but they are not found in other mammals. So we classify this as the earliest Perissodactyla.

Next, we see perissodactyla diversify into multiple subgroups, that have their own distinct traits. Over time, the animals in one of these groups becomes gradually more like a rhino, while another group gradually becomes small three toed equines. From here, we see a gradual reduction of the toes, and equines become more and more like modern horses, donkeys etc.

This sequence supports the model of common ancestry. But that's not all, we can also look at the genetic evidence, and the geographic distribution of animals to see if they also show the same pattern of divergence.

Are you familiar with ERV's?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/01/2019 01:19 AM
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
01/01/2019 03:25 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...



Yes. What I am saying is that it is easy to ascertain that lions, tiger, cheetahs, leopards, bob cats, lynxes, panthers, house cats all have a feline common ancestor. just like whites, blacks, Asians, pigmies etc all came from a human common ancestor. Darwinists used to believe that black people were the transitional species between humans and apes, the bible written thousands of years prior never made such an outlandish claim......
 Quoting: musashi777


Why is it easy to ascertain this?

So you think that one common bird ancestor can produce everything from a penguin to an ostrich, even though penguins don't produce ostriches.

So how do you know rhinos and horses didn't descend from a common ancestor? Do you know that for certain?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Good point, I don't know if all birds have a common ancestor, nor do I know for certain that horse and rhinos come from different ancestors. All that I am hypothesising is that when you look at a specie, canines for example, you have a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Chihuahua vs wolf vs Aztec hairless vs bulldog vs great dane. huge variations. As far as I know though, they all come from the same ancestor......

the reason I don't think horses and rhinos share a common ancestor is because I see no resemblance other than four legs and an odd number of toes. can they interbreed??
 Quoting: musashi777


The resemblance is greater than that. Genetically, rhinos are closer to horses than some fish are to other fish.

They can't interbreed, but neither can all birds, or all cats. We can directly observe speciation, the process where one population capable of interbreeding splits into two or more populations that can't interbreed. Therefor, we know that the inability to interbreed does not rule out the possibility of a common ancestor. This is a fact.

Scientists don't just look at two things and say 'obviously this is related and this isn't' based on the resemblance they observe. They create models and test them based on their predictions.
For instance, among mammals (including perissodactyla) it is the norm to have multiple toes. Horses have one toe. If they share a common ancestor, then the number of toes must have changed as these animals evolved, right?

Now we have two possibilities. Either the common ancestor had one toe, and every species except the horse evolved multiple toes, or the common ancestor had multiple toes and the horse line lost its toes after diverging. Which of these is more likely?
Because horses are the exception, (they have one toe and other perissodacytla don't) then Occam's razor would suggest that horses lost their toes, rather than all the other perissodactyla coincidentally gaining toes.

The fossil record supports this. What we see is a sequence. Fish appear, amphibians appear, reptiles appear, then Mammals appear and they diversify. Eventually we see a type of mammal that has distinct traits, these traits are found in all members of perissodactyla, but they are not found in other mammals. So we classify this as the earliest Perissodactyla.

Next, we see perissodactyla diversify into multiple subgroups, that have their own distinct traits. Over time, the animals in one of these groups becomes gradually more like a rhino, while another group gradually becomes small three toed equines. From here, we see a gradual reduction of the toes, and equines become more and more like modern horses, donkeys etc.

This sequence supports the model of common ancestry. But that's not all, we can also look at the genetic evidence, and the geographic distribution of animals to see if they also show the same pattern of divergence.

Are you familiar with ERV's?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



I am now: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
01/01/2019 10:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
...


Why is it easy to ascertain this?

So you think that one common bird ancestor can produce everything from a penguin to an ostrich, even though penguins don't produce ostriches.

So how do you know rhinos and horses didn't descend from a common ancestor? Do you know that for certain?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



Good point, I don't know if all birds have a common ancestor, nor do I know for certain that horse and rhinos come from different ancestors. All that I am hypothesising is that when you look at a specie, canines for example, you have a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Chihuahua vs wolf vs Aztec hairless vs bulldog vs great dane. huge variations. As far as I know though, they all come from the same ancestor......

the reason I don't think horses and rhinos share a common ancestor is because I see no resemblance other than four legs and an odd number of toes. can they interbreed??
 Quoting: musashi777


The resemblance is greater than that. Genetically, rhinos are closer to horses than some fish are to other fish.

They can't interbreed, but neither can all birds, or all cats. We can directly observe speciation, the process where one population capable of interbreeding splits into two or more populations that can't interbreed. Therefor, we know that the inability to interbreed does not rule out the possibility of a common ancestor. This is a fact.

