Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

Yep macular degeneration it is. Many threads ago I and others posted empirical evidence. You ignored that. Oh and for the record you (yes you Raggedyman) don't get to decide what is empirical and what is not. You are hostile to evolution. If it is published say in a journal, say Nature, and say has the phrase "evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle" in it's text, then yes indeed it is empirical evidence.

Macular degeneration
Its to early where I am to be drinking, hope you are not

I asked for empirical evidence, I have seen none

That means that none has been shown to me here

15 pieces, not one was is or can be confused as empirical evidence
Prove they are, they are at best a wild assumption, if you cant see that, sadly you dont understand science at all

Molars in mice prove man evolved from space dirt and space water...HOW

Journals lie, its been established

Next

Padawan, christians and their god lie, its been established.

So anything you say cannot be trusted.

See how stupid that premise is?

Master Coomba

Gnosisfaith, I dont think you are the full deck of cards, please leave me alone

a reply to: Raggedyman

Pot kettle.
But I think you need to prove your theory with empirical evidence.

a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

Ive always said im a fruit cake.

Darn well beats a mud cake any day Padawan #2.

If evolution was not a real natural phenomena then there would be no theory to explain it. Common sense Padawan #2.

Master Coomba
p.s. bet Padawan #1 is laughing his tits off. Lol.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Post empirical evidence I hate science. Not your opinion. As I said you are hostile towards science. This makes you biased. No once have you shown evolution is wrong.

a reply to: TerryDon79

If a scientist lies (for whatever reason), it will be found out eventually.

What you mean like the fraud Gallo and the HIV - AIDS connection?
You'll be waiting -


www.heallondon.org...

In a stunning move, a group of respected research scientists, medical doctors, lawyers and journalists, in association with Rethinking AIDS - the group calling for the scientific reappraisal of AIDS are issuing a letter to the highly-respected journal Science, calling for research papers to be withdrawn. But these are not ordinary papers, they are the original papers co-authored by Dr Robert Gallo in which he claimed to have found the 'probable' cause of AIDS in 1984. These papers went on to become the most referenced papers in science, and in turn, papers that referenced those papers now form part of the alleged 'mountain of evidence' that HIV causes AIDS. Lies, damn lies, and Robert Gallo's research papers What could be the justification for such a high-profile call that such apparently seminal scientific papers be formally withdrawn from the scientific record? British investigative journalist (and HEAL London member) Janine Roberts discovered during detailed analysis of various papers surrounding Gallo's work that he had committed substantial scientific fraud and completely misrepresented the work actually done by his chief laboratory assistant, Mikulas Popovich. These were not minor 'misunderstandings' that might allow the papers to stand with some correction, as often happens when errors are discovered. In Gallo's case the deception was comprehensive and fundamental. One example of the many distortions in the final published paper was that the phrase in Popovich's original draft of the seminal paper, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified" was removed, and instead Gallo had rewritten it to suggest that they had in fact found the probable cause of AIDS - virtually the complete opposite. Robert Gallo had also been forced to admit during subsequent investigations that he had not had any retrovirus in previous years despite his claims and instead claimed that he'd found it during the last six weeks before publication of his papers. But Janine's new analysis, all documented in her book "Fear of the invisible" (reviewed here) revealed that he'd sent off samples of material to be turned into HIV tests prior to these experiments, invalidating the notion that the proteins used in all HIV tests have anything to do with HIV. Subsequent evidence has shown that the proteins once thought to be from HIV can all be produced by the body when there is definitely no HIV present.

a reply to: VP740
The more Perspectives that you include, the more 'rounded' the understanding.
We, each, are but a single, unique, momentary Perspective, at any moment.
Knowledge is experience, our experience, Here! Now!
Ignorance is all that we are not experiencing, in the Universe, Here! Now!
And we don't need a 'well rounded understanding', we need a theory that accounts for all Perspectives!

a reply to: AshFan

Even though she had no empirical evidence. Is it her ego that causes this insecurity, or just a lack of normal reasoning skills?

hahaha - you have a daughter and a mum - and you still need to ask this question? Their brains are wired differently and I dont need empirical evidence for this - call it Man intuition.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Raggedyman

Pot kettle.
But I think you need to prove your theory with empirical evidence.

Theory, what theory
I am asking that others prove their beliefs with science
I havnt proposed anything

Maybe the helmet is to tight, take it off

*** ATTENTION ALL***

The personal insults, trolling and off-topic bickering stops NOW.

Any further off-topic posts or insults will be removed and a 3 day posting ban will be imposed on the offender.

Discuss the actual topic or move on.

Thank you.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Dude - 1 minute Gods walking with adam, next he's talking through a burning bush to Moses,a bit inconsistent, and you laugh at Mormons?

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Did the yeast evolve or were they created by a benevolent god for mans pleasure? I'm with god when it comes to a fine brew...hehehe

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Post empirical evidence I hate science. Not your opinion. As I said you are hostile towards science. This makes you biased. No once have you shown evolution is wrong.

I think you hate science and want to turn it into a religion
Hence why I claim you hate science, why you think mouse molars are proof mankind evolved from space dirt and water, its insanity...

I am not claiming evolution is anything
I am asking for empirical evidence its a valid belief, its science
So far nothing but strawman arguments and ad hominems
Not once have I tried to show evolution is wrong, just asking for empirical evidence, get it yet?


Typical stuff of those who have a childish argument and no empirical evidence

Go hide behind peer reviews again, that should work this time

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Did the yeast evolve or were they created by a benevolent god for mans pleasure? I'm with god when it comes to a fine brew...hehehe

(brew) meant distilled - yikes

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Raggedyman

Dude - 1 minute Gods walking with adam, next he's talking through a burning bush to Moses,a bit inconsistent, and you laugh at Mormons?

Yes it does seem inconsistent, and I wasnt laughing at mormons, I was laughing at the argument that Mormons dont believe they will one day be space gods
I understand they do believe that

My point was the person didnt understand their own argument, I was laughing at that. The belief they would one day be a spacegod like Mormons believe.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You think? That is not empirical evidence. Hell or even evidence. You thus have proven yo uh are incapable of bearing judgement on things scientific or logical.


I posted empirical evidence. Refute the points.

a reply to: Noinden

most likely are due to science. Unless you apply leeches,

why speak ill of leeches - funny how they made a comeback..

www.google.com.au...=leeches+for+medical+procedures

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

And yes bleeding helps a certain condition too But as the only cure? Yeah no. Doing something because it's scientific is one thing. Doing it because it's like for like? Nopee

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You think? That is not empirical evidence. Hell or even evidence. You thus have proven yo uh are incapable of bearing judgement on things scientific or logical.


I posted empirical evidence. Refute the points.

What?
Mouse molars are empirical proof humanity came from space dirt and space water, what ??? Do you believe that ???

I cant refute something so inane, I can say its just absurd and irrelevant, mouse molars prove man came from dirt, ts childish, its pointless even discussing it

Prove its empirical evidence, its childish

a reply to: Raggedyman

ah so you admit you're trolling - thought so - now answer about Moses and the burning bush. Better yet, how about a staff turning into a viper. ( just in the interest's of keeping it honest - as you avoided the main point I was making)

a reply to: Noinden

What I'm talking about is how they were denigrated and called old wives tales.

My relatives also used to use cupping and they were laughed at - sure seemed to work with certain ailments - but today that would be called anecdotal evidence

www.cuppingresource.com...