"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random.

No, it doesn't. Evolution is not a random process, nor does chance play a role.

Next question please.

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

Chemical elements did not evolve. Your question makes no sense.


I for one like this guy's posting style, makes it super easy to find, point out and destroy the bad thinking.

I agree it is rather aesthetically pleasing, but I think it could have been even better if he done it through [latex] \LaTeX [/latex]. It's just not the same without [latex] \LaTeX [/latex] tbh.

im invisible

Webster's dictionary defines excellence as "the state or condition of being excellent."

And now, the winner of the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence...

Turtwig

im invisible wrote: »

Webster's dictionary defines excellence as "the state or condition of being excellent."

And now, the winner of the First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence...

Should go to Dades. That guy works his socks off to keep this place delinquent and immoral. Although personally I've always preferred Rob, I've gotta remain objective here and tip my hats to Dades. Excellence beyond any question!

GLaDOS

Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye.

Well.. we could turn the temperature down a tad. Be grand then

Alter2Ego

roro1neil0 wrote: »

I think it's fairly well accepted that all life originated from the same primordial life form. It was not an animal under any technical definition of animal. e.g. plants didn't evolve from an animal ancestor but did evolve from a common primordial ancestor shared with animals.

ALTER2EGO -to- RORO1NEIL0:
The question is, accepted by whom? Especially since their's no physical evidence that all lifeforms came from a "common ancestor," which is why the term "evolution" is trapped in the same room with the word "theory."

roro1neil0 wrote: »

What proof do you have that you originated from your mother? Other than eye witness accounts by your mother (unreliable as she was under a lot of stress and you look entirely different now to then) or the midwife/obstetrician (they certainly won't remember or recognise you). You have genetic proof of course due to the similarity of your DNA with her DNA. Extrapolating this idea, that things that are closely related have similar DNA we can assume that Humans and Chimpanzees are closely related because they have similar DNA. Unfortunately in the absence of fossilised genetic information for ancestors we extrapolate from morphology that human's evolved from an ape ancestor who would have relatives with gave rise to chimpanzees.

Similarities do not equate to "they are closely related." The fact that humans can only interbreed with other humans indicates humans are a distinct family of living things.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

According to your own definition macro-evolution is evolution which results in speciation taking place over long time spans. So how would you expect to catch a fossil in mid-speciation process. It's not a transformer.

The definition is not mine. I got it from a scientific website. The term "speciation" refers to the development of new species through evolution. The problem is, there is no evidence in the fossils record that macroevolution has ever occurred.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

If you followed your own definitions you wouldn't be making these daft questions. When pro-evolutionists discuss evolution, natural selection and speciciation they are talking about very closely related animals (for example) evolving into distinct reproductive entities.

In reality, they are merely speculating, because they have no evidence to prove what they want to believe.

roro1neil0 wrote: »

Dog breeds isn't really an example of micro-evolution it's an example of artificial selection.

Oh, but it is. Microevolution is change below the species level, meaning variation of the same creature.

doctoremma

Alter2Ego wrote: »

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION
DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION

Entirely arbitrary division and not really used by evolutionary biologists, except maybe casually. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a longer timescale. There is no difference in biological mechanism, no notional barrier to 'switching' from one to the other.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

No it isn't.

I'd try to answer more but your quotes blocks are unworkable. I got bored.

doctoremma

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Microevolution is change below the species level, meaning variation of the same creature

So macro-evolution is change beyond the species level? One species developing into another? Because if that's the whole basis on which you reject evolution, this thread isn't going to last long.

Are you familiar with ring species?

Standman

Why is the writing all colourdy

doctoremma

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world...

Re: precision and the periodic table.
You appear to be mistaking the word 'precision' with the word 'counting'. 'Pattern' is not 'precision', that 1+1 = 2 is not 'precision'. The chemists you mention were brilliant, but only because they worked out what features they were supposed to count to make a periodic table. Do you understand the structure of atoms? It's beyond me how anyone can use the word 'precise' to describe proton numbers.

Re: precision in the natural world. You're joking, right? The biological makeup of most, if not, all organisms on this planet is a hotchpotch, cobbled together aggregation of systems that work, systems that work but aren't used, systems that are long devoid of function and systems that do everything they can to kill you.

MagicMarker

I pray to the Lord our Mod to move this thread to that other thread that's reserved for this creationist nonsense.

Alter2Ego

doctoremma wrote: »

So macro-evolution is change beyond the species level? One species developing into another? Because if that's the whole basis on which you reject evolution, this thread isn't going to last long.

