Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

No transparent. You need practice.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

IF you try to punch up, at least have a plan. So far you've been nonsensical.

You aren't involved in my plan. You're only complaining because you didn't evolve the way you would've liked to.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

No, its the way this works. You post a link to evidence, it is superior to typing it out. No an academic would not laugh me out of the room. We are in the equivalent of the introduction/Literary review portion of a dissertation. We never get past that. In that very first section we show the work that has gone before, and supporting evidence.

So no. You do not know what an academic would or would not do here. However several of the people you are interacting with on here are actually academics (not I, I work in the science industry). So you are manspaining to them.

So you give the prof a paper, say 'here's the proof to support my argument', and what does the prof see in your paper?

Only some sort of internet 'link', which you claim is 'proof' of your argument??!!

Then, the prof should look it up for himself, and see your 'proof', as you - for some reason - cannot support your own paper with any sort of proof?


'Look at my proof for yourself, in my link, it's not my job to support my own argument, in my paper!!'


I'd like to see you NOT get laughed out of any classroom!!


Here's my book on 'evolution', it 'proves' my argument, so go ahead, and find out for yourself, professor!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

No, its the way this works. You post a link to evidence, it is superior to typing it out. No an academic would not laugh me out of the room. We are in the equivalent of the introduction/Literary review portion of a dissertation. We never get past that. In that very first section we show the work that has gone before, and supporting evidence.

So no. You do not know what an academic would or would not do here. However several of the people you are interacting with on here are actually academics (not I, I work in the science industry). So you are manspaining to them.

So you give the prof a paper, say 'here's the proof to support my argument', and what does the prof see in your paper?

Only some sort of internet 'link', which you claim is 'proof' of your argument??!!

Then, the prof should look it up for himself, and see your 'proof', as you - for some reason - cannot support your own paper with any sort of proof?


'Look at my proof for yourself, in my link, it's not my job to support my own argument, in my paper!!'


I'd like to see you NOT get laughed out of any classroom!!


Here's my book on 'evolution', it 'proves' my argument, so go ahead, and find out for yourself, professor!!

Please tell me you’re just having some fun with that comment because if you’re serious, you’ve just outed yourself as someone who has never had to write any type of paper beyond a 5th grade book report. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of footnotes and a bibliography. What you think would get people laughed out of a lecture is actually what is required of us. I’m simply amazed at the gross largess of willful ignorance permeating this particular forum. It’s really mind blowing how many people think they have falsified or disproven aspects of the MES despite regularly demonstrating that they clearly never set foot in any type of learning environment after high school.

a reply to: peter vlar

pretty sure his paper was written in crayon

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

No, its the way this works. You post a link to evidence, it is superior to typing it out. No an academic would not laugh me out of the room. We are in the equivalent of the introduction/Literary review portion of a dissertation. We never get past that. In that very first section we show the work that has gone before, and supporting evidence.

So no. You do not know what an academic would or would not do here. However several of the people you are interacting with on here are actually academics (not I, I work in the science industry). So you are manspaining to them.

So you give the prof a paper, say 'here's the proof to support my argument', and what does the prof see in your paper?

Only some sort of internet 'link', which you claim is 'proof' of your argument??!!

Then, the prof should look it up for himself, and see your 'proof', as you - for some reason - cannot support your own paper with any sort of proof?


'Look at my proof for yourself, in my link, it's not my job to support my own argument, in my paper!!'


I'd like to see you NOT get laughed out of any classroom!!


Here's my book on 'evolution', it 'proves' my argument, so go ahead, and find out for yourself, professor!!

Please tell me you’re just having some fun with that comment because if you’re serious, you’ve just outed yourself as someone who has never had to write any type of paper beyond a 5th grade book report. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of footnotes and a bibliography. What you think would get people laughed out of a lecture is actually what is required of us. I’m simply amazed at the gross largess of willful ignorance permeating this particular forum. It’s really mind blowing how many people think they have falsified or disproven aspects of the MES despite regularly demonstrating that they clearly never set foot in any type of learning environment after high school.

The concept of footnotes is to support your argument within the paper.

You have footnotes FOR your paper, without any argument.


Since you are oblivious to the concept, I'll help you out....


'This point supports my argument for evolution' Here is where you make a specific point on evolution, which explains your case, in your own words. You cite the source(s) for your argument, with links, below your argument....


