|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
A better example is a fish heart. It is nothing like the heart of its "descendants" - amphibians and reptiles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: an honest creationist is one who actually looks at the evidence. Well, I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that evolution is junk science. What could he wrong with me? Why can't I see the truth?
Have you ever tested a creationist claim? There has been a massive experiment going on for thousands of years - humans trying everything they know to push the limits animals and plants evolution - no one has yet managed to produce a creature that was essentially different from the original. This experiment provides evidence that creatures cannot reproduce beyond their genetic limitations, which is what is Genesis "kinds" alludes to. This represents one test of creation that it has so far passed.
When are you ever going to wake up and stop doing such stupid things?
I don't think I'll ever wake up to the truth of evolution - I guess I'm just too stupid to ever rise above creationism. Is it true that one needs to consume LSD in order to "get" ToE? Maybe that's the answer. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
... a genuinely funny post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes: All those can be and have been tested by observing the traces they have left behind. Especially common descent (including the ancestry of humans) , tested both by fossil progression and, independently, genetics. No, this is not true. Like any Darwinist, you are very dazed and confused - like a drunk who has just been hit by a bus. Only by consuming huge doses of assumptions, speculation and a chemical intoxicant can the dots of common descent be joined. But this is not science, just story-telling. As an antidote to the brainwashing you've received, repeat this mantra one thousand times per day: "common descent is indecent". Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes: Eyewitness evidence is the worst there is. There is far more physical evidence for transitionals than there is for Napoleon. Oh dear, that's two bad ideas in a row from you. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: Are you really that stupid? Besides the fact that your wording shows a complete ignorance of evolution (ie, we inherit our mammary system from ancestors who evolved it long before primates let alone humans), you overlook the very simple and obvious fact that human males do possess a mammary system! It doesn't develop during puberty because our hormones are not right for it, but it's there and it will develop if you mess around with our hormones (just how do you think that transsexuals are able to grow breasts?). And some men do develop breast cancer. Deary, deary me ... a mammary system is one that produces milk, so males don't have a mammary system. Btw, how do you know so much about transvexuates or whatever they're called? No, don't tell me; I don't want to know ... Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
jar writes: There is no theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms anyway so that is simply another indication of ignorance.The fact that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms is not a theory but a conclusionbased on all of the evidence ever found. It is called the general theory of evolution and has been around for thousands of years old. Darwinism is an attempt to explain its mechanism. You evidently can't tell the difference between science and superstitious folklore. If I was your science teacher at school I would have told you to get out of my class and study knitting instead. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
That's not a test, but evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Reading the Geologic Column is potentially more scientific than reading tea-leaves. There's lots of room there to spin some fairy tales, nevertheless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: And actually we're talking about the ancestors of modern fish, not modern fish themselves. Only willfully ignorant creationists would ever try to claim that modern fish are completely identical to ancient fish. A modern fish heart is different to that of an ancient fish? How do you know that? Oh wait ... let me guess ... you applied the first Law of Darwinism - baseless assumption and rank speculation?
And your attempt to move the goal posts is duly noted. You still need to address your claim regarding reptilian hearts. I made a mistake about reptiles having a two-pot heart - but this was only due to gross ignorance. Incidentally, your story about crocodiles having between three and four chambers in their hearts was a bit much to swallow. And btw, crocs aren't green, like in cartoons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: So if a human isn't producing milk, then he/she does not have a mammary system? How very interesting! A mammary system is one that is capable of producing milk. Therefore a male human doesn't have a mammary system.
One does not need to be an actual transsexual to know what a transsexual is. One does not need to be an actual female to know what a female is. Are you trying to imply that in order to know about females you need to be female you But your desperate resorting to a form of argumentum ad hominem ("attacking the person") tells me that you have nothing, so you are trying to bluff. You are trying to attack my own sexual identity in order to draw attention away from your lack of any argument whatsoever. Well fuck you so very much, you unspeakable asshole ... I'm divorced! It is evident from these comments that you have made an unreasonable extrapolation and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion - the same faulty process that leads people to believe that bugs can evolve into humans.
Your tell there is to go full blown bullshit. Which you have done. Your words are like rocks hurled at my fragile, egg-shell mind. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
jar writes:
Actually, I concede that Clown fish present convincing evidence of evolution. There is a well-defined line of descent from Clown bacteria to Clown plankton to Clown fish to Clown amphibians to Clown reptiles to Clown mammals to clown Hominids to Clown humans. Even this ignorant creationist can see that. Many fish change from one sex to another including Clown fish So without the Clown fish, there would be no clowns to entertain our children and there would be no evolution scientists. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024