Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: Quadrivium

You did not read his post did you?

I use critical thinking every day at work, in my private life too. Critical thinking brings evolution as the better answer than "god (or gods) did it". There is evidence (much) for evolution. Zero for god.

So you keep smoking your pot I'm good thanks.

originally posted by: Noinden
. There is evidence (much) for evolution.

No there isn't.

1) no example of an organism evolving into another organism.
2) dinosaur bones contain soft tissue, and are carbon-dated from 4000-40000 years old
3) our ancestor saw dinosaurs and depicted them around the world
4) sequential modifications proposed by evolutionary theory cannot account for the interdependent mechanisms exhibited all throughout biology
5) no complete missing link between an ape-like creature and human has ever been found

You keep ignoring these main points that disprove evolution. You claim it has already been debunked, but that is just wishful thinking, hoping to speak away the inconvenient truth that discredits the entirety of evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Quadrivium

2)Show me the "dishonest tactic" you are referring to.

They use blanket statements like that to wiggle out of situations where their theory is proven wrong. You get them pinned against a wall, so they yell out "hoax"! It's getting exhausting. If they were to just have a logical debate without bias they would realize that the intricacies of biology are totally incompatible with mutative sequential modifications proposed by evolutionary theory

Agreed!!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You did not read his post did you?

I use critical thinking every day at work, in my private life too. Critical thinking brings evolution as the better answer than "god (or gods) did it". There is evidence (much) for evolution. Zero for god.

So you keep smoking your pot

I'm good thanks.

Deflection.
Show me the "dishonest tactic".

a reply to: cooperton

You claim to be a scientist. Yet you claim there is no evidence? You clearly are not a scientist.

(a) Yes there is, and I've posted it before. Go back and look
(b) Bones are not soft tissue. You clearly never took anatomy. They are differentiated.
(c) Prove that it was dinosaurs they painted. No go on. Prove it.
(d) You don't know evolution very well if you can not quote it correctly
(e)This ones a big one, showing you are not a scientist, so it gets a parargraph".

There is no such thing as a missing link. Any educated scientist knows this, that is an idea the media pushes, oh and creationist thralls like you. Every new generation is the next step in evolution. Further more, not every creature leaves a fossil to be found, fossils are actually unlikely, fortuitous events.
Add to this you can't have your cake and eat it. There is no evidence period of you gods, or mine. Yet neither of us is goig to move on deities. My Many gods are as real or not as your single, little desert war god, who has an egoproblem

Quite simply, you don't science.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You did not read his post did you?

I use critical thinking every day at work, in my private life too. Critical thinking brings evolution as the better answer than "god (or gods) did it". There is evidence (much) for evolution. Zero for god.

So you keep smoking your pot

I'm good thanks.

Deflection.
Show me the "dishonest tactic".

Come on, I see you are still on....
You have a PhD....
This should be easy peasy......

a reply to: Quadrivium

Sorry neighbour you do not dictate what I respond to or when. Thanks for playing.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You claim to be a scientist. Yet you claim there is no evidence? You clearly are not a scientist.

(a) Yes there is, and I've posted it before. Go back and look

Common deflection. "I've told you before". Nope. Mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes, fruit flies remain fruit flies, and so on. No organism has ever evolved.

(b) Bones are not soft tissue. You clearly never took anatomy. They are differentiated.

Listen. They found soft tissue inside the bones. No one is claiming bones are soft tissue. Soft tissue being present clearly indicates these samples are not old. Carbon dating reaffirms it (summary)

(c) Prove that it was dinosaurs they painted. No go on. Prove it.

Ok for this section go find a kid who hasn't yet been indoctrinated into the evolutionary fairy tale. They'll be able to tell you what each one of these dinosaurs are:











All of these depictions are from a time in history when dinosaur wasn't even a word yet. They observed these creatures directly

(d) You don't know evolution very well if you can not quote it correctly

Evolutionary theory relies on sequential modifications by mutating genetic code. This is not sufficient to account for the interdependent mechanisms exhibited all throughout biology. The whole must be intact for it to function, and therefor step-by-step additions could not have made it.

(e) There is no such thing as a missing link. Any educated scientist knows this, that is an idea the media pushes, oh and creationist thralls like you. Every new generation is the next step in evolution.

Spare me your semantics. "every new generation is the next step in evolution"... yet we have no evidence that any of the intermediary generations ever existed. Not one complete specimen ever found. You would think over the 25 million years of these intermediary humans walking the earth we would have at least one complete sample. But we don't. Because evolution is a lie.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Sorry neighbour you do not dictate what I respond to or when. Thanks for playing.

