Two and a half hour explaination of everthing Creationism.

If this article is wrong.. PROVE IT!!!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-96-percent-of-humans-would-rather-be-animatr,21152/

 

Guys.... It hasn't occured to you that this guy may just be DBM under a new alias?

Don't you find it funny that everytime a thread talks about the ToE, DBM is all over it except this one?

Come on...

They even write the same silly nonsense about the ToE being a religion.

 

When a wife can be part of a peer review it show the process is no longer valuable but is corrupt and useless

 

When someone says something you don't like, that doesn't make it propaganda. Your accusation is absurd.

 

You are propagandizing science by using the strawman that science has "proof". Science is not about proof. Stop spreading the propaganda that science is about proof.

 

What does that prove. I get it that is evolution

 

No it is not it is a pro evolution site that has more propaganda than facts

 

If there is no proof than it means nothing. It is just opinions and assumptions and guesses

 

Land mammals.

 

You see, if you believe in the earth-air-fire-water model, you don't get government grants. So of course scientists are going to claim to be atomists. This is how they get their pay checks.

You see there is a political agenda behind atomism. This agenda is socialism. Atomism says that structures that work together (bodies of people) are made up of tiny parts (atoms) making up the whole. That is what socialists want. They want the society working toward large goals where each person is a tiny cog in the bureautic machine.

 

What specific mammal? Is this more assumptions and guesses from scientists

 

You didn't check out any of my links did you. Typical, very typical.

 

Here they are.

 

Hilarious!

 

Proof, proof, proof. Scientific theories can't be "proven" like mathematical proofs, they can only be substantiated with evidence.

 

I also gave you examples off the top of my head, and yes TalkOrigins is pro-evolution. Why don't you attack the material instead of the source?

 

Is that your way to avoid specifying what they evolved from

 

Those are animal groups not a specific species. Another words there is not specific species which means more opinions and assumptions and guesses

 

So then there is no proof of evolution it is just a rationalized assuming guess

 

I did I showed why they were wrong

 

Where? All you did was avoid the question and move the goalposts. Tell me WHY the examples are wrong.

 

Okay, do you understand that what you said makes no sense? A "rationalized assuming guess"? The hell is that? It is either rational or an assumption. And no, it isn't a guess or an assumption, it is based off of evidence. Do you understand what the word "proof" means? It means a 100% certainty, something that is unavailable in science. This has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with a basic premise of science itself.

 

Er, no. It's called evidence based from morphology. ALL of those groups are ancestral to the whales. While we may not be sure which species lead to which specific whale species, it is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) obvious that they are ancestral considering the clear evolution of their morphology from land mammal to land/sea mammal to the modern whales you see today.

 

Besides which a species is a particular kind of animal group. So the claim that the illustration shows animal groups and not species is nonsensical.

 

http://www.icr.org/article/things-you-may-not-know-about-evolution/

Think about that paragraph. Let it sink in and try to imagine how someone who really believes this will react to any evidence found in nature that supports evolution. Someone who believes the above won't accept any evidence or argument supporting the theory of evolution. After all, they're supposedly fighting against a source of great evil.

To make matters even worse, critical thinking and following a scientific argument requires an effort. If there are doubts whether the gathered evidence is genuine, that effort is even greater, because the old evidence needs to be either confirmed or reproduced. I wouldn't expect that someone who believes the above is willing to make such an effort. As far as I can tell, that's where the discussion ends.