Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth


So I guess by your rant your not going to provide any objective evidence but instead fall back into misdirection to try and confuse the reader into your diluted world view.

I'm not here to play games, it's pointless to argue with megalomania.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I just spat out my morning coffee laughing so hard

And the fact still remians that no one has presented any objectional evidence about evolution.

reply to post by colin42

I'm sorry but you seem to be a tad confused. Your confusing your opinion of not accepting the bible as objective evidence as being a fact.

How very dishonest of you. Don’t you remember you refused to enter into debate on how you can refer to the bible and lost. Claiming the bible as objective evidence receives: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment

I shouldn't have to quote parts of the bible. If your so dead set right about knowing that the bible is false, I'm going to assume you think you know a little bit about it.

reply to post by colin42

Your opinion does not make fact.

What a pity you don’t practice what you preach

Thats because I'm not going by an opinion, I'm going by documentation, which is something you should be doing and you don't.

I'll tell you something else as well. The bible was written long before you were birthed into existance, there just might be something in there that you don't know about, in fact I'm sure of it.

Where did you learn to speak, the 16th century? I wouldn’t be surprised as your world view is about from the same era.

And the fact remains that if you think the bible is about faith and religion, you don't know how to read. It just goes to show everyone that you really don't know what your talking about.

Now I'll take it one step further because there also seems to be a lot of confusion about what a theory is...

The rest of your post as usual is just your opinion with no supporting evidence but your comment above made me laugh.

Again you are either very dishonest or have a very low level of understanding of the English Language

Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment

And the day evolution is listed as a scientific theory, is the day we will have something to talk about.

Of course you have been told this many times but you dishonestly provide a link to theory and not scientific theory. This is called Cherry Picking (Fallacy)

Except that YOUR the one doing the cherry picking and choosing titles.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
So again all your argument falls apart either through your ignorance or your dishonesty. No doubt you will give me little more than your opinion in reply if you reply to this at all.

Exactly and there never is any contradiction with intervention.

reply to post by flyingfish

So I guess by your rant your not going to provide any objective evidence but instead fall back into misdirection to try and confuse the reader into your diluted world view.

I'm not here to play games, it's pointless to argue with megalomania

I have presented a lot of different material, could you be any more specific?

reply to post by itsthetooth

I shouldn't have to quote parts of the bible. If your so dead set right about knowing that the bible is false, I'm going to assume you think you know a little bit about it.

You had the chance to show me where I was wrong when I presented you with an argument based on your link showing the bible was anything but a 'clear historical document’. You failed. In fact you refused to debate it. YOU LOST.

Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats because I'm not going by an opinion, I'm going by documentation, which is something you should be doing and you don't.

All you have ever shown is your opinion. Opinion based on nonsense, nothing more and if you are again dishonestly referring to the bible as your documentation you went chicken and ran from the fight. You lost the chance to win the right to do that when you refused to enter into debate.

The price you pay for your dishonesty and cowardice is: Your 'term/claim' is not valid on this thread. No further comment.

And the day evolution is listed as a scientific theory, is the day we will have something to talk about.

How dishonest are you? In the very post I replied to showing how you dishonestly chose to define 'theory' and not ‘scientific theory' you supplied this quote:

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Do you not even understand your own information

I also see you are dishonestly avoiding answering my point. Why did you supply the definition for 'theory' to support your case when you know full well you should have defined 'Scientific Theory'?

This takes us back to the argument that you cannot add words to the front or back of others without changing their meaning. That goes for omitting them as well. Basic stuff you appear unable to understand.

Except that YOUR the one doing the cherry picking and choosing titles.

As predicted you answer with rubbish. This is why you have become so tired and boring. You have run out of tricks and keep using the old worn out stuff.

There is a clear difference between 'theory' and 'scientific theory'. You cherry picked the 'theory' definition because you thought it supported you yet acted like it was a scientific theory you were discussing.

How fake, and how dishonest a person are you?

Exactly and there never is any contradiction with intervention.

And enter stage left, your random unconnected and unsupported answer to a point that shows your argument to be drivel.

Seen it all before. Boring. Can you juggle?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I just spat out my morning coffee laughing so hard

And the fact still remians that no one has presented any objectional evidence about evolution.

Actually, that's all people have done in this thread...it's just that you react to all the objective evidence like this:



Probably because just like every other religious believer, you simply ignore all evidence that goes against your bat# crazy religion.

I started an entire thread highlighting why your "evidence" isn't evidence at all...and why you are posting complete and utter nonsense, over and over and over and over again, no matter how often you get PROVEN WRONG.

And the day evolution is listed as a scientific theory, is the day we will have something to talk about.

