Evolution in action

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#262 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the only sentence I read of your post.
You have forfeited the right to ask about truth.
Your consistent dishonesty has proven that you have no interested in the facts, reality or anything.
Hey,Stray Dog and Dollop.Nuggy is pouting...We need to cheer him up.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#263 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I do not require faith to believe that matter exists.
You do require faith to believe there is a Jewish Wizard who is obsessed with masturbation.
They are categorically different things.
Further, your argument that "science hasn't created life in the lab, therefore Jews have created with magic" is irrational.
Can you demonstrate that you've created life through Jew magic? Nope.
This is not a binary equation. EVEN IF science were wrong, that wouldn't automatically make Jew Magic the answer.
You would need to provide POSITIVE evidence of Jew Magic.
So, have your prayed life into existence?
Have you proven that Jew Magic existed before the Universe?
Have you demonstrated Jew Rays or Jew Juice in the lab?
Nope. None of those things.
What you have as "evidence" is a series of stories the Jews stole from the Babylonians which incorrectly describe the time before man.
That doesn't cut it. That didn't cut it BEFORE science.
15,000 religions. Yours is one of them.
And yours is one of them also,Evolution..

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#264 Aug 2, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
Hey Nuggy,is this true??
Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read:“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners!
Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:
Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book,“Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.
Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...
Looks like Nuggy does not like it when some very notable evolutionary scientists have major problems with evolution..

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#265 Aug 2, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like Nuggy does not like it when some very notable evolutionary scientists have major problems with evolution..
I've already given you links that prove this is a lie. Either you didn't watch them, or you've chosen to continue telling the lie.

Either way, this point was settled.

No, the people on the list didn't sign the list. Many didn't know their names were on it at all and wanted them off as soon as they found out.

No, a computer scientists is not an evolutionary biologist. Neither is a dentist. Neither is an economist.

When you take out the people who don't have any experience, don't want to be on the list, or actually hold opposite positions as the list, you're left with 4-5 names. TOTAL.

Project Steve is near (or has passed) 1000 scientists IN THE PROPER fields who also happen to be named "Steve".

This isn't a debate. This is a handful of idiots with tinfoil hats screaming on a street corner.

You just happen to believe them because you're also wearing a tinfoil hat.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#266 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already given you links that prove this is a lie. Either you didn't watch them, or you've chosen to continue telling the lie.
Either way, this point was settled.
No, the people on the list didn't sign the list. Many didn't know their names were on it at all and wanted them off as soon as they found out.
No, a computer scientists is not an evolutionary biologist. Neither is a dentist. Neither is an economist.
When you take out the people who don't have any experience, don't want to be on the list, or actually hold opposite positions as the list, you're left with 4-5 names. TOTAL.
Project Steve is near (or has passed) 1000 scientists IN THE PROPER fields who also happen to be named "Steve".
This isn't a debate. This is a handful of idiots with tinfoil hats screaming on a street corner.
You just happen to believe them because you're also wearing a tinfoil hat.
Despite the acceptance by some evolutionists that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of the process of microevolution, many hold strong reservations, and assert that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be explained by processes observed at the level of populations.[17] Evolutionists continue to debate whether the Darwinian mechanisms of change, which rests on the tenets of gradualism and natural selection, can explain the discontinuous nature of evolution. Many eminent evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Ivan Schmalhausen, Steven M. Stanley, and C. H. Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution represent fundamentally different processes.[6]
“ New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life."[18]”

The eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr, who some consider the father of modern evolutionary biology, also acknowledges that one reason this controversy continues is because gradual transitions are not evident in the fossil record or even between living biota, but rather discontinuities are "overwhelmingly frequent."[19] If evolution were gradual and continuous, one would expect to find transitions between taxa. Yet, there is no intermediary between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and mammals, nor reptiles and birds, nor flowering plants and their nearest relatives. Indeed, all phyla of animals are separated by a gap. Likewise, the fossil record shows striking discontinuities, with new species appearing suddenly. Evolutionists offer explanations for such phenomena, such as the incomplete sampling that results from the fossil record, but the very presence of such gaps is one reason for the controversy.[6]

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#267 Aug 2, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like Nuggy does not like it when some very notable evolutionary scientists have major problems with evolution..
I have noticed,GH007.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#268 Aug 2, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite the acceptance by some evolutionists that macroevolution is...
You have not defined the word "macroevolution".

You claim that microevolution can account for all changes among all forms of plants.

