Science vs. Evolution

[AV1611VET]

Speaking for myself, i am not unwilling to admit i am wrong.

Of course not -- you would be forced to admit you're wrong when the new scientific paradigms come out.

By way of example, anyone who claimed Pluto was a planet and they "aren't wrong", would now be eating crow.

It's not a question of "are you wrong" -- for, in due time, you will be shown to be wrong.

 

[Hespera]

I'm going over the website link you provided. It will take time to read all the pages on there though. And the thread went off topic after Hespera accused all creationists to be liars, my responce to this was evolutionists don't have morals.

Also, am i willing to convert to an evolutionist even if evolution is somehow 'proven' by the science? The answer is no, just exactly how if the science proves a young earth an evolutionist would not accept it. No one who posts here is neutral or unfamiliar with the topic they will convert to either one side after reading what is posted here.

Too bad you think i said "all creationists are liars". i didnt say that.
Its not true, and I dont think it.

Let me try again. it is a much more complex statement than just calling someone a liar.

Its like this. Nobody has ever presented an argument against evolution that actually makes any sense. Sometimes it is an irrelevant non-argument.

When the argument is on topic, it is invariably based on some sort of misstatement, misrepresentation of what evolution theory is about, or it is based on facts / data that dont exist.

Examples of irrelevant : "Evolutionists cant explain what love is.

Misrepresentation" Evolutionists say that life began with a single cell
or evolutionists say man is descended form monkeys

False data: the "paluxy man tracks" or other dino / human remains together

Id say most, maybe all of the creationists who post here simple get this kind of info from creationist sites, and then repeat it.

I have also said that no creationist in my experience has ever had more than a shallow, distorted, and very incomplete idea of how evolution works.
So their objections are based or serious ignorance / misinformation.

That is not lying. That is being led astray, and we try to show such people where they were led astray.



Now, there are the professional creationists, who generate the web sites, and other sources of creationist ideas.

The list of their dishonesty would go on and on. I am sure someone could link to a site that would detail some. People like "dr dinosaur" or, the "hydroplate theory" guy are profoundly dishonest people.

I dont know if they are sociopaths, ethically weak, or simply insane; so I dotn know if they actually believe the stuff they say. So I cant say if they are technically liars, or not.

If you are looking for good info, tho, that is the last place to look.

Are we clear now, that i didnt say "all creationists are liars?" I dont think you are, for example. I do think you should keep in mind that 2 wrongs dont make a right, and lash back at an imagined insult by saying others have no morals!


As for the rest of your post, one does not "convert" to atheism or "evolutionism".

Theories in science cannot be proven, tho I find it extraordinary you'd say you wont accept something even if it is proven!

And dont try to put that off on others in another 2 wrongs makes right sort of way.

IF it were proven that the earth is only, say, 6000 years old, I would be amazed, i would question the data, but.... i would accept it if its real.
Why not?

See, I dont think I will burn in hell if i dont insist on 'keeping the faith".

I actually like to learn things, and new discoveries excite me.

You came in here with a lot of mistaken ideas, including about the mind set of people you dont know, and worst, the determination... i guess.... not to learn anything.

is that what this means..."No one who posts here is neutral or unfamiliar with the topic they will convert to either one side after reading what is posted here."

I hope not. Listen to what we say, think about it, and you will be in a good position to learn some interesting things. Hope you stick around and try!

 

[AV1611VET]

i have never seen an argument raised against evolution that actually makes any sense.

Because there are no sensible arguments, or because you haven't looked?

If there are no sensible arguments, is it because evolution has not been subjected to peer review for falsification?

If it's because you haven't looked ... well ... that's your prerogative.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because there are no sensible arguments, or because you haven't looked?

The first -- and to be fair, no successful arguments.

If there are no sensible arguments, is it because evolution has not been subjected to peer review for falsification?

More like every argument that's been brought up has been answered and refuted -- leaving the anti-evolution crowd little choice but to spout irrelevant gibberish.

 

[AV1611VET]

More like every argument that's been brought up has been answered and refuted --

These scientific arguments that went through peer review -- were they 'senseless' in the first place, or are they now 'senseless' because they have been refuted?

And is there 100% agreement with the refutations?

 

[USincognito]

More like every argument that's been brought up has been answered and refuted -- leaving the anti-evolution crowd little choice but to spout irrelevant gibberish.

As opposed to the 200,000+ counting posts he's wasted server space with here for his own "entertainment"?

When will people finally wake up and realize that responding to him doesn't even benifit the lurkers and just ignore everything he posts here?

 

[tanzanos]

Because there are no sensible arguments, or because you haven't looked?

