Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: Quadrivium

Let me get this straight, you were responding to a post I made 7 years ago and responded with a scientific paper from a few months ago? No wonder it didn't make any sense and I didn't even recognize it. The paper did not show that mutations are "voluntary" or chosen by us. It also did not show the body choosing to adapt based on the environment itself or what traits may be favorable. Of course mutations can be caused by the environment, but it's not caused by us, it's caused by radiation or replication errors. How do you think that paper supports your "hypothesis?"

That may be the case, yet that is not what you provided in your link. LOL click on it.....go ahead.
It is bad when someone provides a link and you do not at least look at what they provided.
It is terrible when you provide a link and do not at least look at it before providing it.

talkorigins.org...

I'm honestly not sure how the .org got switched to .com. I almost always copy directly from the site itself. I apologize for that, you could have just said that I posted the wrong link. It was a genuine mistake. LMAO @ your fake outrage over a simple mistake in copy pasting.

There is no proof on the link you provided. It is an article on mutation and Evolution, there are no scientific resources or peer reviewed papers.

Thanks once again for proving you don't grasp science in the slightest. That article was for information purposes and most papers are contained in the talk origins link. You can easily look up any one of the examples. Like, how much evidence do you want???? Do I need to post all 200,000 corresponding scientific research papers on evolution evidence? You haven't addressed a single one yet, you just make pathetically weak excuses to ignore them all.

You are right on this one, it will never be complete because they are doing the science wrong.They are trying to make the evidence fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the evidence.

Another blatant lie. You are really going to make this claim while ignoring every single example given? Again science follows evidence and there is TONS of it. LMAO @ claming they are trying to make evidence fit, when they DO adjust the theory when new information becomes available. The problem is pretty much all evidence fits, and that's a problem for you, so instead of addressing it, you deny it blindly and spew more lies.

There are several large problems with the theropod dinosaurs to birds hypothesis yet they don't mention them.......WHY?

Because only idiotic creationists have problems with it. If you have conflicting science then post it instead of making imaginary excuses.

Macro evolution is not as we have no good proof it occurs above the species level

Because it DOES NOT occurs above the species level. If it did than one animal species would give birth to a different one, and that would actually be evidence against evolution.

The changes ACCUMULATE over time and when enough changes add up, we can classify as a different species or genus or whatever else given more time. How hard is that to understand???? You are dishonestly claiming that macro evolution is a change "above the species level" (and what level is that exactly and how is it different from genetic mutations accumulating?). Macro evolution has the SAME EXACT IDENTICAL mechanisms, just over the long term. You are projecting the oldest evolution straw man in the book. Please stop the blatant dishonesty. You addressed absolutely nothing posted and ignored every single link. No surprise. You aren't here to talk about evidence, only to deny blindly to support religion.

a reply to: cooperton

All of those have been proved hoaxes or never backed up by any legitimate science. Please stop the anti science crusade.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

LOL

yet the most important one that would be proving the whole theory man evolved from apes..


..none.

That's been proved for a long time and I posted a link that contained all the fossils from human ancestors (24+ species) between ancient ape and modern human. Of course your ignorant ass doesn't know that or even care to read about it. You people are mentally ill. No wonder you are in love with Trump LMFAO!

a reply to: Barcs

Honestly, make belief is the least of my worries.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

Honestly, make believe is the focal point of my willful ignorance.

a reply to: peter vlar

Why change my words? You're so afraid.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

All of those have been proved hoaxes or never backed up by any legitimate science. Please stop the anti science crusade.

Ahh yes, because in your world, all evidence that proves your evolutionary theory religion wrong must be a hoax.

a reply to: cooperton

Surely you don’t expect anyone with an internet connection to be fooled by those images? I can’t believe you’d take the risk of showing such obvious hoaxes to bolster your argument!

You know, I previously thought you were smart, just using your intellect unwisely. Now I know exactly what your intellectual position is.

That was really stupid.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Surely you don’t expect anyone with an internet connection to be fooled by those images?

Those are 3 of many, many examples that disprove the evolutionary timeline.

Why are you so certain they must be hoaxes? It is because it violates your evolution religion, and for that reason alone you think it must be a hoax.

Do your own research on 'ooparts', they're everywhere and they disprove the possibility of the evolutionary timeline

Let’s start here:
www.badarchaeology.com...

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Let’s start here:
www.badarchaeology.com...

Looks like they use the same logic you did.

"evolution must be true. This artifact defies the evolutionary time frame. It must be fake."

Again, there are countless other examples like this

Carvings from ancient China:



Brachiosaurus depictions from the Americas:





Wait, why am I wasting my time. You won't believe no matter how many signs are given to you. Even if someone were risen from the dead.

a reply to: cooperton

Like the nonsense about dinosaur material being C14 dated, the examples you post mean absolutely nothing. Human brains look for patterns, even when there are none.

originally posted by: Noinden
Human brains look for patterns, even when there are none.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Like the nonsense about dinosaur material being C14 dated, the examples you post mean absolutely nothing.

What was wrong with their methods? Why do you think both the Arizona and Georgia University AMS carbon dating labs did not properly date the samples?

You are only dismissing it due to your religious beliefs in the evolutionary dogma. It is real empirical science, but you deny and ignore it to maintain your evolution fairy tale.

27 samples from different archaeological sites were tested at multiple carbon dating labs, and all of the results came back between 4,000-40,000 years old for dinosaur remains. summary

The science is settled, it's only a matter of time until the knowledge is dispensed properly.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: peter vlar

Why change my words? You're so afraid.

It was more accurate that way.

a reply to: cooperton

Literally all of that has already been debunked and refuted by people on this website the last time you posted it. Why are you so loyal to your religion that you won't even accept being refuted and upgrading your understanding of the subject? It's really laughable and that's why your credibility does not exist.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

All of those have been proved hoaxes or never backed up by any legitimate science. Please stop the anti science crusade.

Ahh yes, because in your world, all evidence that proves your evolutionary theory religion wrong must be a hoax.

Nope, because they are all creationist hoaxes and/or presumptive assumptions that have never been tested or verified in any way shape or form. LMAO @ claiming art from ancient people is evidence against evolution. That's like saying vampires must exist because they are in art. Give it up, Kent.

originally posted by: Barcs

Nope, because they are all creationist hoaxes and/or presumptive assumptions that have never been tested or verified in any way shape or form.

Why? Where was their methodology wrong? Why do you think Georgia University, Arizona University, Geochron Lab, and also a C14 dating AMS lab in Germany all are mistaken with their result?

summary

You are not siding with science anymore, you are latching to a material reductionist nihilist religion without any evidence to support it.

a reply to: cooperton

LOL newgeology.com!!!!

You literally just diverted away from what you posted to post that bull# which also has already been refuted extensively on this very site. Just stop it bro. Nobody's buying your nonsense.

a reply to: Barcs

More accurate at what?