Nothing changes in this forum.

[Kenny'sID]

Do they have a secret agenda too?

You mean does an Atheists have a secret agenda to disprove God?

Are you really asking me to answer that, that which is no secret at all.

It is really not anyone's duty to give you evidence on a silver platter.

I've heard that cop out before..."It's true but not my job to explain it"

Anyone who can't see through that one didn't evolve fully.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

You mean does an Atheists have a secret agenda to disprove God?

Are you really asking me to answer that, that which is no secret at all.



I've heard that cop out before..."It's true but not my job to explain it"

Anyone who can't see through that one didn't evolve fully.

They do! Then why did you not say 'yes' to the rest of my post and instead decide to ignore it. They are logical conclusions after all. Have your eyes not evolved fully or did you read my post by putting part of it in your blind spot (see, I can do it too)?
Well, it isn't my job. But it is a teacher's job. And if you've been on this forums a long time, you must have seen link to stuff like
An introduction to evolution
I've seen this at least 10 times from people who gave it on a silver platter. But you know, they didn't feed you, I guess.

 

[Kenny'sID]

They do! Then why did you not say 'yes' to the rest of my post and instead decide to ignore it.

Huh?

You seem confused, first you act as if there is no agenda, then you answer "they do" have one.

And what that had to do with my answering the rest of your post is beyond me. One thing at a time.

I tried a few links early on but they never convinced me so I refused to waste any more time with them and now ask that others put their proof here on the table.

Can you prove evolution?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Huh?

You seem confused, first you act as if there is no agenda, then you answer "they do" have one.

And what that had to do with my answering the rest of your post is beyond me. One thing at a time.

I tried a few links early on but they never convinced me so I refused to waste any more time with them and now ask that others put their proof here on the table.

Can you prove evolution?

Note to self: Don't use sarcasm on the internet

There are evolutionary biologists who belong to a religion. Do they have a secret agenda too? Is there a meeting to tell them to join the secret agenda when they pursue research in evolution?

This is the part I was talking about. Because your claim seems like a conspiracy theory.
Well, technically speaking, I can't prove it, only verify it. But if I were to explain it, it wouldn't be possible on text. You need a teacher. Which is why I suggest you do the free course on genetics and evolution by coursera. Or get another teacher.

 

[bhsmte]

Investigate.
DNA is impossible to form through evolution.

It is a fairytale for grown ups.

Prove it.

 

[Speedwell]

Prove it.

A moot point. Nothing ever changes on this forum. One way or anothere it always turns out to be about the Bible.

 

[Chisel]

1. If nothing explodes it doesn't create everything.
Explosions don't create, they destroy.
Nothing can't even explode.
Moreover if there were laws before there was anything, who gave the laws?

2. Life can not come from non life.

3. If fish were to mass suicide on water and birds would grow limbs without flight. That completely defies evolution.
Birds with half as limbs would put themselves in a disadvantage running from predators, so the species would die.

4. A complex structure like a rainforest can't come into existence throughout evolution. If you would remove a few herbivores/carnivores the structure would collapse. Certain species/plants would run rampant. Destroying it. Hence everything must've come into existence at the same time.

From https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-losing-its-large-predators-and-thats-a-1498088101


No doubt, these predators, often considered a headache, provide essential services to both ecologies and the environment. The loss of certain large carnivores, including African lions, leopards, Eurasian lynx, cougars, gray wolves, sea otters and dingoes, is resulting in widespread "trophic cascades."

Owing to a decline in cougars and wolves, for example, researchers have seen a dramatic increase in herbivores like deer and elk, causing disruptions to vegetation, birds, and small mammals, along with changes to other parts of the ecosystem. In environments experiencing vegetation loss, for example, researchers have observed increased soil erosion.



See? Simple. Evolution is a fairytale.

 

[Job 33:6]

Science can't abandon the ToE; it's "their baby". Besides they paid good money to study it. To not believe it would make a mockery of their education.

Oh please, i paid good money for an education, and get paid a ton more as a scientist doing work that isn't dependent upon it. But i still support it because common sense has settled the debate.

