Evolutionists are morons.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lordkalvan

New member
Where is this proof, I seen all the theories, we know all about them. We or at least YOU are talking about evidence...of that compadre even the likes of Hitchens admits there is none, not a scrap.
Do you understand the difference between proof and evidence? Do you have any comments on the evidence linked to in my earlier post, or is denial the only weapon in your intellectual armoury?

And do you have a citation for your claim about what Hitchens 'admits' or is this something else you have just made up?
I have an idea that it won't...this is just me mind but I believe that science will conclude one day, maybe soon, that there is God. All the christians will cheer and say "there we told you so"
The existence of God does not preclude the existence of evolution. Do you think it is beyond God's ability to have created the Universe such that evolution would be part of the design?
But I won't cheer.

For believing that there is God is as far away from true faith as the east is from the west. Islam believes in God but although they claim it is Jahweh God their belief in Him is as far different to true bible faith as night is different to day.

The question will always be do you have His life?
Relevance?
 

Lordkalvan

New member
:think:

Maybe.

But calling yourself a fish is pretty stupid.

Meanwhile:


Creation Astronomy News
Volume IV, Number 2 (August 2013)
Alien Solar Systems - What have they revealed?

Is our Solar System special?

Science media and textbooks have always said that the answer is no. We live in a ho-hum, average Solar System. There’s nothing special or unusual about it.

But lately, even secular astronomers are being forced to admit that the truth is quite different. Apparently our Solar System is very unusual.

You’ve probably heard that scientists have been diligently searching for exoplanets (planets outside of our Solar System), using a variety of new techniques.

Just a couple of decades ago, no exoplanets were known. Now the count is approaching 900, with another couple thousand candidates under investigation.

Recently a paper was published in Science that summarized the characteristics of these planets. It’s forcing people to face an issue that’s been quietly growing worse and worse for the astronomical community: the realization that exoplanets do not support the secular origins model for our Solar System.

Not So Obvious Anymore

Before we started finding exoplanets, secular astronomers were confident that there were countless Solar Systems ‘out there’ in the Milky Way that were just like our own.

After all, astronomers ‘knew’ that our Solar System formed all by itself billions of years ago, from a big cloud of gas. And since it happened here, it must have happened countless other places too.

This process was well understood. Supposedly, as the primordial gas cloud collapsed under gravity, it formed into a disk shape.

That’s why the planets all orbit the Sun in the same direction today, with all their orbits lining up fairly closely into a disk that’s aligned with the Sun’s equator.

Also, different elements condensed out of the cloud at different distances from the Sun.

That’s why the inner planets of our Solar System are terrestrial (rocky), while the outer planets are made of gas and ice. The condensation process also supposedly explains why the outer planets are gigantic when compared to the (much smaller) inner planets.

The gas-cloud-to-planets model has been taught for decades.

In fact, it’s fair to say that most astronomers assumed our Solar System was inevitable, once you started from an appropriate gas cloud.

And with 100 billion stars in our galaxy, surely there would be millions, maybe even billions, of other Solar Systems out there, with roughly the same characteristics as ours.

This prediction was simple and straightforward. In fact, the whole idea seemed rather obvious.

It was also completely wrong.

Another Beautiful Theory Slain By Ugly Facts

We’ve now discovered almost 900 exoplanets, having a wide variety of characteristics.

These planets have not matched secular expectations.

There are huge gas giants orbiting their parent stars at ridiculously close distances – far closer than Mercury orbits the Sun. In fact, some of these planets orbit their stars in just a couple of Earth days.

Many of these are known as “Hot Jupiters”: gas giants roughly the size of Jupiter, orbiting their stars so closely that their atmospheres are estimated to be about 1,000 Celcius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit).

In secular models, only terrestrial planets are allowed to form this close to a star. Gas planets can only form out beyond the “frost line” – a distance far enough away from the star that water, ammonia, methane, and other ices can condense. (In our Solar System, this is beyond the orbit of Mars, in the middle of the asteroid belt).

So Hot Jupiters aren’t supposed to be there, so close to their stars. But there they are anyway.

Some other systems do have terrestrial inner planets, as expected. But these planets are ridiculously close to their stars too, which was unexpected. Some whip around their stars in just a couple of days.

Many strange systems have been found. A fairly common configuration is for a pair of Neptune-sized planets to orbit their star very closely. Again, the secular model can’t explain this.

Some systems are bizarre, like Kepler-20. This system has five planets of alternating size (large, small, large, small, large) – all of which orbit the star more closely than Mercury does our Sun.

We also see lots of systems with planets intermediate in size between Earth and Neptune. Our Solar System – which was supposed to be the model for all other systems – has exactly zero planets like this, but they’re apparently common elsewhere.

Then there are the planets that have been found with orbits that are highly inclined (tilted to the equators of their parent stars). Secular models predict that planets will have very low inclinations – but often, the opposite is being found.

