It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107028 Jan 11, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't ask a question. I made an assertion. Once again Maz shows us her baffling ability to completely fail to understand and comprehend what she reads.
I did answer your question. Others have answered your question. Evolution has given you the ultimate answer to your question. It is never enough. We give and we give and we give and you just take and want more. I don't know if I can go on with this relationship Maz. I think we need to see a couples counselor. I know Evolution thinks so and I believe the others will agree.
Are you still choking on your rock critters, you hero?

I have shown that the so called reptilian traits of Ichthyosaurus are ficticious and no more reptilian than other cetaceans. The idea is to respond with scientific data like Kong has been and you tried once until you turned to jelly.

Why fall to pieces now you lot? Must be because you are all apes without the ability to make meaning of the world. Evos are a better demonstration of devolution than any fossil.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107029 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Since this post all I see is evotard waffle and gibberish around why I am not responding to other strolls down the garden path. That is is course apart from the fact that every ridicule has already been spoken to.
If you evotards wanted to demonstrate your whale ancestry and I kept shoving abiogenesis up your butts then you would suggest I was an evading idiot. Likewise that is what you all look like to me. Pompous evading idiots and pretenders.
So Dan and Kong finally got their act together and now because I can challenge these so called reptilian traits all you evos have once again deteriorated into babbling evotards. I love it.
This is great to see and what I expected.
Cetacea is dated 245mya in ichthyosaurus and evos cannot sustainf these mythical reptilian traits. Michagan whale fossils were found in strata dated to 290myo that were contaminated and could not reliably be carbon dated.
The other fact that appears to be coming forth and being substatiated as we speak is my claim that evolutionists are clueless.
C14 reliable upto 50,000 years.
Anything older would request a different method.
Stone as in fossilized bone does not do for carbon-dating.

So you make a lot of blabla out of unrelated facts and methods.
So are you clueless or glueless?

effin painfull.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107030 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Must be because you are all apes without the ability to make meaning of the world. Evos are a better demonstration of devolution than any fossil.
Yup, Evolutionists are descended from an ape-like animal,
but Creationists were created in God's image.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107031 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Since this post all I see is evotard waffle and gibberish around why I am not responding to other strolls down the garden path. That is is course apart from the fact that every ridicule has already been spoken to.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107032 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You nailed it! Overwhelmingly most are not inclined to pay for what they don't want to know (2 Timothy 4:3,4; Matthew 7:13,14)
KAB, I have got to say that when your simple two liners attract so much 'judged' ridicule from these evos such as this post has, I know you are hitting nerves that make evos dance like puppets. Keep up the good work!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107033 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Most likely is not definite, right? Hey, 12 bison(?) managed it, and they weren't even thinking about it!
Bison ?...you are sure you do not mean wisents?
This is going to lead to another bottleneck discussion.

So let's simply ask you for the data on the 12 os that managed to multiply and thrive without heading for the precipice of another bottleneck.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107034 Jan 11, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...

hmmm!
Nice to see that you do not spare the rod when it comes to your own productions.

Dataless KAB was bad, but now we reach a completely different level of weird.
KAB

United States

#107035 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Data?
"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl...
KAB

United States

#107036 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
What?! No confirming data!?(Actually, no data at all). Why am I not surprised since you seem to thrive in a fairy tale world? Hmm, where have I seen that declaration before?
Patience,

"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl ...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107037 Jan 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
C14 reliable upto 50,000 years.
Anything older would request a different method.
Stone as in fossilized bone does not do for carbon-dating.
So you make a lot of blabla out of unrelated facts and methods.
So are you clueless or glueless?
effin painfull.
Now listen. I have already scalded you kids about jumping all over the place like a mad woman.

We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis. We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.

We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.

Now I know most of you evotards are here to poke fun at creos. That is your life and a reflection of how miserable it is. That is your business. I am here to get to the point. I love to poke fun at you guys too but I am actually here to get to the point of the thread topic, as strange and alien as that may sound to some of you.

So get with the program or shut up. If you lot want to chase your tails fine. Then go talk to other evos as they do that well as you can see. I am into science and how that supports our philosophies.

The reptilian traits suppposedly attributed to Ichthyosaurus are no more reptilian than those on cetacean. Ichy is a cetacean placental mammal. Why is that statement wrong?

