Science Disproves Evolution

[Tetenterre]

Latest post of the previous page:

I prefer to use the words of those better informed than I.

How can you know they are better informed and not merely baffling you with bullshit?

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.

No, they don't. Frequent repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.

 For example:

[center]Darwin’s finches[/center][/color]

https://creation.com/darwins-finches

[/quote]

You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?

[Pahu]

I prefer to use the words of those better informed than I.

How can you know they are better informed and not merely baffling you with bullshit?

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution.

No, they don't. Frequent repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.

 For example:

[center]Darwin’s finches[/center][/color]

https://creation.com/darwins-finches

You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?[/quote]

Who is interested in Grants' work on Daphne Major?

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Unnecessary graphic and copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/article/new-finch-sp ... servation/

[Tetenterre]

You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?

Who is interested in Grants' work on Daphne Major?

Are you taking the piss, Pahu? The Grants' work on Daphne Major was the substance of the link I posted here, that you pretended wasn't evidence for evolution. You should be very interested in the Grants' work - it blows your silly creationist claptrap out of the water.

Oh and you latest C&P drivel from Brian Thomas is entirely irrelevant to evidence that emerged 8 years after it was written. Surely you can see that? Or was posting that just taking the piss as well?

[Pahu]

You have posted a link that does not address any specific substantive points pertaining to the Grants' work on Daphne Major. Why did you do that? Did you hope that I wouldn't notice?

Who is interested in Grants' work on Daphne Major?

Are you taking the piss, Pahu? The Grants' work on Daphne Major was the substance of the link I posted here, that you pretended wasn't evidence for evolution. You should be very interested in the Grants' work - it blows your silly creationist claptrap out of the water.

Oh and you latest C&P drivel from Brian Thomas is entirely irrelevant to evidence that emerged 8 years after it was written. Surely you can see that? Or was posting that just taking the piss as well?

It seems you and the Grants are jumping to conclusions. The finches are still finches as the article by Brian Thomas points out. They have not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands.

Unnecessary graphic and copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

New Finch Species Shows Conservation, Not Macroevolution http://www.icr.org/article/new-finch-sp ... servation/

[Tetenterre]

It seems you and the Grants are jumping to conclusions. The finches are still finches as the article by Brian Thomas points out. They have not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands.

Oh FFS, Pahu! Repeating Thomas's falsehood does not magically make it true. Either you are taking the piss or you lack the wit to comprehend the Grants' work. There are no other possibilities.

Also, now we add "conservation" to the list of things you don't understand (or pretend not to understand).

[Pahu]

It seems you and the Grants are jumping to conclusions. The finches are still finches as the article by Brian Thomas points out. They have not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands.

Oh FFS, Pahu! Repeating Thomas's falsehood does not magically make it true. Either you are taking the piss or you lack the wit to comprehend the Grants' work. There are no other possibilities.

Also, now we add "conservation" to the list of things you don't understand (or pretend not to understand).

There is nothing false about Brian Thomas' article. Your unwillingness to comprehend it does not make it false.

[VINDICATOR]

Pahu and Tetenterre in a great debate on evolution. Keep it friendly. I know very little on evolution, so I can't participate. I am an astronomy geek. If you have any questions on astronomy you can ask me.

[animist]

Pahu and Tetenterre in a great debate on evolution. Keep it friendly. I know very little on evolution, so I can't participate. I am an astronomy geek. If you have any questions on astronomy you can ask me.

I too know little about evolution, but I think we can both learn from this debate. Pahu is pointing out (or rather demonstrating) that clever people, and there are creationists who are pretty clever, are able to pick holes in the theory of evolution which virtually all people today, including most Christians, accept. It is worth trying to pick out flaws in these arguments, which depend, in the case of human evolution, from the underlying agenda that any fossil found must be either ape or human - thus Neanderthals are human but Lucy was an ape.

Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

[Pahu]

Pahu and Tetenterre in a great debate on evolution. Keep it friendly. I know very little on evolution, so I can't participate. I am an astronomy geek. If you have any questions on astronomy you can ask me.

