If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Aman777]

So what part of evolutio do you want "proved?" The fact of evolution itself? Or the mechanism of evolution as outlined by the theory?

Reminds me of a politician's definition. Since "evolution" is nothing more than descent with modification within kinds, in a population over time, that does NOT mean that scientists have the right to change the word's meaning into the False Assumption these same bumpkins dreamed up, because they rejected God's Truth in Genesis. They also forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's world. ll Peter 3:3-7

 

[Aman777]

Nope. But you've shown your true colors. Facts don't matter to you. Integrity doesn't matter to you. Enjoy whatever it is you're doing here.

My true colors are the same as God's Truth which AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind. IOW, you haven't understood a word I've posted OR you know down deep in your heart that you are in error, so you wish to run. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Of course it is.

Started with a theory, people jumped on the bandwagon, and umpteen years later, still an unproven theory, and that's at best. I personally don't even give it theory status.

Ask them to provide the "facts" they CLAIM supports their view. They cannot because it goes against their evol religion and it's nothing more than false assumptions of Godless people who forgot about the flood. ll Peter 3:6

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ask them to provide the "facts" they CLAIM supports their view. They cannot because it goes against their evol religion and it's nothing more than false assumptions of Godless people who forgot about the flood. ll Peter 3:6

I've asked for proof and to explain why it's proof but as usual, not much of anything but excuses.

The main part of evolution, the part they haven't a clue about and seems to even fall short on excuses is how it started. The argument there is, of course, "it doesn't matter"...another convenient argument in a long line of them.

A bit like the "Science proves nothing" one of the most ridiculous comments I've aver heard, when that's just exactly what science is/does, proven explanation, while theory, is just explanation. But watch as they come in and try to argue with that...should prove entertaining.

If they didn't know where it came form, they would claim a rubber ball evolved over time, and given enough time, have a whole theory on how that happened and eventually, yep, you guessed it, start teaching the theory as fact. They would not even consider someone made it...

Or, some would assume someone made it, and for that very reason, that's how things get here, pretty simple concept. And a rubber ball is simple, but something like what we are today? Na, no maker. The more complicated the thing, the more simple it was to make, right down to it just happening with no effort at all...just the opposite of logical thinking.

The ball? someone made it, life? "Oh no, no, no one made that, it's too complicated, it must have just happened".

In my view, if they can't explain all of it, they don't have a chance in proving it at all, as that would actually prove they got no business to even bother claiming any of evolution. But though the most logical likelihood for the start of it, God, remains a straw man argument to them, it's still the most logical/likely scenario by far, even if one has no faith in God at all.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's all you needed to say to make my point. Thank you.

Liked how you slipped right past the proof of the whopper you told. I think it's obvious to most you are making what you just said up....too.

 

[Speedwell]

I've asked for proof and to explain why it's proof but as usual, not much of anything but excuses.

The main part of evolution, the part they haven't a clue about and seems to even fall short on excuses is how it started. The argument there is, of course, "it doesn't matter"...another convenient argument in a long line of them.

Nobody says "it doesn't matter." The point is, that however life started, either by fiat creation or some naturalistic event, it was of necessity a different process than that which drives evolution. Biological evolution requires the existence of self-replicating life forms to proceed. If you want to know how those self-replicating life forms came to be, you need a different theory. You can't expect the theory of evolution to explain it, any more than you can expect the germ theory of disease to explain orbital mechanics.

...someone made it, life? "Oh no, no, no one made that, it's too complicated, it must have just happened".

No scientist would say that, or anything like that. At the present time, there is no scientific theory explaining how life came to be and no scientist pretends otherwise.

In my view, if they can't explain all of it, they don't have a chance in proving it at all, as that would actually prove they got no business to even bother claiming any of evolution.

Evolution is nothing but a theory of biology which is limited to explaining how life changed and diversified after it began. Period. Why do you think it is supposed to explain "all of it?" Whatever you mean by "all of it." What do you mean by "all of it?"

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, all that does is show just how ignorant you are. Although if you've somehow found out that evolution is just a theory with no evidence, as you so claim it is, why haven't you gone to the scientific presses? A Nobel prize awaits you.

Evidence is subjective. You act as if it's something rock solid just because you say it is....thankfully you have to prove it, and though there are plenty of people out there that will actually assume you have proof/done deal, unfortunately for the evolution world there will always be that slight inconvenience of having to prove it, as some of us actually want to see that proof.

If you have rock solid evidence, you can prove evolution, if you do not, you cannot.

And a Noble prize awaits anyone that can...meh

 

[xianghua]

The theory of evolution describes an observable process, and that observable process will always be "true" in the sense that it's just something that exists. To deny it would be to deny observable reality.

It's also worth noting that modern Young Earth Creationists not only require evolution to be true, but require it to happen extremely rapidly to get all modern species from pairs of ancestors from Noah's Ark. In fact they require it to be far more rapid in fact than is normally observed in nature.

In effect, Young Earth creationists are hyper-evolutionists.

so evolution is true even if the bible is true. fine.

 

[xianghua]

Don't lie.

Here's what you said:

speciation is just variation of the same family. so its not evolution if terms of new kind of creature.


This implies, literally, that to have an example of actual evolution, one would have to have an example of a speciation event where the new species belongs to a different family then the one it evolved from.

no. i just said that this doesnt prove evolution and thats it. this is completely true. but lets say for the sake of the argument that i did said it. can you prove me wrong? can you show any calculation why it will be impossible for evolution to evolve a human from an ape for instance in only several generation? (say max 100 generation).

