Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: testingtesting

lets keep in mind this is actually a 504 page thread

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol okay dude. Can you actually prove it wrong like the thread asks?.

No, that would be silly
Can you prove santa is wrong

The premise of this thread is a bit like evolutionists, a complete lack of science

I cant understand why atheists hate all science, why science threatens them, why they are scared of utilising science as science should be, correctly

a reply to: Raggedyman

told you before brother...

don't use words you don't understand

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol okay dude. Can you actually prove it wrong like the thread asks?.

No, that would be silly
Can you prove santa is wrong

The premise of this thread is a bit like evolutionists, a complete lack of science

I cant understand why atheists hate all science, why science threatens them, why they are scared of utilising science as science should be, correctly

Ah, I see that you have resorted to trying to get a reaction out of people by stating nonsense. I've read your playbook. It's not going to work.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well youngling since evolution is the subject of this thread and your a Christian and all....

The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Roman Catholic priest.
It wasn't just any priest. It was Monseigneur George Lemaître, a brilliant Belgian who entered the priesthood following his service as an artillery officer in the Belgian army during World War I. He was also an accomplished astronomer and a talented mathematician and physician. After earning his graduate degree in astronomy from the University of Cambridge in England, he came to Boston and spent a year at the Harvard College Observatory before earning his doctorate at MIT.

In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, Einstein’s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein’s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein’s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion.

news.wgbh.org...

I dont know why ignorant Christians like you argue against the scientific works of their own religious scientists.

Wasnt Evolution a Christian origin? Darwin?

Wasnt the fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe a Christian scientists? Galileo?

Master Coomba

a reply to: Raggedyman

Mic.... Drop!

Master Coomba

a reply to: Raggedyman

I gotta say it you really are a moron.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

I gotta say it you really are a moron.

I might be a moron but
All I asked was someone show me some journal articles

Crickets?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol okay dude. Can you actually prove it wrong like the thread asks?.

No, that would be silly
Can you prove santa is wrong

The premise of this thread is a bit like evolutionists, a complete lack of science

I cant understand why atheists hate all science, why science threatens them, why they are scared of utilising science as science should be, correctly

Ah, I see that you have resorted to trying to get a reaction out of people by stating nonsense. I've read your playbook. It's not going to work.

No no, seriously Mr Angry, I sincerely think people like you hate science, no reaction called for
You hate having to offer real science, it disgusts you
One journal article required, peer reviewed
I am asking

Don't shy away
Back up your religious faith in science with real science

Yeah I want a reaction, I want real scientific evidence

Like listening to crickets on a still night, nothing

I think you hate science or just ignorant of what real science is, you are far more religious than me

Shut me up, journal article, peer reviewed proving evolution, not micro, real evolution, macro

That's an offer to everyone

Here is your chance, I won't ever post again on ats if you can do that...

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
I don't look at the theory of evolution from a provable scientific viewpoint,

No denier ever looks at evolution from the scientific viewpoint. That's the problem. They never do the research.

there's simply not enough evidence to prove or disprove the theory.

That's wrong.

www.talkorigins.org...

It's scientific consensus for a reason. It's not just made up assumptions. It's been directly witnessed and observed in a lab and in nature.

I look at it from it's effects. The theory of evolution coupled with the doctrine of uniformity puts people into a sleepy haze. They see our earth as something that changes very slowly over millions of years. That makes them complacent and more willing to subject themselves to all sorts of delusional oppression. Therefore the theory is working at intended, not as proven.

I don't agree with that in the slightest. Scientists aren't in a sleepy haze, they are working their butts off trying to figure out the answers and solve the numerous mysteries about the universe. Knowing facts, makes people complacent? So I guess we should promote lies instead to avoid people thinking they understand something? I don't see where you are going here.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again you talk bollocks. How many times have you been shown evidence but you completly ignore it.
Tell you what do as the thread suggests and you prove it wrong.
Go on prove it wrong.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol okay dude. Can you actually prove it wrong like the thread asks?.

"Can you prove evolution wrong?" Yes, Science proved it wrong some 40 years ago. There is a rather large piece to the puzzle, now in the public domain, that dispels evolution. But, those who push Evolution only, don't want you to see that piece! They have been very careful not to connect the dots in this area... For to do that they would be exposing the "Creation" side of the story.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Go on then show us the evidence that disproves evolution.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again you talk bollocks. How many times have you been shown evidence but you completly ignore it.
Tell you what do as the thread suggests and you prove it wrong.
Go on prove it wrong.

Uhmm
Let's work on science
I know you hate it despise science, consider it abhorrent
But please play
Peer reviewed journal article

I don't have to prove anything is wrong, that's not how science works
Study science, then get back to me

a reply to: Raggedyman

Come now the topic of the threads asks for you to post evidence against evolution. either you can or can't not don't play games.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Go on then show us the evidence that disproves evolution.

What's wrong with your brain
Science is about proof, it's not about unprofessional

What's wrong with atheism, you accept science as a religion, faith required
Science is about proof, not disproof
Science takes the stance of neutrality till proof is shown

Prove evolution, peer reviewed journal articles please

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol okay dude. Can you actually prove it wrong like the thread asks?.

No, that would be silly
Can you prove santa is wrong

The premise of this thread is a bit like evolutionists, a complete lack of science

I cant understand why atheists hate all science, why science threatens them, why they are scared of utilising science as science should be, correctly

Ah, I see that you have resorted to trying to get a reaction out of people by stating nonsense. I've read your playbook. It's not going to work.

No no, seriously Mr Angry, I sincerely think people like you hate science, no reaction called for
You hate having to offer real science, it disgusts you
One journal article required, peer reviewed
I am asking

Don't shy away
Back up your religious faith in science with real science

Yeah I want a reaction, I want real scientific evidence

Like listening to crickets on a still night, nothing

I think you hate science or just ignorant of what real science is, you are far more religious than me

Shut me up, journal article, peer reviewed proving evolution, not micro, real evolution, macro

That's an offer to everyone

Here is your chance, I won't ever post again on ats if you can do that...

You have been shown so much proof on this website that it's embarrassingly one-sided.
However - have a read on this website for a start.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Not the thread to prove evolution (You have been shown enough over the years) but the thread to disprove it.
So go on then disprove it or jog on.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Asked for a peer reviewed journal article stating evolution is a fact

That's just a pathetic attempt
Please try again

You can't be that silly, surely

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again not the thread to prove it this thread it is up to you to disprove it.
Not hard to understand is it?.