Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

The steps between us and the monkeys must have been massive.

What chemical was created between us and the animals that we have evolved feelings of guilt? A sense of wrong and right?

I just need to remind myself everyday that my brain is delusional and I should just trust my instincts? They did carry through us through a very long, dangerous and ultimately chaotic environment.

Things are way more simple with evolution.

a reply to: Analbumcover

It makes sense to me that the chemicals that evolved us so quickly came from plants that mother earth suckled us on to promote our growth, especially ones of halloconogenic variety.

Been shown to build brain structure.

a reply to: ManyMasks

I like things that make sense.

Hopefully the animals will stop doing horrible things to their own kind soon enough. Always thought rape and murder was a human trait but it makes sense we got it from them.

I must warn if my doggo ever tries and bites his nuts off and start acting feminine though I will abort this whole process.

I mean fight, fight and fight for a time peroid that we can't really even grasp just to turn around at the end and start slowly dismantling the very organs that got us here.

Strange tortured little creatures.

Anyway seeing as I'm not getting any answers here I'll go look for myself which race is superior.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

What evidence did you give for banana plants and humans having the same ancestor?

talkorigins.org...

Feel free to refute this. Oh wait, it will be ignored for the 5th time because you are dishonest. Shocker.

originally posted by: Analbumcover
Which race is superior to the other? Don't give me crap answers either. If evolution is true there is a superior race on this earth. Don't hide from the truth.

That is false. Evolution isn't about superiority it's about being adapted well enough to survive longterm . Humans are adapted to various different environments which they lived in for 10,000+ years. There is no superior, there is only survival. All life on earth today has survived the same amount of time since the first life on earth.

The only thing you could really say is superior is comparing organisms alive today, to extinct ones.

a reply to: Barcs

There are certainly superior variations within species out there. If nature ever pits them against each other the superior would be left to carry on evolution. The great white rules the waters as a shark. Killer whales as the whale variations. I'm sure there is a eagle that would smash all other variations. Tigers as the big cats.

But there isn't a superior in the variations of humans? This is when things start getting smelly for me.

Maybe superior is the wrong word, more expected to survive in times of battle or testing times will work for me too.

a reply to: Analbumcover

Yes, superior is the wrong word. Better adapted for a certain environment fits better. Remember, evolution is dependent on the environment. What gets you by today, could become a hindrance in the future, if the environment changes. "Superior" traits change all the time.

Is being taller superior to being short? Is being black superior to being white? Nope. It's just that a black person has more melanin in the skin and has better resistance to skin cancer, so they would be better in a hot climate. It doesn't make them superior, though, because a white person would likely be better suited to a cooler environment. It's all relative there are no superior traits, just better traits for certain environmental niches. Hope this makes sense.

a reply to: Barcs

It does thanks.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1


talkorigins.org...

You are going to refute the hard evidence, then? Go ahead. I've been waiting for over a decade. Nobody can even refute ONE of them. You can keep repeating your lies about not being science, or you can prove it's not science by refuting the research. Are you up for the challenge? Of course not, you will deflect and ignore it by repeating the same ol' tireless BS that you always have.

You just claim these sources show the 'evidence', or 'hard evidence', of 'evolution', and others must show why it is NOT evidence!!


What a joke!


You believe that pointing to something, and saying it's 'evidence', makes any sense?


If you have a case, make it, because pointing to papers is sheer nonsense.

It's pulled out right out of the bottom, like they say.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

What evidence did you give for banana plants and humans having the same ancestor?

talkorigins.org...

Feel free to refute this. Oh wait, it will be ignored for the 5th time because you are dishonest. Shocker.

Nobody can ever refute "This", and.... "This" will be ignored, once again, by "dishonest" people!!


Pointing out "This", again and again, as 'hard evidence', makes for a truly superb, valid argument!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

What evidence did you give for banana plants and humans having the same ancestor?

talkorigins.org...

Feel free to refute this. Oh wait, it will be ignored for the 5th time because you are dishonest. Shocker.

Nobody can ever refute "This", and.... "This" will be ignored, once again, by "dishonest" people!!


Pointing out "This", again and again, as 'hard evidence', makes for a truly superb, valid argument!!

Well yeah, there are 30+ pieces of evidence listed on that website all backed directly by peer reviewed scientific research papers which you can easily check yourself. Yeah, nobody has ever refuted a SINGLE one of them and all of them together are what clearly demonstrate evolution as a process and a scientific theory.

The only better option is to become a scientist and test the evidence yourself. Until you can do this, referring the research of certified trained educated experts who study it is as good as it gets. Funny that you think denial of facts is a better argument than referring to facts.

Another stop for the short bus.

a reply to: Barcs

If you're trying to prove God doesn't exist you're doing a poor job.

originally posted by: Barcs

Well yeah, there are 30+ pieces of evidence listed on that website all backed directly by peer reviewed scientific research papers which you can easily check yourself.

It's YOUR job to show evidence, not post a link, and then spew about how "you can easily check yourself"!!!

What did you do in school? 'Here's my paper, Professor. I've cited the evidence for my theory on ____'.

The prof says 'Where is this evidence, you say is in your paper?'

'It's all in the links I referred to in the paper, you can easily check them out yourself!'


I'm sure you didn't do that, right?

I'm also sure you know how well that would have gone over, if you HAD done so, right?


Then why do you think you can get away with such crap here?

Either make your case, or admit you have no case, but don't try to pull this BS again, because it won't fly, buddy.

originally posted by: Barcs
Yeah, nobody has ever refuted a SINGLE one of them and all of them together are what clearly demonstrate evolution as a process and a scientific theory.

'Yeah, the professor couldn't refute my paper, on a single thing'

originally posted by: Barcs
The only better option is to become a scientist and test the evidence yourself. Until you can do this, referring the research of certified trained educated experts who study it is as good as it gets. Funny that you think denial of facts is a better argument than referring to facts.

If you ever show us any 'facts', I'll be more than happy to respond to you.


But I don't see that happening, for some reason...

a reply to: turbonium1

'Yeah, the professor couldn't refute my paper, on a single thing'

LMAO!!

Professor of what?

Magic and fairy tales?

a reply to: turbonium1

Perhaps you do not understand how this works. However, posting links to evidence is the same as providing it. In point of fact, its superior, as there is no chance for transcription errors, or bias being introduced.

Its pretty clear you are not willing to discuss the evidence that has been provided .

a reply to: Akragon

Now now, an actual academic (no matter the title) is far more likely to (if this is outside of their area of interests and expertise) to go "nope, not going to talk about this". In decent universities, Academics are well aware that they are only experts in very narrow areas. The problem usually happens within the narrow area of expertese. When we get a project at work, to make a pharmaceutical, academics are the very worst clients, as they are unwilling to make consessions based around scale, safety, and GMP. So you need to be willing to show them the evidence, and let them have a say. But If you were to take a scientific academic, and ask them to talk about say the myths and legends of the Aborigional Australians, they'd likely demure, well unless they are say Aborigional Australian (I know a couple).

a reply to: Noinden

Sorry but I have trouble believing turbo went to grade school let alone collage or university... I don't believe there is such thing as an educated "flat earther"

Plus he's a well known liar from hundreds of pages of nonsense in the LOL bin

So...

a reply to: Akragon

It's all very confusing you see and neither does knowledge of science makes someone a better person.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Whos talking about being a good or better person?

This thread is supposed to be about someone proving "evolution" to be wrong...

All so called attempts have failed... and buddy Mcturbo doesn't even know the basics of science, yet he's calling documented, peer reviewed science... crap