[_ Old Earth _] Debunking Evolution:

[zeke]

Adam, if evidence meant anything to Zeke, he'd have become an "evolutionist" a long time ago.

Interpretation: Barb has no evidence that will convince anyone that Darwinian lore is science so he simply waives his hands in the air and rambles. If he really had a case he would have presented it already. His failure to do that tells the story.

 

[Adam]

Adam, if evidence meant anything to Zeke, he'd have become an "evolutionist" a long time ago. And providing him with massive cites of evidence isn't going to help.

I'm not talking to him in the hope that he'll abandon his new religion. His use to us here is a cautionary one. When he makes testable claims about his faith in creationism or testable accusations against science, then we can show in detail how he's wrong.

He's serving as a bad example. I've been talking to such people for over a decade, and the "conversions" of truly indoctrinated creationists are perhaps one or two a year. Some years, no one. Rather, it's to let the people on the fence look at both sides of the issue and decide for themselves. And for that, Zeke makes an excellent example of creationist.

Well, I wasn't giving evidence for his benefit, anyway. He's simply going to remain contrary-wise no matter what. He may even be a POE, I don't know.


But for others who may not know better and may be persuaded by his broken record method of repeating a claim until it is accepted as well as his confidence in his own ignorance, such nonsense must be countered with actual evidence so that as people read along nodding in agreement, they'll come across an impenetrable wall that simply smothers out this little fire that he's attempting to start.

 

[zeke]

But for others who may not know better and may be persuaded by his broken record method of repeating a claim until it is accepted as well as his confidence in his own ignorance, such nonsense must be countered with actual evidence so that as people read along nodding in agreement, they'll come across an impenetrable wall that simply smothers out this little fire that he's attempting to start.

All you need to do Adam is present the required evidence on this thread that proves Darwinian mythology is science. You have failed to do that and this is telling.

Folk, again Darwinian apologists cannot provide the required evidences from science because it is not there. They rely on circularity, empty assertions and non-scientific speculation. This is not the way science works.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought, it is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.†said David Berlinski, philosopher of science ​

 

[Barbarian]

All you need to do Adam is present the required evidence on this thread that proves Darwinian mythology is science. You have failed to do that and this is telling.

As you see, Adam has handed you a massive shot of evidence for evolutionary theory. There's no point in denying it.

Folk, again Darwinian apologists cannot provide the required evidences from science because it is not there. They rely on circularity, empty assertions and non-scientific speculation. This is not the way science works.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought, it is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.” said David Berlinski, philosopher of science

Instead of chanting slogans from other creationists, you need to put some evidence together to support your claims. Otherwise, you're just playing Simplicio to Adam's Sagredo.

 

[Asyncritus]

Looking at your comment there, Barbarian, I think the longest stanza in the hymn to evolution was sung by Adam, who I'm fairly sure has probably copied it from somewhere like talkorigins.

What a waste of good electrons!

Not even Ruse can budge you, and he's a serious evo. I'm not (as you may have gathered) and I therefore have no real hope of weaning you away from the drug.

However, as I hope people have seen, there is an enormous amount of evidence from instinctive behaviour which casts the lie in the teeth of evolution.

Just to remind you of some:

1 The migration of the Pacific Golden Plovers 2,800 miles each way

2 The migration of the Capistrano swallows 7,000 miles each way

3 The migration of the godwit 7000 miles each way

4 The migration of the European eels 3000 miles each way

5 The migration of the Monarch butterflies

Not one of those mighty phenomena can even begin to be accounted for by evolutionary theory, no matter how many absurd papers you cite.

I'm amazed that your arm is still attached, the amount of arm waving you indulge in!

The reason I keep on about this is not that I expect to convince you. Your mind is as tightly closed as any welded steel drum.

I write for those who can recognise the facts when they hear them, who will note these phenomena, and hurl them in the face of evos wherever they meet them, and demand explanations.

None will be forthcoming, of course.

Your signal failure to account for any of the above should have been enough to shut you up forever, but hey, what do facts matter?

Random mutations and natural selection will get any shearwater through a 25000 km migration back to its original nest on more or less the same date every year. And its offspring will fly the same route, the same 25000 km without ever seeing the parents do it!

