Summations Only

Darwin proposed the idea that species were not immutable before he knew the mechanism for how they could change. The ToE was developed mostly from fossil evidence.Mutations are now part of story, they show how such change can happen - we now have modern day, observation based evidence of one of the mechanisms for change. Unfortunate for you though it is. Embryology shows how organisms develop from the first cells. It's provides an analogy for how life may have evolved. The fact that wale embryos develop limbs that are subsequently reabsorbed is further evidence of the origins of these species. What is your explanation?This evidence does not rely on Haeckel. You really need to progress beyond the 19th century.

This is how. Study the mechanisms to try and understand them.

Dredge is right, wild extrapolations do not prove massive change.Evolutionists excuse their wild theory by saying that those that dont agree with such fantasies, just dont understand the mechanism.NO, evolutionists use semantics as their proofs. Micro-evolution or small variations are originated by the Lord at creation. Its variability or the spice of life variation that makes us slightly different in minor, make no difference appearances etc. BUT WE ARE STILL HUMANS, even if one is taller, different color, different minor characteristic.Insane evolutionists call this micro evolution a total LIE, and then suggest MAJOR CHANGES must be possible as well.Its ludicrous and unscientific, but then again it is a desperate ploy of evolutionists to try to have some credability.NO whale spouts didnt evolve, when an underwater fish decided to become a mammal, to brethe aitr, and then figured out he better wait a few million years for the spout to be mutated nicely on the top of his head.Evolution is a religion and not science.

You like word salads.

No, Pressie, you evolutionists are word salad people. I like meat and potatos, or better yet rice and fish.You evolutionists love word changes, and changing definitions, and semantics and word intimidations.I like truths, and laws, and facts and math.Jesus therefore wins again, and your quesses and theories and word games fail again.(We must discuss your god of Selection on a new thread, just start it and I will finnish off your god)

Then you must be a masochist since you are inflicting that on yourself. Yet we have seen none of those things in your posts. Odd. Actually, just to help you along, I have been keeping score. Currently, it is 37 for the evolution side and 0 for you. Also, 'quesses' is not a word. Although it does show up in the urban dictionary:

quote:

---

quess
A child who was locked in the basement for 20 years with only math textbooks' way of spelling the word 'guess'.

---

Is that you?? Although I would think that being locked in a basement with only math textbooks would have at least made you good at math. Our god is Finnish? Well damn! Well I'm all for that. Those gods look bad-ass!!Evolution OWNS. Creationism groans.

Recently I had a bizarre conversation with my chiropractor, who believes in evolution. I asked her, "Considering the fact that humans are running the 100 faster and faster, can the prediction be made that the current world record will be broken?" She said, "Of course it can; there is no limit to how fast humans can run, because there is no limit to evolution.". This was her idea of being scientific.The truth is, despite the fact that humans have been running the 100 meters faster and faster, one cannot predict with certainty that the current world record will be broken. It may happen, it may not. No one knows. To predict that it will certainly be broken is to make an irrational assumption and an unscientific extrapolation ... to further claim that there is no limit to how fast evolution will allow humans to run is something out of La La Land.
Irrational assumptions and unscientific extrapolations of this nature are part of the staple diet of the Darwinist mentality. And they call it science!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

If by 'they' you mean scientists, then no they don't. This is just ill-informed chatter. People who haven't studied the ToE have all sorts of misconceptions about it as you prove with every post. This is just another one.

This one is funny. I think you made that one up. Scientific theories are not believed.I don't believe in any scientific theory. I accept the findings of the hundreds of thousands of specialists on a subject, from all over the world, following scientific methods, to likely be relatively accurate in explaining reality.It works very well in the field I'm in. Exploration and mining companies are pretty accurate in what they will find underground.

As a former athelete, I can agree with you, on the second point DREDGE.But Yes, statistically you can predict that the world record of most track events can be broken.... microscopically in the future. Better
nutrition, more training, cross breeding atheletes together at the international events (I didnt mind that one). But is their a limit, absolutely.... bone structure etc etc etc... is a branch of physics when compared with weight and gravity. I studied that long ago, the Lord made limits to our human body, just as aging brings on decay.Yes evolutionists extrapolations can be absolutely non sensical and totally unscientific, but new records have an ultimate limit.I hated when I approached the bar, and found it at eyelevel rather than me looking down at the high jump bar.Im 6'4"

Pst... evolutionists can not even get off the ground !

I note that your silly childish ramblings have nothing to do with whales.

Pressie: "I think you made that one up".If you consider it a fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor, how is that not a belief?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

From a piece I put together a while back:

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

​

Belief: the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

Beliefs do not require evidence, facts require repeated confirmation. Big difference!

Davidjay: "It's ludicrous and unscientific ... "Pierre-P. Grasse, professor of zoology and member of Academie des sciences (France):
"(Evolutionary) Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, as some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposefully overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."