Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
a reply to: Prezbo369

Clearly, you failed to get the point of my post. Not only that, but you also managed to arrogantly refer to the personal faith of others as "superstitions".

You, and those like you, are part of the problem.

Well it wasn't exactly the deepest post...

You reject evolution, and you are aware that those like you will never ever admit to its veracity despite all the evidence and that this carousel will continue to spin as long as there's people that believe outrageous things for no good reason...gj!

Could you explain the specific differences between faith and superstition?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
_javascript:quote()

I do? Hmmm. News to me. But I guess if you want to paint that picture of me then you can. Though you are wrong, but hey it's your opinion.

Any opinion I develop is purely from the information you share.

How does evidence require faith? That is absurd. Evidence just is. It tells its own story, it doesn't rely on my faith to tell its story. Though saying it out loud doesn't make it true.

YOUR evidence requires faith. You have no evidence that Man evolved from primates, it's all imaginary. You have no evidence that Macro evolution even exists, again it's all in your head, it's your faith.

There you go again with your derogatory insults about people who believe the modern evolutionary synthesis theory. We aren't a religion. We just like that theory because it is well backed with credible evidence. I haven't seen you post anything that disproves evolution though.

Please show me the well backed evidence that Macro evolution exists, please show me the well backed evidence that Man evolved from primates.

Because you are naive and biased towards certain conclusions. Subjective vs. Objective Evidence

Objective? Meh. Please show me the objective evidence that Man evolved from primates.

There is nothing to suggest that they are all telling the truth either. One lie by someone in the bible puts doubt on the entire account since now I cannot be sure that ANYTHING told in the bible is true. In fact, modern analysis of the brain says that people's memories don't recall exactly as events happened.

You mean sot of like how one lie from evolutionists can happen too?

I wouldn't consider any evidence from anyone, regardless of their status, as credible evidence. All witness testimony is subjective evidence and is therefore flawed because it can be altered as per the the telling person's own biases. I only care about objective evidence. The only real evidence to be had.

Then please show me the objective evidence that macro evolution exists, and that man evolved from primates.

originally posted by: josehelps
YOUR evidence requires faith. You have no evidence that Man evolved from primates, it's all imaginary. You have no evidence that Macro evolution even exists, again it's all in your head, it's your faith.

Somehow I think I'm going to regret this because I predict you will just try to hand wave all this away, but here goes.

Evidence man evolved from primates:
Fossil Evidence
Genetic Evidence
Radiometric Dating
More evidence
Human evolution Google Scholar search

Macro Evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

I hope you enjoy reading all of that. Though I doubt you will read any of it and spout off the same ignorant nonsense about how no evidence exists and such.

You mean sot of like how one lie from evolutionists can happen too?

Except the difference between evolution and the bible is that evolution is held up to the peer review process which works to weed out the lies. The bible isn't held up to any sort of quality standard.

ETA: It's funny how your avatar has a guy sticking his fingers in his ears, because that is a very good visual of how you interpret data.

a reply to: peter vlar

No, its pure confirmation bias. Nothing more nothing less.

And you have proof of this how? How do you know it's confirmation bias MR. scientist / evolutionist.

Not at all. That's not what I believe, its not what I was taught and certainly never the result of any research I've ever engaged in. Humans are part of the family of great apes along with gorillas, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan. We share common ancestry. You're lack of understanding is becoming hilarious. And sad.

It takes more than understanding to believe in your faith. What proof do we have we are related to primates. Now is your chance to prove me wrong. Where is your proof?

Finally, an accurate statement from you!

That's correct, because like I have explained many times over...

Intervention is the understanding that we were brought to this planet by another life form, against our will. It's not a religion, not a faith, not a cult, not a belief, not a practice, not a church, not a following, not a theory, not a hypothesis, it's certainly not a joke, it's simply an understanding based on redundant facts. This understanding can only be realized if you have a plethora of years in the study of the supernatural, and have a keen eye for spotting activity in stories, even if the author doesn't. Of course the best source for this information is several versions of the bible, in addition to the facts that concur in science. Lets be sure I'm clear on this. Lets pretend for the moment that you know nothing about math, and let's say that I present you with a problem that says four times four. Now lets say that this subject is seriously something you want to understand, as this is about your lineage. You might even come up with some ideas as to what it means. But there is seriously no way you're going to guess what it all means.