How? Mutations and natural selection, of course!

So too with the Pacific Golden Plover. 2,800 miles nonstop across the Pacific, with no parental guidance!

How? Mutations and natural selection, of course!

And the godwit - over 7000 miles across the Pacific from Alaska to New Zealand, non-stop, and back every year!

How? Mutations and natural selection, of course!

Never mind the European eels, who swim back to Europe from the Sargasso Sea with no guidance either, since their parents are all dead!

How? Mutations and natural selection, of course!

I could go on, but as I say, what do facts matter any way? As long as we have a PAPER-R-R-R saying some erudite nonsense to the contrary, all is well, all is well.

Evolution can survive the endless barrage of concrete facts behind its barricade of hopeless but erudite-sounding pseudo-intellectual PAPER-R-R-R-S!

And you're enough of a sucker to keep falling for it, possibly because it keeps you looking good. I wouldn't know, nor do I care.

But by now, at least some of these monstrous rats must be nibbling away at the corners of your certainty. Aren't they? They should, if you're the reasonably honest person I think you are.

Because you can see as clearly as Zeke and I can, that if they didn't evolve, then there's only one other explanation.

They were created that way, and have remained so over millennia.

No other explanation holds a single drop of water.

 

[Barbarian]

Not even Ruse can budge you, and he's a serious evo.

Science is about evidence. Endorsements don't mean anything. If you can't find evidence to support your claim, you're out of luck.

However, as I hope people have seen, there is an enormous amount of evidence from instinctive behaviour which casts the lie in the teeth of evolution.

You argued that phototropism was an instinct, and I showed you it was genetically determined by the evolution of auxins more sensitive to degradation by light. Many instinctive human behaviors like reacting to falls, have been located in details of the nervous system. So that's out the window, too. And of course, claiming that we're just lucky in that all the instincts we've so far found causes for are genetic, is the worst kind of hand-waving.

I write for those who can recognise the facts when they hear them, who will note these phenomena, and hurl them in the face of evos wherever they meet them, and demand explanations.

Why do you suppose it's so easy for me to dispose of them? You guys all copy from a few sources, and most of us have seen them numerous times before. And over time, what we don't know, gets smaller and smaller, and you have fewer and fewer gaps to hid your "designer" in.

I could go on, but as I say, what do facts matter any way?

A lot of creationists respond to facts the way a vampire responds to a crucifix. I can understand why you become exasperated when all those facts hit you from the blind side.

As long as we have a PAPER-R-R-R saying some erudite nonsense to the contrary, all is well, all is well.

Comes down to evidence. And as you see, it's pretty much all on the side of science. When your faith in creationism is shaken, you become more dogmatic and less and less open to evidence. I don't expect you to admit it, but surely all of this must make you just a little bit suspicious that the stories they told you aren't right.

I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
Former creationist Glenn Morton

 

[Adam]

All you need to do Adam is present the required evidence on this thread that proves Darwinian mythology is science. You have failed to do that and this is telling.

Folk, again Darwinian apologists cannot provide the required evidences from science because it is not there. They rely on circularity, empty assertions and non-scientific speculation. This is not the way science works.

​

There's plenty of evidence. I've pointed you to some of it, enough that it had to be split between multiple posts. You've hand waved it away and have taken on a broken record of repeating the same claim, yet have been unable to give any evidence for YOUR position.

You aren't really interested in science at all. You are only here to try to spread doubt. The truth is, if you were really confident in what you believe, you wouldn't have to resort to that.

You're pointing fingers at people, accusing them of something that you, yourself, are guilty of.

 

[zeke]

As you see, Adam has handed you a massive shot of evidence for evolutionary theory.

Adam has copied and pasted references that he has never read - this only shows he can copy and paste references that he has never read. Neither one of you have presented even your one best mediocre evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? Why is that? Is it because you have none?

 

[zeke]

There's plenty of evidence. I've pointed you to some of it, enough that it had to be split between multiple posts.

Please present on this thread the evidence from the copy and paste references you have never read the evidence you think demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. Take your time.

 

[Free]

This thread is going nowhere fast. I've seen enough.