If there are no sensible arguments, is it because evolution has not been subjected to peer review for falsification?

If it's because you haven't looked ... well ... that's your prerogative.

You need to read more MARVEL comics Just kidding!

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to read more MARVEL comics Just kidding!

Whoa!

I'm a D.C. man!

In brightest day, in blackest night,
No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might,
Beware my power -- Green Lantern's light!
​

Something like that --

 

[Hespera]

As opposed to the 200,000+ counting posts he's wasted server space with here for his own "entertainment"?

When will people finally wake up and realize that responding to him doesn't even benifit the lurkers and just ignore everything he posts here?

some of us quit responding a long time ago

 

[AV1611VET]

As opposed to the 200,000+ counting posts he's wasted server space with here for his own "entertainment"?

I paid money for that too, mr. none-of-your-business.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm going over the website link you provided. It will take time to read all the pages on there though. And the thread went off topic after Hespera accused all creationists to be liars, my responce to this was evolutionists don't have morals.

I appreciate the fact you are reading over the website I suggested. Let me know if you have any questions.

So, because you feel Hespera insulted you, you decided to insult "evolutionists" in retaliation? Do you truly believe that "evolutionists" do not have morals?

Also, am i willing to convert to an evolutionist even if evolution is somehow 'proven' by the science? The answer is no, just exactly how if the science proves a young earth an evolutionist would not accept it. No one who posts here is neutral or unfamiliar with the topic they will convert to either one side after reading what is posted here.

Science does not do "proof." Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, as they say. Would "evolutionists" drop evolution or Deep Time is it was disproven? Yes. This has been demonstrated by numerous polls over the years here. What you are unwilling to accept is that we follow the physical evidence, while you follow faith. For some reason it has become fashionable for creationists to claim everyone else follows faith, even if they "don't know it." Even further, they like to claim that atheists and "evolutionists" have more faith than they do. A sad commentary on the weakness of their own faith no doubt, but also a cynical debating tool.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course not -- you would be forced to admit you're wrong when the new scientific paradigms come out.

By way of example, anyone who claimed Pluto was a planet and they "aren't wrong", would now be eating crow.

It's not a question of "are you wrong" -- for, in due time, you will be shown to be wrong.

So, if we cling tenaciously to outmoted and inaccurate ideas, that would make us right... like you are?

 

[USincognito]

some of us quit responding a long time ago

Which I thank you for. Unfortunately, not enough of us who have seen his tired schitck or are aware of his pathological lack of a life outside CF or other venues for his antics have though.

 

[Cassiterides]

I appreciate the fact you are reading over the website I suggested. Let me know if you have any questions.

I've had a good look throughout the entire site. The only claimed evidence for observable evolution it offers is as follows:

Observations of Evolution:

Observations of evolution

On this page it claims 4 areas of evidence.

1. Angling for evolutionary answers: The work of David O. Conover

- In this entire article no evidence for evolution is presented. Conover's experiments just prove fish come in different sizes.

2. Battling bacterial evolution: The work of Carl Bergstrom

- Nowhere does this article claim evolution was observed. This entire article was based on a ''computer model/hypothesis''. In otherwords a waste of my time.

3. Musseling in on evolution

- This article debunks it's own claims:

''To show that the mussel has evolved, Freeman and Byers needed evidence that the mussel's response had changed over time — but unfortunately, no one was measuring the blue mussel's predator response 15 years ago, before the arrival of the Asian shore crab. Freeman and Byers, however, were able to take advantage of a quirk in the ranges of these two animals...''

What follows in the article after the ''...'' is a typical inserted evolutionist assumption. So this entire article is not evidence.


4. Evo in the news: Warming to evolution

- This article claims to have observed species evolving. Let's see their claims:

A. ''Canadian squirrels are evolving to take advantage of an earlier spring and are breeding sooner''

Animals breeding slightly out of pattern is not evidence for anything.

B. ''European great [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (a type of bird) are also evolving different breeding times''

See 1 above.

C. ''Another European bird, the blackcap, has been evolving due to changes in its migration patterns. Some blackcaps have begun to overwinter in the now slightly warmer Britain instead of in Spain, Portugal, and North Africa, as they historically did. The British sub-population has evolved genetic differences from the other birds and is more successful at reproducing since its members arrive at the nesting grounds earlier and have first choice of territories and mates.''

No evidence is provided for the claim i bolded. And the claim that a different migration pattern for birds is evidence for evolution really shows how desperate evolutionists are.

I could go through the rest of the site exposing this nonsense like the above example. But i'm not wasting any more of my time.