So you settle with the best understanding you can (which actually doesn't result in making any sense by itself), and now you have just explained today's religion. So I tell you this equation equals "sixteen." Would you, could you, indicate that what I'm presenting to you is surely my belief? You could, but you're out of context. If I understand it, and you don't, that doesn't constitute it being a belief, it's an understanding based on redundant facts. A belief implies that I have an opinion or a faith, you will soon realize this is nothing like that. I understand the supernatural extremely well. Of course, what this means in English is that 99.99% of the people reading, preaching, worshiping, the bible, don't understand it. Now I hope you understand why trying to label this anything other than an understanding is obviously incorrect. My goal is to open your eyes to the reality of what has happened, and what's been done to us. I will explain matters that I know you otherwise might not understand. If you or anyone you know, is highly familiar with both the supernatural and the paranormal (as they are frequently confused with one another) and don't agree with anything I'm presenting here, or If for some reason you peruse this whole website, and feel that the eighty seven or so examples that I'm presenting, are nothing more than sheer coincidence, I welcome your feedback of course. In addition, if you're just not getting something, I will respond back with a more detailed explanation.





You might wonder, why in the world would anyone try to understand the bible through the supernatural perspective. Perhaps it's the bible being prefaced as dealing with the supernatural, which actually means if you don't have that experience, your not qualified to understand it. In addition, we have no other books to compare it to. Perhaps it's the thirty four versus in the bible about aliens. Perhaps it's the Ezekiel chapter where Sky Daddy comes down from the sky's to visit us in his space craft. Maybe it's all of the activity mentioned in the bible that match with our reported alien encounters. Maybe it's the documentation of advanced technology used in the bible. Perhaps it's the mentioning in Hebrews that Earth is not our home, obviously meaning we are aliens to this planet. Heaven is a planet, not a place you end up when you die. If the bible was meant for dead people, they would have it, not us. Several years ago, while researching the Ezekiel chapter, I made contact with one of the pastors at the Union Gospel Mission, here in my home town. I shared some of my findings with him, and asked him if it were possible that God was a space alien. His response revealed, that it's entirely possible.





su·per·nat·u·ral



/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/



adjective

adjective: supernatural



1.



(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

"a supernatural being"



synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More



rareextramundane

"supernatural powers"



ghostly, phantom, spectral, otherworldly, unearthly, unnatural

"a supernatural being"



unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

"a woman of supernatural beauty"



noun

noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals



1.



manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

And I've witnessed the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man go on a rampage of NYC only to be defeated by the ghostbusters. America level of reality for both instances.

Clearly you lack the understanding to comprehend the difference here. You are trying to compare a sci-fi movie with a historical supernatural book. That's like me comparing your Evolution to a board game. Do you have both ear holes plugged?

No way, I need bifocals but I can see just fine.

So please tell me about your background and understanding with the supernatural?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: josehelps

a reply to: josehelps

That picture originally said creationists, but somebody edited it. I wonder who that could have been. The favored debate strategy of evolution supporters is to present evidence. The favored strategy for creationists is to pretend the evidence does not exist and rely completely on ignorance of the theory to present their argument, then when it's debunked, they do exactly what's happening in the picture.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You try to sell genetics as though we are so close in relation, that a forensics team would have a hard time knowing if a human murdered my neighbor or a chimp did it. HONESTLY? Are you delusional? Similar DNA is NOT proof of relation. How do you not know a creator used similar parts? You have to first rule out a creator, and I haven't seen anyone on here do that.

Fossil evidence is again not proof of relation. You really have no problem connecting dots that have no relation, or at least proof of relation.

The image is about evolutionists, in case you didn't notice. You guys are apparently brain washed, and don't listen to the facts.

How much have YOU studied about the supernatural?

a reply to: josehelps

What a great response. I mean seriously.

I asked you questions you should consider yourself.

And hoped for some honest answers. But alas..

