Public acceptance of evolution

[nguypete]

Oh, darling, no. Carry on...the faux-intellectual you're arguing with is highly amusing.

K.

Killdawabbit,

How do you believe we came to be on this planet? "I don't know" is not a viable answer. The rest of us have responded with evolution, so what is your answer? If you don't want to share it, or try to defend it, kindly STFU.


If your intentions were just to troll, than you are a very sad 54 year old from Tennessee.

 

[killdawabbit]

fetaby:

If the species are immutable and do not transition into different species that puts every species alive today over every period of time in record, and that is what is not in the fossil records.

Creation theory does not predict or require that all species would occur in all periods. Predators, catastrophes, disease and other factors all play a part in which species survive and which don't.
'Scientists' are constantly finding species from supposedly different eras to be contemporaneous. No one can possibly know what happened over 'billions' of years.
The horse, rhino and tapir bush also shows this contemoraneous existence of animal forms that used to be considered separated by thousands or millions of years.

 

[bankside]

How do these believers in evolutionism expect to convince me that a monkey lived for millions of years long enough to turn into a human? Nothing lives that long.

 

[Corny]

How do these believers in evolutionism expect to convince me that a monkey lived for millions of years long enough to turn into a human? Nothing lives that long.

either you are REALLY stupid, or this was a bad attempt at trolling.

Any species that is intermediate between two other species.

oooh wait .. so the scientists look at different species that they found and the intermediate forms. when they see that one fossil is different enough from both other species, they give it a new name, because it is an intermediate species.

and with your logic that intermediate species now is a "species" and we need fossils between this "species" and the predecessor and successor to prove that there are intermediate species. and when they are found, you would ask for others again.

you don't get forward if you always travel just half the way

here read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

and shut up.

by the way .. even your OWN KIND says NOT to use this argument because it's flaky. here is someone with a more thorough hogwash
https://store.creation.com/uk/product_info.php?sku=30-9-535

 

[gsdx]

But you didn't answer my question. If they didn't evolve, where did they come from?

He answered it earlier in response to one of my posts:

The only other explanation is that every different creature that has ever lived since the dawn of time simply appeared as they were/are spontaneously without evolving or adapting, and that is not logical.

gsdx:

Maybe it isn't logical to you but that's what the evidence shows.

Spontaneous creation. What a concept!

 

[killdawabbit]

oooh wait .. so the scientists look at different species that they found and the intermediate forms. when they see that one fossil is different enough from both other species, they give it a new name, because it is an intermediate species.

and with your logic that intermediate species now is a "species" and we need fossils between this "species" and the predecessor and successor to prove that there are intermediate species. and when they are found, you would ask for others again.

Thanks for stating one of the problems of evolution so eloquently.

 

[gsdx]

Thanks for stating one of the problems of evolution so eloquently.

But that's only confirming what you're doing. So, in effect, you've been disproving your own beliefs about evolution.

Please, just give it up. You don't even realise how badly you're defeating your own case.

 

[killdawabbit]

But that's only confirming what you're doing. So, in effect, you've been disproving your own beliefs about evolution.

Please, just give it up. You don't even realise how badly you're defeating your own case.

You don't realize how badly you are defeating your case. No transitional forms. Evolution requires them.

 

[gsdx]

You don't realize how badly you are defeating your case. No transitional forms. Evolution requires them.

But you just admitted that the transitional forms are different species. You're supporting our case.

D'uh!!

 

[killdawabbit]

But you just admitted that the transitional forms are different species. You're supporting our case.

D'uh!!

No, I'm not. I said there are no transitional forms. Please pay attention.

 

[gsdx]

No, I'm not. I said there are no transitional forms. Please pay attention.

Do you not get that you just admitted and confirmed that there are transitional forms and that they are renamed as a different species?

You're so muddled that you don't even know what you're saying anymore.

I think you should go back to school and take Trolling 101 and learn how not to do it!

 

[killdawabbit]

Do you not get that you just admitted and confirmed that there are transitional forms and that they are renamed as a different species?

You're so muddled that you don't even know what you're saying anymore.

I think you should go back to school and take Trolling 101 and learn how not to do it!

i'm afraid you're wrong. You put forth a hypothesis and I accepted it for the sake of argument.
I have maintained throughout this thread that there are NO transitional species. Evolution requires them, therefore evolution fails by it's own standards.

 

[Corny]

oooh and how smoooothly you ignored the links that I provided you were even the creationists themselves say that this kind of argument is bullshit and you should not use it
you really need to buy that dvd.

 

[Corny]

i'm afraid you're wrong. You put forth a hypothesis and I accepted it for the sake of argument.
I have maintained throughout this thread that there are NO transitional species. Evolution requires them, therefore evolution fails by it's own standards.

there are tons of them, you just acknowledged that.

 

[bankside]

I thought it was a good attempt at sarcasm.

Btw, LoL @ calling the rarity of fossils "convenient" for argumentation.

Yeah, properties of physics. How convenient.