On the entire site, the only offered evidence for observed evolution involves silly documentation of breeding times and migration patterns of birds, a ''computer model'' page (which itself claims not to be factual but a hypothesis) and an experiment which shows fish come in different sizes.

It's quite sad i expected something better and this is exactly why i will always remain a creationist.

There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. the website you linked proves that.

 

[Hespera]

I've had a good look throughout the entire site. The only claimed evidence for observable evolution it offers is as follows:

Observations of Evolution:

Observations of evolution

On this page it claims 4 areas of evidence.

1. Angling for evolutionary answers: The work of David O. Conover

- In this entire article no evidence for evolution is presented. Conover's experiments just prove fish come in different sizes.

2. Battling bacterial evolution: The work of Carl Bergstrom

- Nowhere does this article claim evolution was observed. This entire article was based on a ''computer model/hypothesis''. In otherwords a waste of my time.

3. Musseling in on evolution

- This article debunks it's own claims:

''To show that the mussel has evolved, Freeman and Byers needed evidence that the mussel's response had changed over time — but unfortunately, no one was measuring the blue mussel's predator response 15 years ago, before the arrival of the Asian shore crab. Freeman and Byers, however, were able to take advantage of a quirk in the ranges of these two animals...''

What follows in the article after the ''...'' is a typical inserted evolutionist assumption. So this entire article is not evidence.


4. Evo in the news: Warming to evolution

- This article claims to have observed species evolving. Let's see their claims:

A. ''Canadian squirrels are evolving to take advantage of an earlier spring and are breeding sooner''

Animals breeding slightly out of pattern is not evidence for anything.

B. ''European great [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (a type of bird) are also evolving different breeding times''

See 1 above.

C. ''Another European bird, the blackcap, has been evolving due to changes in its migration patterns. Some blackcaps have begun to overwinter in the now slightly warmer Britain instead of in Spain, Portugal, and North Africa, as they historically did. The British sub-population has evolved genetic differences from the other birds and is more successful at reproducing since its members arrive at the nesting grounds earlier and have first choice of territories and mates.''

No evidence is provided for the claim i bolded. And the claim that a different migration pattern for birds is evidence for evolution really shows how desperate evolutionists are.

I could go through the rest of the site exposing this nonsense like the above example. But i'm not wasting any more of my time.

On the entire site, the only offered evidence for observed evolution involves silly documentation of breeding times and migration patterns of birds, a ''computer model'' page (which itself claims not to be factual but a hypothesis) and an experiment which shows fish come in different sizes.

It's quite sad i expected something better and this is exactly why i will always remain a creationist.

There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. the website you linked proves that.

"I expected something better and this is exactly why i will always remain a creationist.

There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. the website you linked proves that"


The first statement may well be true, its a matter of early indoctrination mainly. Hard to overcome.

As for the second, what you didnt see is not the same as what does not exist. That website, which I didnt look at, will not prove anything one way or another.

There is in fact a very considerable amount of evidence for evolution, to such an extent that in order to actually falsify the theory, you would probably have to take out most of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, biology among others, with it.

Likely, you dont know why I would say that. But its true.

You will also find that only a few people with religious problems with evolution among any of the sciences have a problem understanding and accepting it.

If it were nonsense, that would not be the case. In fact, it would be an embarrassment to people who are legitimate scientists, and they would go to no small effort to falsify it themselves, and be rid of it, as they did with astrology, numerology, atlantis, esp etc etc, none of which have a place in any legitimate field of research.

Now, what i am saying is true; you may not think so, but consider it a bit perhaps, anyway.

Nobody at the U of Beijing has a problem with evolution and still less does anyone have a way to disprove it.

150 years have gone into a pretty concerted effort to falsify evolution and it hasnt been done yet.

Why do you suppose that might be? Think about it a bit and get back to me.

-Taikoo

 

[Nathan Poe]

1. Angling for evolutionary answers: The work of David O. Conover

- In this entire article no evidence for evolution is presented. Conover's experiments just prove fish come in different sizes.

But the ratios are changing -- fish do come in different sizes -- some big, some small.

Now, we can agree that size is, for the most part, a genetic trait: Big fish breed more big fish; small fish, well, you get the idea.

Assuming the big fish don't eat the smaller ones, we'd have two populations getting along quite nicely, right?

Now let's introduce a selective pressure to the environment: Fishermen.

Smaller fish get thrown back; bigger fish end up as sushi. What happens to the fish population?

2. Battling bacterial evolution: The work of Carl Bergstrom

- Nowhere does this article claim evolution was observed. This entire article was based on a ''computer model/hypothesis''. In otherwords a waste of my time.

Except the models were developed as a result of observed evolution. Do you know what MRSA is? Pray you never find out.