Muhahahaaha!
I warned you to just move along....
Thanks for proving my point friend.
PhD?
Muhahahaha!

a reply to: cooperton

(i) Not deflection. We have had this discussion for years, I have provided, evidence. Barcs has provided evidence, etc etc etc Once cited, it still remains cited. IF you had done science , you would understand, that if you've gone oversomething, you don't keep going over it, you move forward.

(ii) The soft tissue inside bones is still not the bones. The process of fossilization means that the soft tissue decayse away, and various minerals replace the bone. The residual carbon has the onlly 14 the fossil can have, and that decays away to undetecable levels.

(iii) You still do not prove those are dinosaurs. You do not know what they are representing. You are claiming they are dinosaurs. This would be akin to a future archaeologist finding my kids toys, and thinking we lived with transforming robots.

(iv) Nice that you are avoiding quoting what the current theory of evolution states. Its as if you think Darwin was the beginning and end of it

(v) Its not senmantics. You can't engage, because you don't know how to. You are certainly not trained in Chemistry and Neuroscience.

Ok simple chemsitry question for you spud.

What does the 2 in SN2 stand for? What do the arrows associated with it mean? Oh and tell me about the kinetics You claim to be a chemist. Unless you lying, you should remember that. Its first year chemistry in the commonwealth and Second in the USA. Oh and its not elective. You would have done Organic Chemistry to get that supposed degree

coop, you have a pm

a reply to: Noinden

Its not senmantics. You can't engage, because you don't know how to.

Now, that is ironic.

originally posted by: Noinden

(iii) You still do not prove those are dinosaurs.

You have a PhD in chemistry but you can't identify what a dinosaur looks like?

a reply to: cooperton

So you have personally seen a dinosaur have you? You have a bad case of conformation bias there. I'd go see a philosopher for it.

I've said you need to PROVE those are dinosaurs. Its simple, find a time travelling phone booth, and go do it. I'd suggest the Brittish blue ones, over the American glass ones myself, as it would come with someone to drive for you.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

So you have personally seen a dinosaur have you? You have a bad case of conformation bias there. I'd go see a philosopher for it.

I've said you need to PROVE those are dinosaurs. Its simple, find a time travelling phone booth, and go do it. I'd suggest the Brittish blue ones, over the American glass ones myself, as it would come with someone to drive for you.

You do realize that evolutionist do the very thing you are accusing cooperton of doing, when they look at "transitional" fossils, right?

a reply to: Quadrivium

One more time with feeling. there is no such thing as an evolutionist. You can not pick and choose the theories in science you accept. You can test them sure, but if you can't disprove them they still stand.

Transitional fossils? Again that is not understanding how evolution works.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

One more time with feeling. there is no such thing as an evolutionist. You can not pick and choose the theories in science you accept. You can test them sure, but if you can't disprove them they still stand.

ev·o·lu·tion·ist
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
adjective
1.
relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection.
"an evolutionist model"
"From Oxford"

Transitional fossils? Again that is not understanding how evolution works.

Well, you and Barca will have to work that one out. Here is link he provided to prove Evolution.
en.wikipedia.org...
Out of your league friend.

a reply to: Noinden

You still here pretender?
Still don’t realize you’re an evolutionist?
Go look in the mirror and tell yourself you are actually something, no more do you have to pretend....
Because you are truly an evolutionist!
I know you might still be disappointed that you’re not a scientist or intelligent like you try so hard to portray yourself...
But you can take comfort in knowing you are a real thing, you Old evolutionist you...

Oh by the way I saw you make a fool of yourself in several posts today without realizing it...

Some scientist you are...

originally posted by: cooperton

(b) Bones are not soft tissue. You clearly never took anatomy. They are differentiated.

Listen. They found soft tissue inside the bones. No one is claiming bones are soft tissue. Soft tissue being present clearly indicates these samples are not old. Carbon dating reaffirms it (summary)

You keep repeating this half lie as if it were wholly true. Was there soft tissue found because idiots in the last simply assumed that it couldn’t be preserved? No, absolutely. Is that soft tissue permineralized (fossilized)??? You bet your sweet behind that it is.

a reply to: peter vlar

so just to set things straight here... the "soft tissue" was actually preserved within the 70million year old bone...

I don't even know if this is a legit find... though it kinda looks legit