OK FL2, here goes, you say you've demolished everyone's arguments. You haven't, you've simply made ridiculous claims, which I will counter.
Natural selection, while it does account for in-species diversity (like grey and black moths that are otherwise identical, or St. Bernards and Doberman Pinschers), does not explain at all how the species 'moth' came from some proto-bug ancestor.
Yes, it does, it's just that you clearly don't understand how a simple process can be so powerful.
Now, I can't trot God out of the closet and prop Him up in front of a mike to answer questions, but unless there is another equally valid explanation offered (and we'll get into the validity of Creationism in another thread or at least post), I'd at least like to get evolution shoved aside as bogus
And precisely why can't God speak up for himself? I'm sure you've got a reason why he can't just prove it. Ah, no, he'd rather that we believe without proof, is that the kind of guy he is? I'm curious about this. Well, until he does prove it definitively, let's just put God aside as bogus. That's the way you work, isn't it?
(Vrylakas studying anthropology is
Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever
Vrylakas studying anthropology is nothing like Jesuits poring over illuminated manuscripts. It's just you'd rather see it that way because then you don't have to claim any special knowledge of the subject (which you obviously do not have) in order to knock it down. You can just say, oh it's blind faith. You are wrong. It astonishes me that you can claim more knowledge of something than someone who has actually studied it. But this is typical of your posts in this thread.
No reputable scientist will claim that Neanderthal man was a different species anymore. The best working theory is that they were a clannish group of tribes that inbred heavily and died out
Two howlers here. You mentioned logical fallacies before. You first sentence is known as the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy, as in 'No true Scotsman would beat his wife'. It's a nothing sentence, let's throw it away.
Your second claim is more bizarre. 'The best working theory'? According to who? Sources, please, you seem so fond of them. Otherwise, let's dismiss it. Note I'm using your own particular brand of logic here, not mine, but it seems to be the only way you work.
The 'right' conditions, eh? Hard radiation, meteors, vulcanism, lightning, tides, and oceans and atmospheres. Sounds like a damn hostile envoronment for anything to grow in, let alone some very fragile chemicals... No one without a major axe to grind would buy that claptrap. Like most of the science in the ToE, it defies logic
No it doesn't, it's just that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. We have found live forms living in superheated (hundreeds of degrees) sulphuric vents on the ocean floor. They have found bacteria that live exclusively on the radioactive rods in nuclear power stations. Just because it doesn't suit our life, doesn't mean there's no life there. But then again, you don't know much about biology, so it doesn't surprise me you don't know this.
What pre-human remains? Boxes upon boxes of bone fragments, teeth, and funny-shaped rocks, that spend years gathering dust on a shelf until some anthropologist needs another research grant are not evidence.
Why aren't they evidence? Just because you say so? You, with no real knowledge of biology, are suddenly fit to judge what is and isn't evidence? Explain this again, because no-one will believe it.
You want evidence that we are created? Draw a breath. Look around. Listen to your heart beat. You exist, the world exists, the universe exists. Since it is all here,and it can't be proved that it got here by itself, it logically follows that it was created.
Complete rubbish! Since one thing can't be definitively proved, it must logically be something else, is that what you are saying? In fact, yes, that's exactly what you are saying! This is so dim, it's funny. It's like saying 'since it can't be proved that God exists, it logically follows that it must be something else'. Now, you can say it, but to call it logic is laughable.
Take the two together, and they make a lot of sense. A day to Jehovah is a period of time longer than any man has ever been capable of comprehending. Moses, faced with visions of great and mighty acts of creation, explained them in the way he was inspired to do: he broke them up into specific parts, and referred to them as 'days'.
So you've looked inside the mind of Moses, have you? You know what days are like for Jehovah do you. It seems to me that your logic is just hot air.
I greatly respect astronomers, because they are truth-tellers, not showmen, like biologists
Hot air.
Neanderthal has been dismissed
By who? Hot air again.
We all know that the only people allowed to make observations about fossils are those trained by ES, with sheepskins that telling the truth would render worthless. Kind of makes it easy to state their outrageous claims when noone else is allowed to contradict them, doesn't it?
Again, hot air. I'll accept the views of someone who has studied fossils. Not someone who dismisses all biologists as showmen. Anyone can study fossils and make pronouncements or contradictions. But to do it without having studied them at all outside Evolution-bashing 101 takes the biscuit.
I have come to accept the truth, that this universe and everything in it are the result of an intelligent Creator. You, for whatever reason (apparently it is either financial(you studied this in college, are you a paleobiologist?) or you were simply raised that way), have chosen to ignore this, and follow a fairy tale.
