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

[Aman777]

It proves that you don't understand how science is done.

Right. Science gets to change the meanings of words to suit it's believers. A good example is the FACT that Godless scientists changed "descent with modification within kinds" into the filthy word "evolution". So kiddos, join in the name changing business and do it in the anything goes world of changeable Science. Amen?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm guessing, until you finally figure out that in science, theories are never considered proven.
As people on this site have been explaining to you since 2016 now.

I agree, what gave you the idea I thought they were? That's a deceitful little creation. Don't you know a lot of these threads entail me saying it is only theory? You really need to keep up, that is unless that's just more meaningless something to toss around in order to direct the attention away from the fact you cannot prove evolution is fact. Or to be clear to you..any more than theory. Arrogant? No, just fact.

And since we both agree that is the case, don't you think your time would be better spent on not theorizing, but on more proving, or did I indicate that already?

It proves that you don't understand how science is done.

Classic. The last time I heard that one I was swinging through the trees, in my BVD's...without a trapeze. Unevolved.

That means it's getting old, give it up already.

 

[Speedwell]

Right. Science gets to change the meanings of words to suit it's believers. A good example is the FACT that Godless scientists changed "descent with modification within kinds" into the filthy word "evolution". So kiddos, join in the name changing business and do it in the anything goes world of changeable Science. Amen?

When was that change made and who made it? I am not aware that the theory of evolution ever claimed "descent with modification within kinds." "Kinds" as creationists use it is not a scientific term and has no fixed definition so it would not ever have been part of a scientific theory.

 

[Speedwell]

And since we both agree that is the case, don't you think your time would be better spent on not theorizing, but on more proving, or did I indicate that already?
.

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

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

This really is making you look bad

 

[Speedwell]

This really is making you look bad

Why? It's just a question. Can't you answer it?

 

[pitabread]

Why? It's just a question. Can't you answer it?

Sounds like projection on his part.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why? It's just a question. Can't you answer it?

Already did.

 

[Speedwell]

Already did.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you give me a post number? Even so, it's only an either/or question. You could answer it again in a few words. Do you desire proof of the fact of evolution, or of the mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you give me a post number? Even so, it's only an either/or question. You could answer it again in a few words. Do you desire proof of the fact of evolution, or of the mechanism proposed by the theory of evolution?

Good luck.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I kept expecting you to catch on but guess I'm going to have to explain directly, and exactly, something I should have picked up on right off the bat.

You are adding a protective coating, not part of my experiment.

If you are still in disbelief, stick your hand in fire without the sanitizer/any protection, then while you are waiting, dwell on how how you also missed the whole point that this was about science does prove things, and how you made my point just the same, and proved with protection you will not burn your hand, even though you got the experiment wrong, and were very very slow to catch on to what you were not seeing and never actually did, not on your own, even after several weeks or even months. But that's another area of science altogether.

I'll accept that explanation when you can show where the protection was put on his hands. If you cannot then I'll know that you're wrong but won't admit it. I suspect you haven't even watched the video, so I'm looking forward to you pointing out at what stage the hand sanitizer is used as protection from itself!

FYI I've performed the experiment. No protection is need.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'll accept that explanation when you can show where the protection was put on his hands. If you cannot then I'll know that you're wrong but won't admit it. I suspect you haven't even watched the video, so I'm looking forward to you pointing out at what stage the hand sanitizer is used as protection from itself!

FYI I've performed the experiment. No protection is need.

LOL!

Hilarious. You know what, I'm now thinking you are the last person that should be playing with fire.

You seriously cannot put together the fact you are putting soap and alcohol or whatever on your hand when you reach into the solution to pick up the fire???. What do you think is burning? nothing? Here, watch the following videos. That's all I need to say right there but here is some more breaking news for you, I can actually stick my hand in a fire for a short time and not burn it. I also noticed the slow mo on your video, and how quickly some are putting it out. then the one guy in the other video completing it's too hot, so you aren't doing much more than one might to of they put their hand in a for for a short time, yet in your mind...well I won't even get into that, lol

I think I expected most to know what I was talking about when I said put ones hand in the fire, but what I don't understand is why you would take this down to the very end, then tell a whopper in that you have put no protectant on your hand, when that is exactly what it burning, and anyone else can see that clearly.

If I wanted to waste time, Id ask someone to prove evolution. so, hope your happy because that's all you get from me.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Phred]

you are welcome to believe it but its only a belief.

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

 

[Phred]

Is that proof of evolution?

Yes.

Speciation is the key to the entire thing. I need you to get that. Once a population of critters can't breed with another population of critters there is no way for information to pass between those populations. So even if they are both lizards or bacteria or monkeys right now they can only become more different in the future. They can NEVER pass the changes that have happened to one group back to the other. Never. That's why evolution works. So, to use the most commonly discussed creature, there was ONE population of creatures running around and at some point speciation occurred. One group became Chimpanzees and the other group became Human Beings.

 

[Phred]

Right. Science gets to change the meanings of words to suit it's believers. A good example is the FACT that Godless scientists changed "descent with modification within kinds" into the filthy word "evolution". So kiddos, join in the name changing business and do it in the anything goes world of changeable Science. Amen?

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.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes.

No, not proof, not even close. Can't believe I feel for that and even gave you the benefit of the doubt you were telling the truth.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I can actually stick my hand in a fire for a short time and not burn it.

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

 

[Aman777]

When was that change made and who made it? I am not aware that the theory of evolution ever claimed "descent with modification within kinds." "Kinds" as creationists use it is not a scientific term and has no fixed definition so it would not ever have been part of a scientific theory.

Correction: You and the all knowing "scientists" don't know what it means since godless people changed the meaning of the words. Since there are only two "kinds", it shouldn't be hard to figure out. Hint: Their kinds and His kinds are the kinds which descend with modifications within the kinds. Since His kinds are the only kinds on planet Earth, can you take a guess?

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.