Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Akragon

You are correct.
Science is not a religion.
Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.
To them it is their religion. They may not claim it as such but you can see it in the way they post.
There are many examples in this thread alone.

religious

adjective

re·​li·​gious |  ri-ˈli-jəs  

Definition of religious

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

3a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

b: FERVENT, ZEALOUS

link

Except evolution being a science... IF something more logical somehow happened to pop up, with more valid proof and evidence... evolution would be dumped...

Fortunately... that probably won't happen considering we have tons of evidence that it IS the most logical occurrence

One can not say the same about any religion... much has been proven false about every religion...

Yet they're still believing... lol

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quadrivium

Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.

Yes.
However an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Is that lack of evidence that they are religious or that they know they are religious?
Please clarify.

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quadrivium

Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.

Yes.
However an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Is that lack of evidence that they are religious or that they know they are religious?
Please clarify.

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology.

Perhaps you did.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quadrivium

Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.

Yes.
However an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Is that lack of evidence that they are religious or that they know they are religious?
Please clarify.

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology.

Perhaps you did.

No. You did.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Akragon

You are correct.
Science is not a religion.
Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.
To them it is their religion. They may not claim it as such but you can see it in the way they post.
There are many examples in this thread alone.

religious

adjective

re·​li·​gious |  ri-ˈli-jəs  

Definition of religious

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

3a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

b: FERVENT, ZEALOUS

link

Except evolution being a science... IF something more logical somehow happened to pop up, with more valid proof and evidence... evolution would be dumped...

Fortunately... that probably won't happen considering we have tons of evidence that it IS the most logical occurrence

One can not say the same about any religion... much has been proven false about every religion...

Yet they're still believing... lol

How does any of that contradict what I said about some people being religious about evolution?
Also, evolution is not A science.
It pulls in many different sciences to try and prove a natural world view.
It would be better classified as a philosophy.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quadrivium

Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.

Yes.
However an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Is that lack of evidence that they are religious or that they know they are religious?
Please clarify.

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology.

Perhaps you did.

No. You did.

K

a reply to: Akragon

Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly scientifically refuted over and over again...
Only to be replaced by the next faith based theory that can be backed by loosely suggestible implied evidence...

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Can you give me an example of the type of change you are wanting to see? Evolution and adaptation are pretty simple concepts to understand, but none of them involve changing one genus into another.

Well.......


As an evolutionists, using that line of thought, how do you explain the diversity we see today?

Evolution together with adaptation will only show how one species can create another, related species. It does not work above genus, unless the length of time and speciation is incredibly long - for example the timeline from ape to hominid is millions of years - then you will see one genus at the start of the chain and another at the end.

To get an even more diverse collection of phyla you need at least one significant environmental catastrophe - an extinction event. From geological records we can see that after every major extinction event there is an expansion in the animal and plant phyla to fill the gaps left by extinction and in every case the replacements are more diverse and more adaptable than those they replaced. It seems our planet is determined to sustain life after giving rise to it.

So, to answer your question, diversity in related species is caused by evolution by natural selection and adaptation to changing environments. Diversity in the higher classifications usually result from the enormous gaps left by catastrophic extinction events.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Evolutionary theory has been repeatedly scientifically refuted over and over again...
Only to be replaced by the next faith based theory that can be backed by loosely suggestible implied evidence...

and your evidence would be coming from?

Feel free to post anything that has "refuted" evolution...

that is the topic of the thread... lol

a reply to: TerraLiga
Now you are contradicting yourself.

Can you give me an example of the type of change you are wanting to see? Evolution and adaptation are pretty simple concepts to understand, but none of them involve changing one genus into another.

I think you’re being deliberately facetious. I’ve summarised twice now, both for you I think, the outline processes. I cannot caveat everything I write as I simply don’t have the time, but you can see from my other summaries that genus to genus evolution can happen over a long period of time with intermediary steps between them.

This is where the mods fail on the use of this great diverse website.

Deny ignorance my ar$e!

They allow the conscious ignorant to freely speak, totally rejecting the evidence and attempting to brainwash the unlearned.