It is a scientific theory for crying out loud. Yet, just like with everything else, you simply ignore FACTS if they go against your dumb (safe to say it's dumb after 400+ pages) personal religion.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Actually, that's all people have done in this thread...it's just that you react to all the objective evidence like this:

No all that people on this thread have done is make false claims. For example...
Evolution is suppose to be a scientific theory, so why do I find this...

www.ozpolitic.com...

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.

Evolution is not a scientific theory - discussions
•Evolution has no predictive value

•Science is a methodology, not a field of study

•What is an experiment?

•History of the modern scientific method

•Theory of sufficient genetic potential

•The dinosaur experiment

•A Christian foundation for science?

•Has evolution become a religion?

Yes it has, and I told you so.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You are reading this because the website you linked is an OPINION COMMUNITY BLOG SITE!!! For crying out loud, just for once, try linking a scientific source

Evolution is a scientific theory...that's why it's called a THEORY in the first place. Are you suggesting scientists who have very strict rules about what's a theory or not suddenly decide to call it the "theory of evolution" even though it isn't?

Are you for real? Comon', you can't be that ignorant

reply to post by MrXYZ
It was a Christian website.

I am a strong believer in geocentricity, and I get my information from allaboutcenterearth.org.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

So I guess by your rant your not going to provide any objective evidence but instead fall back into misdirection to try and confuse the reader into your diluted world view.

I'm not here to play games, it's pointless to argue with megalomania

I have presented a lot of different material, could you be any more specific?

Sure... Lets start with material you have presented that has been peer reviewed.
Hmm... looking, looking, looking, looking, not seeing any.
Hey! This could be a fun game, now you look for material I have presented that has been peer reviewed.
DOH! YOU LOSE

Just wanted to add this to the mix. History of whale evolution. Enjoy, Tooth.

reply to post by MrXYZ

You are reading this because the website you linked is an OPINION COMMUNITY BLOG SITE!!! For crying out loud, just for once, try linking a scientific source

Are you smoking crack? It's a forum not a blog, do you think your on a blog right now?

Copyright 2006 all rights reserved

Are you trying to say that if something comes from a forum, which in this case there is no proof that whats being displayed did or didn't, so your assuming. Means that its worthless?

Evolution is a scientific theory...that's why it's called a THEORY in the first place. Are you suggesting scientists who have very strict rules about what's a theory or not suddenly decide to call it the "theory of evolution" even though it isn't?

Are you for real? Comon', you can't be that ignorant

No its clear from the well trusted and highly directed to site that I keep using that evolution is a hypothesis.

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun: 1.A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2.A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Synonyms: supposition - assumption - conjecture - presumption

The obvious problem here is that not all the sites are matching with any of the information we are all using. All of the sites I have been able to find say that evolution is a series of hypothesis, and theories. I have yet to find that claiming it to be a scientific theory. Either way majority rules.

I just ran into someone last week in a meeting, we were talking about evolution, and she strongly agrees and supports it, but also admits that its an unproven theory.

In a vain attempt to...well...I'm not sure what, here's an article on a baby chimp that was killed by an adult male at the Los Angeles zoo.

usnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Male chimps will kill the offspring of a female they want to mate with. It just goes to show that we haven't evolved so much as we might think; human males have been known to do the same, and worse.

reply to post by HappyBunny
Infanticide is certainly something that has evolved because it increases reproductive fitness. Whether its from the mother, father, or invading male. Its really a fascinating subject and is rooted deeply in some underlying mechanisms that drive evolution. Sarah Hrdy has written some interesting things on the matter

reply to post by flyingfish

Sure... Lets start with material you have presented that has been peer reviewed.
Hmm... looking, looking, looking, looking, not seeing any.
Hey! This could be a fun game, now you look for material I have presented that has been peer reviewed.
DOH! YOU LOSE

How are you going to peer review something that happened back in biblical times

Peer reviews are important but I seriously doubt if they are the sole determining factor on if something is good or not .

Then there is the example of Pyes findings. He is using the human genome in his example to expose things that prove intervention, and the fact that we have an absurd amount of defects in our genes.

Now I know for a fact that the human genome is public record, so there is your peer review for that .

You cant get peer reviews on bibilical events, goof ball.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Is this Pye you are referring to Lloyd Pye? Of Starchild fame? Anything he says must be true

reply to post by Barcs


That video is a classic example of how its being assumed that this land whale evolved at all. Just because he has feet and works in the water, its being assumed that he evolved. Thats not proof, its an assumption.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

That video is a classic example of how its being assumed that this land whale evolved at all. Just because he has feet and works in the water, its being assumed that he evolved. Thats not proof, its an assumption.

Please explain what you mean because if you are saying what I think you are saying this will be the dumbest reply you have ever made ......... well lately