Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Prezbo369

read my posts...do i LOOK like a bloody creationist to you?

i deal in facts, and reality...evolution is a theory...that's a fact.

it's also a fact that it's far more plausible than the biblical fairy tale of "creation".

....dude you said:

evolution is, however, only a theory.....a very through, well-researched, very plausible theory....but still just a theory, none the less...

I've never come across anyone that isn't a creationist making such a statement. They make the mistake of confusing the everyday use of the word 'theory' with the scientific definition and think its just an idea, just a guess and not the comprehensive explanation containing (amongst other things) both facts and laws....

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Cool, and you also have bacteria that steals genetic information from dead bacteria. Is this in any way an indication that an addition was made by Darwinian means leading to some upward process of evolution from common descent? NO. Is the plant becoming anything more than a plant? NO. This is just another shining example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into the faith.

enough of the contempt. answer my question:

what intellectually superior theory are you sitting on and how is your evidence for that theory more compelling than what evolutionary theory has to offer?

you sound like the guy who can always do everything better but never does. give us a bone here and prove that you have a better solution than the "evolutionary farce" you are so keen on tearing down.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Cool, and you also have bacteria that steals genetic information from dead bacteria. Is this in any way an indication that an addition was made by Darwinian means leading to some upward process of evolution from common descent? NO. Is the plant becoming anything more than a plant? NO. This is just another shining example of the evolutionist twisting the evidence to fit into the faith.

It just took me 3 minutes to find an example you took 3 hours to deny using your usual methodology :

However, creationists don't see it the same way. Creationists artificially classify medicine, genetic research, and agriculture as "operational science," and believe that those disciplines function in a different way than research in evolutionary biology. They understand the theory of evolution, along with mainstream geology and a variety of other disciplines, as a philosophical construct created for the express purpose of explaining life on Earth apart from divine intervention. Thus, they approach the concept of evolution from a defensive position; they believe it represents an attack on all religious faith.

Want some more ?
Biston Betularia, Floridian mices, ...

a reply to: Prezbo369

as i said; i deal in facts and reality....as far as evolution goes, it's "this is what we think happened, and here is why we think it", and then there's a bunch of studies, and documentation, and whatnot.....as opposed to creationism, where they're basically saying "thinking is too hard, feck it, god farted it all into existence after an especially bad taco night at the in-law's".....of course i'm paraphrasing, but anyway, it's followed with a singular source; the bible..not exactly convincing...

a reply to: BlackManINC

Think of it like this. Every species has a unique genome, although they share many sequences. Imagine it like a big computer database file with billions of bytes of data. Each time the file is copied, hundreds of bytes are lost or slightly changed due to errors in copying, or outside electromagnetism factors. The pieces affected are random and usually too small to cause any errors. A few hundred out of multiple billion bytes is almost nothing.

Now copy that file 1000 times. You now have 150,000+ changes to the file, which is still not a large percentage of the file (less than 1%) Now copy each copy one million times and look at how many changes there are to the file. At this point you'll have hundreds of millions of accumulated changes which adds up to more than 5% of the file. When critical segments of the file are altered it fails to load and that version essentially dies out.

That is essentially what you call "macro" evolution vs "micro" evolution. It's copying the file millions of times more. Would you honestly not expect significantly more changes in 1 million copies (generations) vs 1 thousand? If so, I'm interested to see why not. That is essentially how genetic mutations affect a genome over time. Each copy is slightly different from the original.

Now, copy each copy of the file one billion times, from millions of different machines. Be sure to factor in numerous major hard drive crashes and changes to the program that runs it as well as multiple changes in electromagnetism levels during various copies. That should give you a rough idea at how big the level of change becomes over time. This is more like the history of life on earth and is more than enough to account for the changes of species that have been observed in the fossil record.

We can map and measure them now, but you create this imaginary wall where the mutations stop adding up. This is what we are asking you guys to explain because it counters basic mathematics. There has to be a logical explanation as to why they would not add up or that certain genes are immune to mutations.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: borntowatch

when you move the goal posts around, it's real easy to think you're always winning....

difference between gravity and evolution is that it's called the LAW of gravity, because it has been proven, indisputably, that what we call gravity is an actual, proven, real thing....you drop something, it falls...what goes up, must eventually come down.

evolution is, however, only a theory.....a very through, well-researched, very plausible theory....but still just a theory, none the less...

you do understand what the difference in science is between a "law", and a "theory", right?

Thats pathetic, your comments are pathetic, I react to them with pity.

I never came here to win anything, I accept you believe in your fantasy, I accept mine is a fantasy to you.
I pity you that you have to win, you have to preach your faith.

