Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by iterationzero

Except that there's nothing on the site you linked to that you could have paraphrased in the way you did. You really have no idea if Darwin said anything like that or not and, if he did, what context he said it in.

Well I figured a link with the time showing the darwin book open would have been good enough.

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by vasaga

 

From watching the video and reading its description I am assuming that you are trying to attack the credibility of darwin. If you would like to do a bit of reading to see what is actually known, taught, and freely available to anyone who cares to look you can go here.
What is the history of Evolutionary Theory

I have a tendency to doubt official stories, especially regarding history. They are always written by the ones in power.

reply to post by colin42

Really is that so. Your problem here is that you stated:

And I still stand on this being rare.

My answer was to that. So again a 2 minute google showed you to be incorrect. It shows that only humans cant drink untreated water is incorrect. Also that man is responsible for it every time. So in short, you are wrong again.

That also depends, how do you not know that the alge bloom was caused by man.

So you are wrong again and so bring in a straw man to deflect on how wrong your are. You said:

It was just an example.

My answer was correct and addressed your comment. Yours as usual does not.

so you think being redundant and making tools with tools, in the wild is normal?

But you seem willing to make leaps of faith to get to 'we are not from here.' but cannot use logic to determine my answer regarding littering. Why is that?

Well when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye are all saying the same thing, I don't think its a leap of faith. Evolution with out proof is a leap of faith, a giant one.

No. Your original statement was:


Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,

My response and list showed you were wrong yet again.

Except you never gave a good example of one that didn't have intervention from man.

Your sqirming again. You wrote:


Ya and Ill bet they live to be 30 and die early.

Adding ALL does not change your original statement. You also have blanked the fact that the bushman lives without modern medicine, processed food, water and milk. You seem totally unwilling to address this even though it directly opposes your stance that without those things humans would die before adulthood. Why?

Ya that was my fault I should have said they live to be no older than 30

You had better hold onto that booby prize. Our life span is a lot longer than many of the other species. At the end of our LONG fertile period and into old age our society looks after our ederly.

Other animals do not get that care. As they age they become more open to disease and predation. We also have a greater success rate with raising our young as opposed to the high mortality rate with the young of most other animals. Which is contary to your views but true none the less.

And don't you think its odd how some animals outlive us by many years, yet we are suppose to be the superior race?

You must be the "If I can't see it" then it can't be evol monkey.

Try to get it right. I am the 'If you can show no evidence then its just a story monkey'



It wasn't my suggestion but I can agree that one could help at this point.

I bet you can



No you were saying we are NOT primates, I was correcting you.

How idiotic are you?

You don't have to be embarresad, I thought we were not primates too.

Sorry you answered my previous point. You are that idiotic. Thanks.

where is your bones of proof? Where is the proof in the lab of evolution? There is nothing.

reply to post by colin42

Are you really as dense as you are appearing?

Ask yourself if a person makes a decission to travel by a less poluting form of transport for that reason rather than a private vehicle would that same person then litter his enviroment for no other reason than lazyness?

This sort of nonsense only devalues your input into this discussion even lower than it is now. If you cannot work out the direct answer to you question then I believe you have been shown to be wrong yet again as you have no ability to stand back and see the bigger picture. In fact your are blinded by your fantasy.

I didn't say for laziness, I said because you allready felt you were doing your part.

reply to post by colin42


This post should seriously be in skunk works.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye are all saying the same thing, I don't think its a leap of faith. Evolution with out proof is a leap of faith, a giant one.

So what makes these sources more valid than the numerous scientists that say the same thing? That thing being that evolution is fact. You have listed four sources, each of which has shown to be wrong on multiple counts. I on the other hand could list countless sources that support evolution that haven't been discredited by any peer-reviewed papers. I admit that some of these might not be applicable, but the majority of them should be. So, if being right is based on the number of sources saying the same thing I think evolution wins.

Google Scholar

reply to post by vasaga


Sure I can understand that. But, in this case, your video is stating others had similar views on evolution first. When we look at the written published history it says the same thing. Well, close, it doesn't take such a harsh tone as the video but the facts are there. So I am not really sure what the problem is.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Looking at your posting history you would be the expert .................... in being sent into skunkworks.

reply to post by drivers1492

It's remarkable that Darwin gets so much praise while Wallace gets none. Even National Geographic recognizes that. And well, the problem is the bias that was argued in that video. People have adopted that way of thinking, believing they are somehow at the top of the pile, and everyone else who believes something else is at the bottom and should be ridiculed etc. Not everyone does this, but there's more than enough examples of that in this thread alone. And that's the issue with people.. That aspect is basically the same as a religious aspect... And people don't see that...

reply to post by vasaga


Aaahhhhh point taken and I do agree with the bias and arrogance seen on both sides of the issue at hand as well as a variety of other things. I personally support evolution and love to hear others views as to why they do not. It's a fascinating subject with a great history.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And I still stand on this being rare.