Scientists don't just look at two things and say 'obviously this is related and this isn't' based on the resemblance they observe. They create models and test them based on their predictions.
For instance, among mammals (including perissodactyla) it is the norm to have multiple toes. Horses have one toe. If they share a common ancestor, then the number of toes must have changed as these animals evolved, right?

Now we have two possibilities. Either the common ancestor had one toe, and every species except the horse evolved multiple toes, or the common ancestor had multiple toes and the horse line lost its toes after diverging. Which of these is more likely?
Because horses are the exception, (they have one toe and other perissodacytla don't) then Occam's razor would suggest that horses lost their toes, rather than all the other perissodactyla coincidentally gaining toes.

The fossil record supports this. What we see is a sequence. Fish appear, amphibians appear, reptiles appear, then Mammals appear and they diversify. Eventually we see a type of mammal that has distinct traits, these traits are found in all members of perissodactyla, but they are not found in other mammals. So we classify this as the earliest Perissodactyla.

Next, we see perissodactyla diversify into multiple subgroups, that have their own distinct traits. Over time, the animals in one of these groups becomes gradually more like a rhino, while another group gradually becomes small three toed equines. From here, we see a gradual reduction of the toes, and equines become more and more like modern horses, donkeys etc.

This sequence supports the model of common ancestry. But that's not all, we can also look at the genetic evidence, and the geographic distribution of animals to see if they also show the same pattern of divergence.

Are you familiar with ERV's?
 Quoting: Spur-Man



I am now: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]
 Quoting: musashi777


Ok. So ERV's are viral genes that are inserted into the DNA of a host, and then get passed onto the next generation. Because these genes are inserted into a random position, we can determine that two individuals with identical ERV's most likely inherited them from a common ancestor. It's like a paternity test.

Now we can look at the distribution of ERV's in different species, and see if it matches the same sequence we see in the fossil record. And it does, perfectly.

All mammals share ERV's, and the amount they share with each other is greater than the amount they share with non-mammals. All Perissodactyla share a greater number of ERV's with each other than they do with other mammals. And Lastly, all equines share more ERV's with each other than they do with other members of perissodactyla.
This is exactly what the common ancestry model predicts. The closer two animals are taxonomically, the more ERV's they share. This applies to every species we test.

A mouse and a beaver are both rodents, so the common ancestry model predicts that they will share a greater number of ERV's with each other than they do with a squirrel. And they do.
A lemur and a monkey are both primates, so they share more ERV's with each other than they do with racoons.

Pick any three species you want, and by comparing how close they are taxonomically, you will be able to successfully predict which 2 share the greatest amount of ERV's. And coincidentally, this pattern will match the exact sequence in which animals appear in the fossil record. Every time.

Try it yourself. This is very compelling evidence that the common ancestry model is correct.
The Ghost of Comedian

User ID: 76584227
United States
01/01/2019 11:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Mary Schweitzer didn't lose her job at all, and she's repeatedly told you Creationists to stop using her to support your position. She accepts evolution.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


I really don't care what she thinks. I also don't care that she's still foolish enough to continue believing evolution. The fact is, she AND OTHERS have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.

Last Edited by The Ghost of Comedian on 01/01/2019 11:28 PM
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
01/02/2019 08:32 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Mary Schweitzer didn't lose her job at all, and she's repeatedly told you Creationists to stop using her to support your position. She accepts evolution.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


I really don't care what she thinks. I also don't care that she's still foolish enough to continue believing evolution. The fact is, she AND OTHERS have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.
 Quoting: The Ghost of Comedian




Exactly, we can dance and weave around the issue, but there is no way soft tissue lasted for 300million years. I don't think they find soft tissue in much "younger" fossils I.E. Neanderthal.....
numb3r23

User ID: 71006542
United States
01/02/2019 08:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Darwin spoke to a light bringer. The information is valid.
MaybeTrollingUAgain

User ID: 76840347
United States
01/02/2019 08:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Religion: We must destroy it. It is an anchor keeping us from becoming something much better.
MaybeTrollingUAgain
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
01/02/2019 11:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Mary Schweitzer didn't lose her job at all, and she's repeatedly told you Creationists to stop using her to support your position. She accepts evolution.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


I really don't care what she thinks. I also don't care that she's still foolish enough to continue believing evolution. The fact is, she AND OTHERS have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.
 Quoting: The Ghost of Comedian




Exactly, we can dance and weave around the issue, but there is no way soft tissue lasted for 300million years. I don't think they find soft tissue in much "younger" fossils I.E. Neanderthal.....
 Quoting: musashi777


How do you know it couldn't last? First, dinosaurs are said to have went extinct 65 million years ago. We find entire mosquitos and insects preserved in amber that are dated to the same age, so why couldn't these microscopic traces of collagen remain if they are encased in iron?