There are no goal posts, this is your silly idea of a game.

Evolution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Show me the proof.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Prezbo369

as i said; i deal in facts and reality....as far as evolution goes, it's "this is what we think happened, and here is why we think it", and then there's a bunch of studies, and documentation, and whatnot.....as opposed to creationism, where they're basically saying "thinking is too hard, feck it, god farted it all into existence after an especially bad taco night at the in-law's".....of course i'm paraphrasing, but anyway, it's followed with a singular source; the bible..not exactly convincing...

and then I am called ignorant and stupid
Your comments are not just ignorant and stupid to me they are an indication of how educated you are.
You dont understand my argument and you think you can argue against what I believe.
You dont know what I believe, how can you argue against my beliefs

Talk about a troll, you dont even know my position and care to comment.

Its ok, its a typical evolutionist argument.

a reply to: borntowatch

I have asked for your position as pertains to the topic but you seem to have missed it. basically the same question as the bolded one i addressed to blackmaninc. not hard to find.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Prezbo369

as i said; i deal in facts and reality....as far as evolution goes, it's "this is what we think happened, and here is why we think it", and then there's a bunch of studies, and documentation, and whatnot.....as opposed to creationism, where they're basically saying "thinking is too hard, feck it, god farted it all into existence after an especially bad taco night at the in-law's".....of course i'm paraphrasing, but anyway, it's followed with a singular source; the bible..not exactly convincing...

and then I am called ignorant and stupid
Your comments are not just ignorant and stupid to me they are an indication of how educated you are.
You dont understand my argument and you think you can argue against what I believe.
You dont know what I believe, how can you argue against my beliefs

Talk about a troll, you dont even know my position and care to comment.

Its ok, its a typical evolutionist argument.

Which is the reason why most Christians don't waste their time with the type of creatures we see on this thread. For your information, they know full well what your argument is, they just like to pretend they don't so they can have something b!tch about all day long, to make themselves feel better about the fairy tales they want us to accept as "science"

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: borntowatch

when you move the goal posts around, it's real easy to think you're always winning....

difference between gravity and evolution is that it's called the LAW of gravity, because it has been proven, indisputably, that what we call gravity is an actual, proven, real thing....you drop something, it falls...what goes up, must eventually come down.

evolution is, however, only a theory.....a very through, well-researched, very plausible theory....but still just a theory, none the less...

you do understand what the difference in science is between a "law", and a "theory", right?

Thats pathetic, your comments are pathetic, I react to them with pity.

I never came here to win anything, I accept you believe in your fantasy, I accept mine is a fantasy to you.
I pity you that you have to win, you have to preach your faith.

There are no goal posts, this is your silly idea of a game.

Evolution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Show me the proof.

What is funny is that most of the never ending examples they give as "proof" for their belief in common ancestry doesn't even qualify as "circumstantial" evidence at all. And as I continue to make this fact crystal clear, they crawl back into the tunnel in search for more "evidence" of common ancestry. A drug resistant bacteria is somehow evidence of common descent, its quite laughable seeing how many straws they continue to grasp at as "evidence".

a reply to: BlackManINC

Are you deliberately ignoring my question? It feels like you are.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Prezbo369

as i said; i deal in facts and reality....as far as evolution goes, it's "this is what we think happened, and here is why we think it", and then there's a bunch of studies, and documentation, and whatnot.....as opposed to creationism, where they're basically saying "thinking is too hard, feck it, god farted it all into existence after an especially bad taco night at the in-law's".....of course i'm paraphrasing, but anyway, it's followed with a singular source; the bible..not exactly convincing...

and then I am called ignorant and stupid
Your comments are not just ignorant and stupid to me they are an indication of how educated you are.
You dont understand my argument and you think you can argue against what I believe.
You dont know what I believe, how can you argue against my beliefs

Talk about a troll, you dont even know my position and care to comment.

Its ok, its a typical evolutionist argument.

Which is the reason why most Christians don't waste their time with the type of creatures we see on this thread. For your information, they know full well what your argument is, they just like to pretend they don't so they can have something b!tch about all day long, to make themselves feel better about the fairy tales they want us to accept as "science"

Well number one they are not creatures, they are people of inestimable value
number two, I am not wasting my time
number three I dont think 99% of them have ever studied the creationist position
and number four. Outside of a supernatural creation I dont think there is another option other than evolution

I once believed and accepted evolution.