As stated you did not say rare, you said rare and caused by man. Very dishonest of you.

That also depends, how do you not know that the alge bloom was caused by man.

dnr.wi.gov...

Fossil evidence suggests that blue-green algae have been around for millions of years

It was just an example.

Yep, an example of a straw man argument. It did not address the comment I made. You have not again addressed the other comment I made that you were wrong again

so you think being redundant and making tools with tools, in the wild is normal

You were and are wrong. I gave you a reason why you were wrong and despite that you insist on continueing to be wrong. That is errr just wrong.

Making tools is making tools. It does not matter where you make those tools.

Well when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye are all saying the same thing, I don't think its a leap of faith. Evolution with out proof is a leap of faith, a giant one.

The point is they may saying the same thing but they are also not providing evidence to prove what they are saying is true. You have been shown this many times but choose to believe them. That is called blind faith.

At the same time you reject the mass of evidence provided by evolution and refuse to look at what the evidence shows. That is you willingly embracing ignorance to continue having blind faith in a fantasy. Which is fine by me I just wonder why you need others to join you in the swamp of ignorance you wallow in?

Except you never gave a good example of one that didn't have intervention from man.

Shal I quote you at you again? Yep

Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,

The list I gave you showed we did, have and do. You cannot address that point and so you start your little dance around it.

Ya that was my fault I should have said they live to be no older than 30

You refuse to get it dont you. It does not matter what age you guess they might live to. The fact that they (bushmen)live past puberty without all the things you list as vital shows how wrong you are about milk, inoculations, medical care, water, processed food and all the other numbskull things you put forward. So are you going to dance around this one again?

And don't you think its odd how some animals outlive us by many years, yet we are suppose to be the superior race?

Ha ha. So now superiority is measured by how long lived a creature is. (sigh) Again as you have been told many times before evolution does not mean one species is superior to another. You have been given many examples of why that is. You chose ignorance and learned nothing.

You don't have to be embarresad, I thought we were not primates too.

Mate, you dont get embarrassed by saying un substantiated rubbish like we dont belong here. Our hands show we are from another planet. You dont even blush when caught out in lies and dishonesty.

where is your bones of proof? Where is the proof in the lab of evolution? There is nothing.

Let me paraphrase something from a book you hold dear. 'There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.' It was written with you in mind.

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by vasaga

 

Aaahhhhh point taken and I do agree with the bias and arrogance seen on both sides of the issue at hand as well as a variety of other things. I personally support evolution and love to hear others views as to why they do not. It's a fascinating subject with a great history.

To both of you

That is why I started a thread to discuss other explanations. It has got the potential for an interesting debate but the refusal to do as stated in the OP shows that agendas will not allow that to happen and then of course along came Itsthespoof and the whole idea went to hell.

reply to post by colin42

along came Itsthespoof and the whole idea went to hell

So you believe in hell?

reply to post by Quadrivium


sorry bro, i couldn't help myself


It's not like you need anymore comedy here

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by colin42

 

along came Itsthespoof and the whole idea went to hell

So you believe in hell?

Hahahahha that was funny. I agree Colin it does have great potential and I have enjoyed reading through all of it since it was started.

reply to post by Quadrivium
I got the joke. Yes I now believe in hell. Its a comedy version of it but it smells very much as it is decribed which indicates what we have been buried in up to our necks is exactly what that too smells of.

There must be a lot of bulls in hell.

reply to post by drivers1492

I have nothing against evolution either, but, I'm not a supporter either. The problem comes in, when on the one side people say that evolution only addresses how life changes over time when it's already there, while abiogenesis addresses the origin of life and that they're completely separate, and on the other side when someone comes with intelligent design or creationism or panspermia or whatever else, suddenly evolution is used to discredit that particular view of the origin of life while it wasn't relevant a second ago. Suddenly abiogenesis falls under evolution.. And I can't stand that type of hypocrisy.

