Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
You are displaying your ignorance for all to see. Quite a few of the quotes are from well known evolutionists. In fact Gould is one of the heartbeats of many evolutionists on these threads.
Let's see the proof. Your table proves nothing. No one denies that Neanderthal is the closest species to homo sapiens. There is also absolutely no trace of "archaic homo sapiens". If there were it would have a name and the evolutionists would be shouting its existence from the rooftops. Show the evidence, right here - unless you are ashamed to show everyone what nonsense you base your claims on.
In one word: garbage. The only one of those "ancestors" that was contemporaneous with homo sapiens was Neanderthal and Neanderthal has been proven not to be the ancestor of homo sapiens. Dead species do not reproduce, period.
Showing again your ignorance. Neanderthal and homo sapiens were still too far apart to ever have had progeny. The 1% difference is a tremendous amount when considering that the time for such a difference to arise is a mere 50,000 or so years. There are numerous places where Neanderthals and homo sapiens lived nearby, yet the two species never mixed. This would not be the case if Neanderthal was the ancestor of homo sapiens.
A waste of time for who you posted them to, but I appreciate it.
Thanks for reminding me! Junior posted those links supposedly in reply to my post#84 where I issued the following challenge to evolutionists:
NOT ONE, NOT ONE EVOLUTIONIST WILL POST PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION - BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY PROOF OF EVOLUTION IN THE 150 YEARS SINCE THE CHARLATAN CHARLES DARWIN WROTE HIS HEATHEN BOOK.
In post 261 I issued the following post to Junior regarding his links:
"Okay Junior, pick the article above which you think most clearly and definitely proves evolution. I will post it here for all to see and proceed to tear apart and show it is not proof at all
He has not taken up the challenge (neither has any evolutionist taken up this or the challenge in post#84). Now one would think that with so many wonderful links right there for the taking, the evolutionists will not take up the challenge because they all know that their links do not prove anything.
Now since I know that none of you will give the proof of macroevolution, in order to save bandwith, instead of writing a lot of excuses, just give the number you like for your excuse from the list below:
1. evolutionists do not need to give any proof - everyone knows evolution is true.
2. the proof has already been given but I cannot tell you on what post it was given because this is a deep secret only to be told to members of our own secret society of evolutionists.
3. the post is in yet another link which is so stupid taht I am ashamed to post it here for all to see.
4. you are an idiot.
5. you are a ##!!@@##!! creationist.
6. you are a ##!!@@##!!##!!@@##!!##!!@@##!! creationist.
7. we would rather talk about space aliens.
Now, let the race start to see how evolutionists can go another 1000 posts ignoring the challenge and making excuses.
I certainly do, but that is not due to mutations. That is because in all species there are slight differences in the genetic makeup that make some more resistant than others. The dead produce no progeny. The ones that could not resist the drugs did not reproduce. It was the ones that were already resistant that reproduced. This can be easily ascertained by a simple example. The black plague destroyed about a 1/3 of the population of Europe within a few years. There was no time for mutations to occur while the plague was going on. The ones that survived were those that had genes which were able to resist the plague, not those who mutated.
"Second, what is your explanation for all the DNA that man has that is identical to DNA in other life forms, "
The explanation is really quite simple. Many houses are made of brick, the bricks may be the same, but the houses are not. Put it another way, all matter is made of some 100+ elements. This does not show though that man descended from water or from the air.
Is that what you mean by "no new information" (if you were the one who said that).
It has not been "proven." It has been hypothesized and for the most part the hypothesis has a goodly chunk of evidence to support it. However, there are dissenting voices and they also have evidence to support their stances (personally, I think their evidence is slightly shaky). Once again, you seem to have this "thing" for proof. Proof is a mathematical term; preponderance of evidence is a scientific method.
My original argument was that science couldn't provide "proofs", only evidence. My reasoning being that theories being based on observations, they don't generally describe affects that have not yet been observed. There are some glaring exceptions, but time will tell.
I used television as an example of a physical affect where the CRT was invented 50 years before electrons were discovered when gore3000 declared that the CRT was delevoped according to Faraday's theories on electromagnetic induction and electrolysis, although he didn't seem to know what those were. At which point I referred him to the history of the gas discharge tube and Jean Picard's work in the late 1600's and asked how a theory espoused (love that word) in the 1800's generated a device in the 1600's. At this point he bailed and lost track of my 000's.
I'm thinking maybe gore3000 isn't an algorithm like longshadow thinks, he might be a timelord and can't keep track of when he is. Possibly he's in his last re-generation and his mind is failing him.
Yes continue to repeat the lie in the hope that some will believe you. Medved's quotes are correct. They were said by the people quoted, they were meant by the people quoted and the truth of the statements made in them has not been disproven. Seems the evolutionists think that repeating the same lie makes it true.
There you go again, with your phony semantic arguments. Look up the word proof in the dictionary, it applies to a lot more than mathematical proofs. People are everyday proven guilty in courts of law without any mathematical proofs at all.
However, I am glad that you at least admit the statement that homo sapiens has no ancestors and hence did not descend from monkeys, Neanderthals, or any other species is correct.
As I stated, the cathode ray tube would have been impossible without Faraday's discoveries, nothing false about that statement. As I also stated, in 1855 it was a totally worthless toy. Not until after the theory behind it, not until many experiments were conducted, and not after much work was done, did it become a practical application and one was able to use it for it what meant for, watching "I love Lucy". That serendipitous discoveries can be made, no one can deny, and I do not. That those discoveries only produce toys until the theory is formulated and understood is the point I made and you have not disproven it.
It is quite interesting that evolutionists, who call themselves scientists, constantly try to attack and demean the methods of science.
We are not talking about the dictionary definition of "proof" -- we are talking about the scientific definition, which is something else entirely. In science, "proof" is a mathematical construct and has very little relationship to observation. What must God think of you that you are reduced to bantering semantics, twisting words, willful ignorance, and outright lies to support Biblical creation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.