If you cannnot back up your claim with evidence then your claim is invalid.

Its sad this website has become a haven of dishonest conscious ignorant trolls.

Seriously, we have experts in the field and people troll them.
We have evidence posted which is rejected.
We have direct ad hominem attacks by the unlearned. (Trolls). Going unpunished.

When will the mods wake up?

Its bizarre!!!

When you stand by or contribute to an illogical reality, then you are contributing to said 'reality!!'.

We all need to wake up.

I grew up in a house where up is down and down is up, left is right and right is left, yet up is up and down is down ect ect. A mind phark no doubt.

Logic and a sound epistemology teacher saved me. Who was a taekwondo teacher who tought me respect for like.

Given my toxic mother/sister and upbringing, i came to the conclusion.... fck not hitting a female!!! Thats sexists and speciests.

Equality no? Mt take:

Never harm, abuse or take advantage of the innocent or the weak... regardless of the sex, of the 'species'.

My take from my hillbilly toxic upbringing who was tought by a decent human (father, taekwondo teacher) tought me not only self defence but also taught me we learn to defend so we mitigate harm from the offender as well as yourself.

Fighting is the last restort,.. abuse is when you have no position or point. Which is pointless. No reasonable adult would take this path.

Thats my rant.

So sick of trolls on the net. And you cant say the mods allow this action, i mean seriously, cjeck out the posts.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Was that a rant or a sermon?
I think the latter.

It's been another 2 years since you made this post. Still no evidence that evolution occurs. This is good news, we aren't the meaningless mutant children of ancestral apes. We have meaning, and our bodies take on the semblance of the Intelligence from which we come.

Lies always fail, sooner or later.The evolution claim lasted far longer than it ever should have, considering humans and apes have always been humans and apes, since the beginning. Just wait another 10 billion years, everyone, you'll see every species 'evolve' into other species!

I think Santa Claus looks better and better every year, by comparison!

originally posted by: cooperton
It's been another 2 years since you made this post. Still no evidence that evolution occurs. This is good news, we aren't the meaningless mutant children of ancestral apes.

Er, the evidence for evolution is well documented. Can't believe that you have not come across it. Are the blinkers in the way?

Because a great amount of data supports the idea of biological evolution through natural selection, and because no scientific evidence has yet been found to prove this idea false, this idea is considered a scientific theory. Because lots of evidence supports scientific theories, they are usually accepted as true by a majority of scientists.

Oh, I know. The source is for dummies!

originally posted by: paraphi
Er, the evidence for evolution is well documented. Can't believe that you have not come across it. Are the blinkers in the way?

Not one example of a population of organisms evolving. Never. Not once. Dinosaur remains have been found to have soft tissue in them, and have been carbon-dated to less than 40,000 years old. There are literally hundreds more fossilized remains of giants and coneheads than there are missing links between apes and humans... The thing is you blindly believe, for example, the source you posted. But can you explain why any of that definitely demonstrates the necessity of evolution to fit the narrative regarding the origin of life?

Take for example homology (an example stated in your link). Just because all mammals have similar forearm structure does not indicate common ancestry. Where are the intermediate steps that bridged the gap between mammals? Non-existant, just like the supposed missing links between humans and the theorized mutant ancestral ape-like creature. It is all a CGI trick so these sham scientists can keep getting grant money. You'd be blown away that the entirety of Australopithecus is based off Lucy's skeletal remains which have 90% of the cranium missing.



It's just sad that this is the extent of "evidence"... They make us think there is this abundance of evidence, but when the rubber meets the road, it is lacking entirely. Don't fall for their dogmatic garbage, look into the empirical data on your own and you will realize its a house of cards.

a reply to: cooperton

You're such a liar. Peter Vlar has responded to your stupid post about that skeleton several times. You just don't read them.
You're not a professional in the field. He is. Why don't you pay attention.
Good science is about discovery and evidence. You have neither for any of your ridiculous statements.

What would be the conclusion if evolution was 100% right or 100% wrong. ?
how right or wrong would the theory that concluded this be ?