evolutionists goof again

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A gradual transition. Not a lion just turning into an elephant or a tiger.

yes but still a transmutation, as the result of aberrations at a molecular level, or as an adaptation to environment, or both. Its a bit jiggery pokery if you ask me Noobster.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but still a transmutation, as the result of aberrations at a molecular level, or as an adaptation to environment, or both. Its a bit jiggery pokery if you ask me Noobster.

You've hit the nail on the head, in your earlier post you were just being flippant. You undersatnd the process perfectly well.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You've hit the nail on the head, in your earlier post you were just being flippant. You undersatnd the process perfectly well.

yes i understand it, but in very general terms. 🙂 for it seems to me that there are two facets here, both of which may be termed, evolutionary, firstly, that species within a species adapt, as in Darwins finches, taller Englishmen, viruses etc etc, which i have no reason to dispute nor deny, and secondly, that these species transmutate into other species, which, personally i do not buy, but have no objection if others wish to evaluate the evidence at their disposal, in this way. yes i was being flippant! thank goodness you have recognised this!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand it, but in very general terms. 🙂 for it seems to me that there are two facets here, both of which may be termed, evolutionary, firstly, that species within a species adapt, as in Darwins finches, taller Englishmen, viruses etc etc, which i have no reason to dispute nor deny, and secondly, that these species transmutate into other s ...[text shortened]... heir disposal, in this way. yes i was being flippant! thank goodness you have recognised this!

thank goodness you have recognised this

I was merely toying with you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]thank goodness you have recognised this

I was merely toying with you.[/b]

Lol, haha, very funny, obviously the jokes on Robbie, what a moosehead, with a human body! Maybe I'm mutating!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually trout fly since you have failed to notice the whole point of the text i shall need to state it plainly, here was a scenario, in which one piece of data, had been accepted as providing 'evidence', through an evaluation, which to all intents and purposes was not viewed objectively, but as has been the case in the past, the 'theory,' was formul ...[text shortened]... religionists, a somewhat defensive response. It as not even a nick, but a drop in the ocean.

I assume your referring to your somewhat confused text, which you'll forgive me for misreading as it did fail to state a clear point. If this is your synopsis of the article, then I refer you to an unanswered question by another poster (see page one).



I should say, as a trout fly, that I can identify a bird from a single feather (at least any among the birds that provide the raw materials for trout flies). Frequently, I can identify a Cervidae from a single hair. If I had the whole jaw bone, I would have quite a bit more to go on. Alas, I lack the specialized training of forensic archeologists and am a mere hobbyist when it comes to species identification. I rarely count the body segments or other identifying features of Ephemera larvae.

Moose hair is peculiarly simple to recognize.

Originally posted by jaywill
Once again.

If a frog turns into a prince, its a fairy tale.

If a frog turns into a prince and it takes 10 million years, its science.

You demonstrate you ignorance about evolution so well. Is this your intention?

Tell me one scientist (one is enough) who actually believes that twisted hypthesis of yours that a frog takes 10 million of years to turn into a frog? Does it say so in the bible?

Why don't you discuss things that you *do* understand?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have no comment to add to your questioning Fabians, for it was a loaded question, and if i have learned anything, its not to argue with a man with a loaded gun 🙂

You are protected by my loaded gun by miles of optical wires, quite a few routers, and two screens in both sides.
But you cannot protect yourself from your own ignorance, if you don't educate yourself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
firstly, that species within a species adapt, as in Darwins finches,

Sadly, you still don't know what the term 'species' means despite me pointing out your errors in past conversations. Until you look up that word and find out what it means, you have no hope of understanding the Theory of Evolution, or successfully arguing against it.
Worse it renders your claims regarding species nonsensical as you are making a claim using a word you don't understand.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
two distinctive revelations from Evos this year already, firstly that dinosaurs and birds DO NOT share a common ancestry, Bible students of course knew that already and this latest confession that an entire subspecies in now absolutely Simian....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm

Your misrespresentation seem to know no bounds. The article said that THIS fossil was not the missing link that THIS fossil was purported to be. You and I have more similarities with primates than you acknowledge, or care to acknowledge.