What's left for "macro"? Just those things that evolution doesn't propose occurs?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#269 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not defined the word "macroevolution".
You claim that microevolution can account for all changes among all forms of plants.
What's left for "macro"? Just those things that evolution doesn't propose occurs?
Ask the evolutionary scientists in my post #266..They seem to have some problems also.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#270 Aug 2, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask the evolutionary scientists in my post #266..They seem to have some problems also.
They were asked. I linked you the video.

Your repeatedly bringing up a dishonest claim as if it had not been refuted indicates to me that you have no real argument.

You would prefer to lie and be wrong than accept that your rejection of education has left you incapable of grasping what is essentially grade school level science.

Hell, you can't even DEFINE your terms. No statement you make carries any meaning because you don't understand the meanings of the words you are using to form your arguments.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#271 Aug 2, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
The eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr, who some consider the father of modern evolutionary biology, also acknowledges that one reason this controversy continues is because gradual transitions are not evident in the fossil record or even between living biota, but rather discontinuities are "overwhelmingly frequent."[19] If evolution were gradual and continuous, one would expect to find transitions between taxa. Yet, there is no intermediary between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and mammals, nor reptiles and birds
This is your post #266

First of all, reptiles did not evolve into birds, therefore we would not expect to find a transitional form between the two unless you count _ALL DINOSAURS_.

Second, not only do we have transitional forms between reptiles and mammals IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, we still have some _ALIVE TODAY_. The Monotremes are transitional between reptiles and mammals.

Third, we have whale intermediaries. We have TONS of them (both literally and figuratively).

http://theosophical.files.wordpress.com/2011/...

And most importantly, Mayr didn't actually SAY what you are claiming he said. He said _THE OPPOSITE_.

His point, one which I've made OFTEN, is that changes happen in local populations which may or may not be reflected in the average fossil record until that population breaks out from isolation and replaces existent populations.

Here's the COMPLETELY quote (emphasis added to indicate the important line).

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.__During the synthesis it became clear that since new evolutionary departures seem to take place almost invariably in localized isolated populations, it is not surprising that the fossil record does not reflect these sequences.__"(Mayr, E. Our [sic] Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)

Creationist websites LOVE to take the first half of the quote out of context.

That would be.... what was the word again... oh right. DISHONEST.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#272 Aug 2, 2013
just common cents wrote:
<quoted text>I have noticed,GH007.
Oh, please tell me JCC that you also believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs just like on the Flintstones.

My opinion of you is low, but I have room to take it lower.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#273 Aug 2, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your post #266
First of all, reptiles did not evolve into birds, therefore we would not expect to find a transitional form between the two unless you count _ALL DINOSAURS_.
Second, not only do we have transitional forms between reptiles and mammals IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, we still have some _ALIVE TODAY_. The Monotremes are transitional between reptiles and mammals.
Third, we have whale intermediaries. We have TONS of them (both literally and figuratively).
http://theosophical.files.wordpress.com/2011/...
And most importantly, Mayr didn't actually SAY what you are claiming he said. He said _THE OPPOSITE_.
His point, one which I've made OFTEN, is that changes happen in local populations which may or may not be reflected in the average fossil record until that population breaks out from isolation and replaces existent populations.
Here's the COMPLETELY quote (emphasis added to indicate the important line).
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.__During the synthesis it became clear that since new evolutionary departures seem to take place almost invariably in localized isolated populations, it is not surprising that the fossil record does not reflect these sequences.__"(Mayr, E. Our [sic] Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138)
Creationist websites LOVE to take the first half of the quote out of context.
That would be.... what was the word again... oh right. DISHONEST.
I do not see anything in your supposed complete quote about whales or taxa,reptiles,mammals,birds,et c..Where did these words go if this is the complete quote??I will restate it again..
The eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr, who some consider the father of modern evolutionary biology, also acknowledges that one reason this controversy continues is because gradual transitions are not evident in the fossil record or even between living biota, but rather discontinuities are "overwhelmingly frequent."[19] If evolution were gradual and continuous, one would expect to find transitions between taxa. Yet, there is no intermediary between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and mammals, nor reptiles and birds

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#274 Aug 3, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not see anything in your supposed complete quote about whales or taxa,reptiles,mammals,birds,et c..Where did these words go if this is the complete quote??I will restate it again..
The eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr, who some consider the father of modern evolutionary biology, also acknowledges that one reason this controversy continues is because gradual transitions are not evident in the fossil record or even between living biota, but rather discontinuities are "overwhelmingly frequent."[19] If evolution were gradual and continuous, one would expect to find transitions between taxa. Yet, there is no intermediary between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and mammals, nor reptiles and birds
Read what you just posted.

The _ONLY PART_ of your above paragraph that is a "quote" are the words: "overwhelmingly frequent". The rest is _NOT_ from Mayr. It's all from the person writing the article for the Creationist website.

