Science against evolution

reply to post by flyingfish

tooth when an explanation shows you to be absolutely wrong, ignore the explanation and reassert the original claim?
Confidence like that can only come from ignorance and complete dedication to semantic fallacies.

You haven't providing a single piece of meaningful text not even once. All you do is lie, obfuscate and just try to discredit knowledge.

Its too bad you more interested in discrediting knowledge than you are in actually discussing anything.

Thats because I wasn't looking to be proven wrong by explanations, I was looking for something more along the lines of proof. The sad part is that I'm pretty easy on what I will accept.

The problem is no seems to be able to find anything to direct me that doesn't have words like, maybe, and assumed, or possibly.

reply to post by Barcs

Your post that I responded to criticized evolution for not having missing links and now that I proved you wrong you claim they aren't supposed to exist? Keep making things up. It won't change anything. Your idea of evolution is a straw man and you refuse to accept any evidence. The only reason I even respond to you is so the average reader isn't fooled by your blatant lies and failure to provide any evidence to back it up

Thats right, because evolution had 150 years to produce fossils that showed a connection between man and apes, and there is none. They agreed with this and as a result moved the goal posts to say we now share a common ancestor.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Thats right, because evolution had 150 years to produce fossils that showed a connection between man and apes, and there is none. They agreed with this and as a result moved the goal posts to say we now share a common ancestor.

Stop making things up. Evolution was ALWAYS about a common ancestor. There's no other way it could possibly work. You are wrong and continue to lie and make things up that aren't true.

reply to post by itsthetooth


What in the World are you talking about?

Evolution is the process of Natural Selection...Survival of the Fittest. This is exactly what I described in the listed experiment. It is very simple.

Living things that have the specific traits that allow them to survive are able to pass those traits down to their offspring. Those offsprings traits again are made even more prevelent within their own offspring as only the group of themselves that survives the tests of nature will have offspring.

This is a very simple and unavoidable truth.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Barcs

Stop making things up. Evolution was ALWAYS about a common ancestor. There's no other way it could possibly work. You are wrong and continue to lie and make things up that aren't true.

Common ancestor is just another way to say you wont be able to get proof (as in, there are no fossils of missing links)as its not a direct descendent, while still maintaining that it's possible.

Like I said, just a smooth way to move the goal post because it was allready busted.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

What in the World are you talking about?

Evolution is the process of Natural Selection...Survival of the Fittest. This is exactly what I described in the listed experiment. It is very simple.

Living things that have the specific traits that allow them to survive are able to pass those traits down to their offspring. Those offsprings traits again are made even more prevelent within their own offspring as only the group of themselves that survives the tests of nature will have offspring.

This is a very simple and unavoidable truth.

Well sure it is, its all common sense, but do you have any proof that its all part of the same process that creates new species?

reply to post by itsthetooth


There is now a massive amount of proof of this as we have the ability to map various Genomes of Life Forms and study them to find common ancestors.

Split Infinity

reply to post by itsthetooth


Who are you trying to fool by claiming you need to see proof?
It is clear your not interested abductive reasoning, logical reasoning or anything objective.

I think Harry Frankfurt has got you pegged by definition.

bullshi**ers aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements (it is because of this that Frankfurt concedes that "the bullshi**er is faking things", but that "this does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong"). While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, bullshi**ers, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "...bullsh** is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are" (Frankfurt 61).

wiki

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Stop making things up. Evolution was ALWAYS about a common ancestor. There's no other way it could possibly work. You are wrong and continue to lie and make things up that aren't true.

Common ancestor is just another way to say you wont be able to get proof (as in, there are no fossils of missing links)as its not a direct descendent, while still maintaining that it's possible.

Like I said, just a smooth way to move the goal post because it was allready busted.

No. Common ancestor is shown by fossil records and DNA. 12+ homonid ape species have been discovered, just as Darwin originally predicted. Nothing was ever busted, since you haven't provided a single piece of evidence at all, you just ramble and make up your own version of evolution to debunk. The evidence just keeps adding up and the more we find, the more it points to evolution. We even found the halfway point between human and ape. Surely you have evidence / science against this, since the topic is science against evolution right? I'll save you the trouble because we all already know that you can't and won't and will respond to this with more conjecture and made up concepts and definitions.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

There is now a massive amount of proof of this as we have the ability to map various Genomes of Life Forms and study them to find common ancestors.

