RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,09:49   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:26)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
     
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
     
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

Your argument has been reduced to a comic strip characterization, and you answer that with more inanity, and irrelevant inanity at that.  

Why do you accept small changes over a relatively short period of time, but not big changes in the long run?

Bonus question: If "genetic makeup," whatever that means, will prevent humans from being 70 feet tall, what is the primary limiting factor, and how will it be genetically expressed?

Edit: moar better spelling

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]