All you did was post a lame meme not even related to StarChild..

Pathetic. I seriously believe you're a troll.

Nothing but backwards logic from you in every post.

I don't have any memes to post but here's this:

What I hear in my head while reading your posts.

ETA:

Ok sorry, I swear I read my name in that reply.

I'm running on about an hours sleep.

My apologies. Hopefully you still address my post.

a reply to: josehelps

@ Peter Viar-- Can you honestly even believe what you're reading with this guy? I've seriously never seen anything like it in my entire life. As people of science, it's posts like this latest one of his that make it so difficult not to respond. It's absolutely horrifying to think that this type of misinformation, incompetence, ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality can be passed along to those who may not know any better. From a psychological standpoint, I cannot fathom the degree of delusion here. I mean this has been one of the most unreasonable debates I've ever engaged in. It's painful to listen to some of the most blatant hypocrisy and arrogance I never thought was possible. The actually beliefs that he holds are one thing, extremely strange and puzzling in and of themselves, but what's really terrifying and maddening is the complete disregard for what is known and accepted to be logical. How can somebody possible, with a straight face, disregard 100 years of evolutionary research as pseudoscience, yet regard their internet research of supernatural credible? He can't even understand that his beliefs are even beliefs. He legitimately thinks he's come upon indisputable, objective facts, yet provides not one piece of compelling evidence. How can somebody be unwilling to even consider the fact that not everything in the bible is true? He believes that if he says something, that makes it true. His continual copy and pasting of previous posts, including this most recent one containing 3 paragraphs about "intervention" followed by a copy and pasting of the definition of supernatural, it actually gives me the chills. It creeps me out to my core, just trying to reconcile the thought process that goes into this behavior. He'd be a psychological researchers dream come true. I mean, I've even considered trying to meet this guy solely to write a case report on him and send it to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

a reply to: josehelps

Listen, you need to stop copying and pasting your previous posts. You've posted the definition of supernatural at least 10 times, and have copy and pasted this long 3 paragraph rant about "intervention" close to the same amount. What is going through your mind? We all know what you believe, we all know the definition of supernatural. What is your goal when you're doing this? Do you think we've missed something contained in your rant that you find particularly important? Each and every one of us has read it numerous times. Why are you having so much trouble understanding the fact that we know your beliefs, and we disagree with them wholeheartedly. Regardless of whether you think your beliefs are facts, they are not, and continually posting your rant over and over again word for word is not going to change that. It's very very very strange to behave the way in which you're behaving, as a 48 year old man. Until you divulged that you were 48, I was positive you were a confused 16 year old. You've also admitted that you have a criminal history. Maybe it's time to accept that not everything going on up there in your mind is the most reliable. The most frustrating part is that throughout the entire rant, you provide ZERO evidence or independent validation of anything you say, but I guarantee that you think you do. I'm not saying this to be confrontational, it's just true. We understand that you THINK your beliefs are based on redundant facts, but we disagree, and we've explained to you numerous times why this is. You are behaving as if the very fact that you make a statement, it makes it true.

originally posted by: josehelps
YOUR evidence requires faith.

Nietsche once said that Faith is not wanting to know what is true. This premise is entirely contrary to how science operates and how people who use the tools provided by science go about things. In science, things need to not just be demonstrated, they need to be repeatable and independently reproduced and observed. That is NOT faith. it's the exact opposite. Do this for me, pick any religious text, and faith and scripture and reproduce one of the supernatural events described. Document it and then tell others exactly how you did it. Then they will attempt to reproduce the event and get the same results as you. Just one supernatural event...please.

You have no evidence that Man evolved from primates, it's all imaginary.

You go farther of the rez with each new post. Man IS a primate. Not just a primate but an APE.

You have no evidence that Macro evolution even exists, again it's all in your head, it's your faith.

no faith at all smokey. instead of just claiming none of this exists, explain to us why it is a false paradigm and then provide the true answer as well as how you arrived at that answer.

Please show me the well backed evidence that Macro evolution exists,

Please demonstrate how exactly there is a difference between micro and macro aside from the scale of the process. Because I seriously doubt this thread, ATS or anyone reading will be around by the time you are able to appropriately educate yourself on every aspect of proof in favor of the process.

