So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

a reply to: Raggedyman

No it isn't you make a tit out of yourself with every ignorant thread.
It is sad I pity you.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for confirming i win. Woot woot!!

But then why refuse to answer my question then ask the same question to other's?

Semantics man semantics. But you wouldn't understand.

Show me ANY scientific theory that says said theory is 100% correct in 'explaining' scientific law (natural phenomena). 

Why refuse to answer?

Because you know im right.... or do you, ohh self proclaimed troll and evolution believer yet denier, ohh self contradicting one.

I may play with Star Wars dolls but that beats Barbie anyday. Lol.

Again...

Show me ANY scientific theory that says said theory is 100% correct in 'explaining' scientific law (natural phenomena). 

Be man and man up!!! Answer your own question within my question, which is merely semantics really.

To refuse my answer is tantamount to agreeing with my point of view.

So now refuse and show everyone what your view is in truth. Which people already know.

Master Coomba

Global warming.

a reply to: testingtesting

So I am going to assume you don't have the journal article either
You are just here trying to act like you know something, clearly you don't otherwise you would address the issue not me
Carry on then

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Raggedyman

Thanks for confirming i win. Woot woot!!

But then why refuse to answer my question then ask the same question to other's?

Semantics man semantics. But you wouldn't understand.

Show me ANY scientific theory that says said theory is 100% correct in 'explaining' scientific law (natural phenomena). 

Why refuse to answer?

Because you know im right.... or do you, ohh self proclaimed troll and evolution believer yet denier, ohh self contradicting one.

I may play with Star Wars dolls but that beats Barbie anyday. Lol.

Again...

Show me ANY scientific theory that says said theory is 100% correct in 'explaining' scientific law (natural phenomena). 

Be man and man up!!! Answer your own question within my question, which is merely semantics really.

To refuse my answer is tantamount to agreeing with my point of view.

So now refuse and show everyone what your view is in truth. Which people already know.

Master Coomba

Global warming.

Global warming, that's off topic, you could start another war with words like that

Very relevant though, very clever

a reply to: Raggedyman

Okay before I do that I need you to show me any scientific theory that says said theory is 100% correct in 'explaining' scientific law.
So I have an article to compare it to.

a reply to: testingtesting

I don't have to show you nothing
Learn to science
I never made a claim, many have said here that evolution is a scientific fact, if you cant, then don't
I don't care, I never made any claims
Read the thread, understand it, then act like you know what you are doing

I am absolutely baffled why anyone would reply, this was a set up, this whole thread was a set up to show how evolutionists don't understand science

Every one of them who replied shone a light on their own ignorance, made themselves a parody

a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Raggedyman

Lol.

Page 17, do you really think you are that smart
Really
Again, step up and fall down, just like the last 17 pages of the circus
It's a joke that people are still replying, think they have anything, mindless liars, really 17 pages and nothing.
Surely common sense dictates it's time to walk away, you have nothing, 17 pages and you think that you are going to offer something valid

Yes LOL at yourself and your peers, it's a joke, it's a con, there is nothing, never has been, you all lie because you don't understand science

a reply to: Raggedyman

You do know the difference between scientific law an scientific theory dont you?

Cause you consistantly mix the two up.

For example, gravity is very demonstrable.

Do you believe in gravity? Show me a peer review paper confirming the theory of gravity to be true!!!
Very simple stuff...

Or is it YOU who hates science? Yes i think it is.

Double post

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just Lol thats all you deserve.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Some say they have shown me the journal article
Others amongst you say it can't be done, squabble squabble, squabble away

Except you don't even understand what you're asking for....

yes... many have shown you journals showing factual proof/evidence evolution has and is happening

And YES... You won't find a single "peer reviewed" journal stating "evolution is a fact" because that is the purpose of said journals... That is the point of "peer reviewed articles"... To show scientific findings

Now i would normally say IF you tried reading them... you might learn something... but you actually won't...

See you actually have to read what is given to you... and understand it of course

of course as you've stated, you've read millions of links that people have given you... which, in actuality means YOU are the only one that is Lying here.