Each point should be made like this, with an explanation in your own words, and sources for it shown alongside it, in links.


It's really simple, and gets each and every point across, specifically.


You just point to a link, and say 'here it is, all good now'.


It's nonsense. Your link just has more links, to other sources, and that's your idea of proof?!?



I have no idea how you ever graduated from high school, if you even did....


Arguing for evolution is like a shell game...nothing is ever genuine.


Some paper is held up as proof, and when it's read through, the paper always starts with assumptions, that 'evolution' is true, and they simply go on, and support it with something else.

So we go back to where they assume 'evolution' is true, which is where you find no proof of evolution at all, and never will find proof of it. Because it's a total fraud.


That's why you throw out piles of meaningless crap, and call it 'proof'.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You had a plan? So far all I have seen is that you are full of ingorance with what evolution, is, does, and throw in mistruths, mostlikely due to your aforementioned ignorance.

I'm still waiting to see this story about carbon 14 dating being used for a multimillion year old fossil

a reply to: turbonium1

Neighbour, have you ever written a paper which needs to withstand peer review? Because you don't seem to be indicating that you have. No one who can support their argument, with a peer reviewed paper (which many of us have posted as examples here) would be laughed out of a classroom, its EXPECTED. Furhter more, many of us are beyond classrooms here, we do science for a living, and we still have to provide proof of what we are asserting. This is not bible studies bucko.

a reply to: turbonium1

Here you prove you have never had to write a paper longer than a few thousand (at most) words. I'm going to link to a beginner level guide for you. But in summary:

(1) Provide preliminary background information that puts your research in context

(2) Clarify the focus of your study

(3) Point out the value of your research

(4) Specify your specific research aims and objectives

Point 1. Provide preliminary back ground. You don't get we never get past this point, because the creationist camp never read what is written.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

No, its the way this works. You post a link to evidence, it is superior to typing it out. No an academic would not laugh me out of the room. We are in the equivalent of the introduction/Literary review portion of a dissertation. We never get past that. In that very first section we show the work that has gone before, and supporting evidence.

So no. You do not know what an academic would or would not do here. However several of the people you are interacting with on here are actually academics (not I, I work in the science industry). So you are manspaining to them.

So you give the prof a paper, say 'here's the proof to support my argument', and what does the prof see in your paper?

Only some sort of internet 'link', which you claim is 'proof' of your argument??!!

Then, the prof should look it up for himself, and see your 'proof', as you - for some reason - cannot support your own paper with any sort of proof?


'Look at my proof for yourself, in my link, it's not my job to support my own argument, in my paper!!'


I'd like to see you NOT get laughed out of any classroom!!


Here's my book on 'evolution', it 'proves' my argument, so go ahead, and find out for yourself, professor!!

Please tell me you’re just having some fun with that comment because if you’re serious, you’ve just outed yourself as someone who has never had to write any type of paper beyond a 5th grade book report. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of footnotes and a bibliography. What you think would get people laughed out of a lecture is actually what is required of us. I’m simply amazed at the gross largess of willful ignorance permeating this particular forum. It’s really mind blowing how many people think they have falsified or disproven aspects of the MES despite regularly demonstrating that they clearly never set foot in any type of learning environment after high school.

The concept of footnotes is to support your argument within the paper.

You have footnotes FOR your paper, without any argument.

You have footnotes IN the paper that direct to the bibliography. The bibliography contains all of the information regarding the Book, paper etc... that you used as source material. The footnotes indicate where within said citations you can find that info. It’s as much about avoiding plagiarism as it is to make sure you can be fact checked by others. But by all means... carry on with the evidence that you’ve never had to write a real paper pertaining to actual science, let alone have an understanding of the science that you hate.

Since you are oblivious to the concept, I'll help you out....

'This point supports my argument for evolution' Here is where you make a specific point on evolution, which explains your case, in your own words. You cite the source(s) for your argument, with links, below your argument....

Each point should be made like this, with an explanation in your own words, and sources for it shown alongside it, in links.


It's really simple, and gets each and every point across, specifically.

Not when the people who are supposed to be reading the links refuse to, or is clearly the case in many instances, the material is beyond their ability to understand because they think that access to the internet makes them as knowledgeable as the people who have studied, written about and worked within fields pertaining to the study of the MES

You just point to a link, and say 'here it is, all good now'.