3. Musseling in on evolution

- This article debunks it's own claims:

''To show that the mussel has evolved, Freeman and Byers needed evidence that the mussel's response had changed over time — but unfortunately, no one was measuring the blue mussel's predator response 15 years ago, before the arrival of the Asian shore crab. Freeman and Byers, however, were able to take advantage of a quirk in the ranges of these two animals...''

What follows in the article after the ''...'' is a typical inserted evolutionist assumption. So this entire article is not evidence.

Assume for a moment that the rest of us aren't seeing the grand debunking -- can youexplain it to us?

4. Evo in the news: Warming to evolution

- This article claims to have observed species evolving. Let's see their claims:

A. ''Canadian squirrels are evolving to take advantage of an earlier spring and are breeding sooner''

Animals breeding slightly out of pattern is not evidence for anything.

Why not? The animals are adapting to a changing environment, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory.

B. ''European great [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (a type of bird) are also evolving different breeding times''

See 1 above.

See response.

C. ''Another European bird, the blackcap, has been evolving due to changes in its migration patterns. Some blackcaps have begun to overwinter in the now slightly warmer Britain instead of in Spain, Portugal, and North Africa, as they historically did. The British sub-population has evolved genetic differences from the other birds and is more successful at reproducing since its members arrive at the nesting grounds earlier and have first choice of territories and mates.''

No evidence is provided for the claim i bolded. And the claim that a different migration pattern for birds is evidence for evolution really shows how desperate evolutionists are.

Desperate how? And do you really think it's all that difficult to recognize the genetic difference between one population and another?

I could go through the rest of the site exposing this nonsense like the above example. But i'm not wasting any more of my time.

That's a shame -- because you haven't really "exposed" much of anything.

On the entire site, the only offered evidence for observed evolution involves silly documentation of breeding times and migration patterns of birds, a ''computer model'' page (which itself claims not to be factual but a hypothesis) and an experiment which shows fish come in different sizes.

A shame you didn't really understand the evolutionary impact of what you read -- were you expecting to see a dog turn into a cat?

It's quite sad i expected something better and this is exactly why i will always remain a creationist.

Yep -- catdogs.

There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. the website you linked proves that.

Morton's Demon strikes again.

 

[Greatcloud]

I stand along side of Cassiterides & AV1611VET as a staunch opposer of the theory of evolution and it being an incorrect one; just like the earth being flat was descovered to be wrong. After a mere 150 years we are waking up to the incorrectness of science. For instance there is plenty of proof for dinosaures and humans (homo sapians) living together. They keep catching Celocanths of the coast of Madagascar even today. I could go on but I will wait for your response to what I have written so far.


Evolution

 

[USincognito]

I stand along side of Cassiterides & AV1611VET as a staunch opposer of the theory of evolution and it being an incorrect one;

Shocking that you're an AGW denier too. And that's some great company you've cast your lot with.

...just like the earth being flat was descovered to be wrong.

I'm guessing you know nothing about the earth sciences and have never heard of Artisarchus of Samos?

After a mere 150 years we are waking up to the incorrectness of science.

And embracing Midievel scholasticism? Oh boy.

For instance there is plenty of proof for dinosaures and humans (homo sapians) living together.

Actually there's zero evidence for that.

They keep catching Celocanths of the coast of Madagascar even today.

And other places deep in the Indian ocean. Do you know why that's significant? I'm guessing you don't.

I could go on but I will wait for your response to what I have written so far.

Don't bother, you're doing nothing but posting PRATTs.

 

[Hespera]

I stand along side of Cassiterides & AV1611VET as a staunch opposer of the theory of evolution and it being an incorrect one; just like the earth being flat was descovered to be wrong. After a mere 150 years we are waking up to the incorrectness of science. For instance there is plenty of proof for dinosaures and humans (homo sapians) living together. They keep catching Celocanths of the coast of Madagascar even today. I could go on but I will wait for your response to what I have written so far.

Well, the coelacanth is only one of a good many animals that have lived since very ancient times, the cockroach and the horsehoe crab being good examples along with many many others.

The coelacanth is interesting because it is the only remaining member of the lobe fin fish group that led to the early amphibians.

they remained "off the radar" because the only living species is a deep sea fish, and rather rare, and from backward areas of the world. the known species were fresh water fish. deep sea fish essentially never fossilize.

Dinosaurs had hundreds of species, all of which died out about 65 million years go. Abundant fossils before that, zero after. They are gone.

There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs ever met. Your belief that there is "plenty of proof' that they did is simply mistaken.

There are people who promote the idea, for religious reasons, but the only evidence they have is misinterpreting the bible, and some fake footprints etc.

