Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1607 Aug 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The old "were you there?" myth.
We predict what we would expect to see, TODAY, if an explanatory theory is true. What would we expect to see TODAY, if evolution is true?
Convergence of kinds in the fossil record. Yep, we see that.
Placement of chance elements in the genome in a nested hierarchy consistent with the nested hierarchy of the fossil record. Yep, we see that.
No instances in the fossil record of a derived form existing before any of its possible antecedents. Yep, we see that.
None of this is "faith". More like a forensic investigation. Think how many criminals would walk if "were you there?" was the standard of proof in the courtroom.
Not only that but the elements of the engine driving evolution - exponential reproduction rates with imperfect heredity, competition for limited resources, etc, ARE all directly observable. Given long enough, these elements make evolution virtually inevitable. And what do you know...all the evidence we can find today backs that up.
You do not see that. You see a prediction.

Forensic investigation is good science, I hate to give a nod to subduction, but subduction zone theory is sound science, we can see it

We cannot see a change of kind, so it's all just a guess, with you and your peers displaying blind faith in man predictions.
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1608 Aug 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The old "were you there?" myth.
We predict what we would expect to see, TODAY, if an explanatory theory is true. What would we expect to see TODAY, if evolution is true?
Convergence of kinds in the fossil record. Yep, we see that.
Placement of chance elements in the genome in a nested hierarchy consistent with the nested hierarchy of the fossil record. Yep, we see that.
No instances in the fossil record of a derived form existing before any of its possible antecedents. Yep, we see that.
None of this is "faith". More like a forensic investigation. Think how many criminals would walk if "were you there?" was the standard of proof in the courtroom.
Not only that but the elements of the engine driving evolution - exponential reproduction rates with imperfect heredity, competition for limited resources, etc, ARE all directly observable. Given long enough, these elements make evolution virtually inevitable. And what do you know...all the evidence we can find today backs that up.
Point me to a change of kind...
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1609 Aug 19, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no rules for your faith. You can believe any crazy thing you want as long as you work Jesus in there somehow.
This is why I try to stay out of here. Ask a question and you get vile people that refuse to act like adults.

There are rules for my faith. Have you read the bible?

Have you maintained an open mind?
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1610 Aug 19, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if there are different kinds of birds or just a bunch of different names for things that are all the same kind.
Maybe birds that fly are one kind and birds that swim are another. But there are some that fly AND swim...
What do YOU think?
A bird is a bird right? A change in kind indicates a change from a turtle to a toad right?

Wings that swim versus wings that fly, wings that do both are adaptations right? Like a man who lost his right hand adapts to using his left, he looses both hands, he adapts to using his feet.

Adaptations are not changes of kind. A bird is a bird.
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1611 Aug 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Marcus.
Obviously you can not - BLIND FAITH
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1612 Aug 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you did not even bother to google the term. If you are that lazy, why don't you just let me do your thinking for you?
But you not thinking for you or me...a ring species is not a change of kind

A lizzards descending from a lizzard is still a lizzard right? It may hav adapted, but it did not change it's kind.

BLIND FAITH
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1613 Aug 19, 2013
So you feel there is no intelligent design right?
The Big Bang got it going..nothing from nothing?
Make me a grain of sand, out of nothing.
Just one grain.
BLIND FAITH

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#1614 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
A bird is a bird right? A change in kind indicates a change from a turtle to a toad right?
Wings that swim versus wings that fly, wings that do both are adaptations right? Like a man who lost his right hand adapts to using his left, he looses both hands, he adapts to using his feet.
Adaptations are not changes of kind. A bird is a bird.
What kind is a platypus Mitch? What kind is an echidna Mitch? Kind is a meaningless term in science Mitch. The Bible doesn't define what it means Mitch. It could mean almost anything Mitch. According to the Bible, a rabbit is a kind of cow Mitch. So when you demand that you be shown changes in kind, you don't even know what you are demanding Mitch. If you look at the fossil record Mitch. It will reveal change that meets even your ambiguous criteria Mitch.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#1615 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
But you not thinking for you or me...a ring species is not a change of kind
A lizzards descending from a lizzard is still a lizzard right? It may hav adapted, but it did not change it's kind.
BLIND FAITH
If its descendants loose their limbs and become like snakes is it still a lizard Mitch? Is it some kind of snake Mitch? Is it still a kind of reptile Mitch? Is is still a kind of vertebrate Mitch? Is is it still a kind of animal Mitch? What is kind Mitch? What does kind mean Mitch? Tell me Mitch.

“Valar Morghulis”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

All Men Must Die

#1616 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch, for all the time you spend on here denying science because you've never learned science, you could actually... LEARN SCIENCE!!!
* Books: they're not just for elementary school. You should read some.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#1617 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
Wings that swim versus wings that fly, wings that do both are adaptations right? Like a man who lost his right hand adapts to using his left, he looses both hands, he adapts to using his feet.
Oh. So you claim that a Flamingo that needed to swim a lot could adapt its wings into flippers or a Penguin that needed to run could adapt its legs to being long and muscular. Interesting.

