Evolution Disclaimer Supported

So all that evidence that PH correlates and VR pointlessly rubs in your face

The only things that Patrick Henry posts on these threads are placemarkers, ad hominems and attacks on religion. He is totally ignorant of evolution and does not seem in spite of his haunting these threads for numerous years interested in learning anything about it.

Vade sometimes does post some scientific looking stuff. However almost all of it is nonsense from fellow evolutionists who have no credentials at all or things which are so ridiculous that they are easily refuted such as his famous ring species. So no, the evolutionists here do not back up their claims that evolution is science.

BTW - your failing to give evidence and using the excuse that it has already been given (seems that is all the evos can do on these threads) is totally lame. You claim evolution is science. You claim that you believe in it because of the science and yet you cannot give us scientific evidence for it. Methinks the reason you hold on to evolution for dear life has nothing to do with science.

Colleagues in sliming opponents that is!

Thanks, G3K! I haven't laughed this much in weeks!

I know the sex of neither you nor longshadow.

The name is Piltdown_Woman.

[I know the sex of neither you nor longshadow.] The name is Piltdown_Woman.

That's your screen name. This is the internet. I make no assumptions.

How does the fact that certain species can mate with each other support creationism? It escapes me. Lions and Tigers can produce live offspring this does not mean they have reproductive viability these offsrping are "Mules" that means that they cannot reproduce. I have stated that species is meaningless you keep saying it isn't. You are wrong it is that simple species means nothing again I restate species is a term created by scientists as a useful place marker to distinguish one creature from another its that simple. Quit lying to people you well know that species is meaningless.

I have already posted a refutation of Irreducible Complexity did you not read it. Of course you didn't remember the viral exchange of genetic information this completly negates Irreducible Complexity as it allows cross species genetic transfer. This allows different evolutionary lines to converge.

You continue to use a tired argument from the 19th century that modern genetic research has disproved time and again. I will not continue to argue when I give a proof and you just say "NO IT ISN'T!!" you sound like a monty python skit. You have given no evidence that there is even irreducible Complexity you merely state look at a flegellum it can't occur in nature. Of course it can actually it isn't even irreducibly complex There is nothing in Nature that is irreducibly complex thats the Creationist lie. It is a lie a very big lie they tell everytime someone argues with them. Do you even know what Irreducible Complexity means or you like our friend f.christian who says the word like a mantra.

Wouls you like me to give you the method that a flegellum can be created simply by natural selection even without viral intervention (Although viral intervention can speed the process along)

A single cell organism breaks from its parent cell. The new cell is slightly different than the parent and has a celluar defect on one wall. This defect is a slight protrubance. when the cell moves this protrubrance acts as a rudder letting the cell move in a more guided way. Each generation the cell with the larger thinner protrubrance is more effective in moving about. After a time we have a cell with a long thin tail. At this point a cell again experiences a defect part of the cellular membrane that allows the cell to move attaches itself to the tail. When this cell moves the tail moves slightly with it meaning not only does the rudder act like a rudder it can now be used for small amounts of movement itself. This slow progression is so simple to understand I don't even see that your Irreducible Complexity can even exist. By the definition of Irreducible Complexity there could be absolutely no evolution because all change would be impossible we know for a fact that that is incorrect as changes such as I describe do occur.

Do you have any evidence for your claims? I just showed how the flegellum can occur naturally do you want me to debunk the Irreducible Complexity of every single example that you can come up with.

You say evolutionists never give you proof. I gave you proof and even made it simple enough that someone like you could understand.

gor3000 wrote"Vade sometimes does post some scientific looking stuff. However almost all of it is nonsense from fellow evolutionists who have no credentials at all or things which are so ridiculous that they are easily refuted such as his famous ring species. So no, the evolutionists here do not back up their claims that evolution is science."

What credentials do you have? I mean if we discuss evolution and you claim to know its all hogwash what is your degree in? Religious dogma? Antiscientific mantras? Come on man give us the word. What are you a plant by the demoncrats to keep the foolish christians in the darkage?

Hmm in my short time on this thread I have debunked every word you have spoken. YOu are wrong your creationist ramblings are wrong and all you can do is scream "NO ITS NOT!!" You give no proof of your assumptions you spout a word or two and say see that word proves evolution isn't true without understanding the meaning of the very words you shout.

He doesn't have a degree. He hasn't graduated high school yet.

The name is Piltdown_Woman.

