The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[The Barbarian]

31 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I said fossils are not evidence of evolution, and they are not. 

Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise, says they are.   And he actually know what the evidence is.   Would you like me to show you, again?

That's the reality check for you.   Here it is, yet again:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

Edited January 15 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

This is about New Zealand, it's whistleblower official, and what he found recently.

But you can't find any evidence for his claim?    I think I know why.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

We are talking 20 million dead, not VAERS which is just 1% of reporting.

Well, that would be pretty good if you have any evidence to support that belief.   What do you have?

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

Fossils do provide evidence, I'll pick one like where the brain resides, earlier humans had smaller craniums.

You presenting something that can happen under the right conditions isn't a reality check on counter evolution.

I think you don't have anything to prove otherwise. Certainly not water creeping into a casket, creating a condition that doesn't normally happen.

The Bible mentions giants, you know, with giant heads.  People find them.  It is still is not evidence of evolution if you find one. 

These scientists believe they have found a new 'species' with a small head, but it's only a human with Microcephaly.  Remember the 'StarChild skull' they thought was some alien from outer space?  It was just a human with malformed head, when tested.

Alright, they found that pickle in a jar that had turned to stone in 70 years or less (not trillions of years).  Show me how that does anything for evolution.

[Sparks]

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

But you can't find any evidence for his claim?    I think I know why.

I know why.  It's because you have not looked.  You never look, but you do spam the place with government reports made to media outlets. 

[The Barbarian]

But you can't find any evidence for your claim?   I think I know why.

On 1/14/2024 at 10:03 PM, Sparks said:

I know why. 

I got it.  You looked, and there isn't any.

On 1/14/2024 at 10:03 PM, Sparks said:

You never look

Your claim, your responsibility to support it.   You can't, for reasons we all understand.

On 1/14/2024 at 10:03 PM, Sparks said:

but you do spam the place with government reports made to media outlets.

If you think any of them are lying, by all means show us your evidence.   What do you have?

 

[Sparks]

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

But you can't find any evidence for your claim?   I think I know why.

I got it.  You looked, and there isn't any.

Your claim, your responsibility to support it.   You can't, for reasons we all understand.

If you think any of them are lying, by all means show us your evidence.   What do you have?

All you have to do is admit that you barely tried to research it, and I will point it right out, or at least give you a good hint on where to start.  

The point was, and I am sure you forgot, that you run to the government any time someone posts something that you don't like.  Government lies slightly less than Satan, but some don't seem to notice.

[The Barbarian]

Your claim, your responsibility to support it.   You can't, for reasons we all understand.

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

All you have to do is admit that you barely tried to research it

I don't have to research it at all.  If you can't show it to us, then that's on you.  

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The point was, and I am sure you forgot, that you run to the government any time someone posts something that you don't like.

I'm just showing you the data.   If you think they are lying, show us your evidence for that, and we'll talk.  Second time I asked.   

Tough game, but it works.   You make the claim, up to you to support it.  

 

Edited January 21 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

38 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Your claim, your responsibility to support it.   You can't, for reasons we all understand.

I don't have to research it at all.  If you can't show it to us, then that's on you.  

I'm just showing you the data.   If you think they are lying, show us your evidence for that, and we'll talk.  Second time I asked.   

Tough game, but it works.   You make the claim, up to you to support it. 

I do it all the time, Barbarian.  When I show you the truth, perhaps the true math from Government sources, you tend to fire-hose the area down with prior government claims that were just countered.  

I think you can quickly 'research' things, but only if the liberal media did the work for you.  When I do eventually show you, you will claim the source is not good enough and plaster government propaganda all over the thread.  

Sad for you, the media won't touch the figures so you have no instant source. 

Can you at least try to look?

[The Barbarian]

On 1/14/2024 at 11:49 AM, Sparks said:

The vaccines did kill a lot of people.  Last November, or so, some high level guy in New Zealand who worked at the Ministry of Health crunched the numbers to find that 1 in 1000 were killed by the vaccines there

But you can't find any evidence for your claim?   I think I know why.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I do it all the time, Barbarian.

Except this time?   Why is that?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

When I do eventually show you

Why not just show us now?    If it was worth doing, I would have thought you'd be eager to show us.

Remember, you make the claim, your responsibility to support it.  

We get it.   You can't find any support for the claim and we aren't going to see any. 

So I went and took a look.  In 2021, when about 3 million people had been vaccinated, there was one probable case of the vaccine killing someone.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-reports-death-woman-after-pfizer-covid-vaccine-2021-08-30/

Let's see... 1/3,000,000 is a lot less than 1/1,000...

 

Edited January 22 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So I went and took a look.  In 2021, when about 3 million people had been vaccinated, there was one probable case of the vaccine killing someone.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-reports-death-woman-after-pfizer-covid-vaccine-2021-08-30/

OK, so your research is weak, and here comes the liberal Reuters article.

It told you this happened in November of last year, so notice you go back in time to post what the liberals have to say about it in the year 2021.  Seems like I predicted this.