Yeah, Corny, keep up!

Sometimes to convince your opponent to change his mind, you have to actually embrace his style of reasoning and his argument and see where it leads....

 

[gsdx]

i'm afraid you're wrong. You put forth a hypothesis and I accepted it for the sake of argument.

I wasn't talking about one of my hypotheses. I stopped putting them forth.

I was talking about this post by Corny:

oooh wait .. so the scientists look at different species that they found and the intermediate forms. when they see that one fossil is different enough from both other species, they give it a new name, because it is an intermediate species.

and with your logic that intermediate species now is a "species" and we need fossils between this "species" and the predecessor and successor to prove that there are intermediate species. and when they are found, you would ask for others again.

To which you responded:

Thanks for stating one of the problems of evolution so eloquently.

By agreeing that transitional forms are given a new name, you are admitting that they exist in fossil form which, hence, proves evolution. You are disproving your own argument and you don't even see that you are.

You're making a mockery of yourself. You're so intent on proving yourself right that you prove yourself wrong.

But you would never admit that, would you? Nope. Not at all.

 

[BigChicken]

you are right but i don't want to say backward because USA is quite modern and got nuclear bombs LOL

Hence the more i read about world problems, the more i see Religion is to blame.

True! Has there ever been a war fought in the name of Atheism? No.

Imagine John Lennon's Imagine song playing in the background.

"Imagine there's no heaven, no hell below us, above us only sky"

 

[fetaby]

Creation theory does not predict or require that all species would occur in all periods. Predators, catastrophes, disease and other factors all play a part in which species survive and which don't.
'Scientists' are constantly finding species from supposedly different eras to be contemporaneous. No one can possibly know what happened over 'billions' of years.
The horse, rhino and tapir bush also shows this contemoraneous existence of animal forms that used to be considered separated by thousands or millions of years.

But you still haven't answered my question. If the species doesn't evolve from other existing species where does it come from?

It's very simple. Our presence here indicates something fucked and produced us and something fucked and produced them, all the way back through the ages. If your theory that there are no transitional species, then our species would have to be exactly as it is from the beginning of the planets existence. (unless you want to argue that we are not on this planet) So where in the plentiful and bountiful fossil history is the fossils? They are either plentiful enough to include some of our species which surely must have been fossilized along with the species that were, or we didn't exist. And if we didn't exist, but are here now, we had to come from some where. Now is that from thin air? the ether? the sky? or from what's visibly evident even today, creatures fucking.

 

[barnbuddy]

killdarabbit - you know what pisses me off about your posts? You have zero appreciation for hard work. I'm mean, very intelligent folks (who probably could be making far more money in other occupations) get up every morning and sift through tons of dirt to find fragments of fossilized bone simply to extend our shared common knowledge. I mean, in your mind, are these scientists trying to fool the population of the planet? what is they're motivation?

personally, I think you just can't handle the fact that human's share common ancestry with chimpanzees, gorillas and other primates. For example, DNA mapping has proven we share 98% of our genetic heritage with chimps. this only confirms evolutionary theory. In fact, unlike cosmology (big bang, beginning of time/space etc...) there are no scientific rivals to the theory of evolution. even the catholic church accepts this.

creationism is really the rejection of science. and hey, if that's what turns you on, fine. but when you feel sick, do you go to a doctor or minister? do you place your fate in the hands of faith healing? funny how people run to science when they need help, but love to poke holes in theories that make them uncomfortable.

 

[randomfreak]

lol Everyone, let's not be trollbait here. =) I think we can pretty much agree the rabbit won't listen to reason and it is therefore pointless to argue.

Here's thing thing, rabbit: go take Evolution 101 and then come back again, because you clearly don't understand how evolution works and what the underlying logical implications are.

And to open your mind a teeny weeny bit: you mentioned how it's ridiculous for two opposing theories to be "true" at once. Let me clarify that by "true" I meant that it has not been falsified yet. Apparently you've never dwelled much in science if you cannot even recall such a case, because situations like this are scattered throughout history. For instance, special relativity is incompatible with Newton's theory of gravity, and yet they are both accepted to be true. Einstein came up with general relativity to unite the two and show how the two theories interact with each other. The current big dilemma is the disconnect between quantum physics and the theory of relativity. They are both "true", and yet the two theories contradict each other so much that they cannot both be true at once! That's why most of the physicists right now are working to solve this problem by finding out how the two theories might interact with each other.

So far these theories have been contradictory, but some theories don't even contradict each other and depend solely on evidence. Take, for example, the debate whether evolution is for the benefit of the group or the individual. It is generally accepted that evolution is for the benefit of the individual (the genes) because any evidence you can come up with to support the group theory... can be used to support the individual theory. Yet the individual theory has more evidence that does NOT apply to the group theory, and it is therefore judged to be the more probable of the two. Note that the group theory is not necessarily wrong because it has not been falsified.

That's as much as I'll say without falling too much to your trolling, but let's just say you should stop advertising your ignorance of science.