 

[Southernscotty]

After being in such an environment for months one evening while laying on my bed reading Nikki Cruises "Run Baby Run"

I took this book down to the county jail and the boys absolutely loved it, As did I. Awesome testimony and Nikki has reached many with his ministry.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe you are saying that scientists don't want to accept that ToE is incorrect because they worked hard on it?
Well, have you heard of:
Lamarckism
Mutation Theory
Valence Bond Theory
VSEPR Theory
Bohr's Model of the atom
Steady State Theory
All of these were worked upon, and then discarded because they were not able to explain all observable evidence. The first two are related to evolution as well. Discarded.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you think doctors hold information or are they not given this information in the first place? That scientists are secretly given a talk on never revealing their secrets because it generates profits for doctors, but not for them (seriously, if someone leaked some hidden knowledge, they would become rich). Or do scientists and doctors have a hidden quid pro quo?

Exactly. Just like
Plate Tectonics
Radiations (we emit them)
Electromagnetic Waves (except the visible spectrum)
Air
The Rock Cycle
Radioactivity in some elements
A reaction without a catalyst
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time. Microevolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Connecting links to exist in the present. Fossils exist which show, step by step, how life evolved. It is really not anyone's duty to give you evidence on a silver platter. There are evolutionary biologists who belong to a religion. Do they have a secret agenda too? Is there a meeting to tell them to join the secret agenda when they pursue research in evolution?

Plate tectonics actually is a pretty good analogous concept. Many creationists still reject plate tectonics to this day, in the sense that continents have been slowly drifting for millions of years. And in the past, many rejected it because it was occurring so slowly, that laymen weren't aware that it was occurring.

It is truly the same thing with evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. If nothing explodes it doesn't create everything.
Explosions don't create, they destroy.
Nothing can't even explode.
Moreover if there were laws before there was anything, who gave the laws?

The Big Bang is not evolution so you are already off the rails. Second it was not an explosion. If you want to argue against something you really should try to understand it. Arguing against something that you do not understand will only result in embarrassment at best. By the way, why assume that there was a "someone" to write the laws in the first place?

2. Life can not come from non life.

Really? This has never been proven at all. Please don't bring up the work of Pasteur, that will only demonstrate that you do not understand what his experiments proved.

3. If fish were to mass suicide on water and birds would grow limbs without flight. That completely defies evolution.
Birds with half as limbs would put themselves in a disadvantage running from predators, so the species would die.

And you can't refute a species with a strawman. Examples of dinosaurs with "half a wing" have been found. There are other uses to feathered limbs than flight only. Oviraptor is such an example. Its feathered arms assist in brooding. A larger number of offspring hatching at once is a positive trait that aids in survival. There are other examples as well. But if you can't accept one clear one then the problem is not with the theory.

4. A complex structure like a rainforest can't come into existence throughout evolution. If you would remove a few herbivores/carnivores the structure would collapse. Certain species/plants would run rampant. Destroying it. Hence everything must've come into existence at the same time.

From https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-losing-its-large-predators-and-thats-a-1498088101

Another unsupported claim. Sorry but all variations of irreducible complexity have been refuted. This one is simple. Losing a species now could be disastrous. But that is because of an interlocking dependency that has evolved over time. When the forest first grew the dependencies of today did not exist. The evolved along with the forests.

No doubt, these predators, often considered a headache, provide essential services to both ecologies and the environment. The loss of certain large carnivores, including African lions, leopards, Eurasian lynx, cougars, gray wolves, sea otters and dingoes, is resulting in widespread "trophic cascades."

Owing to a decline in cougars and wolves, for example, researchers have seen a dramatic increase in herbivores like deer and elk, causing disruptions to vegetation, birds, and small mammals, along with changes to other parts of the ecosystem. In environments experiencing vegetation loss, for example, researchers have observed increased soil erosion.



See? Simple. Evolution is a fairytale.

No, your strawman version is a fairy tale. Do you really think that you can refute a theory based upon your mischaracterizations of it? Could a Muslim refute Christianity by misrepresenting what and who Jesus was? In the same sense you can't refute science by misstating how life works.

 

[Goonie]

I've been participating in here for a long time now. And nothing changes. Religionists continue to assert that Science/Evolution/whathaveyou is false. Why? Because. They insist that the Bible is literally true, mostly true, true if you read it correctly, true if you interpret it correctly, true but I'm not reading it correctly... you get the idea. They insist that science is a religion. They make assertions six ways from Sunday that Science says, "this" and then go on to disprove "this" when "this" isn't something that was ever stated in any scientific endeavor... ever. They show proof that Adam and Eve, Noah, ... all the gang from the Bible were real and did things that are evidenced in some place, some thing, some way... all of which show that the Theory of Evolution is false. Oh, and of course the "theory" is just a "theory"... that's one of my favorites.