Do I now? No, I think not. If I’m supporting a position with citations on ATS( which has a far lower standard than say a Senior Thesis or Masters Thesis or a dissertation despite your protestations ), I make my point and then cite the source material that supports my position.

None of this changes the fact that you have proven that you never wrote a paper pertaining to anything resembling science in college ( did you go? If so what was your major?). What you insist would get us laughed out of a classroom was exactly what was required, at least when I was in school

It's nonsense. Your link just has more links, to other sources, and that's your idea of proof?!?

Oh my god... what a bunch of savage Luddite heathens these people are for giving you far TOO MUCH information that could help you learn something.

I have no idea how you ever graduated from high school, if you even did....

Obviously, unlike you, I paid attention and didn’t the work. I didn’t just pretend I had a clue, I asked questions and challenged my teachers to get the most clarity possible.

Arguing AGAINST evolution is like a shell game...nothing is ever genuine.

Fixed that for you.

Some paper is held up as proof, and when it's read through, the paper always starts with assumptions, that 'evolution' is true, and they simply go on, and support it with something else.

Then as always, I invite you to pick one of these papers and falsify it. It should be a simple task for one who knows more about the Earth and Biological sciences than I ever will.

So we go back to where they assume 'evolution' is true, which is where you find no proof of evolution at all, and never will find proof of it. Because it's a total fraud.

Yet not once have you falsified a single aspect of the MES, let alone any papers. If the data is wrong, falsify it. You don’t because you’re incapable.


[ ii quote]That's why you throw out piles of meaningless crap, and call it 'proof'.

The only meaningless crap I see being tossed around comes from you and Coop. You have not once falsified a single aspect of any of the multiple disciplines that have been furthered by evolutionary studies.

You don't get it.

A paper that cites footnotes to bibliographies?


What a joke.


'Evolution' is a convoluted, obscure, vague, twisted paper trail of footnotes, which contain more footnotes, which contain even more footnotes, or 'bibliographies'. It finally ends at the original nonsense papers, written long ago!


That's why you never make a specific point, because they all lead to the original crap, which you know is crap.


A case is made on each point, with sources on it, without a convoluted voyage WE are supposed to dredge through, like you hold up as 'proof'.


Your argument is that every species on Earth today 'evolved' from completely different species, while over a quadrillion species have never once INDICATED any 'evolution' into different species, in human history. And every species which became extinct during human history never 'evolved', or even indicated it...


This proves - beyond any doubt whatsoever - that 'evolution' is utter nonsense. And the only way it still survives is by holding up long-extinct species, which cannot be proven to NOT 'evolve' into other species, because nobody knew about their existence before. Those non-provable extinct species become the 'ancestors' of different species, by nobody having proof against the claim. No matter that proof is THEIR burden to show us, in the first place. 'Experts' support the claim, and that's good enough!!



So when you claim all species 'evolve' into different species, you cannot find one example to support your claim, with over a quadrillion examples which prove you are an idiot,



It's both funny, and pathetic, at the same time.

A piece of petrified wood 'evolved' into a desk, over millions of years.

They are both made of oak, which links the petrified chunk of wood as the 'ancestor' of the desk, and nobody can prove it isn't true, since the petrified wood is millions of years old, and the desk is only 50 years old!!

Sure, desks have never 'evolved' into chairs in human times, but in millions of years, they will be chairs. Nobody can prove me wrong, on that, either!



'Evolution' is a magical potion, that instantly solves any 'scientific' problems!!

a reply to: turbonium1

That.. is completely NOT what evolution is all about.


Unless that "desktree" would have more successful surviving seedlings (maybe by human interaction), the structure "be like a desk" is completely useless for a tree alone.

The more children you have, the more times your genes are transmitted to future generations, thus you were more successful and your genes are more capable to being transmitted to future generations.

That is all. That is the core of evolution - have more children who survive and them having more than the average number of children, too - that is it.

There cannot be a counter argument, this is such a simple and foolproof argument.

A "desktop-shape-tree" does not provide environmental advantages, if the trees are cut down by humans rapidly, before seeding.

