Science isn't All That Reliable...

Look back at what I wrote. I specified 70 - 80 years after he died. Keep your fact straight and quit trying to deceive people.

No mental impairments at all. What is your excuse?

 

Blackrock, aren't you catholic? How can you believe in this thread when your own religion:

A. Says that evolution is true.

And

B. Decided just a few years ago, all of a sudden, that an important facet of existence that was known through the Pope's "direct link to God" (I'm talking about Purgatory) no longer exists?

 

And yet you used the present tense? You lied. You thought Darwin lived 70-80 years ago. Liar. Liar. Lies. Blah blah blah.

For what? You are the one that lied about Darwin not provided evidence in his book, as I already have shown you quotations. Here they are again, in case you forget in the next five seconds:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Oh no, can you see the source! It is so important that it warrants calling me a liar and blabbering about it for (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pages.

 

Before attempting to correct someone on their use of grammar, you might want to learn how to use it yourself. In the quote "Yet 70 - 80 years later, scientists are still following his lead.", the use of the comma is merely showing a pause (a breath mark)within the same statement. In that particular case, the clause "scientists are still following his lead" is speaking of that time frame "70 - 80 years later,"

Come back when you learn the English grammar system.

 

Um, what? That makes no sense. You apparently need to be taught grammar over again. The past tense, were not are, would still be used regardless if there is a comma or not. If "70 - 80 years later" is referring to a period of time after his death, then that time frame would be around 1950-1960. Sorry, but we don't live in that time frame, so why use the word "still", why use the word "are"? Do... you think we live in that time frame? I have no idea why you are even discussing the comma, I was discussing the present and past tense of the word. You're a liar.

And once AGAIN, you don't even address what I said about the evidence Darwin provided in his book. Wow.

 

When speaking from a past tense perspective the proper word to use (as in the case in question) is the word "are". In speaking from the perspective of the time of his death, and indicating what IS happening from that perspective, it is proper to say that they 'are still following...' Speaking from the perspective of today, yes, it would be 'they were still following...' but I was not speaking from the perspective of today, but rather from that period of time when he died... and 70 - 80 years later.. '...they are still following...'

You definitely do need grammar lessons. Even a little bit of 'creative writing' skills might be of benefit to you.

As for the remainder of your trash, there is no need to go beyond this point of trying to get you to understand and comprehend the English grammar system.

And once AGAIN, you don't even address what I said about the evidence Darwin provided in his book. Wow.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Squabbling about grammer or typo's in an online chat forum is silly.

The theory of evolution has evolved .. pardon the pun, since Darwin to the point where it is not really worth even talking about him.

 

Bingo! Well Said!!!!!!!

Both on Darwin and and pissing contest over spelling typos!

 

I've seen creatards attack evolution by talking about the ancient Greek hypothesis of evolution (yes, ideas about evolution have been around for thousands of years). They know they can't beat the modern theory of evolution which is why you'll see a lot of modern creatards using science sources that are decades to hundreds of years old.

 

[/QUOTE]

To sum it all up as simply as I possibly can... you have failed to comprehend a 'past tense perspective of a then future event'. Work on that reading comprehension.

 

No one really gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) over the grammar.

What is far more amusing and interesting is watching Incorporeal is the errors in grammar to divert the attention to something...... anything other than his inability to specify the issues he has with evolution.

 

Well try this:

The issue I have with the so-called theory of evolution is the fact that none of it has been proven. Fossil records do not match what is being projected through the teachings of evolution. Evolution is still looking for the 'missing link' and cannot find that link because there is no link to be found. Show the fossil records of every species that have lived on this earth and show where one transformed into another and then you might have something to go on. Until then, all you have is speculation, guesswork and conjecture.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm


http://www.kc-cofc.org/39th/Lectures/2001 Manuscripts/RichardMasseyMissingLinks.PDF
"The greatest hoax of our life lifetime is the theory of evolution. Nothing can exceed the scope and
size of this scheme to dupe the public into accepting what cannot be proven (i.e. life began from
nonliving matter and slowly developed into thousands of insects, fish, fowls, animals and humans
that live on the earth today). Evolution has been popularized by a propaganda campaign second
to none. A steady stream of unfounded assumptions flow from the mouths of evolutionists via
universities, television, news media, Hollywood, science books and in schoolrooms around the
world. Young, impressionable minds are constantly fed this information from grammar school all
the way through college. Basically, these evolutionists are atheists, and because of their rejection
of God they resort to this conjectured theory. And because they have bought into the theory, they
want to sell it to everyone else."

 

Of course, you are using the gaps argument. With each discovery, there is a new gap. This is expected, scientists accept it, its a none issue. No one is in search of a missing link, any new discovery call be called a missing link.

You may wish to close your eyes and plug your ears, however the fact remains that transitional forms exist. The fact remains that DNA evidence points towards evolution.

I suggest reading The Greatest Show on Earth.

 

From another thread, but works really well here (Thank you to Distraff for this):

 

Nothing in science CAN be proven. Only math and logic use proofs.

You mean speculation based off of evidence, which would be the strongest kind of speculation. All science is "speculation" based off of evidence, not just evolution. We speculate about gravity because we have evidence it exists. Einstein speculation about general relativity because of evidence, but I don't see you speaking out against the theory of gravity. And what is this bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? This is like saying that the Roman Empire never existed because we don't have eyewitnesses! Nevermind all of the writings, the ruins that are left over, the influence of Roman ideas on the modern world. Hell, we obviously can't believe there is a God because there are no eyewitnesses!

Apparently you don't understand that fossilization is a rare process, we can't dig up the entire world to find every single fossil that still exists, that erosion and natural occurrences eventually destroy fossils.

You know what is funny about missing links? Creationist set up an IMPOSSIBLE situation that is required for them to accept evolution. Even if we found the "missing link", whatever it is, you would just point and say "Well look, now there are TWO missing links, one before the found link and one after!" I find it hilarious that creationists like this require an impossible amount of evidence to be present, but NO evidence whatsoever for their own "theory".

You know what's funny? Many scientists ARE Christian and still accept the theory of evolution. So, what is this BS that evolutionists are atheists?

 

Missing link? Why would scientists be looking for a creationist strawman argument in the fossil record?

 

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.

 

Awesome, thank you.

 

Tyrannosaurus Rexes are still roaming the plains of America.

Oh, I'm talking from the perspective of 65 million years ago, duh!

 

Awesome...

First we have a government clerk and now a Renaissance Fair employee!

 

Like I said, you need to get your education a little more well rounded instead of being stuck in the mud... or should I say that pool of primordial ooze.

 

Sorry, here let me repost it, after rereading your post, it seems that you made your argument even WEAKER with your explanation.

 

Lol, he said, "Like I said," in regards to telling you to get a better education.

 

Where then are the MISSING FACTS that support a claim that man and monkey are related? Don't come back with more of your peer-reviewed vested interest concoctions of reports that are systematically screened so that they only support the latest theory... I want actual facts... Show me the one piece of evidence that has indisputably broken and ended the dispute over evolution vs creationism. You cannot show it to me because it does not exist. Conjectures, rationalizations and any amount of excuses you want to claim, will never amount to PROOF.

 

There aren't missing facts, it isn't like we lost them. The data is incomplete, which is obviously a PREDICTABLE outcome considering the conditions of fossilization, erosion, and the impossibility of digging up the entire Earth.