Bond. James Bond.

gore3000 wrote "Of course if all these changes took place in a single individual that individual could not reproduce and it would all be for nothing so you need to have a whole group of individuals making all these changes at the same time. Of course all these changes, in the whole group had to take place in a single generation because if the change had been gradual you could not have them continue reproducing. This same problem is true with all the different modes of reproduction in nature of course, however with mammals it is far more obvious. Evolution has no answer to this important question which strikes at the heart of the theory because it destroys the whole idea that these differently reproducing species could have ever descended from each other. "

I am going to try to explain this very simply and not use too many big words for you.
Did you read the post I made about viruses and evolution? It completely negates what you just posted. Why did you even post it. When viruses attack sperm or egg cells and they survive to continue to split and make more eggs or sperm these viral changes can and will be passed to children. The siblings whose genetic material were changed will only be able to reproduce with their own siblings. These siblings will form the nucleus of the new species (I should say community or genetic pool as you try to distort the word species). Now I know that siblings breeding with each other isn't HOLY and that God would never let something like that happen (sarcasm off) Many mammals breed with their own relatives in fact it is common among mammals.

You said evolution had no answer of course it didnt scientists working with viruses found the answer. Evolution is a theory not a scientist :) Again I give EVIDENCE where is your evidence? Where is your evidence that creationism is the correct theory show me your fossils show me your genetic data. Oh I forgot Creationism, is above the sort of evidence I provide.

How does the fact that certain species can mate with each other support creationism? It escapes me. Lions and Tigers can produce live offspring this does not mean they have reproductive viability these offsrping are "Mules" that means that they cannot reproduce. I have stated that species is meaningless you keep saying it isn't.

Actually the progeny can reproduce sometimes, check it out here . The importance of reproductive viability is so obvious that it is ridiculous for you to deny it. How can someone descend from someone else if there is no reproductive viability? Obviously they cannot. This strikes at the whole question of evolution because one needs reproductive viability to have descent. It is a very big problem for evolution, that is why evolutionists try to make a mess of it. Essentially for evolution to be true you have had to have reproductive viability all the way from bacteria to humans. As we see in nature, the reproductive viability of species is very narrow and for evolution to be true the whole group has to remain viable through all the changes needed for these supposed evolutionary transformations. This makes punk-eek ludicrous for one thing. With gradual evolution the problem of genetics makes a lot of trouble for these transformations because genetics teaches us that changes can be accumulated only in the line that has had the mutation. Different mutations in different individuals do not mix. So in order to have a transformation (which due to the complexity of organisms would require many different mutations) you would have to have those mutations merge into a single line of individuals - again maintaining reproductive viability throughout. Quite a problem for evolution.

As to how does this definition support creationism, it should be pretty obvious that the problem of reproductive viability is a great problem for evolution from the above. But more important, the principle that definitions in science have to be exact and objective should be pretty obvious. Else all science would be impossible since one cannot discuss things unless all understand what is being spoken about. Only those who wish to create confusion and alter the facts to their views are interested in having 'pliable' subjective definitions.

I have already posted a refutation of Irreducible Complexity did you not read it.

Yup and your sources, a personal blog which has no credibility and an article speaking of retroviruses which does not address the question do not refute the bacterial flagellum nor the problem I mentioned which all the evolutionists try to ignore about how a species can change its mode of reproduction while continuing to reproduce.

What credentials do you have?

I have perhaps the most important credential of all, a credential which almost all evolutionists lack. It is called common sense.

gore3000 wrote "The importance of reproductive viability is so obvious that it is ridiculous for you to deny it. How can someone descend from someone else if there is no reproductive viability?"

It is important that is why new line most often descend through siblings with the same genetic information and mutations which you conveniently ignore each time I tell you.

gore3000 wrote "that is why evolutionists try to make a mess of it."

if you mean saying that siblings reproducing with each other is a mess than yes we make a mess of it because we disprove your point.

gore3000 wrote "As we see in nature, the reproductive viability of species is very narrow and for evolution to be true the whole group has to remain viable through all the changes needed for these supposed evolutionary transformations"

This is a ludicrus assumption. All members do not have to remain viable for evolution to occur in fact all differences in viability account for differences in species. Human ancestory can be genetically traced to small numbers of individuals this is because those nomasdic individuals interbred with their own relatives increasing their small groups genetic homogenity (this means those interbreeding couples became closer genetically) and with time increasing changes (from the overall group of early hominids) in their genetic makeup accumulated by viral vectors create a change that excludes them from genetic viabilty with the parent group.

As we can simiply see the entire group does not and for the sake of evolution must not remain viable sexually.

gore3000 wrote "Different mutations in different individuals do not mix. So in order to have a transformation (which due to the complexity of organisms would require many different mutations) you would have to have those mutations merge into a single line of individuals - again maintaining reproductive viability throughout. Quite a problem for evolution"

As I will continue to state the mutations occur in large part in the sperm or egg cells that are past to siblings. Also mutations don't have immediately cause a loss of sexually viability you yourself state that some tigers and lions retain viabilty that seems to help my side much more than yours as a Liger which can breed with another Liger would create a unique species after a period of time with only two individuals as the progenitors of tsuch a species.

