Neither of which has any established scientific theory that is presented as a "fact", just a "what we think probably happened is..... but we don't know for sure as we've not managed to replicate the conditions for long enough yet".
Nothing to say about the blatant lies you peddled in your other quotes?
crispybits wrote:Neither of which has any established scientific theory that is presented as a "fact", just a "what we think probably happened is..... but we don't know for sure as we've not managed to replicate the conditions for long enough yet".
Nothing to say about the blatant lies you peddled in your other quotes?
I've shown very clearly that those who support your fairy tale will call evolution a "fact" and and lie about how all scientists today accept it as a "fact." If you can prove I misquoted anyone, I'll certainly apologize. Take care.
Premio, do you find it at all concerning that your arguments regarding evolution and abiogenesis rely heavily on misquoting and word play? These are the markings of hucksters, not scientists. Why is it that every time we have this argument we see the same flawed creationist "evidence" trotted out just to be immediately shot down and abandoned? The entire strategy behind creationist debate is to spend much more time than the average person ever would thinking up ways of challenging established scientific thought that, while it might not hold up to an educated rebuttal, is beyond the scope of the individual they are arguing with. Once they have come up with a line of attack they will never abandon it, even if it is destroyed as soon as it is brought up. I mean, look at the original post in this thread. He has quotes of people from the 80s, the 60s, and the 1800s in there. This is not modern science, but I'm sure that this "evidence" has been passed around from believer to believer since those statements were made.
Neoteny wrote:A serious question for Viceroy or Premio or whoever: what is the creationist rationalization for ring species like the Ensatina salamanders?
What do you mean (I ask because if I am confused, I am guessing others might be as well?)
From an old discussion with d1g.
Neoteny wrote:There is a species of plethodontid salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzi if anyone cares) that lives in California. Its range is over a good chunk of the state making an upside down (assuming you think north is up, of course) "U" around the Great Central Valley of California. There are a series of seven subspecies that populate the "U," one starting in the mountains of SoCal, one starting in the San Francisco area, and onward around the valley. Here's a pic to illustrate:
The subspecies all interbreed as they go around the "U" making them one species according to the most commonly accepted species theory. However, at the tips of the "U," the first and final subspecies successfully interbreed very rarely, if at all (in some areas they barely can, in others they cannot at all). So now what do we call the populations that cannot interbreed? Are they a different species? If so, where do we draw the line? This is speciation in action, whether we can define it or not, and it illustrates a key point. People take for granted the idea of a species because it is generally clear-cut. A dog cannot successfully mate with a cat. A horse can breed with a donkey, but the offspring is always unfertile. This is not the case with these salamanders. In two subspecies, interbreeding is all but impossible, but if you follow the trail around the valley, it is easy to interbreed. My point is that if you don't understand the species concept that speciation theory is based on, you cannot understand speciation. The case of the salamanders also illustrates how evolution in general works. It is not a parade, but a branching that occurs. Sure it occurs in a timescale we can't observe, but this is a unique and telling snapshot.
If a creationist interbreeds with a homo sapiens, is the offspring a new species?
And do creationists spontaneously generate, or are they really stupid?
Viceroy63 wrote:The whole field of evolution is wrong because it is based on a lie.
You keep saying that, over and over. But what is the specific "lie" of evolution?
Haven't you been reading this thread all along and you still don't get it. Let me help you out by posting all the links to all of the lies and Hoaxes then. That way you don't have to re-read the entire thread. These links are all on the Original post by the way. I link them there for ease of referencing.
Let's begin with the Horse shall we? The Horse Series is suppose to convince us, dishonestly, That evolution is for real. This illustration with appropriate convincing doctrine brainwashes untold millions of young minds into accepting evolution as fact when in fact it is flawed and they know it. So it's a lie.
FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES [The Evolution of the Horse]
 As explained in the article in the show/hide box, "Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated Fake." [HOAX] (Dr. Niles Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] In 1969, Eldredge became Curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, a position which he still holds.) -Source: Wikipedia.com
Other Articles that support the position that the theory of evolution is not even possible or a Hoax:
This is a topic that brings together many CC regulars who normally don't get along. Politics is a big divider because it's a very subjective topic. There's no real right or wrong, just different opinions on how a country best should be run. But the evolution deniers are just plain wrong. So it's a very handy tool to distinguish the idiots from those who just have different opinions from you. Here's my list so far:
Idiots: premio viceroy tzor
Gillipig wrote:People should seriously start worshiping me!
Viceroy, I don't think Dr. Eldredge said what you are quoting him as saying. Indeed, a quick googling of your complete clusterfuck of quotes there (this thread is the third hit on my google attempt) indicates that you aren't even capable of quoting creationists appropriately, much less source them (wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything of the sort; I'm happy to look at any corrections though). This is an unsurprising fact, but somehow unexpected nonetheless. I sort of thought you were just copying and pasting from whatever propaganda you read.
But, again, seriously though, Vice. Would you be willing to, for the first time, demonstrate some critical thinking skills and, in your own words, discuss your feelings on Ensatina salamanders and how they apply to creation and evolution? This is a prime opportunity to show that you are thinking about this and not just regurgitating your favorite bogeymen.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.