The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Bungle_Bear]

No journey through puberty.

Puberty makes important changes to a body and leaves traces i.e. evidence of history. So how did Adam get those marks if not via puberty or a deceitful creator?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Actually i'm very curious how you managed to even come up with that as answer to the question?

I am curious if you have come up with any answers to my questions in the last almost 3 years?
Do you understand the empirical evidence for common descent now?

Or a similar question to your post that was replied to bump this thread:
If someone gave you some complicated version of how evolution works and is supported by evidence, would you make it a point to get educated until you managed to think you've fathomed such evidence-based science or would you take the non-existent signs it is nonsense and leave it at that?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...
When you got something, let us know, and I'll be happy to start the thread, but until then, please, no more excuses and clearly false claims.

A long post that ignores that we have something. A massive body of evidence that supports evolution gathered over a couple of centuries. This is "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread" and evidence for evolution has been provided.

A story of a Mickey Mouse created universe is not science for the simple reason that there is no evidence to support it. It is thus nonsense as you state in your post. It is also irrelevant to this thread. Evolution is science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Surely you know by now, I simply think evolution sounds ridiculous from the get go, just as the big bang.

If all you know about evolution is how it sounds then you need to learn about evolution. Start with:
20 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Common decent makes testable, falsifiable predictions that have been verified.
23 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Have you read and understand 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent yet?

Have you read and understood the Evolution Wikipedia article? What abut the many tutorials on evolution in the Internet? The basics are easy to understand.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Let's do as I've asked time and time again and explain it here using your knowledge of Biology, you do have that, right?. ...

This is not a solution. It is a waste of everyone's time to ask every poster in this thread to explain Biology 101 (evolution) to you. Biology textbooks exist. The Interest exists. You have had almost 3 years to Google the word evolution! This is the Wikipedia evolution article yet again.

This thread has had evidence for evolution in it from the first post on Jun 30, 2016.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The ”debate” is long over. The ToE is established science and teached in accademia all over the world. Creationism is just a small quirk mostly in the US.

The ID in Kenny'sID user name may be Intelligent Design (is it, Kenny'sID?). Intelligent design is pseudoscience from a few scientists and touted by some creationists in disguise - see the Pandas and "cdesign proponentsists" fiasco. Also "just a small quirk mostly in the US" as far as I know.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Learn how to use a dictionary, then get back to me.

Learn about Young Earth creationism and understand that your only No answer to "Did the earth exist say 7000 years ago?" makes you a YEC.

A scenario where you assert God misleads us by embedding the earth with evidence of an older Earth just makes your reply a fantasy because you cannot know the age of the Earth. According to you, the Earth could be 4 billion years old with fake evidence of 4.57 billion years. According to you, the Earth could be 1000 years old with fake evidence of 4.57 billion years. According to you, the Earth could be a week old with fake evidence of 4.57 billion years (with the addition of faking us though but am all-powerful God can easily do that!).
A reasonable act would be to believe in the evidence - the Earth is actually 4.57 billion years old. That has the benefit of a God who does not mislead us.

 

[AV1611VET]

- the Earth is actually 4.57 billion years old. That has the benefit of a God who does not mislead us.

From the link I supplied:

Of course it would "appear old" --- because it is old.

 

[VirOptimus]

From the link I supplied:

Old is by definition how long something have existed. Your ”embedded age” is pure nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Old is by definition how long something have existed. Your ”embedded age” is pure nonsense.

Eleven definitions of "old" and you narrow it down to your favorite one.

Go figure.

 

[Ophiolite]

Eleven definitions of "old" and you narrow it down to your favorite one.

Go figure.

Your equivocation should be causing you a burning sensation in your conscience.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your equivocation should be causing you a burning sensation in your conscience.

Uh-huh.

I'm supposed to have a "burning sensation in my conscience" because I don't use your definition?

Do you have one because you don't use mine?

 

[Ophiolite]

Uh-huh.

I'm supposed to have a "burning sensation in my conscience" because I don't use your definition?

Do you have one because you don't use mine?