You seem to think that certain mutations must occur all at once to account for differces in say mammilian reproduction. This is blatantly not true. Live birth obviously came long before the ability to nurse. Certain reptiles exhibit the ability to give birth to live young. Early mammals could also however a mutation that allows nursing is separte from that mutation that allows live birth neither nessescitates the other.

gore3000 stated for the millionth time after I have proved him wrong over and over " But more important, the principle that definitions in science have to be exact and objective should be pretty obvious. Else all science would be impossible since one cannot discuss things unless all understand what is being spoken about."

First you dont even seem to believe in Science so telling me about the rigors of scientific definitions is laughable. Definitions in science have to be changable science is worthless if it cannot change to meet the future discoveries of scientists. You continued mantra that they can't change shows the depth of your ignorance on the subject.

Gore3000 wrote "Yup and your sources, a personal blog which has no credibility and an article speaking of retroviruses which does not address the question do not refute the bacterial flagellum nor the problem I mentioned which all the evolutionists try to ignore about how a species can change its mode of reproduction while continuing to reproduce."

Hmm my credibility is far and above yours as I am quite willing to share my credentials which is something you continue to ignore along with all the other evidence I have given you against your arguments. Since no evidence will convince you and you will continue to Lie and say no one ever gives you evidence I will no longer debate someone who can debate with no more alacrity than to say "NO IT ISN'T" or "NO YOU DIDN'T" each time he is challenged and refuses to ansewr the simplest questions or give even basic evidence for his belief beyond shouting a word that has no meaning when spoken from his lips.

Does it make you proud that you have to LIE to protect the LIE taught to you by the Mythology you cling to so fervently.

gore3000 wrote "I have perhaps the most important credential of all, a credential which almost all evolutionists lack. It is called common sense."

Is that the same commonsense you share with those Muslims waiting on their 76 virgins in Heaven. Or that common sense the catholic chuch had when they claimed the earth was the center of the Universe. Perhaps it was that common sense that primitive men had when they believed that thunder was God rolling stones around in the sky. If thats common sense I'll pass.

Then again you have no credentials at all to continue this debate.

Then again you have no credentials at all to continue this debate.

Ah, but he's a "liar for the Lord", so he isn't accountable for his false witness.

I get so tired of Bluemans mantra, we refute and refute, but he just keeps on repeating. He just ignores ANYTHING that might possibly cause his belief structure to come apart at the seams. And there are plenty!!

I feel for him, it is just sad really.

Thank you for your extraordinary explanations.

They won't do any good of course, because you will see the mantra come back up.

Also, Behe is brought up by him a lot, not with me anymore of course, but just about every other post, he is hoping that by making as many posts as he does, people will ignore my refutation of Behe and his silly ID theory, and just skip it. Watch, you will see a screen of blue when you get back as he desperately tries to post as much as possible to make our posts seem insignificant.

He think that if he posts enough of his nonsense enough times, it will somehow become the truth. Sad, very sad, actually.

THank you again, science is ALWAYS appreciated by me.

(Second try)

The evo definitions that a bird that sings a bit differently or has a different coloring is a new species is absolute garbage

Even if the birds depend on vocalizations and coloration to recognize potential mates?

BTW - your failing to give evidence and using the excuse that it has already been given (seems that is all the evos can do on these threads) is totally lame.

We all have our opinions. My opinion is that you hope, by deliberately refusing to exercise your memory, and pretend arguments haven't been presented, to recycle the same feeble arguments over and over as an economical propaganda device. Like all con jobs, it has a seed of cleverness. It costs you little to engage in this lame, despicable nonsense, whereas, it costs anyone who wants to argue with you enormous amounts of energy to comply. I think I've had enough to your show for today, kindly address your posts to someone other than me, I've grown weary of your doctrinal dissembling for this pass.

It was of these birds which the evos called a ring species but of course could not bother to check to see if they could mate even though they were supposedly observing for half a dozen years. They said that the ends of the ring were separate species because they had a couple of yellow stripes the others did not have and in addition sang somewhat different songs.

Herring gulls are a ring species, and they work exactly as advertised. Any adjascent group will interbreed with high success, but at the limits of North/South migration, where the opposite groups meet up, they rarely produce viable offspring. For how long, artful dodger, have you been riding on the refusal to recognize attenuation in mating success along a sliding scale? Speciation is not a binary event. There isn't a switch that turns on and off. How much cheese to we have to feed this mousetrap before a thought penetrates the mouse's noggin?

Methinks the reason you hold on to evolution for dear life has nothing to do with science.

Methinks you've pushed your luck enough today.

The Tree of Life was officially revised in 2000.

That is a joke!

NSF, amongst others. What a colossal display of ignorance.