 

[xianghua]

No. It's not a belief. I still don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. This isn't a crapshoot where one guy throws out an idea and we all go, "sure, that sounds good." Thousands of fossils and skeletons have been studied. Certain things are identified. For instance, if an animal is alive another animal gave birth to it. So each fossil is part of a line of animals that had parents and children. One of two things happened. Either the line is still alive today or it's extinct. We look at the fossil and try to find out where it fits. Before genetics we only had the ability to study the structure of the bones to figure out where it fit. If you take a whale and you count all the bones in its skeleton then you take a fossilized whale and you count the bones in its skeleton you can identify that it MIGHT be a match. Then you start to look at the parts of the skeleton. Does it have teeth or baleen? Size. How prominent are the vestigial legs. As you go back in time the vestigial legs get more and more prominent. You are able to identify ancestors to whales all the way up to the land animals that once were the great, great, great, great, great... great grandparents of todays whales. It's not a belief. It's a well-educated, supported by the data theory.

The evolution of whales

again: we can say the same for those cars:

they show a progression but it doesnt prove any evolution. even if they were able to reproduce like an animal. i see no difference from the whale case.

(image from Ferrari Evolution).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

again: we can say the same for those cars:

they show a progression but it doesnt prove any evolution. even if they were able to reproduce like an animal. i see no difference from the whale case.

(image from Ferrari Evolution).

No, we can't say the same for cars BECAUSE CARS CAN'T REPRODUCE! How are you not getting this?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evidence is subjective.

That's really all you needed to say for no-one on this thread or even website to take you seriously.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's really all you needed to say for no-one on this thread or even website to take you seriously.

Common knowledge regardless the subject. Do you just make this stuff up, and post it in public without even thinking about what you're saying because you feel the need to disagree and for that reason alone? Sure seems like it.

Evidence shows intelligent design to me, while it shows something other than that to you...just one of a million examples that happen all the time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you just make this stuff up, and post it in public without even thinking about what you're saying because you feel the need to disagree and for that reason alone? Sure seems like it.

Major projection coming from the man who has been shown, multiple times, multiple examples of evidence but refuses to look at them and then divulges in to ridiculous and flatly wrong diatribes about what he feels evidence is and should be.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Major projection coming from the man who has been shown, multiple times, multiple examples of evidence but refuses to look at them and then divulges in to ridiculous and flatly wrong diatribes about what he feels evidence is and should be.

And what exactly do I think evidence is?

Very funny how some spout they have the market cornered on what evidence is, and anyone who disagrees with their findings, those then have no idea what evidence is, and without giving any evidence what soever they don't know, just talk/because I say so. A preconceived, non viable "you are wrong" tactic they keep on hand for when the going gets tough. Same as the "You don't understand science or Science proves nothing", back up plane.

If it weren't getting so old it would at least still be entertaining to watch.

So, please answer the above question and lets see what you have to back up what you claim, or do YOU prove nothing, just as science does not, and we are to just take your word for that? We shall see.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And what exactly do I think evidence is?

I don't know because no matter what anyone presents to you, you just shake your head and go "that's not evidence" and just strut around like a puffed up pigeon.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't know because no matter what anyone presents to you, you just shake your head and go "that's not evidence" and just strut around like a puffed up pigeon.

You make the following comment and you don't know? IOW when it comes down to backing up that my evidence is no more than something "I think" evidence should be, you don't know what I said to deserve that? You should know, or just not make the accusation. What evidence of mine was the misconception of evidence that you claimed it was in the following quote? Surely you have SOME basis for your comment? Or are you making things up again?

and then divulges in to ridiculous and flatly wrong diatribes about what he feels evidence is and should be.

And you said they don't take ME seriously?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You make the following comment and you don't know? IOW when it comes down to backing up that my evidence is no more than something "I think" evidence should be, you don't know what I said to deserve that? You should know, or just not make the accusation. What evidence of mine was the misconception of evidence that you claimed it was in the following quote? Surely you have SOME basis for your comment? Or are you making things up again?

And you said they don't take ME seriously?

Did you just stop reading at the first three words or something? I clearly said why using your definition of 'evidence' is problematic because you don't have a clear definition of evidence and you seem to revel in it.
I'm glad that I put you on to my ignore list now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did you just stop reading at the first three words or something? I clearly said why using your definition of 'evidence' is problematic because you don't have a clear definition of evidence and you seem to revel in it.
I'm glad that I put you on to my ignore list now.

No, I read all of it, and it was clear. Please don't start the "you're confused" game in order to cover your short comings....again. What definition? Why are you still evading giving me an answer? What did I say to insinuate a wrong definition of evidence?

I'll not ask again, then be accused of goading, even when I have every good reason to asking/expecting an answer..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I read all of it, and it was clear. Please don't start the "you're confused" game in order to cover your short comings....again. What definition? Why are you still evading giving me an answer? What did I say to insinuate a wrong definition of evidence?

You don't have a clear definition, that's what I've been saying.
People will give you links. You ignore them, saying "That's not evidence."
People will copy and paste articles for you to read. You ignore them, saying "That's not evidence."
Then you strut around all of these threads going "Oh, no one can show me evidence!"
It's a puerile game.