You've been TRICKED once again by them because they know you lack the education and intelligence to sort this stuff out on your own.

Funny how that's what has happened over and over and over again with these websites.

They keep tricking you because you don't know any better, yet you still defend them because... you don't know any better.

Honestly, it's sort of sad.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#275 Aug 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Read what you just posted.
The _ONLY PART_ of your above paragraph that is a "quote" are the words: "overwhelmingly frequent". The rest is _NOT_ from Mayr. It's all from the person writing the article for the Creationist website.
You've been TRICKED once again by them because they know you lack the education and intelligence to sort this stuff out on your own.
Funny how that's what has happened over and over and over again with these websites.
They keep tricking you because you don't know any better, yet you still defend them because... you don't know any better.
Honestly, it's sort of sad.
You are the one being tricked..Nice spin.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#276 Aug 3, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one being tricked..Nice spin.
Green.

You aren't this stupid. I KNOW you aren't this stupid. YOU KNOW you aren't this stupid.

If you can't be honest about THIS, you can't be honest about ANYTHING.

Read you post. Look at where the quote symbols are. Those two words and their accompanying foot/end note are the total amount of text from Mayr that your article quotes.

The rest is of what you posted was written by whoever put this on the Creationist website.

That's not spin. That's actually just what's there.

Are you going to sit here and tell me that that's not FACTUALLY correct? That there are more than those two words in quotes? That the endnote is at the END of the paragraph and not in the middle?

Come on. Quit being a dick. Admit this ONE OBVIOUS thing.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#277 Aug 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Green.
You aren't this stupid. I KNOW you aren't this stupid. YOU KNOW you aren't this stupid.
If you can't be honest about THIS, you can't be honest about ANYTHING.
Read you post. Look at where the quote symbols are. Those two words and their accompanying foot/end note are the total amount of text from Mayr that your article quotes.
The rest is of what you posted was written by whoever put this on the Creationist website.
That's not spin. That's actually just what's there.
Are you going to sit here and tell me that that's not FACTUALLY correct? That there are more than those two words in quotes? That the endnote is at the END of the paragraph and not in the middle?
Come on. Quit being a dick. Admit this ONE OBVIOUS thing.
keep spinning..Still waiting for your proof that matter existed in the beginning and where it came from,and where did the energy come from.That was a huge big bang...Have scientists created real life in the lab from nothing yet?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#278 Aug 3, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
keep spinning..Still waiting for your proof that matter existed in the beginning and where it came from,and where did the energy come from.That was a huge big bang...Have scientists created real life in the lab from nothing yet?
Wow. Seriously?

You aren't even capable of agreeing that there are only two words in YOUR post that are between the " and the ".

You've lost the right to ask any further questions.

You've proven that dishonesty is more important to you than facts. No answers will ever satisfy you.

We're done.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#279 Aug 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Seriously?
You aren't even capable of agreeing that there are only two words in YOUR post that are between the " and the ".
You've lost the right to ask any further questions.
You've proven that dishonesty is more important to you than facts. No answers will ever satisfy you.
We're done.
Oh no!! He is pouting again..Can some one cheer him up please...He can't tell me where the matter came from,where the energy came from,and if scientists created life in their labs yet..

Found a nice site with interesting info..

http://crev.info/2013/06/cambrian-explosion-e...

Ooops..Nuggy will say they are lying again and are being dishonest..same spin,different time.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#280 Aug 3, 2013
Green Hornet 007 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no!! He is pouting again..Can some one cheer him up please...He can't tell me where the matter came from,where the energy came from,and if scientists created life in their labs yet..
Found a nice site with interesting info..
http://crev.info/2013/06/cambrian-explosion-e...
Ooops..Nuggy will say they are lying again and are being dishonest..same spin,different time.
That site is a good find, GH. Thanks

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#281 Aug 3, 2013
just common cents wrote:
<quoted text>That site is a good find, GH. Thanks
Nuggy seems to be just plain mad..can I scientifically prove there is a God? No..Can he prove evolution,Big Bang theory is scientifically true? No...Nobody was alive back then..They do not know where the matter comes from? No.He needs cheered up...lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jamestown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bernie Sanders For President ? 5 min dollop 24
"Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you." 20 min dollop 10
eyes open 4 hr Luka 3
the sherieff chuky cravens 23 hr hypothecas cremat... 6
Black on White Crime (Aug '12) Wed dollop 192
Infant Permanently Blinded By Camera Flash Wed dollop 1
Pit Row Wed Local 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jamestown Mortgages