There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

originally posted by: turbonium1
There are millions of different species on Earth, without one species having shown the slightest indication of changing, over 10,000 years, at least.

That's my proof.

So your proof is a blatant lie? Nice.

a reply to: turbonium1

Neighbour. It is called a theory. Because it has been tested. You don't understand that theories can change, with the new evidence. Evolution certainly has.

However it is a theory in science as it has observable data. We've seen new traits form, we've witnessed speciation. THUS it i does indeed withstand scientific scrutiny.

It is scrutinized in every single publication in peer reviewed papers.

As for no testes? Well you might be the expert in that department...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Neighbour. It is called a theory. Because it has been tested. You don't understand that theories can change, with the new evidence. Evolution certainly has.

However it is a theory in science as it has observable data. We've seen new traits form, we've witnessed speciation. THUS it i does indeed withstand scientific scrutiny.

It is scrutinized in every single publication in peer reviewed papers.

As for no testes? Well you might be the expert in that department...

I've never seen any evidence that holds up, only more nonsense trying to excuse it.

The observable evidence - over 10,000 years and counting - shows no 'evolving' of any species. None.

So when it's claimed that 'evolution' always happens, it should have SOME SORT of valid evidence over the past 10,000 years....


Without evidence, they should be looking into all sorts of alternative theories - as normal scientific method requires.


They don't even consider anything else to be POSSIBLE, though!!

As if it's a doctrine, a belief, that must be held, in spite of reality.....

Like a religion...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Neighbour. It is called a theory. Because it has been tested. You don't understand that theories can change, with the new evidence. Evolution certainly has.

However it is a theory in science as it has observable data. We've seen new traits form, we've witnessed speciation. THUS it i does indeed withstand scientific scrutiny.

It is scrutinized in every single publication in peer reviewed papers.

As for no testes? Well you might be the expert in that department...

I've never seen any evidence that holds up, only more nonsense trying to excuse it.

Are you talking about MES or evidence for a young earth? Because your statement certainly applies far more to the latter than the former.

The observable evidence - over 10,000 years and counting - shows no 'evolving' of any species. None.

To make a statement like this one must A. Be a flat out liar. B. Hasn't actually read any of the 100's of thousands of papers supporting the mechanisms of biological evolution C. Someome so consumed by willful ignorance and confirmation bias that they wouldn't know evidence if it gave them a lap dance , D. Someome who thinks there is some worldwide conspiracy propagated by every working scientist, grad student etc...to hide the true origins of humanities past Or E. A troll

See, when so,ozone like you says there's zero evidence of an evolution in the past 10 KA, it shows that you are devoid of intellectual curiosity because things like Caucasian skin tone and eye colors other than brown and the gene for lactase persistence beyond toddlerhood I just kind of laugh and scratch my head.

So when it's claimed that 'evolution' always happens, it should have SOME SORT of valid evidence over the past 10,000 years....

There is. Mountains of it actually. There are mutations occurring in your body every single moment of the day whether it be environmental or transcription errors, you are not the same today as when you were born let alone HSS being the same today as they were 10 KA and if you propagate, those mutations will be passed onto your offspring who will in turn continue to have errors in replication that will be passed down to your grandchildren and on and on. To deny that this occurs is quite literally willful ignorance.

Without evidence, they should be looking into all sorts of alternative theories - as normal scientific method requires.

Ok, got it, you don't understand evolutionary biology or anthropology or genetics and now we find that you don't understand the scientific method.

How it works is we observe a phenomena, we create a hypothesis to explain that phenomena and then we test those observations to see if they are able to be independently replicated.

The SM doesn't exist to randomly explore looking into alternative possibilities, because without a supporting hypothesis and further evidence to support it, your alternatives are not alternative theories. As many of us have explained the difference between a laymans theory and a Scientific Theory I won't waste time doing so again but you're wY off the mark.

They don't even consider anything else to be POSSIBLE, though!!

Completely false strawman there. We entertain all sorts of odd, fringe or otherwise non mainstream postulations. Unfortunately for those like you who think that science is the lRgest worldwide conspiracy ever perpetuated, you will never believe that. Take an afternoon and attend a conference regarding an Archaeological or Antheopological find and I think you would quickly find that there is no unified point of view, no party line to be towed. It exists only in the imaginations of those who wasn't to be smarter than those phones scientists without doing the work we have to get to the point where we are writing papers, thesis, dissertations etc....

As if it's a doctrine, a belief, that must be held, in spite of reality.....

Like a religion...

What you describe is not science and not how real scientists actually work. Nice try at slandering people who are educated in tye fields you believe you are far more qualified to speak on despite being wrong on every single count you bring forth.

You never qualify your statements or support them you simply engage in hit and run tactics

Mutations are simply defects in normal chromosomes, not evolution of a species.

What species has ever 'mutated' into a new species?