More often than not, the evolution theory is attached to materialism, and that's why people see stuff like ID as an alternative to evolution, but it's not. They can easily co-exist. But for some reason, people don't want them to co-exist. They love to see them as opposites. So everyone who disagrees or slightly doubts evolution seems to be shoved into the Christian view of creation and the bible etc when they never said something about those things.. So discussing becomes tedious and annoying because you then need to defend stuff you never claimed in the first place, and that will only escalate when people keep talking past each other.. That also happens on both sides, for example when someone says we came from chimpanzees etc.. I've also caught myself getting mad and annoyed too, and that's where I quit the discussion because I know nothing fruitful will come out of it.

reply to post by vasaga

Ah, a kindred spirit.
I feels almost the same way.
My pet peave is how most of the evolutionary "facts"are based on assumption. When you point this out do they dispute and discuss? Some do but most attack.
There are a couple here that just try to nit pic because they have no argument, or their arguments are outdated.
I would really be able to discuss this topic, I believe there is a lot each side could learn.
I would love too start a thread on my beliefs, stated on there previous page, but I KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD TURN INTO.
When I first came too this thread colin and I actually had a pretty good discussion before the drama set in.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well I figured

You should pay more attention to your sources before you go about "figuring" things.

a link with the time showing the darwin book open would have been good enough.

Except the video you linked to not only doesn't show "the darwin book" (more on that in a moment) but it never even mentions the name Darwin. So, no, it's not good enough. You're just continuing to prove that you don't even research or really pay attention to your own sources.

... the darwin book ...

Uh, which Darwin book are you talking about? You are aware that he published a few dozen during his lifetime, right? And they're all in the public domain, so finding them and vetting your source that you keep paraphrasing should be trivial for someone as skilled in the fine art of investigation as you are, no?

I'll continue waiting for you to show some intellectual integrity and provide the original quote by Darwin and it's source.

reply to post by colin42

And I still stand on this being rare.

As stated you did not say rare, you said rare and caused by man. Very dishonest of you.


That also depends, how do you not know that the alge bloom was caused by man.

dnr.wi.gov...

Fossil evidence suggests that blue-green algae have been around for millions of years

It's a good thing these are not normal in our drinking water.

It was just an example.

Yep, an example of a straw man argument. It did not address the comment I made. You have not again addressed the other comment I made that you were wrong again


so you think being redundant and making tools with tools, in the wild is normal

You were and are wrong. I gave you a reason why you were wrong and despite that you insist on continueing to be wrong. That is errr just wrong.

Making tools is making tools. It does not matter where you make those tools.

Your strawman argument of redundant tools caused from more sophisticated needs is pure strawman.

Well when the bible, von daniken, sitchen and Pye are all saying the same thing, I don't think its a leap of faith. Evolution with out proof is a leap of faith, a giant one.

The point is they may saying the same thing but they are also not providing evidence to prove what they are saying is true. You have been shown this many times but choose to believe them. That is called blind faith.

At the same time you reject the mass of evidence provided by evolution and refuse to look at what the evidence shows. That is you willingly embracing ignorance to continue having blind faith in a fantasy. Which is fine by me I just wonder why you need others to join you in the swamp of ignorance you wallow in?

Actually they have provided tons of proof and you still choose to not believe, I think thats called being incredulous.

Except you never gave a good example of one that didn't have intervention from man.

Shal I quote you at you again? Yep


Why is it that we have no natural interaction with the other species from day one,

The list I gave you showed we did, have and do. You cannot address that point and so you start your little dance around it.

There is no such species that depends on man to survive from birth, and if you gave me any, I didn't get them.

Ya that was my fault I should have said they live to be no older than 30

You refuse to get it dont you. It does not matter what age you guess they might live to. The fact that they (bushmen)live past puberty without all the things you list as vital shows how wrong you are about milk, inoculations, medical care, water, processed food and all the other numbskull things you put forward. So are you going to dance around this one again?

Well then you need to contact the medical community and let they know they have it all wrong and you have it all right.

And don't you think its odd how some animals outlive us by many years, yet we are suppose to be the superior race?

Ha ha. So now superiority is measured by how long lived a creature is. (sigh) Again as you have been told many times before evolution does not mean one species is superior to another. You have been given many examples of why that is. You chose ignorance and learned nothing.

I guess I missed that one too.

You don't have to be embarresad, I thought we were not primates too.

Mate, you dont get embarrassed by saying un substantiated rubbish like we dont belong here. Our hands show we are from another planet. You dont even blush when caught out in lies and dishonesty.


where is your bones of proof? Where is the proof in the lab of evolution? There is nothing.

Let me paraphrase something from a book you hold dear. 'There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.' It was written with you in mind.

Well seeing how your the one that believes in theorys that have no proof to back them up, I guess you might say we both aren't on the same page.