Evolution and bats???

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't insult you. I pointed out that your demands that something must evolve before your very eyes to your exact dictates is ridiculous. You have made the same demand or variations of it a number of times in this thread.

[b]It doesn't help your case for evolution being something to respect.
I do not own the Theory of evolution and anything I s rd. You essentially denied its existence which means you deny the existence of fossils.[/b]

Are you just plan dumb??? Sorry to react that way but come on.... Seems to me your just trying to deflect the subject that evolution is not proved by anything much less the fossil record.

Originally posted by galveston75
Are you just plan dumb??? Sorry to react that way but come on.... Seems to me your just trying to deflect the subject that evolution is not proved by anything much less the fossil record.

No, he is not dumb, he's a creationst. If you say he is dumb, then all the creationists are dumb. And that's not what you are sayng, is it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, he is not dumb, he's a creationst. If you say he is dumb, then all the creationists are dumb. And that's not what you are sayng, is it?

No but I'm sure you'll twist that around or ask me 20 more times....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i shall repeat it, you know very well what he meant, otherwise your powers of interpretation must be very scant indeed? less than mine, for i was able to interpret what Galvo meant, why were you not? This naturally begs the question, do you take everything literally leaving no room for artistic license or personal expression.

You probably got it because you are also given to outrageously false statements which when you are called on them you claim you didn't really mean.
Oddly though you just wait a few days them make them again, like your talk about species that I called you on before and are now pretending you have forgotten about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You probably got it because you are also given to outrageously false statements which when you are called on them you claim you didn't really mean.
Oddly though you just wait a few days them make them again, like your talk about species that I called you on before and are now pretending you have forgotten about.

i got it because i am quite clearly able to determine what a man means when he writes something, i do not need things spelled out for me in black and white, i have a mind of my own and i am prepared to try to use it, that is why you cyberborgs must resort to defamation of character, trifling arguments about non entities, when the reality of the matter is leaping out from the page and demanding that you take note, but i doubt even this, for if it was labelled to a piano and thrown from the sky on top of your head, i doubt that it would make much difference, either produce a contrary argument or give it up! and just for the record as i stated before, your point with regard to what determines a 'species', was a mere technicality and practically irrelevant, continue your arguments over semantics with someone else, there are bigger fish to fry as far as i am concerned.

Originally posted by galveston75
Keep digging......

Actually the two best words spoken on this entire thread.

Keep digging.

Absolutely!

We don't know all the answers yet. Not by a long shot. The real question in this thread between creationists and evolutionists is do we keep digging? Or do we just accept the Bible as the only truth and give up the search for answers?

I say we keep digging.

Originally posted by Ullr
Actually the two best words spoken on this entire thread.

Keep digging.

Absolutely!

We don't know all the answers yet. Not by a long shot. The real question in this thread between creationists and evolutionists is do we keep digging? Or do we just accept the Bible as the only truth and give up the search for answers?

I say we keep digging.

interesting comment, you would of course reach the other side of the world and still be in denial, for the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by lack of scarcity of materials, for there are in excess more than one hundred million extant fossils giving palaeontologists an excellent picture of past life, the deficiencies are real and shall never be filled, i suggest therefore that its time for you also to 'get real'. On the contrary it is those who advocate the evolutionary theory who have limited their viewpoint to a merely one dimensional source, while creationists on the other hand have refused to limited their search for truth to unintelligent causes. Amazing how propaganda can get some people, isn't it.

Originally posted by Ullr
Actually the two best words spoken on this entire thread.

Keep digging.

Absolutely!

We don't know all the answers yet. Not by a long shot. The real question in this thread between creationists and evolutionists is do we keep digging? Or do we just accept the Bible as the only truth and give up the search for answers?

I say we keep digging.

I completely say keep digging. The world is full of things yet unfound and I love every discovery that's made. I drive my wife crazy with the time I spend loving and learning about this earth.
But the digging that evolutionist do will never find what they are looking for because it does not exist.
The first and formost reason is no such thing as evolution started life on this planet. So without the foundation they need it could never exist as more and more prominent scientist are finding out.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
interesting comment, you would of course reach the other side of the world and still be in denial, for the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by lack of scarcity of materials, for there are in excess more than one hundred million extant fossils giving palaeontologists an excellent picture of past life, the deficiencies are real and shal ...[text shortened]... rch for truth to unintelligent causes. Amazing how propaganda can get some people, isn't it.

"the deficiencies are real and shall never be filled"

How do you know that?

Originally posted by Ullr
"the deficiencies are real and shall never be filled"

How do you know that?

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

Synthetische Artbildung (the synthetic origin of the species), Herbert Nilsson, p.1212

Originally posted by galveston75
I completely say keep digging. The world is full of things yet unfound and I love every discovery that's made. I drive my wife crazy with the time I spend loving and learning about this earth.
But the digging that evolutionist do will never find what they are looking for because it does not exist.
The first and formost reason is no such thing as evo ...[text shortened]... foundation they need it could never exist as more and more prominent scientist are finding out.

"But the digging that evolutionist do will never find what they are looking for because it does not exist. "

Same question that I've asked Robbie. How can you know this for sure?

"The first and formost reason is no such thing as evolution started life on this planet."

Well I would agree with you that we don't know what started this universe nor life on this planet. I suppose an astromer can tell you how the planet was formed, stars were formed, galaxies, etc. So who or what created the universe? I admit its quite possible it was an omnipotent divine being. Could even be the God you worship. I don't know. Then there is always the big question. So who/what created God? Mind boggling.

However, none of this disproves evolutionary theory. Even if a divine being created life on this planet it is still possible to argue that this divine being also designed life to evolve. Perhaps evolution was intentional? We don't know.

I know this much, while I agree with you that evolution is not a 100% proven fact neither is it 100% disproven. So why are you so close minded about it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies ...[text shortened]... lled.”

Synthetische Artbildung (the synthetic origin of the species), Herbert Nilsson, p.1212

Okay well at least now I know from where you plagarized your comment:

"The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled"

So do you believe that Heribert Nilsson's opinion to be more valid than other scientists? If so why?

Originally posted by Ullr
Okay well at least now I know from where you plagarized your comment:

"The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled"

So do you believe that Heribert Nilsson's opinion to be more valid than other scientists? If so why?

nope i just believe it to be more valid than yours!

Originally posted by Ullr
Okay well at least now I know from where you plagarized your comment:

"The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled"

So do you believe that Heribert Nilsson's opinion to be more valid than other scientists? If so why?

Also from what little I've read about Nillson, he's not a creationist. He simply is one rare dissenting opinion against the the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope i just believe it to be more valid than yours!

Fair enough. I agree with you. My opinion is worth about the same as yours.

Although my opinion is simply that the theory of evolution is possible not 100% indisputable fact.