Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

Are you dim?.
The poster above my last post is called Flyingfish....
Care to address the evidence? the proof that we are evolutionary cousins with chimps?.
Nah you you just ignore it also and continue being ignorant.

Please tell me what would be the point, I disagree with you and you with me.
There are many creation sites that you can research and find answers to the problem you have with ny beliefs.
I dont want to waste time answering every anti creationists issue with what I believe.

As for Flyingfish, oops, I didnt and dont read everything, I am not that interested in all the pettiness around here

What I do and dont do is irrelevant in context to the hard scientific data that doesnt exist.

It only doesn't exist in you and your ilk's minds.
For those of us that use more than one book, it's very evident indeed.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: borntowatch

you lot made the assertion that evolution is bunk. YOU show US the proof....

No
That is why you are ignorant of science, science is not a man, a machine, an outcome.
Science is an observation, a solution or explanation.

I dont have any proof for God just like science doesnt have any proof for evolution.
My default position for origins is creation, its up to science (not you) to prove its case for evolution, so far it hasnt.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm


correction: you are stonewalling us. any idiot can sit there and just say, "Nope!" which is basically what you are doing. that doesn't make you right. Myself and others have literally just handed this stuff to you. your refusal doesn't negate its validity. and that's the only redeeming quality of this thread so far.

any idiot can sit on this site and post links like just about every evolutionist on this site does
that doesn't make you right
What negates its validity is hard science

Is that a fact? Because i don't see you posting any science at all. Let alone hard science. you keep making demands then acting as though you are the only judge who matters, as though none of the evidence provided was peer reviewed by more qualified experts than yourself. you are juat playing the stubborn game and that's the only reason we are still here.

Here you go again with evidence, what evidence, just a couple of links full of junk science, JUNK SCIENCE

and as a matter of fact, when it comes to my opinion, what I believe is what I judge as acceptable, what you believe is irrelevant to me
No I dont read the links, they are for the most part childish and irrelevant. Most have no scientific data, just opinion.
I have given up reading links from here.

I use to post links countering the phoney science offered in links others demanded I read, they were ignored.

This is the point I made before. If they can't twist the evidence in their favor, they'll ignore the evidence, including that which you give, while posting links supposedly proving common descent that are nothing more than their beliefs of what they believe happened in the past based on evidence that isn't even circumstantial for common descent to begin with.

originally posted by: borntowatch
You know mojo I totally agree, thats why I dont push creation on atheists.
Though irrespective, evolution does not have the hard, factual evidence that many claim.
Flying fish evolved in to birds.
Yeah right

You are a liar. You have done absolutely nothing in this thread but push creation and deny scientific evidence that has been posted. Sorry that you don't like evolution. That doesn't make it wrong. And no, flying fish didn't become birds. That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time from the science deniers. Me thinks you should do a little research to understand what you are talking about, but we all know by now that isn't happening. Keep attacking evolution. It just makes ya'll look like complete imbeciles that don't belong in society. I'm not saying you are, of course, but you sure know how to give people that idea.

any idiot can sit on this site and post links

Damn those science supporters for backing up their side with facts. Any idiot can do that... except you!

Science is an observation, a solution or explanation.

Science is a method of fact gathering.

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: TzarChasm


correction: you are stonewalling us. any idiot can sit there and just say, "Nope!" which is basically what you are doing. that doesn't make you right. Myself and others have literally just handed this stuff to you. your refusal doesn't negate its validity. and that's the only redeeming quality of this thread so far.

any idiot can sit on this site and post links like just about every evolutionist on this site does
that doesn't make you right
What negates its validity is hard science

Is that a fact? Because i don't see you posting any science at all. Let alone hard science. you keep making demands then acting as though you are the only judge who matters, as though none of the evidence provided was peer reviewed by more qualified experts than yourself. you are juat playing the stubborn game and that's the only reason we are still here.

Here you go again with evidence, what evidence, just a couple of links full of junk science, JUNK SCIENCE

and as a matter of fact, when it comes to my opinion, what I believe is what I judge as acceptable, what you believe is irrelevant to me
No I dont read the links, they are for the most part childish and irrelevant. Most have no scientific data, just opinion.
I have given up reading links from here.

