ElProximo/Erasmus....get a grip. You're making a ridiculous spectacle out of yourself. Saying "fuck" over and over and calling other members turds, idiots, and dumbasses or otherwise insulting them just exposes your own childishness. If you can't handle the way others think and express themselves, and deal with it in a level way, it's your problem, not theirs. So behave like a big boy or shut the fuck up.
The trash posted on trueorigins.org is the same old creationist bullcrap in a flashy new presentation. Nothing new is presented and it CERTAINLY does nothing to debunk 150 years of scientific research by thousands of scientists around the world. Goddidit IS NOT a valid alternative to evolution. Sorry El...
Really? What exactly? Explain what you think is trashy by bringing it up, engaging in it and explaining where or why you think so? No? Are you actualy interested in this topic or just intend to 'assert a position' and 'describe it as correct' over and over. Anyways, trueorigins is about as unflashy as you can get and has been around for quite a while. It was put there by someone absolutely sick and tired of this talkorigins website... a website MADE FOR unwitting internet seekers who wont be able to catch the tricks. People like you. So what do you think about Ashby Camps suggestion that Evolutionism certainly would not predict or need this 'one phylogenic tree'. That, at best Evolutionism is just incorporating it into its theory. What this means is that its not an 'evidence' for evolutionism is it? I mean, just try engaging it and dealing with it. Dont just paste: Phylogenics! and then think you are actually doing anything to prove evolutionism. Engage it?
Here's why evolution is science and creationism is not: Evolution is supported by a huge mass of objective evidence. Pretty much all of the historical relics and fossils we have point to evolution. What is the evidence for creationism? Creationism as a "theory" (which it isn't) was based on people that believed in it looking for evidence for it. That is not scientific. The scientific method, that which makes science, is question-hypothesis-observation/experiment-analysis of results-conclusion. The creationist method is conclusion-observe-analyze, and is completely subjective. Evidence is twisted to mean things that are outlandish and unreasonable, possibilities are not taken into account, and you basically make things mean what you want them to mean. Evolution started with a mass of fossils, observation of the different inter- and intra-species morphologies, a lot of experimentation (like Gregor Mendel), and the formulation of a theory, which has been supported time and time again by just about everyone who studies and has knowledge of prehistoric life. You need to get over yourself and actually look at the facts. Science is rarely spun, and it is usually spun by people like you. Religion, on the other hand, gives everyone their own interpretation of how things are. It's made for spinning. In addition, maybe you'd care to weed out some of the arguments from your website? I'd like to hear them, but I'm not going to read that whole page.
No, historical relics and fossils do not point to Evolutionism. They do validate Genesis. But, They war against Evolutionisms theory. Its been said that Fossils are just all the evidence you need that Evolutionism did not happen. Another nail in the coffin. Uh no, the Creationist situation is made for science. Its verifiable, quantifiable, testable (as much as it can be). Thats because it starts with a series of 'claims' that cant be changed, morphed and manipulated, abandoned or invented to suit whatever comes along. You are describing Evolutionism. It can change, morph, drop, add, its claims whenever it has too and in a sense is nothing. You take anything and you make up anything to fit it. Yes, its basically nothing more than looking at many different types of fossils and saying "I imagine they morphed into each other at some time we never saw" Real scientific lol! Its ok, Im over myself.
I may be completely wrong, but i think proximo has to be joking. I know people actually think this stuff, and their wrong, but i mean come on he can't be that stupid, i think he's joking.
Nope. I just happen to be one of many people who grew up being taught Evolutionism. But, The difference between me and too many others is that I persued it. Questioned it. Started spotting 'tricks' and intellectual dishonesty. Investigated more. Eventually realising that Evolutionism is easily the biggest fraud pulled on a gullible and unwitting public ever seen. Genesis Creationism is a different story. I started comparing hard evidence against the claims. They square up over and over. Oh sure, lots of things we 'dont know' but you enjoy what you can know. You people are so fooled its not even funny. Just LOOK at the amount of people here who ACTUALLY think Fossils are 'evidence' of Evolutionism! Never even crossed your mind that they are about as hard science (literally written in stone) evidence DISproving the fake imaginary stories of 'morphing creatures' lol. Oh but wait.. who claimed that massive amounts of life on earth were buried in a global flood? And what do we find encased in sedimentary layers? Oh right.. Fossils. Im willing to bet you never once even thought about that did you? You were just told that 'Fossils prove Evolution happened' and you NEVER even stopped for 1 second to ask.... Why? Why would they? How? Well dont. The Evofundie storytellers do not want you to. They COUNT ON the fact you WONT. Dont be a fool. Question, Think, Investigate. Then ask yourself: Do you really believe in Evolutionism because you actually think its true or is it because (in your mind) it validates your lifestyle and mitigates some accountability you would rather not know about?
Ok, that last post just gave me that picture. That bit right there did it. And here's a spam can for fun: :spam:
I usually don't like to jump into this debate but I wanted to make a small insertion here. When dealing with fossils, we have relatively few (compared to the probable population of the parent species) and they are separated by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Anyone who says that there is a provable chain of ancestry has to deal with the fact that we have so few fossils and such a vast amount of time, we can't really say how (or even THAT) anything is related. Entire species could have risen, sparked their evolutionary offspring, and died without leaving a trace of their existence. This doesn't prove anything, but you can't use the fossil record to prove evolution (nor should you) because it has far too many gaps. One more thing, to the best of my knowledge the definitions for evolution given in this thread fail to address the origin of life. How do the evolutionists answer this question?