None, right?

Humans have not changed at all, nor has any other species changed, either.


What makes a world-wide conspiracy so impossible to accept? Because a world-wide conspiracy would never be kept secret, if even a small conspiracy could not be kept a secret!! Like Watergate, for example....


A conspiracy must be smaller than Watergate, to keep it a secret.
Superb logic!

Nobody wants to believe a conspiracy can be world-wide in scale, or scope - and that's exactly why they work out, so perfectly.

It's not about millions of people being involved in a conspiracy, it's about who KNOWS it is a conspiracy.

All the millions don't know squat.


Employees don't know squat, mostly. No need to know.


Of course, employees of a massive conspiracy are very different. They'd know everything!

'Evolution' theories are based on the claim of all species in a continual state of transformation into another species, which transforms into another species, forever.

That is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence to support it.


No theory can be valid without evidence to support it. When it s a theory trying to claim how species on Earth have 'evolved' from earlier species, and continue to 'evolve'......it requires solid proof, without a doubt.


Scientific method requires proof of any claim, or theory, to support a claim, or a theory.


To claim humans evolved from apes, is one example.

Such a claim is of extreme importance, no doubt. If ancient species of ape 'evolved' into humans, that's a serious assertion to make. It needs solid proof.

They claimed....

'Humans share DNA of extinct apes. Enough DNA in common to support direct lineage, common ancestry.

It's not proven, of course, only strongly suggested at this point!'


They never had evidence of ape ancestors, and never will.


Humans have never been ape-lings, and we have never changed into humans from an earlier species.


Every species on Earth shares DNA, to various degrees. Modern apes and humans share 99% DNA. 1% makes us two, very different, entirely unique, separate species.

I am entirely unsurprised by the 'progression' of this thread. I merely despair. Oh and guys, don't argue with the troll.

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers

en.wikipedia.org...


For an example of troll post, see above...

originally posted by: turbonium1
In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers

en.wikipedia.org...


For an example of troll post, see above...

Thank you for defining what you are. Most helpful.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Without evidence, they should be looking into all sorts of alternative theories - as normal scientific method requires.

They don't even consider anything else to be POSSIBLE, though!!

As if it's a doctrine, a belief, that must be held, in spite of reality.....

Like a religion...

Just so, atheists some of the most fanatically religious of all, they actually the ones of a mentality most likely to hang on to the Tooth Fairy.

Atheism is a faith, and to be an atheist, if they're really saying there is no God, is to be a stupid person. The claim is simply stupid. Here is why. The atheist has no possible existential, I mean as in zero existential knowledge there is not a God. God is Spirit, and is not sensed by the usual brute sensory means, touch, taste, smell, sight or sound, by most people in history, though there are many, many witnesses that left their testimony of their encounters with God, Old Testament and, of course, the Lord Jesus. But here we have people that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, whether reliable witnesses to God, proof of future prophecy supernaturally fulfilled in scripture, or gaping holes in their fantastic, junk science, and though they have zero existential means of saying they won't, in fact, meet a God of wrath, when their hearts stop: this makes atheism a wholly unsubstantiated, blind faith of a doctrine there is no God, and a claim they cannot find a scintilla proof or real evidence of. More importantly, this makes atheism stupid, a lie. Put it this way, no atheist has any real means of saying they're right they will not meet the Lord, on death. So, to say there is no God, by anybody, is a stupid and lying thing to say one can't possibly know is true. (You could never prove a lie, anyway.) At best, an intelligent and honest person can be an agnostic, say, "I don't know if there's a God or not." This is really all an unbeliever, with the slightest intelligence or honest honor, can say. This remains true:

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

They even suffer "don't believe your lying eyes" syndrome:

Romans 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

If an atheist found a watch on the forest floor, he would be so stupid as to say it evolved from iron ore, rather than admit there was a watchmaker. This is how absurd they are, when the irreducible complexity of creation is in front of their noses, is in the very cells of their noses and entire body.

The truth is, over many years digging around the supposed atheists' minds, having them often enough finally admit that yes, they hate God, you'll find that denial of God is most always a smokescreen, denial a means of rebellion and spite against God, creature narcissistic hubris against the Creator. They neither have any real peace, never will, this why they can't stop the angry railing against the faith and people of faith. They can't stand looking in the mirror. Atheists, in the main, are just garden variety, malevolence liars, at best lying to themselves. If you'll notice, when they get shot down in debates, like over evolution, they can only resort to attacking the messenger, instead of answering the exact objections, as they, like a child of God, stick to their anti-God faith. That's all. Most people choose one lie or another, too difficult for those huge egos, with all that lust for evil, to repent and be humbled, before God.