Nobody can even confirm if their 'dating' of extinct species is accurate, which makes it even worse than before, as an argument for 'ancestor' species which 'evolved' into different species. A quadrillion species never 'evolved' into anything else, all the proven species which became extinct in human times never 'evolved', either. 'Evolution' is sheer nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1


The only thing person who doesn’t get it, because they continue to reinforce the proof that they’ve never written a paper beyond a 5th grade book report, is you. I truly feel bad for you. You think you’re so brilliant yet not only have you never had to author a paper requiring a defense in front of peers, you’re incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic without resorting to infantile, petty name calling, ad hominem attacks and personal slurs. That shows you’ve got nothing at all to back up your position aside from the power of willful ignorance.

And then you have thto audacity to put words in my mouth because you know you don’t have solid ground to base your babbling on.

And let’s not forget the consistency of changing your own goal posts. That is the one thing that you can always be counted on for. So go ahead and call other posters who have actually written papers in college idiots. Everyone reading knows who the idiot is and it isn’t me. Don’t take it out on others that you don’t have an education. That’s entirely on you and nobody else. You’re an uneducated, illiterate hack who doesn’t know the first thing about science or the scientific method

The only idiot here is you because I’ve never claimed That every species evolves into a new species. I don’t know where you got that, but it didn’t come from me as I’ve clearly stated that there have been many “dead ends” that didn’t evolve. But feel free to prop up your untenable position with lies and hubris since you don’t have any facts.

a reply to: Noinden

So if I get this right The Creator told you he made man on the sixth day.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: turbonium1


The only thing person who doesn’t get it, because they continue to reinforce the proof that they’ve never written a paper beyond a 5th grade book report, is you. I truly feel bad for you. You think you’re so brilliant yet not only have you never had to author a paper requiring a defense in front of peers, you’re incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic without resorting to infantile, petty name calling, ad hominem attacks and personal slurs. That shows you’ve got nothing at all to back up your position aside from the power of willful ignorance.

And then you have thto audacity to put words in my mouth because you know you don’t have solid ground to base your babbling on.

And let’s not forget the consistency of changing your own goal posts. That is the one thing that you can always be counted on for. So go ahead and call other posters who have actually written papers in college idiots. Everyone reading knows who the idiot is and it isn’t me. Don’t take it out on others that you don’t have an education. That’s entirely on you and nobody else. You’re an uneducated, illiterate hack who doesn’t know the first thing about science or the scientific method

The only idiot here is you because I’ve never claimed That every species evolves into a new species. I don’t know where you got that, but it didn’t come from me as I’ve clearly stated that there have been many “dead ends” that didn’t evolve. But feel free to prop up your untenable position with lies and hubris since you don’t have any facts.

The only untenable position is claiming ANY species has 'evolved' into another, different species, without a shred of valid evidence to support their claim, against quadrillions of evidence proving NOTHING has ever 'evolved' into another species, and never will. Every day, millions of species are born the same species, and millions more tomorrow, and the next day, and every day afterward, forever and ever.


If someone actually thinks 'evolution' is true, having quadrillions of species remain those species is more than enough to show who the real idiot is. I'm good with that.

How about dogs? What happened to wolves that we got dogs and dogs and more dogs and dobermans and chihuahuas and pugs and so on. Evolution? By human's help? Or how do you call that?

Breeding? For the better suited races?

Like evolution, but with a human mind behind it?

...

You tend to ignore my postings, Turbonium.

You fail to understand what science is intended to be, which is to search for the truth about everything we don't know yet.

The fatal flaw of science is taking an assumption, or many assumptions, to be true, and try to fit everything into those assumptions, without ever considering the assumptions may have been completely wrong, right from the beginning.

'Evolution' assumes species become different species, over time. When the evidence shows no such thing has ever happened before, and we SEE it doesn't happen, every single day, over thousands of years.

Any real scientist would hold this up as overwhelming evidence against species 'evolving' into other species, because it is an absolute fact.

The problem with scientists holding up the proof that species have never 'evolved' into other species, is that it means life was created as those species, and scientists will never accept a creator of life on Earth, despite all the evidence for it, despite no evidence to dispute it.

So they just spout nonsense about fossils which nobody knew existed as 'proof' of 'evolution', which is utterly shameful, and repugnant.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Get some new glasses. Perhaps some level of education too. There are many religions, so what makes you think your special little cult is THE one?