Hot air. You are the one peddling fairy tales, and ignoring years of study in favour of 2,000 years of stagnation.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason I don't understand evolution is because it doesn't make any sense to my logical mind?
I have an IQ (last measured just before Christmas), of 161. This puts my reasoning faculties easily in the top 1% of the population. I can follow evolution theory pretty well. I can only assume that your mind isn't as logical as you seem to think, although it is true that very few people do understand evolution and make foolish errors when talking about the way it is supposed to work. I am not claiming evolution is a fact, I am claiming that it is internally logically consistent. And it is. Whether you can follow it or not makes no difference.
Evolution is a lie that has taken on a life and inertia of its own. It started out as a whacko theory, became the latest fad, junk science, caught on in a big way in the early 1900s, and has been gaining momentum ever since.
Hot air.
No, I don't believe in intelligent life on other planets, and even if there were any, the power required for useful interstellar flight makes mere visits to inhabited systems without attempting to engage in trade ludicrous at best, and colossal wastes of effort at any rate.
So now you are an expert on interstellar travel, spaceship engines and interplanetary trade as well? Hot air.
Of the two theories, which is the logical choice? One actively disproves itself. It does so by basing itself on two natural phenomena acting in a totally different manner than they can be clearly observed to act in. The other accepts as evidence a document that is known to contain a great many facts, contains no known untruths, and has survived intact and unchanged for thousands of years. In fact, the only body of study that does contradict this written work is the other theory.
You claim the bible contains no known untruths. There are so many documented ones it's pointless to list them. Unchanged for thousands of years? Ha ha ha ha! ROFLMAO. Was the original bible written in English? What happened to all the apocrypha? Do you even know what apocrypha are? The only body of study that contradicts it? I suppose the other religions the world over don't count? Not in your little world, clearly. All just hot air, FL2.
So, you don't think that water in sufficient amount to cover Mt Everest to a depth of about twenty fathoms would have enough turbulence to scour some topsoil?
Where do you get this stuff from? Twenty fathoms? Are you saying someone was there with a plumb line, fooling around over Mount Everest taking measurements. I'm serious here, where is this from? Peer review?
Are you that afraid of people with open eyes? People who think for themselves, rather than mindlessly accepting as gospel any drivel set before them by a man in a white coat?
You are talking about priests here, right?
My perfectly sound arguments, for no aparent reason besides their contradiction of revered beliefs, are dismissed as superstition and nonsense, despite the fact that I have not once used a Bible passage to attack the ToE, but rather have fought with my opponent's supposed weapons: cold logic and facts
You have fought with hot air, argued about biology without knowing anything much about it other than you think it is bogus, made claims that wouldn't stand up anywhere but bible class, purported to have logical faculties which you clearly do not posess, etc. etc.
Your final, monumental arrogance:
I have listened to a great many arguments on either side, and have, as any who have followed this thread can attest, demolished those I saw flaws in without hesitation. Creationists using faulty arguments have felt the sting of my words the same as Evolutionists. I feel that the questions I have raised concerning the ToE have inflicted fatal damage to it. Its two main principles, mutation and NatSel, I have carefully demolished with well-constructed arguments. I have demonstrated the dishonesty inherent in its mockery of the peer review process. I have pointed out how it uses geological theories to support it that are in turn based on the assumption that the ToE is true, proving that these are circular arguments. I have pointed out time and again how the ToE no longer makes any claim to speciation, as it no longer even cares to define a species.
You haven't demolished any flaws, you've just denied things. There is a difference, you know. The questions you raise haven't inflicted any real damage on the ToE, although some of your arguments are interesting at the least. Specifically your thoughts on legless Lucy are valid, but you go on to ruin this by claiming specialised knowledge of hip joints, and whether they pop or not. Quite bizarre, especially when it is clear you really have no idea whether they would pop or not. As for the ToE making no claim to speciation:
ABSOLUTE DRIVEL!
Here's some reading for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/evolution/SPECIES.HTM
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/speciation.html
That there was a great flood at some point, I do not doubt. There are over a hundred and seventy different flood myths from different peoples around the world. They all come up with reasons for it. Some say one thing, you say it was God, others say different things entirely. Your reason for it makes as much sense as any other primitive tribesman's reason, i.e. none. The sooner you wake up to this the better. You are just part of another tribe with another myth, yet sadly you continue to cling to it, against all evidence.
Thankfully, not all religious people are as foolish as you, so there is still hope for the world.
.