I too know little about evolution, but I think we can both learn from this debate. Pahu is pointing out (or rather demonstrating) that clever people, and there are creationists who are pretty clever, are able to pick holes in the theory of evolution which virtually all people today, including most Christians, accept. It is worth trying to pick out flaws in these arguments, which depend, in the case of human evolution, from the underlying agenda that any fossil found must be either ape or human - thus Neanderthals are human but Lucy was an ape.

Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

The article starts off with an evidence free assumption that the fossils lived over a million yeas ago. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Startling Discoveries Support Creation

Unnecessary copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/article/startling-di ... -creation/

[Alan H]

What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The article starts off with an evidence free assumption [...]

You seem to be using that phrase as the the Psalmist uses Selah or the sub-Shakespearean jester uses Hey nonny nonny: because the audience hasn't heard it for a while, or perhaps because nonsense must be promoted to doggerel.

Dating techniques are well established, and they are getting better as we go along:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/ ... m1490.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Amazing stuff, science. Always uncertain, always getting nearer the truth because it allows evidence to decide.
Whereas creationism...

[animist]

[quote="animist]
Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

The article starts off with an evidence free assumption that the fossils lived over a million yeas ago. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example: [/quote][/quote][/quote]Pahu, I do not mean to be gratuitously offensive, but you really disappoint me as a speaker for Creationism. The assumption that the fossils (actually the creatures who became fossils!) lived at a certain time was nothing to do with the reason for my post. Regardless of the dates, assuming that they lived at all, were they apes or humans?

[Tetenterre]

Pahu, please explain how an opinion piece (Brian Thomas's) written in 2009 addresses findings that were made in 2016/17. Speciation has been observed. Your "finches are still finches" comment is about as relevant to speciation as saying "primates are still primates": chimpanzees are a different species to silverback gorillas.

Your statement "not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands" is meaningless: "kind" has no meaning where speciation is concerned; evolution does not "demand" anything; it is merely a word that means "generational changes in inherited traits" (i.e. precisely what has been observed on Daphne Major).

[Tetenterre]

I am an astronomy geek.

Same here. What's your speciality? (Mine's HEA on the theoretical side, and I recently acquired an Alpy so I can split starlight from home on the practical side - still getting to grips with it. )

[Pahu]

Ape-Men? 2

Unnecessary copy & pasted text and graphics deleted by Admin

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

[Alan H]

What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?

[Pahu]

What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?

What paradox?

[Pahu]

The article starts off with an evidence free assumption [...]

You seem to be using that phrase as the the Psalmist uses Selah or the sub-Shakespearean jester uses Hey nonny nonny: because the audience hasn't heard it for a while, or perhaps because nonsense must be promoted to doggerel.

Dating techniques are well established, and they are getting better as we go along:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/ ... m1490.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

Amazing stuff, science. Always uncertain, always getting nearer the truth because it allows evidence to decide.
Whereas creationism...

Dating methods are unreliable. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Radiometric Dating

Unnecessary copy & pasted text deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/creation-radiometric

[Pahu]

[quote="animist]
Pahu, I am addressing you now. What about homo habilis? Please read the attached Wiki article and come back with some genuine thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

The article starts off with an evidence free assumption that the fossils lived over a million yeas ago. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

[/quote][/quote]Pahu, I do not mean to be gratuitously offensive, but you really disappoint me as a speaker for Creationism. The assumption that the fossils (actually the creatures who became fossils!) lived at a certain time was nothing to do with the reason for my post. Regardless of the dates, assuming that they lived at all, were they apes or humans?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Apes were apes and humans were humans.

[Pahu]

Pahu, please explain how an opinion piece (Brian Thomas's) written in 2009 addresses findings that were made in 2016/17. Speciation has been observed. Your "finches are still finches" comment is about as relevant to speciation as saying "primates are still primates": chimpanzees are a different species to silverback gorillas.

Your statement "not changed into a different kind, which evolution demands" is meaningless: "kind" has no meaning where speciation is concerned; evolution does not "demand" anything; it is merely a word that means "generational changes in inherited traits" (i.e. precisely what has been observed on Daphne Major).

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Unnecessary copy & pasted text and graphics deleted by Admin

http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-finc ... igenetics/

[Alan H]

What about your paradox, Pahu? When are you going to get round to answering that?

What paradox?

Your bible one. The one you created. Such a short memory, Pahu?