I use to post links countering the phoney science offered in links others demanded I read, they were ignored.

This is the point I made before. If they can't twist the evidence in their favor, they'll ignore the evidence, including that which you give, while posting links supposedly proving common descent that are nothing more than their beliefs of what they believe happened in the past based on evidence that isn't even circumstantial for common descent to begin with.

Unfortunately there's only one set of people on this thread who are ignoring evidence...
And not surprisingly they're not providing any either.

a reply to: BlackManINC

I've seen all of this before. Nothing you've said is in the least bit original. You're simply the latest in a long line of science deniers. You would be better off getting your knowledge of biology from biologists, rather than cartoon creationist clichés.The most you're likely to elicit from me is mild irritation. Fortunately, you're funny, so that works out even.

Also, I think you might benefit from reading up a little on how real scientists, in the real world - as opposed to the imaginary twisted straw-man versions that live in your head. Embracing ignorance does not replace science, your only fooling yourself.

a reply to: borntowatch

why can't your default position for origins be "i don't know?"..that seems far more reasonable. i mean, is "i don't know" more frightening? not mocking you or anything, i'm being serious....is it that you go with god, not because it makes sense, but because it's less scary than the idea that we don't really know where we come from, and that in the end, our lives are utterly meaningless, aside from the other lives we effect?

a reply to: flyingfish


Well guys, I hate to jump into what appears to be a pretty hardy argument, but without looking at sides here, I can tell you that someone, is over looking an important factor about creation.

Humans are created from Supernatural design...

su·per·nat·u·ral



/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/



adjective

adjective: supernatural



1.



(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

"a supernatural being"



synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More



rareextramundane

"supernatural powers"



ghostly, phantom, spectral, otherworldly, unearthly, unnatural

"a supernatural being"



unnaturally or extraordinarily great.

"a woman of supernatural beauty"



noun

noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals



1.



manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.


www.google.com...=supernatural+definition

Faith Produces Action (Faithfulness) (vv. 4-12)

The key question in our messes, brokenness, discouragement, and exile, and in our successes, blessings, celebrations, and joys needs to be, “What is God doing and how can I be a part of that?” That is faithfulness. And that comes out of the hearts and hands of people who realize that earth is not our home.[sic]



Definition of Faith (vv. 1-3)

Verse three points to the basis of this “blind faith” – and tempts me into a discursus on “intelligent design.” It reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” In other words, what you see ain’t all we got. There is more to life and this world than mortar and wood and nails, more than DNA and atoms and particles, there is supernatural intention, design, and purpose. And that supernatural intention, design, and purpose belong to God![sic]

Earth-is-not-our-home-hebrews-111-16.html for the supernatural intention translation. gspcsermons.blogspot.com...

So guys, please don't try to claim that Science disproves creation, science doesn't understand the Supernatural as explained by the definition. You're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

As you can see from the last quote. We were complete with Supernatural abilities, now come one seriously. Try to imagine those not being created.

originally posted by: Barcs
That doesn't make it wrong. And no, flying fish didn't become birds. That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time from the science deniers.
Science is a method of fact gathering.

No because the thought that flying fish became birds is as silly as believing that rocks and water and lightning or whatever else existed in your primordial soup, over time became humanity.
Compared to the silliness of that, flying fish becoming birds over any time period cant sound as silly can it....now

Yes science is a method of gathering fact, then it is explaining it, even utilising those facts.
Barcs dont become petty, I dont care to argue

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: borntowatch

why can't your default position for origins be "i don't know?"..that seems far more reasonable. i mean, is "i don't know" more frightening? not mocking you or anything, i'm being serious....is it that you go with god, not because it makes sense, but because it's less scary than the idea that we don't really know where we come from, and that in the end, our lives are utterly meaningless, aside from the other lives we effect?

You know thats a vaqlid point and I was going to add why my default position was God.
Even thought of writing a new thread, a bible study as to why. It would upset the Gnostics no end.

