No evidence against evolution

[Lion Hearted Man]

Macroevolution has never been observed so its not a science. Secondly, you assume micro + time = macro.

Assumptions are not science.

We have observed speciation numerous times. And we can infer from the DNA evidence that this process explains the nested hierarchy we observe. There's really no other competing reason for why our DNA is the way it is, when you consider ERVs, Chromosome 2, etc.

YOU are the guys who are drawing imaginary lines that you claim cannot be crossed. Mutations exist, accumulate over the generations (microevolution) and if you divide the gene pool into two separate groups with different selective pressures - boom, speciation occurs...

When we talk about the modern evolutionary model, the distinction between micro and macro is not essential. You clearly haven't even read the Wikipedia article for Macroevolution, which states that.

 

[Delphiki]

Only reply if you want to debate science...

What makes you think you don't have to be held to the same standard for debate?


It's not that macro-evolution *shudders* is assumed to be "micro-evolution+time"... It's that by definition, that's what it would be. And since what it would be is actually what we can plainly see happening, macro-evolution happens.

Would you concede that the evolutionary process exists if it were called something else?

 

[Hespera]

So your evidence for macroevolution rests on a (failed) analogy?

Only reply if you want to debate science...

No there is more evidence than you could absorb in a lifetime.

The purpose of the analogy was to show the intellectual bankrupcy of your claim about not knowing about the past, and i see you still are avoiding it like the plague, coz you know its a valid analogy.

Be glad to debate science with you; I offered to, challenged you.

name your one best piece of "evidence" against evolution. do it!

 

[Exial]

You guys can't drop it can you?

Why waste your time on Research1? You are arguing with a brick wall.
He has nothing but fallacies and straw men to offer.

 

[Split Rock]

You guys can't drop it can you?

Why waste your time on Research1? You are arguing with a brick wall.
He has nothing but fallacies and straw men to offer.

Agreed! There's a reason why they provide us with the "Ignore" option. Just click on the name, go to "Public Profile," then click on "User Lists" and then choose "Add to Ignore"

 

[dad]

nobody has seen a mountain wear down to the sea, but we see micro erosion, and we see worn down mountains.

But only a crazy atheist would ASSUME that a mountain can wear away, coz, you know, nobody saw the whole thing.

A good christian would deny that it is possible, right?

No. A bible believer would know that all mountains on earth will be levelled in a mega quake one day. No micro eroding matters a hoot.

 

[Hespera]

You guys can't drop it can you?

Why waste your time on Research1? You are arguing with a brick wall.
He has nothing but fallacies and straw men to offer.

Oh I know that, and it didnt take too long to see it. i guess its for lack of a better theocreologist to debate.

I of course know he has nothing to offer, and he just keeps going back to that same "you cant observe it' nonsense.

Im probably wrong, but I cant help thinking it is possible at least that after a certain critical mass of straw men and fallacies, a person might, just might wonder why it is that....

If he really has god, all of reality and the bible on his side, why doesnt he have even one good idea for his side?

he may just thingk, could it possibly be that he doesnt have a side, because his "side" relies at its core, on him being infallible?

 

[hillard]

I of course know he has nothing to offer, and he just keeps going back to that same "you cant observe it' nonsense.

Im probably wrong, but I cant help thinking it is possible at least that after a certain critical mass of straw men and fallacies, a person might, just might wonder why it is that....

If he really has god, all of reality and the bible on his side, why doesnt he have even one good idea for his side?

he may just thingk, could it possibly be that he doesnt have a side, because his "side" relies at its core, on him being infallible?

Creationists must have a very desperate need to believe or else a complete lack of any kind of sense not to see that what they believe has been shown to be wrong time after time after time.

Are creationists told while they are growing up that it's important that they stay as stupid as they possibly can in order to remain creationist?

 

[Hespera]

Creationists must have a very desperate need to believe or else a complete lack of any kind of sense not to see that what they believe has been shown to be wrong time after time after time.

Are creationists told while they are growing up that it's important that they stay as stupid as they possibly can in order to remain creationist?