Now, you are welcome to believe as you like. The world sci community, tho sees it quite differently. People who have spent their careers on it.

If you feel you know better than they, its a free country.

But how would you explain the fact that nobody but a few religious extremists thinks that dinosaurs and man ever met?

 

[Split Rock]

I've had a good look throughout the entire site. The only claimed evidence for observable evolution it offers is as follows:

Observations of Evolution:

Observations of evolution

On this page it claims 4 areas of evidence.

1. Angling for evolutionary answers: The work of David O. Conover

- In this entire article no evidence for evolution is presented. Conover's experiments just prove fish come in different sizes.

2. Battling bacterial evolution: The work of Carl Bergstrom

- Nowhere does this article claim evolution was observed. This entire article was based on a ''computer model/hypothesis''. In otherwords a waste of my time.

3. Musseling in on evolution

- This article debunks it's own claims:

''To show that the mussel has evolved, Freeman and Byers needed evidence that the mussel's response had changed over time — but unfortunately, no one was measuring the blue mussel's predator response 15 years ago, before the arrival of the Asian shore crab. Freeman and Byers, however, were able to take advantage of a quirk in the ranges of these two animals...''

What follows in the article after the ''...'' is a typical inserted evolutionist assumption. So this entire article is not evidence.


4. Evo in the news: Warming to evolution

- This article claims to have observed species evolving. Let's see their claims:

A. ''Canadian squirrels are evolving to take advantage of an earlier spring and are breeding sooner''

Animals breeding slightly out of pattern is not evidence for anything.

B. ''European great [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (a type of bird) are also evolving different breeding times''

See 1 above.

C. ''Another European bird, the blackcap, has been evolving due to changes in its migration patterns. Some blackcaps have begun to overwinter in the now slightly warmer Britain instead of in Spain, Portugal, and North Africa, as they historically did. The British sub-population has evolved genetic differences from the other birds and is more successful at reproducing since its members arrive at the nesting grounds earlier and have first choice of territories and mates.''

No evidence is provided for the claim i bolded. And the claim that a different migration pattern for birds is evidence for evolution really shows how desperate evolutionists are.

I could go through the rest of the site exposing this nonsense like the above example. But i'm not wasting any more of my time.

On the entire site, the only offered evidence for observed evolution involves silly documentation of breeding times and migration patterns of birds, a ''computer model'' page (which itself claims not to be factual but a hypothesis) and an experiment which shows fish come in different sizes.

It's quite sad i expected something better and this is exactly why i will always remain a creationist.

There is no evidence for evolution whatsoever. the website you linked proves that.

I thought this site was easy to navigate, but apparantly I was wrong. Follow my leader! (Blue Thunder reference)

What is the evidence for evolution? > Lines of evidence: The science of evolution >

1. Fossil evidence > next > (some explanations about fossils) > Transitional forms >
Here we have some actual examples of transitional forms in both whale and horse evolution

Transitional forms

There is also a link to the Talk Origins Archive (under "Take a Sidetrip") which has a crapload of other examples of transitionals in great detail.

Next>

2. Homologies > Homologies: anatomy

Here we have examples of homologous structures that share similar pattern (including developmental) but have very different functions. Here are some exaples of vestigial structures (those reduced in the functions we see in other species) though they do not call them that. Examples include, dewclaws and Hatzin chicks that have claws on their wings, just like the transitional species Archeopterix
Homologies: anatomy

Next> Homologies: comparative anatomy

This uses the examples of a baleen whale and a hummingbird. Despite very different lifestyles, their skeletal structure shows homologies, due to a common ancestor.
Homologies: comparative anatomy

Next > Homologies: developmental biology

This one uses two example of developmental homologues that make little sense for species created "as is." First is the snake: "Some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults." In addition, a fossil snake from the Cretaceous show that extinct primitive snakes had small rear legs.

Second is baleen whales that grow teeth and then absorb them during the fetal stage. This provides evidence that baleen whales evolved from toothed ancestors.
Homologies: developmental biology

On a side note, here is a website that show how developing dolphins grow rear leg buds (that develop into rear legs in other animals) and then re-absorb them. In addition, the nostrils start at the tip of the snout, as with other animals, and then migrate to the top of the head during development.
http://www.neoucom.edu/DLDD/

The website continues with more evidence, including phylogeny, which show that all life falls into a multi-nested hierarchy, typical of only one thing.. familial relationships. This part of teh site goes into more detail on phylogeny, which I believe is the strongest evidence for Common Descent: Phylogenetic systematics, a.k.a. evolutionary trees

So.. no, there isn't anything lacking with the website and no, you clearly did not give it a fair look over. Please try again.