So why God.
First off, believing in God is no cakewalk, it aint easy. It separates me from many people and leaves me open to constant attacks from those in the world.
I am separate from the world, I find that uncomfortable. Throw in the fact I believe in supernatural creation, how hard do you think that is to live with in todays world.
So why do I take my default position.
I dont believe in the Big Bang from zero. Its unscientific
I dont believe in abiogenesis from zero.Its unscientific

Aliens, supernatural aliens?
Sounds like a god/s of some kind, but no real history.

Genesis, Adam and Eve, fallen world, broken world, sin, destruction,all the way through to Jesus it does make sense .
The moons distance from the earth,dinosaurs walking with man, fake and false evolution teachings, the geological time scale being faked. The thing if you were to study the creation myth, the evidence on creation sites. Actually study the information, not just assume. If you spent the years studying the bible, all the misconceptions that every atheist and many Christians have.

I could go on but you dont really want to know, you just want me to follow you.
I cant, I believe something else.

Why dont people like you try to get a better understanding of what I believe.
If you went to a higher learning facility the first thing you learn is to study your opponents view, simply so you can understand how and why they think what they do.
I never see that here, strange isnt it.

originally posted by: Pardon?


Unfortunately there's only one set of people on this thread who are ignoring evidence...
And not surprisingly they're not providing any either.

here is a link to some valid scientific evidence, it explains how the design of nature must be caused by a designer

www.icr.org...

www.creationsciencetoday.com...

www.icr.org...

Now of course I havnt read them or proofed them as I know no serious atheist evolutionist will read them, also I dont think that linking a site offers any chance of serious discussion as I state below.
The reality is this "Post a Link format" is generally how atheists prove their point to me. I think its invalid.

Asks for evidence:

originally posted by: borntowatch
Lets see the truth, not a view based on unchallenged ignorance.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Perhaps you could show me evidence, scientific evidence.
A perhaps is just an assumption, I have no interest arguing facts with people who dont know the facts and would sooner deny them than studying the scientific evidence.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Now I am here and can accept any scientific evidence you have to evolution.

Please, please show it to me
Cos I aint seen it

originally posted by: borntowatch
Show me some irrefutable evidence that I cant question and I will come on board.
Not circumstantial or debatable, just hard solid evidence.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am the one asking for scientific evidence, you are the one believing evolution in a vacuum, the pseudo science.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Well Gryph, if its science then show me irrefutable evidence.
Its in your court

originally posted by: borntowatch
Well show me the evidence of micro turning in to macro, then you win

originally posted by: borntowatch
Evolution is based on circumstantial evidence.
Show me the proof.

Shows he doesn't look at linked evidence or disregards it:

originally posted by: borntowatch
See to me your articles are as silly as the OPs article is to you, in fact I believe evolution is a religion only the gullible accept.

Now to say I havnt once taken a look at them is silly

originally posted by: borntowatch
No I didnt read the same old same old link, there is nothing new to see.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Why not show some valid evidence.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Your citations come from pro evolutionist groups who I pay no credence to, same as you pay no credence to creation science groups.

originally posted by: borntowatch
You have given ABSOLUTELY no evidence at all, smoke and mirrors at best.
Yes you have linked dubious sites, I could challenge all of them.

originally posted by: borntowatch
any idiot can sit on this site and post links like just about every evolutionist on this site does
that doesn't make you right
What negates its validity is hard science

originally posted by: borntowatch
As for Flyingfish, oops, I didnt and dont read everything, I am not that interested in all the pettiness around here

originally posted by: borntowatch
No I dont read the links, they are for the most part childish and irrelevant. Most have no scientific data, just opinion.
I have given up reading links from here.

Maybe you could let us know what kind of sources and material you would consider worth reading and considering as opposed to asking for evidence only to wave it away as if it is all circumstantial. Perhaps you're looking for a "smoking gun" of sorts? I am not certain or not if there is one, though I imagine someone in this thread who is more versed in the theory than myself could offer up more information. Maybe a slew of fossils showing the progression from "one kind to another" as you would put it?

However if you aren't really interested, as all your quotes above may suggest, just say so. This thread is dragging out to a point beyond amusement. I mean no personal offense when I say I find amusement in YEC.

