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

[Kenny'sID]

Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy. Creationist job is easy, while "scientists" have their work cut out for them, as the most unlikely of the two scenarios will take the most convincing.

Just keep in mind what we have always heard, one lie begets another, and so forth, so that in itself is plenty to keep the evolutionary scientist busy.

 

[pitabread]

actually this is incorrect. if evolution just means variation over time then even if human will stay as human for a billion years you will call it evolution. but he still will be a human.

I really suggest familiarizing yourself with what evolution theory encompasses and what biological evolution actually *is*.

There is some good material at the following link which helps explain the ways in which evolution is used and defined with respect to biology: What is Evolution?

Suffice to say it is a broad, complex topic that covers all changes with respects to biological organisms, including changes within gene pools (i.e. species populations).

Here are a couple definitions for you from that site (see above link for specific references):

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."​

"... evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

"The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
​

Like I said previously, if you don't know what evolution even is, then you're going to have a very difficult time discussing it.

 

[Go Braves]

Not sure if serious...

But this type of denialism does seem rampant amongst creationists on this forum. Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Well there's folks on this forum who also think the earth is flat, so I wouldn't give too much time to wondering what the rampant creationists around here think about evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Also. they try to prove God is a conspiracy, while creationists try to prove evolution or animals form nowhere, evolved from nothing to what we have to date is also conspiracy.

The former statement is false. It is not a scientist's job to "prove God is a conspiracy" (whatever that is even supposed to mean). Certainly you'll find individual scientists with varying views and opinions about the nature of the supernatural, however as has been repeatedly pointed out plenty of scientists are theists.

Second, if you do believe all of the collective scientists are involved in some sort of deliberate conspiracy, well, I may have a bridge or two for sale if you're interested. Because you seem willing to buy.

 

[pitabread]

Well there's folks on this forum who also think the earth is flat, so I wouldn't give too much time to wondering what the rampant creationists around here think about evolution.

True. And I do put creationist believes almost on par with flat-Earthism, given some of the blatant reality denial I've seen creationists engage in (including outright denial of observable evolutionary processes).

It doesn't seem much of a leap to believing the Earth is flat.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Secular scientist are trained with a bias against God to begin with. From an early age in their training they are given "rose colored" glasses, or glasses that are shaded against and distorted from true reality.

No, not really. I was taught biology in a Benedictine abbey school, and - credit to them - there was no mention of God in the class. I then took an honours degree in Human Biology, and I don't recall any relevant mention of God in lectures or textbooks in four years.

To paraphrase Laplace, 'We had no need of that hypothesis'.

 

[pitabread]

3 things:

1) first: you showed no evidence for a third possibility.
2) they also bring up evidence for design.
3) even if 1+2 were wrong those papers are scientific papers against evolution.

1) We've been over this. You appear to not understand that even within evolutionary biology there are multiple possibilities. What do you not understand about that?

2) Where? Cite a specific paper and cite within the paper where they actually demonstrate positive evidence for design in biological organisms. Like I said, I've been over a number of those papers and have never seen it.

3) Not really. At best, some of them may criticize it but its questionable how valid those criticisms are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is a difference between a little white lie and a vast global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists. Do you believe scientists are involved in the latter?

I'm not sure what you mean by little white lie.

Can you give me a quick rundown of how these tens of thousands of scientists have proven evolution to be matter of fact as you seem to be presenting it?

'Involved", yes, knowingly? not necessarily or even likely for most. Evolution has been drilled into their minds for a long time, and if they don't happen to believe in God then naturally many are going to choose evolution, and I don't consider that a conspiracy.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not sure what you mean by little white lie.

Can you give me a quick rundown of how these tens of thousands of scientists have proven evolution to be matter of fact as you seem to be presenting it?

'Involved", yes, knowingly? not necessarily or even likely for most. Evolution has been drilled into their minds for a long time, and if they don't happen to believe in God then naturally many are going to choose evolution, and I don't consider that a conspiracy.

What's interesting is that so many who believe in God also choose evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What's interesting is that so many who believe in God also choose evolution.

Interesting to say the least. Especially when the Bible says we were created from the dust of the earth, right there on the spot, with no mention whatsoever of an evolving period. I mean that's what my bible says anyway so that's what I choose to believe.

Pretty simple concept really.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not sure what you mean by little white lie.

The types of lies people tell on a daily basis, usually to avoid conflict or avoid hurting someone else's feelings.

Can you give me a quick rundown of how these tens of thousands of scientists have proven evolution to be matter of fact as you seem to be presenting it?

There is already plenty of other material out there if you want to find out why scientists have concluded biological evolution is real and organisms are related via common descent. It's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I suggest starting here: Welcome to Evolution 101!

