Evolution happens

[Buzzard3]

And your understanding of evolution is completely wrong. A member of the Family Canidae will never stop being a member of the Canidae family no matter how it mutates.

Why not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not?

Because that's how biology works. How much of biology do you actually understand?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If there's one thing evolutionary scientists are "good" at, it's dreaming up theories. Evolutionary theories are a dime a dozen, and a great deal of them can't be tested, which means they don't even qualify as science. Theories that can't be tested are just worthless stories, which suits evolutionary science just fine, because it's a bs-artist's paradise.

Take Stephen Jay Gould, for example: His books were lapped up by the evo-masses, but his ideas didn't advance science one bit. His famous theory - Punctuated Equilbrium - surprise, surprise - can't be tested. Gould was your typical evolutionary "scientist" ... a purveyor of worthless pseudo-scientific stories.
Evolutionary science is the most overrated, useless branch of science in history ... but that doesn't matter, because it's raison d'être is not to advance science, but to advance atheism.

Except that evolution CAN be tested, HAS been tested and IS tested.

For someone who rails so much against the theory of evolution, you aren't doing anything to show that it's wrong. All you're doing is going "IT'S WRONG!" and that's it.

 

[Shemjaza]

If there's one thing evolutionary scientists are "good" at, it's dreaming up theories. Evolutionary theories are a dime a dozen, and a great deal of them can't be tested, which means they don't even qualify as science. Theories that can't be tested are just worthless stories, which suits evolutionary science just fine, because it's a bs-artist's paradise.

Take Stephen Jay Gould, for example: His books were lapped up by the evo-masses, but his ideas didn't advance science one bit. His famous theory - Punctuated Equilbrium - surprise, surprise - can't be tested. Gould was your typical evolutionary "scientist" ... a purveyor of worthless pseudo-scientific stories.
Evolutionary science is the most overrated, useless branch of science in history ... but that doesn't matter, because it's raison d'être is not to advance science, but to advance atheism.

It was wrong when you first said it and it's wrong now.

If you have evidence present it.

Repeating false bravado is worthless.

Useless?

Evolutionary science has led to fundamental and consistent explanations for the facts of biology and it is instrumental in the practicalities of how we deal with viruses and vaccines.

Why not?

I explained before. It's the past, the genetic history of a species... that can't change.

No matter how many millions of generations you go, the animal will still be descended from canines, carnivores, mammals.

 

[Mr Laurier]

What's this then?

It looks like a picture of a cover of a book.
Why?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Evolution through imperfections ... sounds like an oxymoron.

And it would be.

 

[Mr Laurier]

So, the human brain is the result of genetic imperfections.

No.
Try reading the words.

That's hilarious!

See above

And genetic imperfections are somehow responsible for producing eyes that somehow produced nerves that somehow connected to a brain, which is also the result of genetic imperfections. Wow, that's some theory!

No. How are you getting all these bizzare fantasies?

 

[Mr Laurier]

According to my understading of ToE ....

A population of dogs + mutations + selection + lots of time = an animal that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae

Ah. That is your problem.
You have a creationists view of evolution.
Try reading a few books by biologists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It looks like a picture of a cover of a book.
Why?

Because to AV, having a textbook about science is exactly the same as him having a Bible.

Hence why he calls it the King James McGraw Hill.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Truth matters.

Thankyou.

God's word is truth.

Huh?
So the word "Truth", belongs to this God character?
Nobody else can say "Truth" without what??? Paying God?

Baseless statements by scientists are not truth.

BINGO!
You got two things right
I'm impressed.
Now tell me that water is wet.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'd give you a list of pronouncements of "facts" that have proven wrong if I thought you'd take notice. I'd give you a list of the phony, peer-reviewed papers that were false or plagiarised. I'd tell you about the guy who fraudulently obtained grants worth millions or the other man who almost defrauded the Nobel Prize committee. Of course, none of this matters to someone blinded by his worship of science.

Post your list. I'm pretty sure I've already read about most of the points on it.
Post the names of your "guy", and "other man". if you are talking about real people, their names will be well known.
You need to find someone who worships science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Baseless statements by scientists are not truth. It's about time that evolutionary "scientists" started each new pronouncement with "We were wrong". One day the light will dawn and they will realise that they were wrong about evolution as a theory. Science is not God. It is as flawed, dishonest, corrupt, self-serving, money hungry and arrogant as any other human endeavor. Sure, there are honest scientists as well. But to elevate science to some kind of infallible, noble and ethically pure pursuit is to deny reality.

[SNIP]

I'm not anti science.

This does not comport with the above block quote.

 

[sjastro]

.............Particle research for example. Now some clown has decided that quantum physics determines that there is no reality. Try telling that to the people of Ukraine. Is there intelligent life on Mars? It's hard enough to find it on earth. How about solving the problems of this world before screwing up another planet.

You can thank the quantum physics clown(s) for ultimately giving you the technology to demonstrate your ignorance to the world.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1956

 

[ruthiesea]

Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:

1.Evolution is poor science, which is dressed up to look like good science and aggresively marketed as such.

2. It has everything to do with atheism. The aim of the game is to provide an explanation for life on earth without the need of a Creator.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." - William Provine

Evidently, you are one of the billions who has been deceived by this fable.

1. Prove scientifically that the Theory of Evolution is invalid. Please don’t say that there are no transitional fossils. Many have been discovered. Don’t say there are gaps. Whenever a transitional fossil is found more gaps are created.
2. Science studies the universe that Hashem created. Just as evolution studies changes once the first self replicating protein comes to be, whether or not He created it, is not studied by science. If you are correct that evolution creates atheists then why do so many people like me believe in G-d and accept evolution? It all depends on your understanding of Genesis.
“The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints.” ~ Robert L. Dorit

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Prove scientifically that the Theory of Evolution is invalid.

That's Jesus' job, in my opinion.

A task reserved for Him, when He comes back.

He may just take evolutionists back in time to 4004 BC ... to the Creation Week ... and let them observe for themselves what happened.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because that's how biology works. How much of biology do you actually understand?

You didn't answer my question, so how much biology do you actually understand?

 

[Buzzard3]

I explained before. It's the past, the genetic history of a species... that can't change.

Sounds like you can't answer my question and have resorted to guessing.

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

 

[SelfSim]

You didn't answer my question, so how much biology do you actually understand?

Enough to support the assertion of: 'Because that's how biology works' with objective evidence.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ah. That is your problem.
You have a creationists view of evolution.
Try reading a few books by biologists.

A "creationists (sic) view of evolution"?

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

 

[SelfSim]

If a human can evolve from a fish, why can't a non-dog evolve from a dog?

Have you seen any non-dogs pull of that stunt?