Evolution is crap! Squawk! (Page 40)
kittybobo34: They found the most complete Austalopithicene yet.
BelgianStrider: Kitty for your info, you are completely correct concerning the evolution of whales (Cetaceans in fact) . Science knows quite well about their evolution from Pacecitus till the (actual) Mysticetes and Odontocetes. Lovely to see with old bones how that happened.
BTW I was surprised that (the actual) tortoises (in US "land-turtles" ) "invaded" land a second time because they are surely descending from turtles (In US "water-turtles", what seems to be for the UK an tautology as turtles live in water ). And as we know turtles' (UK-version) ancestors have to be land-dwellers the actual tortoises (still UK-version) "conquered" land a second time in their evolution. Interesting how the "book of old bones" can tell us fascinating stories. (to be honest: not only "old bones" though they always - well mostly - start to tell the "story" anyway)
In my - now old- perception I was (wrongly) thinking water-turtles' (this time the US-version for equality) ancestors where land-turtles (also US-version ).
It seems that Australian view about turtles is slightly different again. ( Right MJ59? - euh concerning water and land - not evolution )
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
BelgianStrider: Evolution is crap as languages do not evolve either !!!!!
You, atheistic nitwits, with your religion full of fairy tales !!!!!
BelgianStrider: I also found that there is at least one vertebrate with four eyes: a fish called Bathylychnops
BelgianStrider: From noirchaussures:
my comments about such idiocy:
"well dear sir :-)
If you think that crocodiles with the same shaped teeth like a T-Rex is a vegetarian and it is a bad scientific assumption that T-Rex has been a carnivore?
I will just propose you - just to be consequent -, as round sharp teeth are not typical for carnivores, go and swim amongst crocodiles....
For how much shall we bet you will not do it???? Hey mate, they just have only round pointed teeth, you can't assume scientifically they are carnivores... right????
Idem ditto for organisms like the barracuda, piranha...their round pointed teeth is a bad assumption they are carnivores???
Hmm before all animals where vegetarians as it was mentioned in the bible????
Question 1: how many times are you going to order your Mc-Do in a week ?
Question 2: Never enjoyed a good juicy steak on a BBQ mate ???
Question 3: Never noticed that wolves baboons are omnivores thus eating meat too.( btw Gorillas and pandas are indeed vegetarians, though try to eat what they eat with your poor teeth)..
Besides: sharks, that seems to be some kind of fishy organism that for sure "have known" the period of dinosaurs, are also surely vegetarians .. dare to swim amongst tiger sharks???
To terminate: be consequent mate and be a vegetarian then (better a vegan: though - you ought to be consequent no? - without all those scientifically bad assumptions to support you for all the lack of proteins you will need.... good luck mate)
As physicians will also make bad scientific assumptions concerning you disease, be consequent and go to the pastor and pray for your cure.
As science in general do make bad assumptions, be consequent: stop using your electronic devices, car, public transport and commercial flights and stop to announce your "truth" via such scientific media. Go to some place in the Amazon and life as a vegan without any scientific aid..
For my part: I will never deny my origins that I am a omnivore like the chimpanzees and I will eat my juicy steak mate. I will drive with my car, use my electronical devices and consider crocodiles and T-Rex carnivores ... That are even not bad scientific assumptions, they are just a FACTS...
I have the slight impression you have completely no clue about biology and science in itself. What is not surprising, as science makes bad assumptions right????"
Is there eventually a Noble (not Nobel) price for idiocy????
MJ59: Stole this from elsewhere (names changed, but same zealotry):
Bobbie’s ideas are not his own, of course. He is parroting the falsehoods he has absorbed from the creationist noise machine, with the usual hidden premises. For example, that DNA appeared as a complete gestalt, all at once, or that scientists believe that the Universe or life occurred entirely by “chance”. What they actually believe is that the Universe and life could happen, and given a sufficient event space, would happen. They believe, in other words, in Murphy’s Law – always a sound basis for understanding.
Would that Bobbie were capable of such reductionism when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures.
Double standards are of course endemic to Bobbie’s mindset and belief system. He asserts palpable nonsense about what scripture says while demanding impossibly rigorous demonstration of what science doesn’t say. Well, that’s creationists for you. So what else is new?
MJ59: Creationism and the Burden of Proof
Posted on 9-March-2011 | 10 Comments
There is something that lurks within every debate about The Controversy between evolution and creationism, but which is sometimes overlooked — the question of who has the burden of proof.
You have all heard of the burden of proof. Basically, it means that whoever makes a claim has the burden of supporting that claim. Literal proof isn’t required (except for something like mathematics), but at minimum the claimant must offer credible (i.e., verifiable) evidence that supports his position. Without that, there is nothing to talk about.
So what’s the situation when one is confronted by a creationist who sneers: Evolution? Oh yeah? Prove it!
Do you have the burden of proof? And if you fail to respond with a complete, college-level course in the theory of evolution, fully supported by abundant evidence, does the creationist challenger win by default? If those were the rules of engagement in science, then any ignoramus could win any debate with anyone about anything.
We suggest that when the subject is a long-accepted scientific theory, it’s a perversion of the burden of proof to challenge the theory with nothing other than “Oh yeah?” Why do we say that? Because for something (like evolution) to have achieved the universally-recognized status of a scientific theory, it has already met that burden. The original hypothesis has been challenged and tested again and again, and it has survived such challenges. That’s why it is regarded as a theory. It also makes predictions that can be demonstrated to be true (see, e.g.: The Lessons of Tiktaalik).
We aren’t living in the years before Darwin, when evolution was nothing but a vague idea, unsupported by an organized body of evidence and a testable mechanism. We’re now living 150 years later, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Thus it is the creationist who is making the claim. Specifically, his claim is that evolution is false — and it is therefore the creationist who has the burden of proof.
We’ve previously posted about the kind of evidence a creationist needs to produce. See: Where Are The Anachronistic Fossils? If such evidence is found and a better scientific explanation is provided (see Advice for Creationists), then evolution will join the list of superseded scientific theories. But not until then.
Therefore, when confronted by a creationist, don’t imagine that you are the one who must provide the evidence. That’s already been done by hundreds of thousands of scientists who have labored for generations. Library shelves groan with the weight of peer-reviewed journals describing their research, and the museums are bursting with evidence. The creationist may be unaware of this — or he may simply dismiss it — but that is his problem, not yours.
Just respond to such a challenge by saying: “If you have evidence that contradicts the theory, let’s see it. Then we’ll talk.”
THAT will never work with those two zealots.
They will never give any "evidences" (except "goddidit" ) and try to evade that "question"!!!
Evolution is crap "goddidit"!!!!
AretoNyx: What yec think is everyone is against them because of the cult they are in. Though really not much different from flat earthers it is just they lack evidence. Everyone that is theist into old earth they think all are evolutionists and atheists...when they are wrong they don't admit it.
BelgianStrider: even if you give them clear facts demonstrating they are wrong, they will empirically dismiss them.
They are totally incapable to accept facts contradicting their stubborn opinions.
Evolution is crap everybody knows that !!!!
BelgianStrider: He will probably enjoy "grateful donations"
The real and frightening issue is that he is undoubtfully manipulating half truths to impose his religious convictions above science...
Enkidu2017: Say what ya want ... but ya gotta admit some of those creation myths are sexy ......
which ones ????