Perhaps you also use a different meaning for equivocation. The meaning for "old" used by VirOptimus is the most commonly used meaning, the meaning that will be given by 95%, 98% or more of the population. Choosing to use a different meaning without defining that meaning and explaining your reasons for it is misleading. When you persist with this farce, over multiple posts, it becomes deliberately misleading. If that does not cause your conscience to twist, it certainly should.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Absolutely. Indeed, his explanation may be quite different from mine and he is in the best position to know what he meant. I do remain disappointed my explanation did not gel with you, but I'll put that down to my inadequate writing skills.

I wouldn't necessarily put the blame on yourself.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Knock yourself out.

The ”debate” is long over. The ToE is established science and teached in accademia all over the world. Creationism is just a small quirk mostly in the US.

Yet no one seems to be able to sum it all up to something that even reasonably resembles proof, and you all seem to be scared to death to even try due to past failures.

You are entirely too easy.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you really believe the opposite though? Do you believe that others *are* responsible for your education?

Out of curiosity, what is your educational background? Have you ever taken any higher education (e.g. post high school)?

No, not in this area, you, and if so, was what you learned so complicated the average person cannot grasp it? I was going to say lets find the smartest person in this area and get them to try to prove it, but on second thought, atempting to prove it, wouldn't be the brightest thing to do, now would it.

As to your first question, I think as much of it as I did the comment, it's good for a laugh, if that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Have you studied the evidence for evolution? Do you even know what the evidence for evolution consists of (hints: genetic similarities and differences, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies, embryology, biogeography, the fossil record)? If you have studied this evidence, what do you think is the strongest evidence for evolution, and what are your alternative explanations for it? Give details of how these alternative explanations account for the evidence.

Now we come to the crucial question. Do you say that scientists can't prove evolution because you think that there is an equally plausible naturalistic non-evolutionary explanation for the facts of biology, or because there is no way of proving that the universe was not created by a god? If the first, then the alternative naturalistic explanation can be tested by experiments and either disproved or shown to be better than the present theory of evolution. If the second, then it is true that one cannot prove that the universe was not created by a god. However, it is for that very reason (the impossibility of disproof) that the creationist explanation is not a scientific theory but a matter of religious belief. Creationism pretends to explain everything and therefore explains nothing; any conceivable observation or experimental result can be explained away by the statement,'That is the way God did it', and that means that creationism is of no practical use.

I'm way past all that, you just aren't going to see that I've offered all too often the best bet in determining if evolution is a fact, but no one here seems to understand it enough themselves to even try. Or, they are not responsible for my education, lol, or evolution can't be proven (duh). and I don't have time for the rest of the list of excuses....what's yours?

Creationism makes much more sense than POOF! and eventually, heeeer's Johnny.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Administration did it.

Engineers did it.

Big pharmacies did it.

It never had consensus of opinion.

We learned something from it.

It's too early to tell.

You're not what you think you are; you're what we say you are.

It's a myth.

It's a fable.

Other beliefs are just as potent.

No evidence (unless you claim there's no evidence, then there's evidence contrary to your claim that what happened never happened in the first place because no evidence was left behind).

Someone's been doing this for some time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I once tried engaging you in an open and honest discussion about the scientific method (e.g. to start with the basics). I asked you what your understanding of the scientific method was as a starting point. You completely stone-walled and couldn't even meet me half way. At which point I realized you have zero interest in learning or engaging in honest discussion. You are simply here to stir the pot and apparently little else.

This thread is a perfect example; your response to the material in the OP was little more than a hand-waving dismissal with zero attempt to honestly address any of the content. And like many discussions with you, it ended up devolving into arguing over what words mean (again!).

I will give you some credit though, because at least this appears to be honest:



Why you can't continue to be honest like that, I do not know.

Hopefully when you sit in judgement your creator can give you some points for that, despite everything else you post on this forum.

I'm sorry I already spent time one of your pointless posts today, and reading something that probably attempts to convince me I was wrong on any thing in that post would just be more of as waste of time.

You did just as I said you did, and I know the rest of the post is accurate because I was here when it happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

The meaning for "old" used by VirOptimus is the most commonly used meaning,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but God didn't use the "most commonly used meaning," when He worked His miracles.

And please don't preach "commonly used meanings" to me, when "commonly used meanings" means God performed "magic" instead of "miracles," and a "child in the womb" is commonly referred to as a "fetus."

So your "commonly used meanings" can take a hike back where they came from.