Modern proof of evolution.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

You need to look up the definitions of the words you use because you don't understand what they mean.

Empirical evidence IS what they have.

Evolution isn't about the Big Bang or how life begins. Only how it changes once it's here.

It's not me saying that either. It's how things are defined. Nowhere in Evolution is it going to talk about the Big Bang or explain it.

Well here I am asking for empirical evidence for biological evolution, go ahead

The BB and abiogenesis are not evolution according to many, so thats irrelevant anyway, it was not part of the elephant and tusk issue, it was my opinion about why I dont believe in evolution, totaly irrelevant
BUT
As usual, rather than deal;ing with empirical evidence you charge down the strawman to win a few brownie points.

Lets go after the empirical evidence for biological evolution, no need for me to laugh at your abiogenesis and bbang theory as well. Off topic

a reply to: Raggedyman

I would sooner believe that it's probable the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real than believe you know what the scientific community thinks...about anything.

A scientific consensus is when they all agree, your pew pole shows they all dont agree, its not a consensus

It showed 98%. It showed 2% that likely think it was god's magic.

Google defintion of consensus: general agreement.

Definition of scientific consensus: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Will you admit you're wrong?

a reply to: Raggedyman

what do you think empirical evidence means??

How is the evidence for evolution not empirical evidence??

BTW, I never posted any picture of a frog saying it was evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Only pic of a frog I've seen is your avatar and you can't blame me for that.

originally posted by: Bone75
When I said we, I was talking life in general.

Ok, then you wouldn't have a problem replying to my first post to you: please explain what those lifeforms were.

It's very easy to escape scientific scrutiny with general statements such as 'lifeforms' and 'life in general' as they don't make sense unless you explain exactly what you mean.

What were those lifeforms? And how did life (in general) evolved from them?

Thank you.

That wouldn't be such a mystery if you had read the very next sentence of that post... you know, where I laid out the order in which we were created.

I read your next sentence but until you explain what you mean with 'lifeforms' and 'life in general' your theory still doesn't make sense.

Darn I just did it again didn't I ?

LOL yes! Once again you replied but still failed to make sense!!

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

I would sooner believe that it's probable the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real than believe you know what the scientific community thinks...about anything.

A scientific consensus is when they all agree, your pew pole shows they all dont agree, its not a consensus

It showed 98%. It showed 2% that likely think it was god's magic.

Google defintion of consensus: general agreement.

Definition of scientific consensus: Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Will you admit you're wrong?

Yeah, I can admit I am wrong on a consensus, not evolution until i see empirical evidence
Happy?

Consensus is not empirical evidence

What is empirical evidence, you work it out, its not school

vimeo.com...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Stop conflating things. Read. That was evidence your claim there wasn't a consensus was false. That's all it was meant to be. I'm not bothering with any other requests to educate you when it's near impossible to have a dialogue with you. You're incredibly inconsistent, apparently don't understand what empirical means, and thinks scientists are BS'ing and evolution is "stupid". Do I think you'd appreciate and look over evidence shown to you? Nope. Do I think you'd understand it if it was shown? Nope.

Work that out.

In contrast to evolution, as a creationist I can offer several lines of empirical evidence in favor of creation.

^That's from your link. Now you have put that on the table

...since you already said there is none for your religion, I guess you don't support your source.

This isn't evolution at all, in fact its the exact opposite. No new information is being added, e.g. how to build a tusk, the information is being lost. This is called micro evolution which is a horrible term as it is in fact not evolution either - it is adaptation which starts with all the genetic code for all possibilities and then branches out like how you have dog breeds, whereby the gene pool gets smaller as they diversify and information is lost. This is the exact opposite of evolution which claims new information just comes out of nowhere and builds complex systems such as eyes, brains etc.

Don't you think its strange that there are no half-evolved animals anywhere, ever? How many plants or animals do you know of that have appendages half developed, or unfinished eyes or ears or organs? Name even one? The world should be absolutely full of them if evolution were true.

originally posted by: jimmyriddler

Don't you think its strange that there are no half-evolved animals anywhere, ever? How many plants or animals do you know of that have appendages half developed, or unfinished eyes or ears or organs? Name even one? The world should be absolutely full of them if evolution were true.

