Why evolution isn't scientific

[Heissonear]

Then show me on paper how angels are biological creatures.

Until then, my answer stands: angels.

(In case you don't know it, I've always submitted the fact that angels are examples of living creatures that exist completely apart from evolution. Thus life can exist without evolution.)

In addition, angels aren't the only ones.

I can give a much better example: God.

Both came well before anything ever evolved -- micro or otherwise.

Cain was the first person that ever showed up via microevolution.

Very clear.

 

[Kylie]

Sure I do and I also can recognize the False ToE which does NOT agree with factual Science, Scripture nor History. I have given you every chance to refute me (prove me wrong) and you have failed as much as Trump has, in running the country. Now, that's bad and needs to be corrected. Amen?

Nah, you have no idea how evolution works.

 

[Kylie]

but you already agree that out of place fossil will be something like 12354 instead of 12345. right? so all i need is to find you such a case and you will admit that evolution is false.

You make a big noise, but you have yet to actually produce this alleged out of place fossil.

(I bet you a million dollars that if you ever get around to producing such a fossil, that there will be a rational explanation for it.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if i will show you otherwise you will admit that evolution is false?

Let's first clear some things up.

First of all, "admit" is not the correct term here.
There's nothing to "admit".

Secondly, it's not me you need to convince. It's the scientific community.


Frankly, I don't see how it would be possible that you hold some secret evidence that would falsify evolution while the entire working scientific community apparantly isn't aware of this.

Anyway, having said all that: yes, if the evidence didn't support evolution, then I wouldn't accept it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You make a big noise, but you have yet to actually produce this alleged out of place fossil.

(I bet you a million dollars that if you ever get around to producing such a fossil, that there will be a rational explanation for it.)

I'll throw in another 3 million.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

He really isn't grasping the concept.

I guarantee you.

Oh, I know. But unlike a creationist I'm responding to what he wrote, not what I want to think he wrote

 

[Aman777]

Nah, you have no idea how evolution works.

Amen, since it doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers. After thousands of years, declare that God is myth and change the wording from Descent with modification within kinds to the godless word "evolution" and then brainwash every student in the public schools, with it's lies for years, and then broadcast that no one understands, except those who swallow it's false assumptions. Sounds like Trump to me. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

so a watch isnt evidence for design. thanks.

Why lie like this? Do you think your deity will look more favorably upon you for doing so?
Here is what I really wrote:

"If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation.

Which designer? And how do you know? What about the multitude of other watch types - digital, for example? Was it the same designer? How would you know?

At the very best, if you find a watch on earth, you could conclude that a human made it.

Which human? And how would you know? And how did this human design and make the watch? Did this human make all the pieces him or herself? All the gears, springs, etc? Or were there other humans involved?


So you can (but likely won't) see that merely positing a Designer or Creator without providing any evidence for whom the designer was, how the designer operated, etc., is something a child might do?"


Now stop being a dishonest child and respond.

 

[tas8831]

actually it can. we can say that the rest of the genome was less conserve and it got many mutations comparing to other animals. actually some genes in sharks are colser to human than to other fishes:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/05/30/1937469.htm

So... you know that bony fishes are more closely related to mammals than to cartilaginous fishes, yes? And how much of that news blurb did you read? I'm guessing not much of it.


Never mind - it is silly of me to think that a creationist would actually look something up before making an argument about it.

http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843

 

[Kylie]

Amen, since it doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers. After thousands of years, declare that God is myth and change the wording from Descent with modification within kinds to the godless word "evolution" and then brainwash every student in the public schools, with it's lies for years, and then broadcast that no one understands, except those who swallow it's false assumptions. Sounds like Trump to me. Amen?

Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[pitabread]

Amen, since it doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers.

So a science with real-world application doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers?

That sounds a bit contradictory.

 

[Aman777]

So a science with real-world application doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers?

I was speaking specifically of the false ToE, which is nothing more than descent with modification within kinds. This FACT was re-worded by some people who rejected God's Truth and taught it as scientific Fact to innocent children. This blasphemy will bring harsh judgment to it's worshipers who have offended little children with their foolishness. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2

Changing the meaning of words is the mark of a deceptive false assumption.

 

[xianghua]

LMAO. This is just as ridiculous as your other claims. Please take some genetics courses, instead of throwing blunt darts hoping they'll stick. (let me know if the italicized metaphor needs explanation, as I recall English not being your first language)

so far we have seen that your points were incorrect. so lets continue with this one. you said that its impossible according to evolution to get a different genome but a more similar genome in its ervs. so i showed you that its incorrect too since e ven according to evolution there is no problem if a genome will be more different compare to its ervs phylogeny. as we seen- many genes in sharks are actually more similar to human than to other fishes. so evolution has no problem to solve this conflict by convergent evolution or rapid evolution. so this claim is wrong too. can you admit this simple fact before we will continue?

 

[pitabread]

as we seen- many genes in sharks are actually more similar to human than to other fishes.

Which genes and what are the relative similarities?

 

[xianghua]

In and of itself, no, a pc is not evidence of design

thanks for this clarification.

 

[xianghua]

(I bet you a million dollars that if you ever get around to producing such a fossil, that there will be a rational explanation for it.)

so now you actually admit that even such a fossil will not be a problem for evolution? this is actualy my main point in this thread. and this is why evolution isnt scientific.

 

[xianghua]

Let's first clear some things up.

First of all, "admit" is not the correct term here.
There's nothing to "admit".

Secondly, it's not me you need to convince. It's the scientific community.


Frankly, I don't see how it would be possible that you hold some secret evidence that would falsify evolution while the entire working scientific community apparantly isn't aware of this.

Anyway, having said all that: yes, if the evidence didn't support evolution, then I wouldn't accept it.

so finding an out of place fossil will falsify evolution or not?

 

[xianghua]

That's not at all what he said.

this is what he said: If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation. so a watch by itself isnt evidence for design according to him. its just a proclamation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so finding an out of place fossil will falsify evolution or not?

It would certainly cause a rethink. If it couldn't be explained, then yes.

 

[xianghua]

So... you know that bony fishes are more closely related to mammals than to cartilaginous fishes, yes? And how much of that news blurb did you read? I'm guessing not much of it.


Never mind - it is silly of me to think that a creationist would actually look something up before making an argument about it.

http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843

how your phylogenetic tree make any difference to what i said?