To anyone:
It's easy for people (me included) to start mocking, or posting memes, or adding a little jab like "here's the evidence but I know you won't look at it because you're ignorant" to the ends of our posts. I think pointing out to someone you believe they are ignorant is fine but trying to do so in a positive way is definitely the better approach. When people feel attacked they are less interested in engaging in conversation or debate and even less interested in what the other party has to say. In fact their positions are often hardened. Let's try to keep it constructive or just agree to disagree and be done with it.

ETA: Sorry to pick on your quotes borntowatch, I know you aren't the only creationist in this thread. The others have made similar quotes of their own and this post is as much for them as it was for you, and everyone.

Hey Wake Up Beer


You want to show me evidence then you show me evidence, explain it clearly and sincerely, not posting a link.
If I disagree, have issues or dont understand I will ask, explain my issues.
You will not patronise or belittle me if I dont understand your explanation.

I will reply courteously and sincerely.

If you post a link I will dismiss it.

See what I think, the average atheist here has absolutely no idea what evolution teaches and they cop out by posting links to hide the fact they dont have a clue as to what they believe.

Cut and past anything you want, I dont mind, but expect questions so I know that you know what you are talking about.




and please dont be sorry, I am very glad you brought the issue up, glad it gives me the chance to clarify my expectations
Maybe even state what my expectations are from those who wish to offer me evidence.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Why dont people like you try to get a better understanding of what I believe.

people like me?

ffs man, if i didn't give a crap about better understanding your position, do you honestly think i would have wasted my time posing the question to you that i did?

it's much easier to say "dur, ur stoopid", than to say "ok, i don't necessarily believe what you do, but why do YOU believe it?"

c'mon man...don't presume to know what's in my mind...

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: borntowatch
Why dont people like you try to get a better understanding of what I believe.

people like me?

ffs man, if i didn't give a crap about better understanding your position, do you honestly think i would have wasted my time posing the question to you that i did?

it's much easier to say "dur, ur stoopid", than to say "ok, i don't necessarily believe what you do, but why do YOU believe it?"

c'mon man...don't presume to know what's in my mind...

I guess I can only assume that if you were asking me why God is my default position then you have no idea what and why I believe what I do. That would suggest that you dont understand my position or have a good understanding, we can call that ignorant but some think calling someone ignorant is not nice.

Now I suggested a better understanding, simply because it seems you dont have a good understanding, based on your question.
Now please explain to me how I could possibly know your understanding

We call that common sense, you may have a different view.

a reply to: borntowatch

Speaking of which ...
You still haven't detailed that inconsistent part of your ideology where, creationism could validate not the Bible but the Koran.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

Speaking of which ...
You still haven't detailed that inconsistent part of your ideology where, creationism could validate not the Bible but the Koran.

I dont see the relevancy of that question.
I dont see how it can be a sincere question, at the very least is is an extremely....unlearned question.

You do know that Islam is also based on the Torah

originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont see the relevancy of that question.
I dont see how it can be a sincere question, at the very least is is an extremely....unlearned question.

You do know that Islam is also based on the Torah

Here is the relevancy :

originally borntowatch
I guess I can only assume that if you were asking me why God is my default position then you have no idea what and why I believe what I do.

May I ask you why that particular God then ?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: BlackManINC

I've seen all of this before. Nothing you've said is in the least bit original. You're simply the latest in a long line of science deniers. You would be better off getting your knowledge of biology from biologists, rather than cartoon creationist clichés.The most you're likely to elicit from me is mild irritation. Fortunately, you're funny, so that works out even.

Also, I think you might benefit from reading up a little on how real scientists, in the real world - as opposed to the imaginary twisted straw-man versions that live in your head. Embracing ignorance does not replace science, your only fooling yourself.

And I think you creatures might benefit from avoiding circular arguments by providing a never ending stream of micro-theories that don't support your claims of common descent in the least bit every time I give a rebuttal to your claims that the mechanisms given, whether its speciation, mutations, drug resistant bacteria do not support evolution. Ten or so pages in and nothing you apes have brought forth as "evidence" is in the least bit original.