Maybe we can take some baby steps? Let's try this...

Would you like to start with phylogenetic evidence? Morphological evidence? Atavistic evidence? Perhaps we should start with anatomical and molecular parahomologies? NO? OK... lets try Anatomical and Molecular convergences...? Perhaps some of the Molecular evidence...are you conversant in protein functional redundancy? Redundant pseudogenes or perhaps endogenous retroviruses?

Please tell me which area you are comfortable and conversant enough in to begin the conversation. Because frankly, your blatant and purposeful ignorance and slanderous commentary is starting to get a bit aggravating. People have been OVERLY patient with you in attempting to show you legitimate data but instead of discussing that data, you simply wave your magic wand and completely deny it without discussing it or giving a legitimate rebuttal. I realize that the underside of bridges are awfully smelly but truly it is where you trolls belong.

Let's get real here, Even 155 years ago when Darwin first published the basis for Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, he did what Newton and Einstein never did. Einstein and Newton proposed only descriptive theories. 300 years after Newton first proposed his Theory of Universal Gravitation ( which describes a phenomenon of matter, just as macroevolution describes a phenomenon of life.) there STILL is no descriptive mechanism for giving mass to matter behind it. Darwin... well he at least came up with both the descriptive theory and a plausible MECHANISM, heritable variation with natural selection.

The onus is on YOU to dexcribe why none of this is true. Simply screaming its faith while wallowing in a puddle of your own ignorance is not evidence of anything but your own fallability.

please show me the well backed evidence that Man evolved from primates.

its everywhere and been explained ad nauseum. stop repeating the same questions like a child and explain how it is impossible, why it is impossible and how you reached said conclusion. man IS A PRIMATE. Dispute the information instead of asking everyone else to sum up an expensive education into a sound byte.

Objective? Meh. Please show me the objective evidence that Man evolved from primates.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... that's all you're doing at this stage my little parrot.

You mean sot of like how one lie from evolutionists can happen too?

could you describe these lies please?

Then please show me the objective evidence that macro evolution exists,

yawn...

and that man evolved from primates.

holy broken record batman!

a reply to: josehelps

How can you say that similar DNA does not prove relation? How can you actually say that? How do you think they do paternity tests. How do you think they trace family lineage? How do you think they trace one cultural background? How do you think they determine exactly what % of each breed a mixed dog is? How do you think they know that chimpanzees are the most similar primates to humans?

What do you mean fossil evidence is not proof of relation? What does this mean? One way we use fossil evidence identify transitional/intermediary species. It helps us create a phylogenic tree. This is how we have come to better understand transitions from reptiles to mammals, for example--we can see with our eyes the long term changes in bone structure necessary to undergo this change. Krazyshot posted a great link which displays this, along with numerous other similar examples.

Who cares how much any of us have studied the supernatural? What could that possibly matter? How can one even study about the supernatural? Everything is eyewitness testimony and based on unverified mumbo jumbo. Even if one becomes familiar with a great majority of the online material related to the supernatural, how does this manifest itself in terms of an evolution/creation debate? Do you think that supernatural is just as much of a hard science as genetics is? Why can't one get a formal education in the supernatural? Why can't one get a PhD in supernatural studies? The very nature of the supernatural dis-includes it from being a valid talking point when you're discussing purely scientific matters. You have zero understanding of what I just said, but it's ok because I expect it by now.

originally posted by: josehelps
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You try to sell genetics as though we are so close in relation, that a forensics team would have a hard time knowing if a human murdered my neighbor or a chimp did it. HONESTLY? Are you delusional? Similar DNA is NOT proof of relation. How do you not know a creator used similar parts? You have to first rule out a creator, and I haven't seen anyone on here do that.

Why do we have to do that? A creator could use evolution as a process to develop life. You are just making up crap to try to discount the evidence.

Fossil evidence is again not proof of relation. You really have no problem connecting dots that have no relation, or at least proof of relation.

And you have no problem making up crap to suit your narrative.