We do find Neanderthal DNA, which is how we have determined that homo sapiens in Europe interbred with Neanderthals.

We don't find any DNA in dinosaur fossils.
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
01/02/2019 01:20 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Religion: We must destroy it. It is an anchor keeping us from becoming something much better.
 Quoting: MaybeTrollingUAgain




"We" got rid of religion and everything is going to hell in a hand basket.... Downloading ones consciousness onto a hard drive is not my idea of becoming something better. How about we take what we got, and even though its not perfect, try to preserve it. The fantasy of evolving into a techno god is kind of nuts.
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
01/02/2019 01:22 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Darwin spoke to a light bringer. The information is valid.
 Quoting: numb3r23




Oh yes, downloading information from the spirit world is very scientific.. Did the light bringer also tell him to marry his cousin? Does the light bringer speak to you? what does it say?
MaybeTrollingUAgain

User ID: 76840347
United States
01/02/2019 01:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Religion: We must destroy it. It is an anchor keeping us from becoming something much better.
 Quoting: MaybeTrollingUAgain




"We" got rid of religion and everything is going to hell in a hand basket.... Downloading ones consciousness onto a hard drive is not my idea of becoming something better. How about we take what we got, and even though its not perfect, try to preserve it. The fantasy of evolving into a techno god is kind of nuts.
 Quoting: musashi777


On the other hand a universe created by magic is completely plausible. Mobs of fanatics burning "witches" is fine, justifying all kinds of atrocities in the name of an non existing all powerful being(which is a sadistic, moral thug, barbaric psychopath) is fine. Science is what will lead us to a better future. It is right now, look at what we're doing for crying out loud! We are communicating through a complex machine, over an intricate network covering the whole world. You probably take medicine developed by science. The car you drive, the tools and machines we have, all those things, guess what? Science biatch! Religion brought us, nothing but fanaticism, to the point of suicide is justifiable as long as it kills infidels. And yes, islam and christianity are in "the same boat", along with all others.
MaybeTrollingUAgain
Spur-Man

User ID: 75814481
Australia
01/02/2019 11:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Mary Schweitzer didn't lose her job at all, and she's repeatedly told you Creationists to stop using her to support your position. She accepts evolution.
 Quoting: Spur-Man


I really don't care what she thinks. I also don't care that she's still foolish enough to continue believing evolution. The fact is, she AND OTHERS have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs aren't millions of years old.
 Quoting: The Ghost of Comedian


How do you know they aren't millions of years old? These are microscopic pieces of collagen that were only discovered after melting the fossil in acid.

Even if dinosaurs aren't millions of years old, that wouldn't refute evolution. Paleontologists and geologists are the ones coming up with the age of rocks and fossils.
musashi777  (OP)

User ID: 76797431
Canada
01/03/2019 08:27 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory
Religion: We must destroy it. It is an anchor keeping us from becoming something much better.
 Quoting: MaybeTrollingUAgain




"We" got rid of religion and everything is going to hell in a hand basket.... Downloading ones consciousness onto a hard drive is not my idea of becoming something better. How about we take what we got, and even though its not perfect, try to preserve it. The fantasy of evolving into a techno god is kind of nuts.
 Quoting: musashi777


On the other hand a universe created by magic is completely plausible. Mobs of fanatics burning "witches" is fine, justifying all kinds of atrocities in the name of an non existing all powerful being(which is a sadistic, moral thug, barbaric psychopath) is fine. Science is what will lead us to a better future. It is right now, look at what we're doing for crying out loud! We are communicating through a complex machine, over an intricate network covering the whole world. You probably take medicine developed by science. The car you drive, the tools and machines we have, all those things, guess what? Science biatch! Religion brought us, nothing but fanaticism, to the point of suicide is justifiable as long as it kills infidels. And yes, islam and christianity are in "the same boat", along with all others.
 Quoting: MaybeTrollingUAgain




A. most of those atrocities were committed by the catholic church.


B. Secular governments using "science" are responsible for the most devastating couple of centuries mankind has ever witnessed.


C. Christianity and islam are not in the same category.


D. I have nothing against "science", I am just tired of the debate that evolutionists keep perpetuating saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive. If you want to have faith in aliens or bubble puddles more power to you! Would you go as far to say that a hindu, or a Buddhist, or a j&wish person could not be a scientist due to their faith??