I think it is a rigid personality type, with needs for certainty and a complete inability to admit to being mistaken about anything.

I think it would create a crack in their rigid brittle shell or illusion and would risk shattering the whole thing; if they are wrong about one thing, there could be another and another-chain reaction, down it all come.s

Their life is built around the illusion. They WILL NOT allow it to be shattered, and no amount of denial and ilogic will be too much.

 

[Research1]

name your one best piece of "evidence" against evolution. do it!

Here is several:

1. Evolution cannot explain the origin of languages, or why only man can speak. Creationism however fully explains the origin of language.

2. Evolution cannot explain why the the Neolithic Revolution occured (there are over 5 different theories), however creationism fully explains why man suddenly began building, farming etc.

3. Evolution does not account for the spiritual aspect of man and evolutionists have failed since the 19th century to explain the origin of the supernatural (even if it is unreal, why did man invent it?).

4. Ecosystems (if you take one animal out everything dies, which favors an intelligent creation not by natural accidental evolution).

5. Morality. Evolution cannot explain the origin of morals.

I could go on...

There is a lot of evidence against evolution.

 

[rjc34]

Here is several:

1. Evolution cannot explain the origin of languages, or why only man can speak. Creationism however fully explains the origin of language.

Evolution makes no claim as to the origin of language; this is a different field of science. Also, asserting creationism explains it without any evidence does not make it true. The 'evidence' fails to pass muster.

2. Evolution cannot explain why the the Neolithic Revolution occured (there are over 5 different theories), however creationism fully explains why man suddenly began building, farming etc.

Again, evolution does not deal with technological eras. You still haven't provided any evidence that your bald assertion of creationism is true.

3. Evolution does not account for the spiritual aspect of man and evolutionists have failed since the 19th century to explain the origin of the supernatural (even if it is unreal, why did man invent it?).

Yet another thing in which evolutionary theory does not make a claim to deal with. Science has known for decades if not centuries why man makes up supernatural explanations. We are pattern seeking mammals, and we crave explanations for everything. We didn't know how the sun came up every day, so it must have been a god doing it. We didn't know how the rain formed, again, must have been god. It's our wonder and need to know how things work that lead us to create the supernatural. Now that we have an explanation for all these things though, they are no longer necessary.

4. Ecosystems (if you take one animal out everything dies, which favors an intelligent creation not by natural accidental evolution).

Another blind assertion with not a shred of evidence to back it up. This is patently untrue. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct... yet there are still ecosystems.

5. Morality. Evolution cannot explain the origin of morals.

Sure it can. Perhaps you should read The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. Again, blind assertions require evidence.

I could go on...

With real evidence this time? Or just more blind assertions?

There is a lot of evidence against evolution.

Not if that's the best you've got.
And yet you still can't provide a single piece for creationism...

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Here is several:

1. Evolution cannot explain the origin of languages, or why only man can speak. Creationism however fully explains the origin of language.

2. Evolution cannot explain why the the Neolithic Revolution occured (there are over 5 different theories), however creationism fully explains why man suddenly began building, farming etc.

3. Evolution does not account for the spiritual aspect of man and evolutionists have failed since the 19th century to explain the origin of the supernatural (even if it is unreal, why did man invent it?).

4. Ecosystems (if you take one animal out everything dies, which favors an intelligent creation not by natural accidental evolution).

5. Morality. Evolution cannot explain the origin of morals.

I could go on...

There is a lot of evidence against evolution.

Let me guess, this is point 6:

6. Evolution cannot explain how God created the world, but creationism can. Thus, evolution is not true.

 

[Koizito]

Here is several:

1. Evolution cannot explain the origin of languages, or why only man can speak. Creationism however fully explains the origin of language.

2. Evolution cannot explain why the the Neolithic Revolution occured (there are over 5 different theories), however creationism fully explains why man suddenly began building, farming etc.

3. Evolution does not account for the spiritual aspect of man and evolutionists have failed since the 19th century to explain the origin of the supernatural (even if it is unreal, why did man invent it?).