What proof is there that genomes conclusivly prove relation?

Again, its an assumption based on commonality.

reply to post by flyingfish

Who are you trying to fool by claiming you need to see proof?
It is clear your not interested abductive reasoning, logical reasoning or anything objective.

I think Harry Frankfurt has got you pegged by definition.

Wow, you must have gotten yours before mine.

reply to post by Barcs

No. Common ancestor is shown by fossil records and DNA. 12+ homonid ape species have been discovered, just as Darwin originally predicted. Nothing was ever busted, since you haven't provided a single piece of evidence at all, you just ramble and make up your own version of evolution to debunk. The evidence just keeps adding up and the more we find, the more it points to evolution. We even found the halfway point between human and ape. Surely you have evidence / science against this, since the topic is science against evolution right? I'll save you the trouble because we all already know that you can't and won't and will respond to this with more conjecture and made up concepts and definitions.

Now do those 12 just show an ape species or do they show a ape / human relation? There is a big difference. Do you have links?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

No. Common ancestor is shown by fossil records and DNA. 12+ homonid ape species have been discovered, just as Darwin originally predicted. Nothing was ever busted, since you haven't provided a single piece of evidence at all, you just ramble and make up your own version of evolution to debunk. The evidence just keeps adding up and the more we find, the more it points to evolution. We even found the halfway point between human and ape. Surely you have evidence / science against this, since the topic is science against evolution right? I'll save you the trouble because we all already know that you can't and won't and will respond to this with more conjecture and made up concepts and definitions.

Now do those 12 just show an ape species or do they show a ape / human relation? There is a big difference. Do you have links?

They clearly show gradual change from ape to human. Google it. I've posted it for you before, not wasting my time looking up something you can easily google.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Who are you trying to fool by claiming you need to see proof?
It is clear your not interested abductive reasoning, logical reasoning or anything objective.

I think Harry Frankfurt has got you pegged by definition.

Wow, you must have gotten yours before mine.

You missed this part..let it sink in..

bullshi**ers aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements (it is because of this that Frankfurt concedes that "the bullshi**er is faking things", but that "this does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong"). While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, bullshi**ers, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "...bullsh** is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are" (Frankfurt 61).

reply to post by Barcs

They clearly show gradual change from ape to human. Google it. I've posted it for you before, not wasting my time looking up something you can easily google.

I found way to many that it could be but none that looked like a site specifically related to the 12 in transition.

I would believe there was an absence of gametic isolation long before I would believe that evolution made a transition.
There isn't a single doctor in this world that has EVER told a patient that the reason they can't get pregnant is because they have evolved.

reply to post by theophilus40


For those who claim this website because the OP made a statement about abiogenists and evolution. The website has hundreds of articles covering abiogenesis, evolution, and the age of the earth.

The real problem with Evolutionist is they have used the same word to explain adaptation and speciation. These two concepts have been brought together under one word and therefore when science explains adaptation they have essentially proven Evolution by the definition they have given the word.

Since speciation is speculative at best it simply something that cannot be proven. The science of speciation is constantly evolving. You cannot use an incomplete science to prove anything. And nearly identical DNA does not prove Evolution any more than it would prove intelligent design.

I imagine most of you are aware of Thomas Kinkaid, one of the greatest painters of light the world has ever known. His work is so distinguishing from others that for much of his work you don't even need to ask who the artist is. The other point is all of his paintings have a unique signature on them, one that comes through in the art not with a signature at the bottom of the page. Did one picture evolve from another, or is just that the same artist painted to different pictures that both have his signature in the artwork itself.

The complexity of DNA is mind blowing. It is a living active language at work in all life.

Even the DNA of plants is similar to that of humans. We share 60% of our DNA with a banana.

www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk...

Is DNA the sign of one creator using the same brush to create all life? Or is DNA the sign of evolution.

I believe the complexity and intelligence of DNA proves that we have a creator.

Hopefully I have at least proven that DNA "proves" nothing. Where is your faith?

reply to post by sacgamer25

For those who claim this website because the OP made a statement about abiogenists and evolution. The website has hundreds of articles covering abiogenesis, evolution, and the age of the earth.