I totaly disagree with your position.

a reply to: BlackManINC

You speak of fairy tales in science and yet the theory you're pushing for has Invisible Gods and Devils and Demons and Angels all of Supernatural origin. Talking snakes, magic, miracles, people living in the belly of a whale for three days and coming out unharmed, planetary bodies that stop in the sky, people living for hundreds of years, creating people from dirt, seeing into the future, magic fruit, magic weapons, visions, voices from the sky and more. In fact that just scratches the surface of it, yet you call science a fairy tale.

Is it possible to be much more backward in one's thinking or are you just medically insane???

originally posted by: borntowatch

Well number one they are not creatures, they are people of inestimable value
number two, I am not wasting my time

To God, what me and you are actually doing is casting pearls before swine, meaning you are wasting your time when it comes down to it. I wouldn't call swine something with "inestimable value".

originally posted by: borntowatch

number three I dont think 99% of them have ever studied the creationist position

These people have been members of this website for far longer than me and have observed the creationist worldview long enough to understand it. You are just falling for their ruse.

originally posted by: borntowatchand number four. Outside of a supernatural creation I dont think there is another option other than evolution

I once believed and accepted evolution.

I totaly disagree with your position.

Well I was cast as "arrogant" for pointing out this simple observation that the only two views on the origin of life that's ever been expressed in human history going back to some of the oldest religions on the planet like Hinduism is evolution and creation. Life either evolved, or it was designed that way from the start. I haven't seen much at all proposed by the evolutionist camp that screams "evolution".

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: BlackManINC

You speak of fairy tales in science and yet the theory you're pushing for has Invisible Gods and Devils and Demons and Angels all of Supernatural origin. Talking snakes, magic, miracles, people living in the belly of a whale for three days and coming out unharmed, planetary bodies that stop in the sky, people living for hundreds of years, creating people from dirt, seeing into the future, magic fruit, magic weapons, visions, voices from the sky and more. In fact that just scratches the surface of it, yet you call science a fairy tale.

Is it possible to be much more backward in one's thinking or are you just medically insane???

'

I'm not calling science a fairy tale, just evolution.

a reply to: BlackManINC

The mechanisms given that is called micro evolution never adds any new information to the gene pool that would lead to new organisms no matter how many millions of years of time you give it.

Does this mean you don't believe that new genetic information is created through mutation, horizontal gene transfer from bacteria and viruses, etc? Or do you mean that this information is insufficient to cause the changes you refer to as 'macroevolution'?

I look forward to your answer. Thank you for your patience.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: BlackManINC

You speak of fairy tales in science and yet the theory you're pushing for has Invisible Gods and Devils and Demons and Angels all of Supernatural origin. Talking snakes, magic, miracles, people living in the belly of a whale for three days and coming out unharmed, planetary bodies that stop in the sky, people living for hundreds of years, creating people from dirt, seeing into the future, magic fruit, magic weapons, visions, voices from the sky and more. In fact that just scratches the surface of it, yet you call science a fairy tale.

Is it possible to be much more backward in one's thinking or are you just medically insane???

'

I'm not calling science a fairy tale, just evolution.

correction: you are stonewalling us. any idiot can sit there and just say, "Nope!" which is basically what you are doing. that doesn't make you right. Myself and others have literally just handed this stuff to you. your refusal doesn't negate its validity. and that's the only redeeming quality of this thread so far.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

That link was a good read and a useful one too — it will save me writing anything similar in future, I'll just quote it.

Many thanks.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
I'm not calling science a fairy tale, just evolution.

Evolution is science and that hardly addressed the point of my post either.

Breeding is a form of evolution, you know this right??? Natural or unnatural doesn't matter, they both show the process of evolution. We've done it ourselves with animals like dogs. We created and still create variations of dog breeds by use of unnatural selection. Are you suggesting that really, secretly, they are actually being Created and it's not our breeding that is making certain breeds come out like they are???

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: BlackManINC

The mechanisms given that is called micro evolution never adds any new information to the gene pool that would lead to new organisms no matter how many millions of years of time you give it.

Does this mean you don't believe that new genetic information is created through mutation, horizontal gene transfer from bacteria and viruses, etc? Or do you mean that this information is insufficient to cause the changes you refer to as 'macroevolution'?

I look forward to your answer. Thank you for your patience.

What has been shown as the input of new genetic information isn't even "created" for one, what is observed is the information is either stolen from other existing organisms of the same kind, or its reshuffled, or the information is lost altogether. There is nothing new added that will magically change one kind of life into another, because the information received isn't anything new in the first place. This is why the examples given doesn't even count as circumstantial. Real circumstantial evidence is our genetic similarity to some other creatures like apes and cats, which I as a Christian can just as easily attribute to a common designer.