4. Ecosystems (if you take one animal out everything dies, which favors an intelligent creation not by natural accidental evolution).

5. Morality. Evolution cannot explain the origin of morals.

I could go on...

There is a lot of evidence against evolution.

You forgot the ever so famous "Evolution can't explain how life began!"...

 

[MoonLancer]

or why only man can speak.

Evidence please that this is true. I can tell you that crows and dolphins have language ;p

 

[Hespera]

Here is several:

1. Evolution cannot explain the origin of languages, or why only man can speak. Creationism however fully explains the origin of language.

2. Evolution cannot explain why the the Neolithic Revolution occured (there are over 5 different theories), however creationism fully explains why man suddenly began building, farming etc.

3. Evolution does not account for the spiritual aspect of man and evolutionists have failed since the 19th century to explain the origin of the supernatural (even if it is unreal, why did man invent it?).

4. Ecosystems (if you take one animal out everything dies, which favors an intelligent creation not by natural accidental evolution).

5. Morality. Evolution cannot explain the origin of morals.

I could go on...

There is a lot of evidence against evolution.

I did ask for your one best. Could you do that?

From the things you cited, its pretty clear you dont have much idea what it takes to falsify a theory, which in general is something that is in contradiction to theory, or an exception to it.

Most of what you brought up is in the nature of psychology, not evolution as such and none of it in anyway falsifies anything about evolution.

You inserted the word CANNOT which is a statement of facts not in evidence.

I will look at just one of your points, the one about ecosystems.

First you make a completely false statement about it...

take out one animal

( i will guess you mean take out all of one species of organism?)

and everything dies

I honestly dont know where you got such an odd idea. The passenger pigeon once existed in the billions in the USA; zero left now.
I am unaware that everything died.

Ecosystems adjust to the addition or removal of one or more species. Sometimes extinctions will result from either of these, but to say "everything dies" is a very odd statement.

Inferring god from any of that is what it is, but has nothing to do with the reality of evolution.

Did you nkow that the vast majority of educated Christians, and religious people all around the world can accept evolution just fine? so do the non religious! its like accepting the reality of calculus. No reason to get all religious draw a line in the sand about it.

Do you want to put forth your one best idea, or not?

Im guessing not, since you didnt the first time, and....I kind of think you know that whatever it is, it wont hold up. With all that implies for your entire thesis about creationism.

 

[driewerf]

Macroevolution has never been observed so its not a science.

Ice ages have never been observed so its not a science.

nonetheless, even the hardest died-in-the-wool creationists admit there have/has been (an) Ice Age(s).

 

[driewerf]

The scientific method starts at observation.

Do you evolutionists even know what the scientific method is?

Yep, it starts there. But it isn't necessary it's end point.
What observations started the theory of Evolution?
-the geographical distribution of different species. The Galapagos finches were a case, but there were many others

-the existence of fossils of unknown species.

-the pattern where in we find these fossils: how deeper we dig how stranger the fossils look. And how less deep we dig, how more the fossils look like living species.
- the akward design of some organs, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes

- nested hierarchy of development.

These are all observations that started evolution.

Now, as you like observations, so much, on what observations is biblical literalism based?

 

[driewerf]

I've read virtually everything about evolution, and all mechanism theories it is supposedly based on. I accept microevolution or minor variations, but not macroevolution.

I will use some one else words, who phrased it better than I ever could;

Care to answer my question about what books on evolution you've read or are you going to be like Sarah Palin on newspapers?

thanks LHM.

 

[mzungu]

It's what is not there that counts.

Imagine if you are dying of thirst in the desert and you see a mirage of an oasis and you hear a voice telling you "It's what is not there that counts"

 

[Research1]

Ice ages have never been observed so its not a science.

It doesn't need to be directly observed, there are physical remains left, and these can be tested.

The difference between this and evolution is that evolution is just an interpretation (one of many). While there is only one interpretation for the Ice Age. The evolutionists though never understand this... they think their own interpretation = fact, when there are hundreds of different interpretation of the same scientific discoveries.