My personal favorites are the planets which have retrograde orbits. In other words, they go around their parent stars backwards, compared to what secular models predicted.

These exoplanets have made a real mess out of secular origin models for our Solar System. As Caltech astronomer Mike Brown told NPR:

“Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.”

Astronomers are now scrambling to explain these new discoveries.

There are all sorts of new theories about how hot Jupiters formed out where they were ‘supposed’ to, and then moved inward…

…and how inclined planets formed where they were ‘supposed’ to, and then moved outward…

…and how the “missing” planets in eccentric single-planet systems formed where they were ‘supposed’ to, but then got ejected… blah blah blah.

As usual, these aren’t really scientific theories – they’re merely just-so stories.

And the only thing they prove is that astronomers can have active imaginations.

There’s also a key point that is being ignored: if all these planetary migration and ejection processes are so common, then why didn’t they happen here in our Solar System?

Add it all up, and it seems our local cosmic neighborhood isn’t so ordinary and average as secular scientists have claimed.

Apparently, our Solar System is pretty special after all.

And that’s wonderfully consistent with the Bible… and inconsistent with atheistic origin theories.

Psalm 19:1-4The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

Spike Psarris
www.CreationAstronomy.com

A pity Spike doesn't provide any citations for his various claims and conclusions. I was particularly impressed with the intellectual power of 'blah-blah-blah'. It may have escaped your notice, but that a particular hypothesis concerning planetary formation may have been shown to be wrong for some solar systems neither makes it wrong for all solar systems nor does it immediately imply that the only alternative hypothesis is that God did it 6000 years ago.

Also, I note you still fail to understand why PZ Myers might have pointed out that human beings are still fish.
 
Last edited:

Lordkalvan

New member
:think: I wonder if atheists think they are bananas as well...
Banana Man rewrites reality: from Ray Comfort's Facebook page -

'Walter Lewis McMain Said: "I like how after having proven to him that the banana was a product of human genetic manipulation through breeding Ray Comfort then pretends like it never happened."

Ray Answers: The banana isn't the product of human genetic manipulation. The atheist that originally said that used a photo of a modern banana as an example of what the banana looked like 5,000 years ago. It was totally bogus, and it did two things. It showed how easily we are hoodwinked into believing anything, and it gave me a wonderful worldwide platform to preach the gospel to atheists, for which I thank God.'
 

Lordkalvan

New member
Because he thinks he's a fish? And cousin to a banana?

:darwinsm:

:mock: Atheists.
Completely clueless as ever, I see, Professor. The only thing you have shown in your posts in this thread from the OP onwards is that the accusation of moronic-ness is a a burden you appear to labour underneath yourself.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Here's the full extent of that 'clarification':
'P.Z. Myers: Human beings are still fish.
Ray Comfort: Human beings are fish?
P.Z. Myers: Why yes of course they are.'
I guess that like Comfort, and unlike P.Z., you are unaware that the clade Sarcopterygii includes both the bony fish and terrestrial vertebrates).

:darwinsm:

:mock: Atheists.
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
No it isn't. :nono:
I'm sorry Al but it is you who is behind the times here...the evolution theory of today is far different to Darwins

Dogs are canine but they didn't occur naturally they were "evolved" by people, but since you do accept that evolution occurs it seems let's move on to horses.
You can take any dog out of the wild today wolf, husky, fox or dingo and train it [I never heard it called "evolve it" before] it can become as domesticated as any other dog.

Equidae (horse family) have been around much longer and unlike dogs have had the time and isolation to become split into different species, some still close enough genetically to produce (unviable) offspring hybrids e.g. mule.
Male horse+female donkey=mule...but the mule is sterile always

Well, If you're so smart and I'm so dumb how is it that I can format posts and you can't? You make it this rather hard work to unravel your replies from my words.
I can also find evidence for what I say but you can't apparently. :nono:
You are not dumb [the title of this thread is not mine] and I am only so-so smart.

I like to answer point by point and I get told off for repeating whole posts...yeah I prolly need to do something different...I know it makes it hard to argue ;)

Now look here, this is a bit tricky concerning evidence. I HAVE shown you the evidence, the HARD evidence Al it is all under your feet from man's earliest days right up to the present day, everybody knows about it. Just like everybody knows that human population has multiplied from a small number to the billions who now inhabit the earth...and these billions are set to explode in numbers. It is also well established that man has spread out in tribes from a central point throughout the earth.

These are the facts, the HARD facts.

But evolutionists set these facts aside and say there must be further evidence, we just need to dig deeper. They have dug deeper looking for what can only be termed as secondary or soft evidence for the hard evidence is before outr eyes...they have not found this evidence, they have never found this "missing link" as they call it.

Of course such a search, they have dug miles into the earth, must produce a WHOLE MASS of data...enough to fill many books and the internet but none of it amounts to solid proof.