Ignorant responses, such as yours, are evidence of a sort as well, because they demonstrate the other fact I am trying to establish which is evos are factless as well as clueless.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107038 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl...
Thank you for acknowledging the points we made.(i.e. inbreeding leading to infertility. Viability and genetic diversity.)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107039 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =KAp9sFVdERQXX
Yep. This is another example of the ignorance that substantiates evolutionists are actually the publishing clueless.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107040 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl...
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"

Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#107041 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This is another example of the ignorance that substantiates evolutionists are actually the publishing clueless.
Yep. This is another example of a pompous ass who makes bold assertions which she refuses to back up.
KAB

United States

#107042 Jan 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
KAB, I have got to say that when your simple two liners attract so much 'judged' ridicule from these evos such as this post has, I know you are hitting nerves that make evos dance like puppets. Keep up the good work!
I long ago recognized them as encouraging signs.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107043 Jan 11, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Patience,
"Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls (Luenser et al., 2005)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottl ...
The deterioration of the genome of organisms is well documented. This forms the basis of my number 5 support for a creationist paradigm.

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited and may be a consequence of the fall. Evolutionists are left to find convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE and life 'evolve' for billions of years, despite all costs. The data appears to align with creationism than it does TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

It is interesting to get some clarity around how many varieties there initially were.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107044 Jan 11, 2013
Tone, tone , tone. Give the mouth a piece of soap, FFS.

quote:
We are not talking about dating, although we already have over the past weeks and Kong dropped out and the rest tuned to evotards and I could get no more sense out of what was left eg samuim146, inconsistent decay rates etc. We are not talking about God or abiogenesis.
>>>>...We are talking about what CAN be scientifically demonstrated with some hint of credibility.
end quote.

Well we ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED WITH HIGH CREDIBILITY.
What you are on about i something entirely different like red herrings and strawmen to disguise your ignorance.

quote:
We are doing cetacea. I am presenting my evidence to support my claim that the fossil evidence better supports a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.

end quote.

You would first have to establish the or even a creationist paradigm.(do the tohu and the bohu establish a creo-paradigm...me thinks not.)
You even stated some pages back that you saw two options -misunderstanding physics- of which you liked the god option best.
You continue to rant and i would not be the only one that wonders how much of that quasi-scientific quote-mining you actually understand!

'Dating and doing whales.':-o

So you know zilch about dating methods and how to interprete the results. Nor as i saw about the reasons for the way results are presented as they are.
(mind i'm reading allready two days after some absense.)
I suggest you 'do' the whales in your sparetime.
The discussion is getting silly.

Some people here do not have to proof their bona fides anymore when it comes to being knowledgable and well versed in the scientific method. Kong would be one of those.
KAB

United States

#107045 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"
Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?
"May be". That means may not be? Hey, they're not dead yet!
It seems you shot from the hip. You may want to check your own foot!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107046 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This is another example of a pompous ass who makes bold assertions which she refuses to back up.
Thanks for demonstrating what an ignorant ass looks like. I have backed up my assertions and I am now awaiting some signs of this reasoning ability mankind is meant to have that you are not demonstrating.

Well with enough whipping you finally had a go for once. Good! Ok ... "HAD two pairs of limbs" does not distinguish Ichthyosaurus from cetacia because whales are supposedly tetrapods and also come from 4 limbed tetrapods. So this does not appear to be a reptilian trait anymore than cetacean have 4 'legs'. As for digit like bones in flippers I am not sure what they are talking about. Is it not the digits in whale flippers that evos are always going on about. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) have a soft tissue flipper that encases most of the forelimb, and elongated digits with an increased number of phalanges (hyperphalangy). http://www.ncbi.nl m.nih.gov/pubmed/1 7516431 The shoulder blades do appear to be different to current cetaceans from a quick look but the resulting pectoral arch resembles much that of the mammalian orni-thorhynchus. Ichthyosaurus are varied and some have a single temporal fenestra like mammals and cetacean does. The pair of fenestra are a reptilian hallmark but a single one is not. http://hydrodictyo n.eeb.uconn.edu/pe ople/schwenk/3254_ Lab9-10_Artio_Peri sso_etc07.pdf These traits do not appear to make Ichthyosaurus any more reptilian than and any other cetacean. Given warm bloodedness, live birth, blow hole, dorsel fin, looks like a porpoise etc I don't think Ichthyosaurus is any more reptilian than cetacean. Can you or some evo please further clarify why these traits are seen as identifying these many varieties of Ichthyosaurus as being all reptilian as opposed to some being mammalian which some certainly appear to be?(8 hrs ago | post #106951)

Now, tell me why much the same reptillisn traits in cetacia make Ichy a reptile but cetacean are placental mammal?. If you don't know find. One actually needs some research skills to tow a debate otherwise you are just a time waster, like you!
KAB

United States

#107047 Jan 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"...which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls"
Kind of shoots your Noah's Clan theory in the foot, huh?
P.S., Has the population been at least doubling every hundred years?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Ooogah Boogah 134,190
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 718
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 8 hr Brian_G 13,627
How would creationists explain... 9 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 12 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web