There's really little more intellectually pitiful than an atheist, that, in fact, knows nothing, can't know anything, claiming to know, accusing others of having mere faith. Talk about a dog that just don't hunt. On the other hand, I can see how such people would be proud to think they came from a long line of apes. That makes sense: they're consistent in something, anyway.

a reply to: Scrutinizing

I see. So, you are convinced that religion somehow trumps science, as the former has more evidence (in your eyes) than the latter.
Fascinating.
Let's face a few facts shall we? The bible is not an authoritative source. It's a book of myths and religious gibberish that have codified by various religious authorities who have been trying to desperately cling onto power and money. For example: the Kingdom of Solomon was nowhere near as big as the Old Testament claims. How do we know this? Archaeology.
As for the rest of your diatribe, we get it, you hate, loathe and misunderstand atheists.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

As for the rest of your diatribe, we get it, you hate, loathe and misunderstand atheists.

You guys are funny, always the same things. I like atheists more than fake Christians, myself. Scripture I cited reflects God loathing, I believe Holy God more adamant, in the sense of offended holiness I lack. I'm used to you meatheads. You don't move my blood pressure a fraction. Calling you stupid, and explaining exactly why, isn't hate and loathing. Can't anybody point out the idiots you are, just as a matter of fact? There was no anger, unlike you guys: I simply laid it out, exactly why you're dumb as rocks. The shoe fits you, and you guys always mindlessly shooting the messenger. I explained and proved my premise. My shorts aren't in a bunch. There need not be hate and loathing, to make obvious observations. I wish your sorry rears got saved, believed in the Lord Jesus. I don't want anybody to go to hell. If I really hated you, I'd agree with you, try to help make sure your barbecue. Compute that data, Einstein.

originally posted by: Scrutinizing

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

As for the rest of your diatribe, we get it, you hate, loathe and misunderstand atheists.

You guys are funny, always the same things. I like atheists more than fake Christians, myself. Scripture I cited reflects God loathing, I believe Holy God more adamant, in the sense of offended holiness I lack. I'm used to you meatheads. You don't move my blood pressure a fraction. Calling you stupid, and explaining exactly why, isn't hate and loathing. Can't anybody point out the idiots you are, just as a matter of fact? There was no anger, unlike you guys: I simply laid it out, exactly why you're dumb as rocks. The shoe fits you, and you guys always mindlessly shooting the messenger. I explained and proved my premise. My shorts aren't in a bunch. There need not be hate and loathing, to make obvious observations. I wish your sorry rears got saved, believed in the Lord Jesus. I don't want anybody to go to hell. If I really hated you, I'd agree with you, try to help make sure your barbecue. Compute that data, Einstein.

Barbecue? What? Is that some kind of reference to hell?
No, my point still stands. You hate atheists, you misunderstand the concept and you think that for some reason that atheists are stupid.
*Ahem*
I place more credence in scientific facts than a book of myths. And that makes me stupid does it?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Barbecue? What? Is that some kind of reference to hell?
No, my point still stands. You hate atheists, you misunderstand the concept and you think that for some reason that atheists are stupid.
*Ahem*
I place more credence in scientific facts than a book of myths. And that makes me stupid does it?

Don't ask me what made you stupid. But I don't think you're stupid. I know you're stupid. Let's at least be accurate, for the record. I don't know why you think I hate you for being stupid, though. I like dogs and other furry creatures, a lot, and it may be the case they're dumber than you modified ape men. I wouldn't say that around my dog, though.

a reply to: turbonium1

Where did you look for evidence? No seriously. Do you read peer reviewed journals? Hell do you read PopSci? Or do you just go to church and listen to what you are told.

YOU are wrong over no observable evolution. We have seen speciation, we have seen adaption, including in the human species. Thus I call BS on "no observable evidence" . Where to dind this evidence? Google Scholar is you friend, I assume you do not have access to SciFinder or Reaxsys?

Thus, no its nothing like a religion, as new evidence makes science regularly reassess their views.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

You don't understand that theories can change, with the new evidence. Evolution certainly has.

The evolutionary storylines sure did, and still do. The law of gravity never changed though, it's still as factual/true/certain/absolute/correct, without error as when Isaac Newton first formulated it (Einstein's discoveries and theories related to gravity don't change that either). You can ignore everything after 8:42:

originally posted by: peter vlar

See, when so,ozone like you says there's zero evidence of an evolution in the past 10 KA, it shows that you are devoid of intellectual curiosity because things like Caucasian skin tone and eye colors other than brown and the gene for lactase persistence beyond toddlerhood I just kind of laugh and scratch my head.

a reply to: whereislogic

Of course they change. We as humans discover new things each and every experiment. To not readjust your ideas to the data, is arrogant.

You should know this, as you claim to be a trained scientist. You've yet to actually demonstrate this however.

a reply to: Noinden

Damn... another scientist?

There seems to be a lot of them that hang around these boards

a reply to: Akragon

Something draws them in though for Whereislogic who claims to be one, I've seen no evidence yet.