You say things like... "Evolution is a faith, a belief, it's not a fact, a scientific unicorn"... and in the same breath tell someone who works with science that he hates it...

You're a walking punch line brother...

You're asking someone to present a book about a corvette that states.... "This is factually an automobile"

LOL

and you still don't get it after 17 pages

a reply to: Akragon

Just to clarify your above post goodman Akragon, when you say evolution in your post above i assume you mean the theory of evolution aka MES.

Just clarifying for the ones new to the ATS evolution debate.

Coomba98

a reply to: Akragon

Have you comprehended the issue ak
What has been said, really

This is not a corvette, how can you say that
Do you not realize how stupid you sound

I am so sorry for your children

a reply to: coomba98

So gravity and evolution are the same thing, what?

And Barcs wonders why I call you people names

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Akragon

Just to clarify your above post goodman Akragon, when you say evolution in your post above i assume you mean the theory of evolution aka MES.

Just clarifying for the ones new to the ATS evolution debate.

Coomba98

Yes what you said is that absurd ak, take the lifeline from your peers
I don't know what MES stands for but take the lifeline, cos you need any help you can get at this point

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Anyway, how we going on a journal article stating evolution beyond micro is a scientific fact

This is a straw man. Evolution NEVER goes beyond micro changes. That is a fact. Evolution is based on the accumulation of small changes, so claiming there needs to be evidence of some other magical fake process that you made up is laughable.

a reply to: Barcs

So you can't prove it can't see it happen, can't use science, so you just accept it by faith

Strawman indeed

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

So you can't prove it can't see it happen, can't use science, so you just accept it by faith

Strawman indeed

Much like your OP and every subsequent reply in this thread, every statement in the above quote is nothing more than a fallacious straw man argument. It does nothing but show that it’s you alone in this thread who doesn’t understand science, contrary to your protestation and littany of hypocrisy laden ad hominem attacks.

If you knew anything about science other than what ou regurgitate from the mouths and words of others you would be all too aware that the onus is on you to falsify the existing data. It’s not up to Barcs or Akragon or Tzarchasm or testingtestingtesting to prove anything to you when it’s already considered a fact by the National Academy of Sciences for example. You would know that nobody has to provide first hand, eye witness testimony of scientific phenomena. Indirect evidence is utilized in every field, every discipline. To claim that it’s not science without direct observation does nothing but show your own lack of understanding on the subject. To keep claiming that people who understand evolution are simply taking it as fact on faith alone, again, says nothing about the position of the parties you respond to and everything about you and your understanding of science.

If you could support your position you wouldn’t need to utilize insults, slurs and liberal ad hominem attacks. Not once in all of the threads (which are nothing more than continued extensions of your monotone theme) have you falsified a single aspect of the MES. BTW... MES is the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis since you claim not to know what MES stands for. Just more indirect evidence that you haven’t got a clue about the topic that vexes you so.

As for the “fact” of evolution, let’s look at how people who work in, know and understand science as a tool for understanding the natural world by using the National Academy of Sciences definitions. If you get lost and confused when next you see NAS, this is your point of reference.


According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth. Are you keeping up so far?

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution.This next bit is very important...

The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’”

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.


All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. The same holds true for the evolution of our own Genus. The indirect evidence coupled with the direct evidence, especially the mountain of evidence provided by our ability to look at an individuals genetic profile and compare and contrast with both older and more recent populations. We have multiple sites containing fairly complete cranial and post cranial remains where we can get dates for individual remains and thencrissreference that with the organismsmorphology and genetics.

Sima de los Huesos is a prime example where we have been able to document the transition from H. Heidelbergensis to H. Altaiensis (Denisovans) over time. We don’t see HSS remains in older strata or any other anomalies that would falsify the MES. If we did, I’m sure you would have used it to support your nonexistent position by now.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes, I trust scientific experts that have studied the process for the last hundred years, just like I trust dentists to fix my teeth and auto mechanics to fix my car. They are trained, educated, certified experts. You don't like that? I don't care. Faith isn't needed for science.