It is this mass of data which evolutionists call evidence, but when it comes to investigating it, proof evaporates like the early morning mist. It is what it always has been what they call a preponderance of probability, what they suppose is the most likely thing to have occured.


It is as though detectives found a body in a pool of blood with a knife in it's back and then started a search for the possible cause of death. It is become a huge money spinner, people making fortunes with their theories, getting billions of tax payer's money to continue their research.
 

Lordkalvan

New member
Actually, Sarcopterygii includes only the lobe finned fish, terrestrial vertebrates and their extinct relatives. Most modern bony fish that we find on our plate are in the related clade Actinoptyergii.

Here's the relationship among the "fishes" (the term fish not being a proper clade)...
Thanks for the clarification. What is your understanding of PZ Myers' meaning?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
:mock: fish.
Because humans develop with six aortic arches (just like fish), most of which degenerate long before birth, just because.

efe3a_fig8.jpg



In the human, sometimes the set of paired transitional arteries which appear during development before their later transformation are called “aortic arch arteries”12,13, since they join a ventral to a dorsal aorta. However, they are often called the “branchial arch arteries” to emphasize their evolutionary origins. They are a classic example of the retention of a structure which has lost its ancestral function (i.e. supplying blood vessels to functional gills) but is retained exclusively to be used as a building block for a more recently evolved structure. This is precisely how we would expect evolution to work.

Let’s summarize, and be very clear about what we have just observed. The structural characteristics of the heart and great arterial vessels amongst living vertebrates do not merely possess surface similarities. Two crucial points need to be emphasized here. First, the retention of “aortic arch arteries” (or “branchial arch arteries”) in non-aquatic vertebrates serves no respiratory function. They are merely connecting pipes. Their sole purpose is to be used as building blocks to construct modified circulatory elements which function in the species which possess them. But remember, in principle, such “building blocks” might have been constructed in any manner whatsoever. The fact that all living vertebrates retain a set of six arch arteries during their development is strong evidence that they have inherited this pattern of development from a common ancestor, one which did use these arteries to develop functional respiratory structures (i.e. gills).

Second, given a set of six arch arteries, there is no logical or structural reason why the 3rd artery must contribute to the carotid circulation, the 4th artery must supply blood to the body, and the 6th artery must contribute to the circulation to the lungs. Why not use different arch arteries for different final structures in various vertebrates? The conclusion is inescapable – successor organisms have inherited a set of instructions for development from ancestral organisms, and are not free to deviate readily from it. Rather, since evolution is a historical process, it is a necessity that the descendant organisms follow the same general pattern of development used by their ancestors.

 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Thanks for the clarification. What is your understanding of PZ Myers' meaning?

If you try to make what is commonly included in the term "fish" into a clade, it means we are still fish. Though the proper cladistic term would be vertebrates or craniates. I don't think even the creationists would deny we are still vertebrates. But we share a lot more with fish than just a backbone.

The evidence for humans (and all other land living vertebrates) evolving from a lobe finned fish ancestor is clear, though not immediately obvious from external observation. Here's an online, chapter by chapter, review of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

Considering the hundreds of millions of years of evolution since land living vertebrates shared a common ancestor with fish, it's hardly surprising they've changed a lot.
 

Lordkalvan

New member
If you try to make what is commonly included in the term "fish" into a clade, it means we are still fish. Though the proper cladistic term would be vertebrates or craniates. I don't think even the creationists would deny we are still vertebrates. But we share a lot more with fish than just a backbone.

The evidence for humans (and all other land living vertebrates) evolving from a lobe finned fish ancestor is clear, though not immediately obvious from external observation. Here's an online, chapter by chapter, review of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

Considering the hundreds of millions of years of evolution since land living vertebrates shared a common ancestor with fish, it's hardly surprising they've changed a lot.
Thanks.
 

Lordkalvan

New member
"Evolution is not a proven fact"....Hitchens
A citation requires if not a link to the relevant quotation, at least the source and page number. Do you have such a citation? Also, are you supposedly quoting Christopher Hitchens or Peter Hitchens? It does make a difference. Do you even know?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you try to make what is commonly included in the term "fish" into a clade, it means we are still fish. Though the proper cladistic term would be vertebrates or craniates. I don't think even the creationists would deny we are still vertebrates. But we share a lot more with fish than just a backbone.

The evidence for humans (and all other land living vertebrates) evolving from a lobe finned fish ancestor is clear, though not immediately obvious from external observation. Here's an online, chapter by chapter, review of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

Considering the hundreds of millions of years of evolution since land living vertebrates shared a common ancestor with fish, it's hardly surprising they've changed a lot.
And if CDists were interested in science, they would be about the business of trying to figure out what the mutations are that separate fish from humans. This might start with a rough estimate of how many mutations it would take. Or between something simpler like the common ancestor between humans and chimps.

Or something simple like the land dwelling ancestor of whales and modern whales. :darwinsm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top