The image is about evolutionists, in case you didn't notice. You guys are apparently brain washed, and don't listen to the facts.

What is an evolutionist? If an evolutionist is someone who doesn't listen and never posts evidence, then that isn't me since I gave you a handful of links in my previous post full of evidence (which you casually dismissed, like I knew you would).

How much have YOU studied about the supernatural?

Quite a bit actually. Enough to know that it is all based on subjective evidence, is highly circumstantial, and most believers have huge confirmation biases.

I used to believe in ghosts, thought that aliens had visited us in the past, considered that NDE's and reincarnation are real, and was even a Catholic at one point. I've studied all these things and been down the rabbit hole much further than you have. In fact Ancient Aliens is why I came to ATS in the first place. None of them being true would discount evolution, but there isn't any objective evidence to say that they are true in any case.

I knew you wouldn't read my evidence despite demanding it. Thanks for not failing to disappoint. You truly are a credit to your position. The intellectual dishonesty is strong in you.

a reply to: kayej1188

He's just par for the course with Creationists. Just another drop in the bucket from their camp. I've had even more futile and arrogant discussions with other Creationists here on ATS. They usually end up banned (surprise surprise!)

a reply to: josehelps

SO you have devolved to posting Memes to make a point? That is a clear sign you have lost.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the thing is, he's not even a creationist. It's probably very easy to skip over his posts because you can tell by the first 2 sentences that it's an incoherent pile of doo-doo, but in case you missed it, this is his theory: He believes that the human race has been alive for billions of years, and we were originally from another planet. He claims that the bible is a historical document that proves a gray alien actually took adam and eve from this other planet, and dropped them off on earth. He claims that on this other planet, all humans had supernatural powers, but over time, god and/or the gray aliens took away our supernatural powers, so that only a few people today still have these powers in tact. His 2 primary sources of evidence to back these claims up are 1) the bible, and 2) his "34" years of internet research on the supernatural. He believes that "99.9%" of people who have ever read the bible completely misinterpret it, and that he is one of the only people on earth who actually have the correct interpretation, and this is mainly because of his supernatural research. He claims that people who do not have the background in internet supernatural research are inherently unable to understand what the bible is actually saying. He constantly refers specifically to the number "87," and this is how many facts he claims to have "stumbled upon," as he puts it, to validate his belief. Lastly, he is absolutely convinced that these things are redundant facts, backed up by the bible and modern scientific evidence. He does not even consider it a theory of his, and he leaves absolutely zero room for change. He often makes remarks to the effect of "These are not my beliefs and there is no faith involved, do you think I wanted to stumble onto 87 facts that prove god is a space alien?" It's comments like those that had me wondering if he was indeed a troll, but I realized that he was not after he made one of the most head-scratching remarks I've ever seen in my life. I was curious as to the extent of steadfastness and confidence in his beliefs, so I asked him if he would bet his family members' lives on the fact that his beliefs were true. He had no reluctance in stating that he would "easily" bet his family members' lives on his theories being true. This is when I really knew we had somebody quite special on our hands.

a reply to: TechUnique

You are doing it wrong, bro.

By blatantly saying that something is a lie, farce or cover up you are required to provide enough evidence to at least sway someones belief. A video of another person talking is no evidence unless you are extremely religious.

Right way to do this: You say - Hey guys, we have so many drawings or illustrations of dragons from across history and they look like dinosaurs. We need to find out where these people got such depictions. Maybe Some survived until recent times when humanity was expanding.

a reply to: kayej1188

That may be the case, but he is still a Creationist in my book.

Though I wonder if he read the Area 51 series and thought that was reality. Because you pretty much described the general arching storyline of those books lol.

a reply to: kayej1188

I'm near positive he's a troll because he's used the same exact arguments multiple times in the past and it got so bad that his account got banned, because his arguments do not address any counterpoints made against them. I think he's purposely trying to make ancient alien theorists or evolution deniers look bad because his arguments very often make no sense at all and he just keep repeating terrible semantics points like defining supernatural and other stuff that is completely irrelevant. It kind of reminds me of a little kid asking his parents why over and over again, no matter what their response is.