Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: Masterjaden

I take issue with the fact that you call Evolution a religion. Does this mean that Gravity is a Religion, that General Relativity is a Religion?

Like my two examples above, Evolution is a THEORY. Meaning that our understanding of it grows as new evidence comes forward, and some tenets of evolution can be discarded entirely if new evidence disproves those tenets. Nothing about Evolution is set in stone, unlike any religion.

You don't have to "believe" in evolution for it to be true or false, in the very same sense that you don't have "believe" in gravity for it to be true or false. Apples fall, lifeforms evolve. Genetic mutations are either adopted by a species as beneficial to it's survival or the mutated lifeform dies without passing on it's genes.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Why is it that evolution deniers assume that we see it as a religion, rather than a verifiable theory?

To answer your question, the majority of deniers are Abrahamic spiritualists. It thus is statistically probable that when someone denies that evolution is real, that they are a follower of "God". The OP certainly is.

a reply to: TechUnique

Post proof. Its that simple. Oh wait start a new thread and try and get people there, that is your usual MO.

Its not obvious, why? Because its either not happening or its a secret cabal. Either way it can't be obvious.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Masterjaden

Why is it that evolution deniers assume that we see it as a religion, rather than a verifiable theory?

Because strawmen don't fight back.

a reply to: TechUnique

Ah yes, the standard Christian tactic of feigning offense and pretending like people debating you are attacking you. Does it feel good to fall back onto safe ground then?

Though, I'd take you a bit more seriously if you were to take this debate more seriously and actually apply the rules of debate and logic to your thread. Instead you apply the rules of trolling and smugness to it instead.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And Lo Jesus said "troll unto the heathen"

Austin 3:16

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TechUnique

This is as pointless as trying to argue reality with a democrat my friend...

The evidence for evolution is shoddy circular reasoning at best, and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts many facets of support for evolution.

Please leave politics out of this discussion. Think of some better analogies. Though these analogies due illuminate your politics quite clearly and I'm sure that you use the same fallacies in political debates as you've used in this post.

Showing that to the adherents of evolution is as stupid as trying to explain the merits of liberty and personal responsibility to socialists. They ignore any valid points you have and openly dismiss with convoluted bull# any evidence you present.

Care to prove that assertion with some actual evidence for your position? Or are you still in political speak hyperbole mode?

The really funny thing is when, after coming up with convoluted logic to explain away any evidence you point out, they cite occam's razor thinking that it bolsters their side.

Do you know what Occam's Razor even says?

The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

With all the evidence backing evolution up, Occam's Razor DOES support evolutionary theory. This is opposed to the YEC creation account that assumes that god exists, that god can manipulate the universe, that humans can propagate the planet from only two parents, and there are many more assumptions made with that account that have no evidence backing them up.

Just let it go, no evidence you produce would convince them. If you found a dinosaur alive in the congo tomorrow, they would say that it was genetically engineered by creationists. We HAVE found living dinosaurs btw that completely contradict the fossil record and they are dismissed.

Do you know what the phrase, "completely contradict the fossil record" implies? Because finding one dinosaur in the congo doesn't do that. To completely contradict a scientific idea, you need to produce a LOT of evidence that says it isn't true. One or two accounts don't mean anything. That's why they are considered anomalies. Science just changes a few things in its theories and moves on.

Coelacanth... We have found supposedly mythological creatures previously dismissed as such and all of a sudden, science ALWAYS knew they existed, what are you talking about?

Um... Coelacanths were never mythological species. They were just considered to be extinct because no one could find any living ones. That account was shown to be wrong. Science has changed its mind and says otherwise now. That doesn't refute the fossil record though.

gilled deer, giant panda, mountain gorilla, colossal squid. Science and their paradigms are worse than the catholic church during the inquisition as far as denying evidence and ostracizing adherents to said evidence.

Jaden

This is hyperbole.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: TechUnique

Except you obviously don't care about science. You are just hoping to use pseudoscience to validate beliefs you already have. The theory of evolution developed from observable evidence over hundreds of years by people who weren't trying to prove it wrong. They were merely observing.

Darwin himself was a Christian and suffered great internal conflict over his own ideas. He still wrote about his theory because he observed things with his own eyes. Since then many other observations have added to the theory.

YouTube videos which discuss eyewitness accounts or pictures or historical writings are not actual science.