ALTER2EGO -to- DOCTOREMMA:
Yes, macroevolution is change beyond the species level, such as a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat. Those are actual Charles Darwin claims--thus the belief by evolutionists that all animals started off from a "common ancestor." Keep in mind that nobody can explain where this common ancestor came from. In other words, how did life come from non-life?

doctoremma wrote: »

Are you familiar with ring species?

Yes, I'm familiar with the term "ring species." All variations of the same species of a particular animal can interbreed. "Ring species" is a fabricated terminology invented by pro-evolution scientists and amounts to talking loud and saying nothing, because as long as animals belong to the same species they can technically interbreed. However, as a result of being "reproductively isolated" they view each other as strangers and simply choose not to interbreed. For instance, horses and zebras belong to the Equidae family and can interbreed, but they will refuse to do so.

Turtwig

MagicMarker wrote: »

I pray to the Lord our Mod to move this thread to that other thread that's reserved for this creationist nonsense.

Praise Mod!
Your prayer was answered before you said it, does that count?

MagicMarker

Our Lord is a fast worker! Not like that other gob****e up in the clouds.

Turtwig

Oh ****! This means I'm subscribed to this thread again. Evac!!! Evac!!!


:mad:

robindch

MODERATOR -to- ALTER2EGO

Welcome to A+A. There are a few items to note while you're here:

• Your two recent threads on creationism have been moved here, into the forum's lunatic asylum.
• When you copy'n'paste large chunks of text, it's normal to include a link back to where the text originated, lest you be accused of plagiarism and booted from the forum. In this case, you omitted a link to this page.
• Before spending much more time here in A+A, I would recommend that you read the forum charter

Enjoy!

Delirium

Alter2Ego isn't too interested in discussion, Robin, he/she has already closed their account.

robindch

^^^ Was still open when I posted that message -- what is it with creationists chickening out all the time? :rolleyes:

doctoremma

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Yes, macroevolution is change beyond the species level

So the loss of ability to interbreed, the creation of two separate species, is an example of macroevolution?

I don't even the most die-hard creationists here have such a restricted definition of macroevolution. That's because it's immensely easy to shoot down. We know of many mnay examples where speciation has occurred. Ring species are one of those examples. But you know all about them, don't you?

Alter2Ego wrote: »

Yes, I'm familiar with the term "ring species."

It's not a 'term', it's a population of animals undergoing (or already completed) speciation. Maybe you don't know all about ring species?

Alter2Ego wrote: »

All variations of the same species of a particular animal can interbreed.

Not for ring species, they can't.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

"Ring species" is a fabricated terminology invented by pro-evolution scientists and amounts to talking loud and saying nothing, because as long as animals belong to the same species they can technically interbreed.

Agreed. But ring species form a continuum of interbreeding populations, with the extreme ends or opposite sides of the ring unable to interbreed with each other. It's not an invented term, you can visit areas where ring species exist and observe them today.

Alter2Ego wrote: »

However, as a result of being "reproductively isolated" they view each other as strangers and simply choose not to interbreed. For instance, horses and zebras belong to the Equidae family and can interbreed, but they will refuse to do so.

So you DON'T know what ring species are...

doctoremma

koth wrote: »

Alter2Ego isn't too interested in discussion, Robin, he/she has already closed their account.

B*llox, I just posted a response...

Doc_Savage

come on, it's not like it wouldn't have been much less of a waste of time if he was still signed up!

fitz0

Please just let this thread die.

J C

MagicMarker wrote: »

Oh dear god...

He lives ... and He loves you too!!!

J C

... here is a guy who was once an Atheist and an Evolutionist ... and began studying the evidence ... and is now a Christian and a Creationist ... I give you Lee Strobel.

... enjoy ... but be warned it can destoy faith ... in Evolution!!!:)

KamiKazeKitten

This is like whack-a-mole.....every time I think this thread is finally gone it pops back up again.

Delirium

You already posted that video. Try and keep track of your misinformation on this thread

Sarky

I saw new replies to this thread and dared to hope for a moment, a brief, wonderful moment, that maybe J C had something new to say that wasn't also a big ball of sh*te.

Oh well.

robindch

J C wrote: »

... here is a guy who was once an Atheist and an Evolutionist [...] I give you Lee Strobel.

Ugh, WC.

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

... here is a guy who was once an Atheist and an Evolutionist ... and began studying the evidence ... and is now a Christian and a Creationist ... I give you Lee Strobel.

... enjoy ... but be warned it can destoy faith ... in Evolution!!!:)

The evidence? You guys pride yourselves on the lack of evidence right?
You guys sure are confusing.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... here is a guy who was once an Atheist and an Evolutionist ... and began studying the evidence ... and is now a Christian and a Creationist ... I give you Lee Strobel.

His major was journalism. So you found another gullible wanker in the world, so what? Who cares?