For what it's worth, science is a method, not a capital letter thing. It's just a way that we can use to examine our universe. If what we find conflicts with what you believe then you might want to re-examine what you believe. The evidence that we have found tells us that we have evolved over time. We did not just "poof" into existence. There is NO evidence of special creation. As much as creationists with their websites and museums work to try and mislead you. There isn't any evidence that any creatures came into existence in any way other than evolution. We see fossils of creatures that don't exist anymore. Where did they go? We see creatures today that weren't here in the past. Where did they come from? We don't see creatures just popping into existence. It simply does not happen. So if every creature that exists had parents. And the parents had parents... then those parents/////parents must at some point have been different if there are no fossils of these creatures in the past.

Understand. No parents ever had a child they did not recognize. Do you get that? No dog ever gave birth to a cat. That's one thing that creationists constantly barrage people with. It's incorrect, impossible and false. Change is gradual. Slow. It happens over time and between generations. You die with the genes you were born with. Again, something that creationists don't seem to understand. No creature mutates spontaneously in midlife. All of this, all of it is dependent on life already existing. When you start to talk about how life came into being that's not part of the Theory of Evolution. Arguing that the Theory is false because life couldn't come from non-life... who cares? That's irrelevant. It's an entirely different theory. Then there are the folks who like to argue about where the planets came from. That's not even biology. Irrelevant! Evolution is about how one species can become another species. That's all.

I'm sure in another ten years things in here will be exactly the same. People will still be making unfounded claims, still be creating strawmen and still be ignorant of facts on so many levels. It's a shame. Even the Pope accepts evolution. He says that if God chose to create the world this way then who is he to question it? You all could learn something from this Pope.

Hey! Evolution can be really slow! What do you expect a crocoduck!

 

[pitabread]

*snip list of PRATTs*

See? Simple. Evolution is a fairytale.

Yeah, you already seem a bit in over your head.

In fact, everything you wrote can be addressed first by understanding what the Theory of Evolution is (and also what it isn't), as well as just getting a better conceptual understanding how evolution works.

I'd recommend starting here: Welcome to Evolution 101!

And here: An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, technically speaking, I can't prove it, only verify it. But if I were to explain it, it wouldn't be possible on text.

Eeeeyup, ain't that the truth.

 

[USincognito]

Investigate.
DNA is impossible to form through evolution.

Do you not know that you there is no evolution without DNA and reproduction?

It is a fairytale for grown ups.

Insipid platitudes do not address the evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Insipid platitudes do not address the evidence.

If I'm not mistaken, calling it a fairy tale *is* addressing it.

 

[tyke]

LOL

 

[Snappy1]

1. If nothing explodes it doesn't create everything.
Explosions don't create, they destroy.
Nothing can't even explode.
Moreover if there were laws before there was anything, who gave the laws?

2. Life can not come from non life.

3. If fish were to mass suicide on water and birds would grow limbs without flight. That completely defies evolution.
Birds with half as limbs would put themselves in a disadvantage running from predators, so the species would die.

4. A complex structure like a rainforest can't come into existence throughout evolution. If you would remove a few herbivores/carnivores the structure would collapse. Certain species/plants would run rampant. Destroying it. Hence everything must've come into existence at the same time.

From https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-world-is-losing-its-large-predators-and-thats-a-1498088101


No doubt, these predators, often considered a headache, provide essential services to both ecologies and the environment. The loss of certain large carnivores, including African lions, leopards, Eurasian lynx, cougars, gray wolves, sea otters and dingoes, is resulting in widespread "trophic cascades."

Owing to a decline in cougars and wolves, for example, researchers have seen a dramatic increase in herbivores like deer and elk, causing disruptions to vegetation, birds, and small mammals, along with changes to other parts of the ecosystem. In environments experiencing vegetation loss, for example, researchers have observed increased soil erosion.



See? Simple. Evolution is a fairytale.

Ahahahahaha

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm sure in another ten years things in here will be exactly the same. People will still be making unfounded claims, still be creating strawmen and still be ignorant of facts on so many levels.

Even worse.... not only will they still be making unfounded claims, they will be making the same unfounded claims that they are making right now, which have been corrected and explained time and time again.

I can't even count the amount of times that a particular strawman has been addressed on one page, only to see the same strawman pop up again by the same poster a couple pages further in the thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science can't abandon the ToE; it's "their baby". Besides they paid good money to study it. To not believe it would make a mockery of their education.

That's another one of those ridiculous assertions that keeps coming up: the claim of a massive conspiracy among thousands, if not millions, of scientists around the world.