And here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

'Involved", yes, knowingly? not necessarily or even likely for most. Evolution has been drilled into their minds for a long time, and if they don't happen to believe in God then naturally many are going to choose evolution, and I don't consider that a conspiracy.

Again this has nothing to do with whether one believes in God or not, as there are plenty of scientists that are theists and also accept and work with biological evolution. You're trying to set up a false dichotomy.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well there's folks on this forum who also think the earth is flat, so I wouldn't give too much time to wondering what the rampant creationists around here think about evolution.

ramp·ant
ˈrampənt/
adjective
adjective: rampant
1.
(especially of something unwelcome or unpleasant) flourishing or spreading unchecked.
"political violence was rampant"
synonyms: uncontrolled, unrestrained, unchecked, unbridled, widespread; More

The same type stretches used yo promote evolution, and do away with any who disagree.

When evolutionists have to stoop to those levels in order to make their case, I figure they don't have much of a case. Now watch this, I'll prove that out right no when I ask GB to show us the proof of evolution...please?

See. pretending the opposition (creationist in this case) is someone that cannot be trusted, while in reality, showing the complete opposite, has nothing to do with whether evolution is fact or not. Doing so only creates illusion, the same thing that makes evolution work. So let's get down to brass tacks if you don't mind.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There is already plenty of other material out there if you want to find out why scientists have concluded biological evolution is real and organisms are related via common descent. It's beyond the scope of this discussion.

No proof? OK, thank you just the same..

 

[pitabread]

No proof? OK, thank you just the same..

Sorry to break it to you, but these types of rhetorical tactics don't work. Especially when I literally just gave you a couple links chock full of references which you selectively cut out of your little quote mine.

When you and other creationists start asking for evidence or "proof" of evolution, you're not being honest in your request. Otherwise you'd already been familiar with the material, since it's readily available.

It's just a cheap debate tactic and all you are really doing is reinforcing your own reality denial. And there isn't anything I or anyone else can do about that. It's entirely on you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again this has nothing to do with whether one believes in God or not,

You are no more correct there than you are that the theory of evolution is fact. 'Many" go for evolution because they don't believe there is a God. It's their only other alternative...another mind blowingly simple concept.

 

[pitabread]

You are no more correct there than you are that the theory of evolution is fact. 'Many" go for evolution because they don't believe there is a God. It's their only other alternative...another mind blowingly simple concept.

Again, plenty of people have no trouble accepting both and reconciling that. It's not an either/or scenario.

Furthermore, I've never met a single person that "accepts" evolution simply out of rejection of a belief in a deity. Those are separate considerations.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry to break it to you, but these types of rhetorical tactics don't work.

You mean asking for proof doesn't work?...you bet your sweet bippy, it doen't, at least it's never produced proof in the past, but alas, still I give benefit of the doubt.

Especially when I literally just gave you a couple links chock full of references which you selectively cut out of your little quote mine.

I don't do links. In the past I used to, then I realized I was expected to see what the opposition sees, so I insisted on a quick rundown here, and explanation how whatever you have proves evolution.

When you and other creationists start asking for evidence or "proof" of evolution, you're not being honest in your request.

LOL

Otherwise you'd already been familiar with the material, since it's readily available.

What materiel proves evolution an how does it prove it? Excuses not to tell me that aren't going to make it happen..you have to actually present your case, exactly what science would expect.

It's just a cheap debate tactic and all you are really doing is reinforcing your own reality denial. And there isn't anything I or anyone else can do about that. It's entirely on you.

Cheap "dodge the question" tactics cover most of your replies to the question thus far, but thanks just the same.

 

[pitabread]

I don't do links.

Exactly. So we're done here. You've chosen to bury your head in the sand, and there is nothing I or anyone else can do to change your mind.

What materiel proves evolution an how does it prove it? Excuses not to tell me that aren't going to make it happen..you have to actually present your case, exactly what science would expect.

I honestly don't care if you accept it or not. And you've already decided you won't so what does it matter what I present or don't present.

Cheap "dodge the question" tactics cover most of your replies to the question thus far, but thanks just the same.

I gave you sources to look at. You refuse to look. That's on you.

It does however reinforce that your "ask" is not honest.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again, plenty of people have no trouble accepting both and reconciling that. It's not an either/or scenario.

Furthermore, I've never met a single person that "accepts" evolution simply out of rejection of a belief in a deity.

Why the stall? If you cannot prove it, just say so. I mean you're the one complaining about the lack of honesty, so be honest.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Exactly. So we're done here.

Always the way. Good day.