There are many examples of fossils in intermediate form between taxonomic groups, Archaeoptreix for example. But I'm sure you will dismiss it as being a bird with reptilian features as what you expect scientists to show you is a chimeric monster that doesn't belong to any group. And that's not going to happen.

If you understood science, then you would understand that all the fossils are transitional fossils.

a reply to: Agartha

I'm talking about plants and animals alive now. I'm not familiar with your example so I can't comment, but the fossil records just show completed fish, completed plants, completed animals etc.. the complete absence of half evolved animals even have the "experts" baffled.

a reply to: jimmyriddler

This is the exact opposite of evolution which claims new information just comes out of nowhere

It does?

Don't you think its strange that there are no half-evolved animals anywhere, ever?

Every animal is a transitional form between its parent and its descendants.

*edit: oops. Didn't read Agartha's post first.

originally posted by: jimmyriddler

I'm talking about plants and animals alive now. I'm not familiar with your example so I can't comment, but the fossil records just show completed fish, completed plants, completed animals etc.. the complete absence of half evolved animals even have the "experts" baffled.

LOL real experts are not baffled. Ok, here are 2 examples:

Lungfish: have both lungs and gills.
Platypus: halfway between a placental mammal and an egg laying reptile.

I can give you more if you like.

Here's some empitical evidence - evolution of the whales:

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Guys he is reeling you all in again. He admitted he loves trolling and continues to do so.
Just don't feed it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

what do you think empirical evidence means??

How is the evidence for evolution not empirical evidence??

BTW, I never posted any picture of a frog saying it was evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Only pic of a frog I've seen is your avatar and you can't blame me for that.

He keeps asking for proof of the steps of evolution, so I posted this:

And his response was 'oh, an illustration of frogs'....completely ignoring the fact that the chart shows the step by step EVOLUTION of snakes to frogs.

TheKnightofDoom is at the bottom of page 9 saying he's a troll. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he's sure as hell refusing to even consider evidence even when it's shoved right in his face. You can lead a horse to water....

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Check his history.
He has been shown evidence so many times and even said no matter what evidence is shown he will not believe it.
Ignorance personified.

a reply to: Agartha

Please go acquire at least a middle school comprehension level before trying to engage me in a debate.

I don't have time to repeat myself over and over and over again.

originally posted by: Bone75
Please go acquire at least a middle school comprehension level before trying to engage me in a debate.

I don't have time to repeat myself over and over and over again.

hahaha the typical way out of creationists when they know their 'theories' are pure nonsense they cannot explain: they always go for the player and not the ball.

By the way, I have two university degrees, one in medical sciences which has given me a high knowledge and comprehension of biology. But I don't usually mention it unless people start being rude without motive, in fact I usually like to discuss with people from all backgrounds. That's how educated people roll...

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Raggedyman

Stop conflating things. Read. That was evidence your claim there wasn't a consensus was false. That's all it was meant to be. I'm not bothering with any other requests to educate you when it's near impossible to have a dialogue with you. You're incredibly inconsistent, apparently don't understand what empirical means, and thinks scientists are BS'ing and evolution is "stupid". Do I think you'd appreciate and look over evidence shown to you? Nope. Do I think you'd understand it if it was shown? Nope.

Work that out.

In contrast to evolution, as a creationist I can offer several lines of empirical evidence in favor of creation.

^That's from your link. Now you have put that on the table

...since you already said there is none for your religion, I guess you don't support your source.

Lucid lunacy, how apt
I didn't say I had empirical evidence, he did, you go ask him
I don't have to put anything on the table, I said it was a faith

Evidently you have nothing, not even a sharp wit and humour to offer

One of us doesn't understand, you have even admitted that much

Empirical evidence, just asking

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

what do you think empirical evidence means??

How is the evidence for evolution not empirical evidence??

BTW, I never posted any picture of a frog saying it was evidence. I don't know what you're talking about. Only pic of a frog I've seen is your avatar and you can't blame me for that.

He keeps asking for proof of the steps of evolution, so I posted this:

And his response was 'oh, an illustration of frogs'....completely ignoring the fact that the chart shows the step by step EVOLUTION of snakes to frogs.

TheKnightofDoom is at the bottom of page 9 saying he's a troll. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he's sure as hell refusing to even consider evidence even when it's shoved right in his face. You can lead a horse to water....

It's illustrations, how about evidence
Pretty pictures are not evidence
It's absurd

Double post...keep scrolling