There are few fossils relative to the parent populations because of what it takes for fossilization to occur. Granted there are species that don't show an evolutionary flow from anything else, but if you think about the massive numbers of trilobites and bivalves we have, we have a good picture of at least dominant forms, and they show change over time. Which is evolution. Larger species and terrestrial species take longer to evolve because they have a more selective environment than a small crustacean. With these, we can also get a good picture of evolution. We don't have a complete species list obviously, but many connections can be made. I don't use the fossil record to prove evolution. I use the fossil record to support it. I use biochemistry to prove evolution. Evolution is not about the origin of life. Only what comes after. However, it has been shown that organic molecules can be created in conditions made to replicate early earth. All you need for evolution is self-replication. So considering that there would have been constant sources of outside energy for this old-earth laboratory in the form of lightning, sunlight, and whatever else, organic molecules would have been constantly formed. It was only a matter of time before something formed that could replicate. If it's replication time was shorter than it's "life"span, it could survive, mistakes or mutations could occur to affect replication, and evolution would begin. Some scientists have suggested that the early replicating molecules would have been sort of lipid globules that gather or produce more lipids and split when they were large enough to. But again, evolution is not about explaining life, only morphological change and speciation.
Starting with the amazing assumption that Abiogenesis just happened to already occur somewhere and... Seriously. Evolutionism better fucking be concerned about Abiogenesis because thats the whole bloody big question isnt it. At least this whole go at glossing over the most astonishing fundamental premise can be taken for what it is - an admission that its impossible and entirely unscientific based on anything we know about the world around us. In fairness to Darwin, in his day it was 'popular thinking' that things just appeared. Fruitflies just spontaneously came into existance near apple barrels. Mice 'appeared' in hay bails. So, you can almost forgive Darwin for thinking that that some soup and lightning could mate and complex replicating information would suddenly just 'appear' somehow.
Evolutionists have already been caught on that. Dont worry, you never once heard anyone actually admit that the Fossil Record has ended their dreams. But, Dont worry because Evolutionism doesn't have any of those pesky unchanging claims that Genesis does. No sir. Evolutionism just rewrites their story again. Punk-Eek. Amazingly, almost nobody outside the loop is even aware that previous installments of Evolutionism have already been dismissed, abandoned and are now discredited. Puncuated Equalibrium is the replacement now. See, here is what happened - instead of slow incremental changes, billions of times over billions of years... it must have been thousands and thousands of sudden and dramatic 'hopeful monsters'. A lizard gives birth to a chicken. BANG.. just like that. Trust me... almost every single 'Evowarrior' in here doesnt even have a fuckin clue what Im talking about. Thats the amazing thing about Evolutionism.. it most certainly HAS been repeatedly proven wrong again and again. It gets debunked all the time. Evolutionists themselves know it. But Amazingly, they always manage to sneak their lying little asses out of it and keep the gullible public duped. So here is what really happened: Cold hard facts written in stone have been destroying their myth to the point its beyond all fucking belief. Its over. Fossils killed em Dead. So they have no choice here... it is now 'punk eek' and there were basically millions of 'creations'. But who knows with this because its not real. Gould passed away and now its just total chaos .. there really is no 'one thing' or 'anything'. They just know that the public seems to have accepted 'slow gradual changes' and still think Fossils are 'friends' of Evolutionism. So, Just let em keep thinking that. [The whole 'Miracle Baby' puncuated equalibrium thing tested VERY poorly among the public - made people ask too many questions.]
Yes, I believe you are correct. The only thing that is really changing in Evolution, is the theory itself.
Campbell and ElProx...that's what I've been trying to get across...it's a freaking THEORY...no matter what anyone tells you about it being FACT. As such, it is subject to change and revision with the introduction of new evidence that improves, supplants, disproves, discredits, or initiates re-evaluation. The ideal nature of science is continuous inquiry, new discovery, and the discarding of that which may have previously been proven "fact", if countering evidence is sufficiently strong. Taking into account the above, creation science can be considered science, but it is flawed in the same way that science with evolution-as-fact as its basis is flawed. Both attempt to shoehorn evidence to support a pre-existing conclusion that is unquestioningly accepted as indisputable FACT by its proponents. And both sets of proponents are playing for very large stakes...the evolutionists for what to them is an indisputable building block of their religion, science; the creationists for the essential validity of the doctrine of Original Sin, without which the foundational basis of orthodox Christianity collapses. As these respective sets of proponents have their entire psychological and social structure, and often their careers and livelihood, invested in the inviolable truth of their scientific/religious positions, it's not hard to see how science can turn into self-deception, and consequent deception of others.
Not getting into this, but scientific theory = scientific model, the term has no meaning as to the status of the model being proven or not, but generally accepted models like evolutionary theory are considered reasonably reliable. The difference is semantic, yes, but it undermines your argument. And some food for thought: original sin is a human idea, used to control through guilt.
Amazing how a scientific theory adjusts as new evidence comes to light and previous assumptions are proven inaccurate, isn't it?
Ha! I've gotten you on that before, friend, be careful. The changes in evolutionary theory have been minor, only updated and made more accurate as we have more information and better technology for studies and whatnot. The big picture of change over time through natural selection hasn't been shaken to my knowledge, and we still accept Mendell's work and that traits are hereditary. The thing to think about is that around that time, there were a number of theory concerning evolution and inheritance of traits, and Darwin and Mendell were the ones that the information has since supported.
Point well taken...thanks. However, in the context of my post, and regarding who it was addressed to, reasonably reliable in regard to evolutionary theory doesn't work. That's my opinion as well, but I'm addressing folks who consider it absolute, indisputable fact.
