Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Once the specie is adapted to the new environment evolution would be completed.

I assume when the environment doesn't change the specie doesn't change either so that would mean completion right?

And you say I know nothing?

originally posted by: LSU2018
I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape when others don't believe in evolution. It's either real or it isn't, we all have a 50% chance of being correct on where we stand. It can't be proven 100%, nor can it be disproved 100%. You're an idiot for believing it and I'm an idiot for not believing it. Nobody ever wins this argument and we're all idiots in the end, even those of you who think your turds smell like tulips and your IQ's are infinite, so why do we still argue about it?

FALSE. Based on the evidence there is a 99.99% chance that evolution is true. Don't be so dishonest. People are simply willfully ignorant and don't care about evidence. Pretending it's a 50/50 shot is wrong. That's like saying the sun existing is a 50/50 shot. It is the deniers of evolution that can't stop bringing it up and arguing against it, but their claims are baseless every single time.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

LMFAO!!! I'm not trying to prove god doesn't exist, the topic is EVOLUTION, and I was defending it. Why are you unable to tell the difference? The topic of this thread is "can you prove evolution wrong?" Can you? Can anybody in this thread? NOPE.

Dinosaurs lived alongside humans, and carbon dating dinosaur remains proves they were way younger than is blindly taught in school. This causes the timeline of the earth to be wayyyyy too short for evolution to wave its magical wand of super-long unfathomable timelines that trick people into thinking genetic mutative miracles can occur given enough time.

You proved nothing. Dinosaurs 100% did not live alongside humans.

originally posted by: Barcs
And you say I know nothing?

Your knowledge base is worse than knowing nothing. At least someone who knows nothing has the potential to receive real knowledge when they hear it. You believe you know something, but it is wrong, making you stuck in an arrogant dead-end, disallowing any true knowledge to permeate through your psyche.

a reply to: Barcs

No matter how well educated one might be about the environment there's still a chance of being delusional.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you ever stop whining? How about you provide testable evidence or make an argument that isn't demonstrably wrong. It's not my fault your arguments are completely illogical and unconvincing.

a reply to: Barcs

Can anybody prove evolution is more than just a theory? No. So what does it really matter?

a reply to: Barcs

Another something to fill that void of yours.

a reply to: Akragon

Now now you know I am not talking about "Turbo". But several of us here are either academics or trained as one (and then went outside the ivory tower to apply our skills).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

LMFAO!!! I'm not trying to prove god doesn't exist, the topic is EVOLUTION, and I was defending it. Why are you unable to tell the difference? The topic of this thread is "can you prove evolution wrong?" Can you? Can anybody in this thread? NOPE.

Dinosaurs lived alongside humans, and carbon dating dinosaur remains proves they were way younger than is blindly taught in school. This causes the timeline of the earth to be wayyyyy too short for evolution to wave its magical wand of super-long unfathomable timelines that trick people into thinking genetic mutative miracles can occur given enough time.

I believe we walked alongside the dinos, but I don't put much trust in carbon dating unless it's on something from near past that we know full well is the right date. Humans and dinos may well have walked together 30,000 years ago, or 30 million years ago but that just goes to show that humans haven't evolved into anything more than humans, thus throwing a wrench into the theory of evolution.

a reply to: turbonium1

No, its the way this works. You post a link to evidence, it is superior to typing it out. No an academic would not laugh me out of the room. We are in the equivalent of the introduction/Literary review portion of a dissertation. We never get past that. In that very first section we show the work that has gone before, and supporting evidence.

So no. You do not know what an academic would or would not do here. However several of the people you are interacting with on here are actually academics (not I, I work in the science industry). So you are manspaining to them.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LSU2018
I've never understood why people get so bent out of shape when others don't believe in evolution. It's either real or it isn't, we all have a 50% chance of being correct on where we stand. It can't be proven 100%, nor can it be disproved 100%. You're an idiot for believing it and I'm an idiot for not believing it. Nobody ever wins this argument and we're all idiots in the end, even those of you who think your turds smell like tulips and your IQ's are infinite, so why do we still argue about it?

FALSE. Based on the evidence there is a 99.99% chance that evolution is true. Don't be so dishonest. People are simply willfully ignorant and don't care about evidence. Pretending it's a 50/50 shot is wrong. That's like saying the sun existing is a 50/50 shot. It is the deniers of evolution that can't stop bringing it up and arguing against it, but their claims are baseless every single time.

First of all, you're getting bent out of shape just like I said you do. Why am I a denier for not believing in evolution, but you're not a denier for not believing in creation? Do you realize how hypocritical that makes you look? On top of that, your analogy is terrible when comparing the sun's existence to a theory. Even if evolution is 99.99% true in your opinion, it's still not 100% true, which gives people a 50/50 shot at being correct. I think you're willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy for simply believing in evolution like you're told, but since neither one of us are 100% correct, we believe what we do and it should stop at that.

a reply to: Barcs

How, without a doubt, can you prove they didn't live together.

originally posted by: LSU2018
but I don't put much trust in carbon dating unless it's on something from near past that we know full well is the right date.

For sure, but it does indicate that they are nowhere near millions of years old. Especially since cultures all around the world depicted them, and described them in their stories. The icing on the cake was when they found soft tissue in dinosaur remains.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Barcs

How, without a doubt, can you prove they didn't live together.

He's just Barcing, don't address him logically... it doesn't work.

a reply to: LSU2018

For the sake of confusion it's carbon dating.

I read once they did carbon dating on different parts of the same rhino and ended up with results differing ten thousands of years.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You of course can link to this right? Not just say it.

a reply to: Noinden

It's been a couple of years now I read it somewhere on the internet.

maybe this is of interest: carbon dating

From that link:

Mollusks:
The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

Potassium-argon dating -
The potassium-argon method was used to date volcanic material in this next example.
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801. ("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

a reply to: cooperton

So I've noticed. He seems pretty triggered when someone has the nerve to think of the theory of evolution as a theory. It takes me back to an argument I was having with a teacher who was grammatically challenged. Just because they think they're smarter than someone without a degree in their field of study doesn't always mean they are.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Interesting... I wish I would have known that during all the debates I've had in the past when I would argue that carbon dating can only be as accurate as we can prove. I would argue with them that unless they had a time machine to travel back 50,000,000 years to find the specimen they're carbon dating that they claimed was 50,000,000 years old, they will never know if their studies are accurate or not. They would scream that it was science, I would tell them it was common sense. You just can't argue with these people. You become an instant "denier" when you do.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You get Potassium-argon dating is not Carbon dating right? That a blog, from a biased source is also not a good source?

Still waiting for the that Rhino article. Till then, its not anything but heresay.

Burden of proof etc