I thought I'd label this post Bex, as I now seem to be the focus here of a pile of ongoing accusations at the moment. Bex this, Bex that, Bex said this, Bex said that. Bex hasn't answered this, Bex hasn't answered that. Bex hasn't presented this, Bex hasn't presented that. lol, good grief! How bl**dy pathetic. GET A LIFE!

Far be it from me or anybody here to dare question or criticise theories or interpretations of the world around us. As though evolution is the only voice on science and creationists don't have one and shouldn't have one either.

And how dare I take a break from this forum like you guys seem to be able to do whenever you feel like it. I had no idea of the obligations on here and rules set up by you guys. Does Russ know about this?

I wonder why, in the light that you accuse us of calling all scientists/biologists liars are on this forum, do you continue coming on here? Think about it. Why come on a forum designed to discuss both sides and debate the other, do you somehow expect a "non debate"? Did you think you were going to come on here and gain flattery and support for all the evolution scientists, including all those who believe them and leave you with the warm fuzzies? I suggest to you all, that you go find an evolution support forum or get used to not having it your own way. Do we not also put up with you behaving as though the only people worth listening to are evolutionists or that all scientists must be evolutionists? Your ongoing condescending attitude to anything that smacks of creation is insulting, but often overlooked and is somehow automatically acceptable and the norm. But it gets worse when you jump up and down and accuse us of calling all scientists liars because we put in question the evolution interpretation of the world around us. What hypocrisy!

Is your theory not still a theory? Until it has been proven without a doubt an established fact, it is up for question and should be questioned. Neither side agree on all the data presented or put across to the public. I am not obliged to sit and swallow whatever I'm told by evolutionists, simply because they got the upperhand majority in the science community and the loudest voice. You can also stop dictating to me that I should be or I'm claiming they are all liars if I don't. I have every right to voice my concerns or criticisms, even if you are not in agreement with them. I have repeated time and time again that not all evolutionists are liars, but many work from an evolutionary belief/perspective. They are educated from evolution! When people are indoctrinated, the world around them will be interpreted the same way.

Quote
Sarcasm aside, Bex, you need to provide more than your repeated assertions in order to support your claim that stasis in a population of a species is a death knell to the theory of evolution.

You can start by answering a few questions regarding your assertion.

1. What part of the theory of evolution requires drastic anatomical change to occur in all organisms?

2. What part of the theory of evolution requires that an entire species/family of organisms go extinct in order for a descendant species/family to be established?

3. What is the difference between a population and a species?

Thanks in advance for your answers to these questions.


Sarcasm aside? You've replaced it by condescending demands instead. Nice one! You can start by getting off your high horse, that would help. And then discontinue talking down to me, that would also help. Instead of morphing into another Pwcca, and dictating towards others on here. Which is leaping in and making petty criticisms and demands of others and sitting back and evaluating us "students" to see if we're contributing and conforming. Seriously, I'm also beginning to wonder which one of you guys are the missing links to the other....though you exist at the sametime (I know, I see your IP address.), so there goes that theory.

Why hasn't an evolutionist on here explained to me what I've repeated in my post umpteenth time now?

I will repeat - Where did evolution arise from, if it does not teach our origins as arising from simplicity? and becoming gradually more complex over long periods of time. If all organisms do not require the dramatic changes that we would have expected from this belief....where did they arise from in the first place?

Unless you now want to change the theory due to lack of evidence that this ever occured? It must go back to the beginning where evolution arose from to prove it happened in the first place. And this is where it falls apart. You want to mess around in the middle there quibbling over fossils and telling us which ones were what, who came from who, without any evidence that any of them are a product of evolution in the first place.

Quote
2. What part of the theory of evolution requires that an entire species/family of organisms go extinct in order for a descendant species/family to be established?


If it does not require it, why do they preach it happened without knowing whether one ascended from the other in the first place?. If both have shown to have existed around the sametime, then why assume any were in a state of evolution from one to the other? Dinosaur to bird evolution......yet birds existed, looking much like they do around the sametime as the supposed missing link. And you still want me to believe your theory anyway. One can still be from the other, even if they exist together is what you're telling us, simply because the fossils themselves seemed to have defied such a transition. Again you are welcome to this assumption. I can only imagine your theory will have to continue changing as new evidence is brought to light that contradicts it.

The difference between a population and a species??? Talking down to me again Linear! You have GOT to be kidding!

Population is made up by the inhabitants of the earth. Or inhabitants of a specific area. It can refer to the world, a country or a city. It's a collective term. Correct me if I'm wrong oh wise one.

Species is a sub-division of a kind. A kind is a major catagory word generally applying to creatures who can breed among themselves, but not outside of themselves. e.g. the dog kind and the cat kind. Species is a certain species of cat, or a certain species of dog within each kind. Generally able to interbreed. Zebra is a species of the horse kind. The wolf is commonly accepted the original dog kind. Given that they can still interbreed. There are hundreds, if not thousands of dinosaur sub-species, which, can be reduced by common agreement among scientists to less than 60 main kinds of dinosaur.

Now if you wish to replace sarcasm with condescension? Do not expect to get much better in return. A non reply is actually what you deserved here.

And if that isn't bad enough, we've got RAZD popping on here too to give his bit and here it is:

Quote
This is, of course, the last resort of Cognitive Dissonance when confronted with contradiction by reality: that reality is a lie.


Wow, I guess that ought to nail it. The "Cognitive Dissonance" that RAZD rattles off time and time again. His favourite cliche <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Without realising the irony of it, he repeats it constantly. The reality he speaks about by the way is the "evolutionary reality"! The only one that he can think from. Outside of that, nothing exists.