Could dinosaurs have been alive at the same time as men? It's possible but no science has down that yet.

Pretty much this.We have evidences of evolutions thanks to quimistry. If it wasn't for quimistry wer are able to determine the age of any of these objects using Uranium 235 since it has a life cicle of 4.6 billion years. These videos do not give any evidence that have already been disclaimed over last decades. In fact many of these claims were created by christian to take down science.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Masterjaden

Why is it that evolution deniers assume that we see it as a religion, rather than a verifiable theory?

Because strawmen don't fight back.

possibly because they lack the brains?

*ba dum tss*

a reply to: Frocharocha

quimistry = chemistry?

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: curme
a reply to: TechUnique

At 23:08 in the first video he says the most common dinosaur we find in our time is the plesiosaur, and mentions the 'credible' evidence of Loch Ness and Champ in Lake Champlain. 'Nuff said.

That's the easy way out. Just cos you disagree with a couple things throw the whole lot in the trash. Typical.

"A little lumpeth the whole lot." Nuff said...

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino


The actual term 'vestigial organs' was something I had not yet heard of till you posted it. I understood the meaning just not the actual word. At which point I did go into looking a bit further.

You mentioned that vestigial organs have a purpose? Well they do, nothing to argue with you there. There are many that still have uses, but in fairness they arent the best suited current purpose for what is evidently thier main purpose.

Like Wisdom teeth for example.

The funny thing about wisdom teeth is they are still very important in peoples who chew a lot and eat roughage.
The more a child chews hard food, the larger the jaw muscles develop, the larger the jaw bone grows, the more room for wisdom teeth develops
A diet of cool drink and burgers doesnt develop a big jawbone, hence a smaller jaw and no room for wisdom teeth.

While the wisdom teeth may be useless in Westeners, not so much for other people.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TechUnique

One thing we can all agree on is that you have the reading comprehension of a tree frog. It's as if you read what you want to read and conveniently push aside all of the factual info and arguments that go against your child-like acceptance of Genesis.

I believe that humanity co existed with Dinosaurs
I believe in YEC
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

a reply to: borntowatch

Really? Really? We've posted up countless articles, papers and evidence for you over the months/years. Not once have you ever bothered to take a look at them and try to understand the information presented to you.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
The fact we are here only proves, at best, that Intelligent Design is real. Intelligent Design is most likely alien genetic engineering.

It wasn't very intelligent to put legs on a whale ... www.talkorigins.org...

Evolution is adaptation...humans have adapted to various places on earth. Animals learn to adapt to the areas they inhabit and due to human encroachment they evolve....

www.abc15.com...

Rattle snakes in the western states are losing the rattles because speculation is that they are adapting to more humans in the area and are evolving...losing the very thing that has meant survival before as now because humans are using it to find them....seems evolution is alive and being documented every day so seems moot to even argue which so much clear evidence as well as documented scientific observations.

a reply to: DJMSN

Elephants are losing their tusks as well. Because of Humans killing them for their tusks while leaving the one's with no or little tusks and them breeding over the years it has promoted elephants with smaller or no tusks.

a reply to: mOjOm

Another example of adapting...an extreme situation for survival...if they no longet have tusk then perhaps (wishful thinking) then elephants at least will not be hunted for ivory.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: borntowatch

Really? Really? We've posted up countless articles, papers and evidence for you over the months/years. Not once have you ever bothered to take a look at them and try to understand the information presented to you.

Really?
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

Tell me did you watch the video in the OPs first post or was it to long?

Your evidence is vague and circumstantial at the very best

originally posted by: DJMSN
Evolution is adaptation...humans have adapted to various places on earth. Animals learn to adapt to the areas they inhabit and due to human encroachment they evolve....

www.abc15.com...

Rattle snakes in the western states are losing the rattles because speculation is that they are adapting to more humans in the area and are evolving...losing the very thing that has meant survival before as now because humans are using it to find them....seems evolution is alive and being documented every day so seems moot to even argue which so much clear evidence as well as documented scientific observations.

I dont know any one who denies adaptation.
Its just stretching the point when you say that one species turned in to another species.

Elephants losing their tusks is a bit like African elephants having large ears and Indian elephants having small ears. They are still elephants.

Adaptation is evolution, is it the evolution that proves animals evolving into other animals?

I have never denied micro evolution.