Birds are not in search of a link between them and dinosaurs; they ARE a modern day dinosaur. There is plenty of evidence that connects them with dinosaurs; no, not strictly reptilian ones, but others.

But tell us now - do you know anything about birds? Anything? Go ahead and try to enlighten me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
two distinctive revelations from Evos this year already, firstly that dinosaurs and birds DO NOT share a common ancestry, Bible students of course knew that already and this latest confession that an entire subspecies in now absolutely Simian. you shall note the significant evidence on which their stupendous claim was based, a jaw bone and a few tee ...[text shortened]... ase note that this was a rhetorical question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm

carrobie logic:

make some claims, mix them up so they be as hard to read as possible and maybe post a link that has absolutely no relevance to your claims whatsoever.


"Bible students of course knew that already "
you mean stupid bible students. or you are simply lying. nowhere in the bible does it say that dinosaurs and birds aren't related. in fact the bible doesn't mention dinos. and you would think someone would notice an angry t-rex walking around.

I say that robbie carrobie is a poor example of a true christian. His standpoints are so stupid that people might find all christians equally stupid.

Why doesn't ordinary christians object to his stupidities? Aren't *you* afraid that other people might find *you* equally stupid?

Christian frends of mine laugh at fundamentalists like robbie. I think that christian people in general are laughing at fundamentalists like robbie.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I say that robbie carrobie is a poor example of a true christian. His standpoints are so stupid that people might find all christians equally stupid.

Why doesn't ordinary christians object to his stupidities? Aren't *you* afraid that other people might find *you* equally stupid?

Christian frends of mine laugh at fundamentalists like robbie. I think that christian people in general are laughing at fundamentalists like robbie.

i can't do anything about it. the carrobie cannot be reasoned with. not only is he a fundamentalist but he is also convinced he has the ultimate IQ in the known universe.
i guess humility was a lesson he skipped in fundamentalist camp.

kelly jay and joseph most likely are afraid to think that something in the bible is incorrect. because of the numerous cases god smote the unbelievers. the carrobie however actually thinks that evolution is utter crp and that he has solid proof to back his claim.

i could be wrong though. kelly and joe could be exactly as carrobie. however, and of this i am sure, nobody can beat the carrobie at being an abnoxious little man.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand it, but in very general terms. 🙂 for it seems to me that there are two facets here, both of which may be termed, evolutionary, firstly, that species within a species adapt, as in Darwins finches, taller Englishmen, viruses etc etc, which i have no reason to dispute nor deny, and secondly, that these species transmutate into other s ...[text shortened]... heir disposal, in this way. yes i was being flippant! thank goodness you have recognised this!

After all your chest-thumping, posturing and hot-air blowing it seems as if you accept the principle of evolution, which is the 'change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next'. You accept this?

What you don't accept is speciation, the emergence of new species. So genetic mutations can occur from generation to generation, but never enough mutations to create a new species?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
After all your chest-thumping, posturing and hot-air blowing it seems as if you accept the principle of evolution, which is the 'change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next'. You accept this?

What you don't accept is speciation, the emergence of new species. So genetic mutations can occur from generation to generation, but never enough mutations to create a new species?

thankyou Noobster, you are a light shining in a very dark place, and have stated, succinctly and without ambiguity, what is the case. Darwins finches remained finches, they did not become white tailed sea eagles simply because all the nuts ran out and they were forced to eat fish!

bye da way, can i ask the Evos, how the stealth design of the Owls feathers were supposed to have developed? For as i stated to Noobster else where, all though he called it rubbish, it is known that the design of the feather is such that as air passes over it during flight, the feather, breaks up the sound waves that are generated, also the downy feathers elsewhere found on the Owls body help absorb the remaining sound. If one compares an owls feather, to say a hawks feather, the two are entirely different, perhaps Badwater shall confirm this. Are we to assume that this amazing design was the result of noisy Owls dying off while all the quiet ones with stealth flight caught all the mice? if so, then i shall need to revise my position!