“Valar Morghulis”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

All Men Must Die

#1618 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
So you feel there is no intelligent design right?
The Big Bang got it going..nothing from nothing?
Make me a grain of sand, out of nothing.
Just one grain.
BLIND FAITH
Watch the YouTube video by Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe From Nothing." Best hour you'll ever spend.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1619 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, show me the fossil that directly links man to ape
Humans are apes

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1620 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Point me to a change of kind...
Define kind.

It has to be a working definition, it does no good to say that apes are a kind. We can show speciation in action is that what you mean?

How about bacteria. Would you call bacteria a kind?

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#1621 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Define kind.
It has to be a working definition, it does no good to say that apes are a kind. We can show speciation in action is that what you mean?
How about bacteria. Would you call bacteria a kind?
kind 2 - noun
1.
a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort.

b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category

2.
a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.

b. The natural order or course of things; nature.

Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, black bass, rock bass, stripe bass all are different species but are kinds of Bass. Now where I used the word "kinds" in that sentence, some use "types".

The primary definition of the noun “kind” is group or class of people, animals, or objects with the same character or nature, or identified together because they have common traits. Kind dates back before the year 900.

The primary definition of the noun “type” is a number of people or objects that share one or more characteristics, thereby causing them to be considered to be a group. Type dates back to the mid 1400's.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1622 Aug 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
kind 2 - noun
1.
a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category
2.
a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, black bass, rock bass, stripe bass all are different species but are kinds of Bass. Now where I used the word "kinds" in that sentence, some use "types".
The primary definition of the noun “kind” is group or class of people, animals, or objects with the same character or nature, or identified together because they have common traits. Kind dates back before the year 900.
The primary definition of the noun “type” is a number of people or objects that share one or more characteristics, thereby causing them to be considered to be a group. Type dates back to the mid 1400's.
That is not what I asked for.

I asked more than once for a working scientific definition of "kind".

We already went over the problem for creatards if they call bacteria a "kind". If you do that then you have to count all animals as a "kind" if you use an consistent method of defining "kind"
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#1623 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Blur. Not clear right. So I suspect a guess right?
No concrete evidence right..no eyewitness right?
Evolution explains nothing - no concrete evidence...not repeateable no witness.
Predicted:
Journalists have begun making predictions about the winner of the coming election.
Despite predictions that the store would fail, it has done very well.
The figures and statistics are used for the prediction of future economic trends.
A GUESS RIGHT - what would make a scientists prediction better than those above
It's a guess right. BLIND FAITH
Totally agreed...Evo's believe with BLIND FAITH

...and they don't want to call it their religion, which it is. Lol!

It's their freaking religion, plain and simple.

If they ever accept anything the Bible says, they will blow their entire Evo fairytale.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1624 Aug 19, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew I could not get an intelligent conversation
Maybe you should try an intelligent question instead of the creationist ignorance you've been posting

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1625 Aug 19, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally agreed...Evo's believe with BLIND FAITH
...and they don't want to call it their religion, which it is. Lol!
It's their freaking religion, plain and simple.
If they ever accept anything the Bible says, they will blow their entire Evo fairytale.
Wrong idiot. Try again.

You are projecting. We believe based upon evidence. And believing that evolution is true is no more a religion than believing that gravity is true. The fact that you are a total moron and willfully won't understand clear scientific evidence is not our fault.

Now there may be some evolutionists who believe the theory because it makes sense to them and they really don't care since the idea of an invisible friend who is looking out for you is childish to say the least. But there are many of us who do understand it and resent that certain mental midgets are trying to replace tested and settled science with a fairy tale from a child's book.

We are always ready to help you to grow up. Until you do it is our pleasure and perhaps even our duty to laugh at you and point out how sad it is that on the day they were passing our brains you thought they were taking about rain and opted out of having any.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#1626 Aug 19, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally agreed...Evo's believe with BLIND FAITH
...and they don't want to call it their religion, which it is. Lol!
It's their freaking religion, plain and simple.
This is really getting tiresome. You can't make a convincing argument so you start yammering about blind faith and religion.

The acceptance of ToE is anything but blind faith to those of us who have studied the science behind it. We studied the science behind radiometric dating. Behind genetics. Even cosmology. If you want to believe that studying the science and coming to a logical conclusion is blind faith, go right ahead. We're not the ones looking foolish.

You like some whiny little kid in the school yard screaming insults.
imagine2011 wrote:
If they ever accept anything the Bible says, they will blow their entire Evo fairytale.
Many, many Christians accept ToE. They also have faith in the bible. So obviously, there is no 'blowing' of anything.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min Eagle 12 - 80,059
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Eagle 12 - 32,587
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 163,795
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sat ChromiuMan 222,780
What's your religion? Fri Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web