More icons of evolution go down in flames in 2014

That's what I asked you for. do you always deflect direct questions?

so what's your excuse?

 

Can you explain why God designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve of a giraffe to loop around the Aorta?

 

Facts and opinions, what more do they provide. Maybe a reading comprehension course is in your future?

 

I'll take that as a no.

 

How should the RLN be routed, considering embryonic development as it is? It is quite simple answer to a really stupid question, which is why I didn't bother to answer earlier.

 

References that mean nothing without context, which of course is a typical tactic. I am not surprised that when directly asked for a link to your quotes, you deflect.

As to giraffe evolution, you are once again attempting to claim ignorance as evidence, except real scientists aren't as ignorant as real creationists.

http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=51

Yet another faux argument from anti-evolutionists.

Its right up there with irreducible complexity that was so popular with them a few years ago before it was categorically debunked by real scientists.


now perhaps you can tell us all about how humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries, or do you reject this idiotic premise so prominent in creationist circles.

 

I am not sure if you are capable of this task, but try it anyway. Read your own posting and redact all of the suppositions, opinion, conjectures, assumptions and then read it again. Here i'll show you what I mean.

At about 3m tall, an antelope-like animal which roamed the plains and forests of Asia and Europe

In countries ranging from Japan, China and Mongolia, through India and Iran and into Greece and Austria, as well as Africa, more than 10 fossil genera have been discovered... They [sic] were however already tall animals and their heads were adorned with large ossicones (horns made of ossified cartilage, covered in skin or fur)... 2 species surviving to this day. (For further information on the okapi go to ‘What are the closest relatives of giraffe?’ ).


I eliminated all conjecture and left only the scientific facts. Of course this does not fit your dogma, but you have a choice, dogma or science.

​

 

One of those links you provided was the one that I used to prove my point earlier. Did you read it?

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman. That is not what science claims. The cow didn't originate until fairly recently (geologically). No way that a whale came from a cow. Please stop creating strawmen. It's a form of lying.

 

Cow, fish, worm what's the difference they are all lies. So be careful who you call a liar.

Man from a fish, that is a big fat lie right there.

 

Stop using the strawman and making things up, and I'll stop accusing you of lying. I'm tired of so-called Christians lying to make a point. It is hypocritical.

 

Yeah, that would be because all he's doing is cutting/pasting from the Institute for Creation Research.
http://www.icr.org/article/sticking-your-neck-out

 

evolution we can witness, that is fact

the theory of how things evolved over time is based on the evidence from fossils, skeletons, ect....

like gravity is real, but we have a theory about it too based on the known evidence

.

 

What Strawman? Didn't life spring from a mud puddle, then crawl out onto land and evolve into man? Or is evolution a lie? Confess, it's good for the soul.

- - - Updated - - -

WoW!!!!! Someone knows HOW to use Google. Now you have no excuse for holding onto your false religion.

 

That depends on how you define "evolution". The scientifically accepted definition does NOT include variation within the kind or adaptations, such as 100s of breeds of dogs not being evolved from a wolf. That is dishonest.

A.) it isn't a scientific theory. You can use "theory" in a religious or layman's sense though. The ONLY scientifically accurate finding about a fossil is an organism lived, died and was buried rapidly. ALL beyond that is speculation. Period. End of discussion. Because you can not prove otherwise.

Do you know WHY gravity is a theory and evolution is not? Let's see if you understand the scientific methodology.

 

I remember when it was taught that man came evolved from a shrew looking little critter that probably lived under the ground like a rat, when the dinos were walking around. Then once the dinos died out, this allowed the little small critter that would one day be man, to crawl out and start evolving. It eventually evolved into monkey looking critters, and then when they lost their trees to climate change they had to walk out on the savannahs, and eventually through evolution the shrew went to the moon in space ships.

That was quite an accomplishment to go from a shrew looking little critter, into modern man who was smart enough to go to the moon. And they say this, and all other things of evolution was just basically randomness, chance, lucky accidents. So a new faith was born. The new faith said, that if you roll an almost infinite number of dice long enough, but without someone rolling them, that you will eventually get everything we see and know about in this universe, with its order, its life and so on. That everything that we can see is just a product of randomness and chance This is what atheists have to resort to, and then they have to place such great faith in what they thought up. Yet how can we ever prove that randomness and chance could produce all of the complexity we see today, which even we cannot fully understand yet? Can you prove it? By doing it? Well, see, that's the catch here. It's theory, its an idea, which they cannot prove by replicating an experiment that shows randomness creating a self replicating molecule, which should be the easier of all. I mean, it gets much harder once you get past that, for more complex.

Believers in the neo darwinistic evolutionary theory are simply nothing more than people of faith. And their faith is equal to the faith exhibited by the theists, who believe another fairy tale, not as sophisticated as the theory of evolution.

I think I shall chose to place my faith in spontaneous generation, that out of nothing, arose the universe. And out of matter life was spontaneously generated in one great creational moment. Within that life form was every possibility every potentiality that would later evolve into all life forms. This was made possible by information consciousness. And so things are as they are because of determinism, all that is possible and has ever existed was determined, by the building blocks of reality. It could not have turned out different than what we see, and what we know of, looking back into fossil records. So, the universe its evolution, life, its creation and evolution was a given, completely determined, and it will continue in that manner.

 

Seems you ask a question, get an answer and then attempt to parse and deflect because the answer is not one you like.
typical creationist tactics.

being ignorant is a persistent human condition, but being deliberately ignorant to retain a closely held belief is simply unjustifiable and absolutely not part of any religion's teaching.

 

Being ignorant of what is written as opinion and what is a fact, explains your devotion to your religious dogma of evolution. Maybe you haven't evolve that far yet.

 

Jesus (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Christ on a stick. You really don't know science at all.

Which (*)(*)(*)(*)ing scientists claimed that slugs evolved from plants? NONE. It's a case of horizontal gene transfer which happens all the time in things such as bacteria but is rare in multicellular life.


And (*)(*)(*)(*)ing learn what vestigial means. It doesn't mean useless or has no function it means loss of original function.

Please, once again, read a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing science book and not a creatard one written by Kent Hovind and his ilk.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you understand why you're ignorant and we're not in regards to this? The scientifically accepted definition of evolution is the change in the genetic information of a gene pool over generations. That includes all change. That's within species (science doesn't use biblical kinds so stop being dishonest in using it all the time as a scientific term), speciation, whatever. You DON'T get to decide what is the scientific definition. That's dishonest. That's telling lies. In the words of Ray Comfort, who I assume is some sort of hero of yours, that makes you a liar and you're going to hell.

 

believing in the theory of evolution is neither religious, nor is there any "dogma" attached to it.

What is attached to it is mountain ranges of evidence from geology, archeology, zoology, biology, chemistry, cosmology, etc. etc. ALL of which supports the theory.

The same cannot be said for creationists whose main evidence derives from 2,000 year old religious scriptures, pseudo--science, semantics, fallacy and outrageous generalizations. They are left with attempting to deny evidence, since they have yet to provide any evidence to disprove the theory. To argue what constitutes "proof" or "evidence" while insisting there is no room in analysis for opinion. To wholly ignore their utter hypocrisy when presenting their "evidence" and "proof" of the creation myth.

For all the good that faith provides, when it overwhelms knowledge, common sense, wisdom, observation, experimentation, examination, nature and reality itself, it becomes the "devil's own" work.

 

Evolution is not religious dogma.. Do you even know what religious dogma actually means?