The real problem with Evolutionist is they have used the same word to explain adaptation and speciation. These two concepts have been brought together under one word and therefore when science explains adaptation they have essentially proven Evolution by the definition they have given the word.

Since speciation is speculative at best it simply something that cannot be proven. The science of speciation is constantly evolving. You cannot use an incomplete science to prove anything. And nearly identical DNA does not prove Evolution any more than it would prove intelligent design.

I imagine most of you are aware of Thomas Kinkaid, one of the greatest painters of light the world has ever known. His work is so distinguishing from others that for much of his work you don't even need to ask who the artist is. The other point is all of his paintings have a unique signature on them, one that comes through in the art not with a signature at the bottom of the page. Did one picture evolve from another, or is just that the same artist painted to different pictures that both have his signature in the artwork itself.

The complexity of DNA is mind blowing. It is a living active language at work in all life.

Even the DNA of plants is similar to that of humans. We share 60% of our DNA with a banana.

www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk...

Is DNA the sign of one creator using the same brush to create all life? Or is DNA the sign of evolution.

I believe the complexity and intelligence of DNA proves that we have a creator.

Hopefully I have at least proven that DNA "proves" nothing. Where is your faith?

I have to agree with you Sac. Even though I'm on the fence about believing there is a creator but with what we have been given at this point, it sure looks like it. Still I don't have faith or religion.

If evolution were real, but its not, it would seem to require the attention of a creator to construct it. It's to in depth and to complicated to believe there is not intelligence behind it. Besides, how can something be responsible for creating over a billion species and not be called a creator?

I find the same thing looking at Target Food. There is to much behind the workings of instinct and how all species eat to think its just happenstance, again it would require the attention of a creator.

I have been trying to explain to others on this thread for months now that Relation in DNA doesnt prove evolution, and they just don't get it. It's as though they are so desperate to connect the dots that it's a done deal. They would first have to disprove the idea of a creator which not a single person has even attempted.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

They clearly show gradual change from ape to human. Google it. I've posted it for you before, not wasting my time looking up something you can easily google.

I found way to many that it could be but none that looked like a site specifically related to the 12 in transition.

I would believe there was an absence of gametic isolation long before I would believe that evolution made a transition.
There isn't a single doctor in this world that has EVER told a patient that the reason they can't get pregnant is because they have evolved.

You're going off on tangents again. Evolution is always happening and right, no doctor has ever said that because it would be like saying, "The reason you can't have children is because you're alive". It's not the actual reason, it's because of a non beneficial mutation. If you can't have children, you will not ever evolve and your immediate bloodline will immediately end with you.

reply to post by Barcs

You're going off on tangents again. Evolution is always happening and right, no doctor has ever said that because it would be like saying, "The reason you can't have children is because you're alive". It's not the actual reason, it's because of a non beneficial mutation. If you can't have children, you will not ever evolve and your immediate bloodline will immediately end with you.

But they never say that either. When has a doctor ever told a patient that they can't have children because of a non beneficial mutation?

Never. And they wouldn't, as even if it were possible, there is still no proof.

Why do you believe in things that there is no proof for?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

You're going off on tangents again. Evolution is always happening and right, no doctor has ever said that because it would be like saying, "The reason you can't have children is because you're alive". It's not the actual reason, it's because of a non beneficial mutation. If you can't have children, you will not ever evolve and your immediate bloodline will immediately end with you.

But they never say that either. When has a doctor ever told a patient that they can't have children because of a non beneficial mutation?

Never. And they wouldn't, as even if it were possible, there is still no proof.

Why do you believe in things that there is no proof for?

But it HAS been proven that genetic defects can cause people to not be able to have children.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are many genes wherein mutation causes female infertility, as shown in table below. Also, there are additional conditions involving female infertility which are believed to be genetic but where no single gene has been found to be responsible, notably Mayer-Rokitansky-Küstner-Hauser Syndrome (MRKH).[25] Finally, an unknown number of genetic mutations cause a state of subfertility, which in addition to other factors such as environmental ones may manifest as frank infertility.

There's a huge chart of genetic causes for infertility. Please read it before spouting more lies.