Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Right Divider]

So you concur? Progress then.

No... nothing new means no "progress".

The mistakes and time alone do nothing.

No kidding... but that is the claim made by evolutionists. You're a very poor supporter of your "theory".

The systematic pressures of competitive mating are the engine.

Again for the dense, that does NOT create anything NEW.

That is a REQUIREMENT of YOUR THEORY.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I see no one has refuted my contention. . . . It must be true then.

Argumentum ad ignorantium

that fossils are merely rocks that some crafty atheistical darwinialists simply chiseled into the shapes of imaginary "dinosaur" bones in order to cast doubt on young-earth creationism.

You might have a point if we didn't actually have plenty of evidence that dinosaurs DID exist, and that the evidence does not contradict, and in fact, supports, the Young Earth Creationist view.

 

[Skeeter]

Again for the dense, that does NOT create anything NEW.

Developments are so gradual it is hard to call anything new. Sometimes more rapid changes do occur. But compare two forms 1000 years apart and it will seem new.

That is a REQUIREMENT of YOUR THEORY.

No, different not new is the concept to focus on.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Developments are so gradual it is hard to call anything new. Sometimes more rapid changes do occur. But compare two forms 1000 years apart and it will seem new.

No, different not new is the concept o focus on.

It seems you missed this:

It's actually really easy to observe changes in populations. The problem for you is that those changes don't result in the creature becoming another.

For example:

Darwin's Finches in Hyperspeed! Interviewing Dr. Lee Spetner | KGOV.com

kgov.com

* Finches Adapt in 17 Years, Not 2.3 Million: As for Charles Darwin's finches, they're claimed to have taken 2,300,000 years to diversify from an initial species blown onto the Galapagos Islands. Yet individuals from a single finch species on a U.S. Bird Reservation in the Pacific were introduced to a group of small islands 300 miles away and in at most 17 years, lPhoto of a finchike Darwin's finches, they had diversified their beaks, related muscles, and behavior to fill various ecological niches. See also Jean Lightner's review of the Grants' 40 Years.

 

[Right Divider]

Developments are so gradual it is hard to call anything new.

Fallacy of the beard.

Sometimes more rapid changes do occur.

It's not about the rate of change.... it's about the TYPE of change.

But compare two forms 1000 years apart and it will seem new.

Show us the details.

No, different not new is the concept to focus on.

No, it's not. YOUR THEORY requires the constant creation of NEW things.

 

[Skeeter]

It seems you missed this:

Dr Spetner should stick with engineering and give up writing books outside his area of expertise. If I invited Spetner to a party of megabucks winners, he would refuse to acknowledge the party existed because it is statistically improbable to identify the guest list prior to a date where any of the lotteries took place.

 

[Clete]

I see no one has refuted my contention that fossils are merely rocks that some crafty atheistical darwinialists simply chiseled into the shapes of imaginary "dinosaur" bones in order to cast doubt on young-earth creationism. It must be true then.

Because no one is stupid enough to take that idiotic claim seriously.

(Besides that, I refuted it weeks ago with no substantive response from Ktoyou or anyone else.)

 

[marke]

Compare some skeletons and get back to us on what you think.

Interestingly, whale pelvic bones are not simply vestigial as once thought; they appear to help with birthing process.

Evolutionists have wild and strange imaginations. They see a bone and draw ridiculous conclusions designed to fit their misunderstanding of facts.

Major Evolutionary Blunders: Are Whales and Evolution Joined at the Hip?

National Geographic has a Little Kids First Big Book of… series on different topics. In its Little Kids First Big Book of Animals, pictures show giraffes, camels, bears, and whales.1 Young readers can see they all look different. Animals that live on land, like bears, have legs. But no one has...

www.icr.org

Some evolutionists used to imagine that whales could evolve from an animal like a bear. Charles Darwin considered how black bears can swim for a long time. Once he wrote about such bears

…swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.2

This scenario flows from a very fertile imagination. But, as documented in an earlier article, imaginary extrapolation is a key element of evolutionary theory.3

 

[Skeeter]

LOL. If you had excess to a Biology professor and learned nothing, what chance do I have in helping you? You ran her out on a rail? Your loss.

 

[marke]

LOL. If you had excess to a Biology professor and learned nothing, what chance do I have in helping you? You ran her out on a rail? Your loss.

Is you college edumecated?

 

[Skeeter]

Is you college edumecated?

Oh, I got me some book learning over the years. Only some undergrad courses in biology and evolution though. You?

 

[marke]

Oh, I got me some book learning over the years. Only some undergrad courses in biology and evolution though. You?

I tride takin Englesh but it was all Greak to me.

 

[Skeeter]

I tride takin Englesh but it was all Greak to me.

I took me some Latin in High School. Spanish was gettin muy difacil.

 

[Right Divider]

LOL. If you had excess to a Biology professor and learned nothing, what chance do I have in helping you? You ran her out on a rail? Your loss.

Her profession does not make her correct.

She simply repeated the same old tired evolutionist drivel.

 

[Skeeter]

Her profession does not make her correct.

She simply repeated the same old tired evolutionist drivel.

Amazingly, I have no trouble believing that your distant ancestor was a sea squirt.

 

[Right Divider]

Amazingly, I have no trouble believing that your distant ancestor was a sea squirt.

All of my ancestors are human. From the beginning, humans were always humans.

 

[marke]

Amazingly, I have no trouble believing that your distant ancestor was a sea squirt.

Or that blacks were the first humans to evolve from apes?

 

[Skeeter]

Or that blacks were the first humans to evolve from apes?

WTHeck?

 

[marke]

WTHeck?

Evolutionists have long preached that the first humans evolved from animals in Africa. Look it up. Darwin even thought blacks were closer to missing links, with apes at the bottom of the evolutionary chain and whites at the top. Look it up.

Take a look at the book written by noted American zoologist Madison Grant early in the 1900s, The Passing of the Great Race.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dr Spetner should stick with engineering and give up writing books outside his area of expertise.

You're evading.

The fact of the matter is that the finches changed in 17 years. Not 2.3 million.

If I invited Spetner to a party of megabucks winners, he would refuse to acknowledge the party existed because it is statistically improbable to identify the guest list prior to a date where any of the lotteries took place.

Seems completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.