Evolution - A Philosophical Belief

You’re just an angry hypocrite who’s coming to realise that you’ve wasted most of your life believing in a bound set of dusty scroll fairytales and can’t bear to hear the truth.

I’m not spoon-feeding you evidence, look for it yourself. I know you think all your answers lie in an ancient incomplete and edited tome so you don’t have to think critically or actively, so I’ll add lazy to my list too.

a reply to: Raggedyman

As always prove it. Prove that there is no evidence

All these endless debates about evolution and no working model of intelligent design or divine creation. A better way to debunk the theory of evolution would be to replace it entirely. Something about building a better mouse trap.... But you still have to show the world it works.

Also... "Darwinian evolution" did we travel back to the 1800s somehow? LOL

originally posted by: TerraLiga
You’re just an angry hypocrite who’s coming to realise that you’ve wasted most of your life believing in a bound set of dusty scroll fairytales and can’t bear to hear the truth.

I’m not spoon-feeding you evidence, look for it yourself. I know you think all your answers lie in an ancient incomplete and edited tome so you don’t have to think critically or actively, so I’ll add lazy to my list too.

Anger, frustration about ignorant people who think they have answers and when pressed react just like you

Scrolls and fairytales, that’s great scientific evidence for evolution, almost makes me see the truth?
Your argument is so pathetic you have to deny science in all your posts and argue religion. That’s not science, that’s being petty

It’s called empirical evidence and that is what you havnt got, all your words are that of a child who is denied their candy.
“ I am not going to show you the evidence” wow, not heard that before

a reply to: Raggedyman

I don’t get angry little man, I learn. I go to bed with new knowledge and wake up with new questions.

You think you have all the answers, so you wake up the same ignorant chimp you were yesterday, and the day before that, and the decade before that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes they are still using computers running GM-NAA I/O to correspond with us here on the bulletin boards

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
...
My favorite from another thread

molecular evolution are the basis for naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis. It is true that these do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two, especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

This person who said this fully supports evolution and the quote is from a published article.

Notice how the term "molecular evolution" is swapped out with "molecular change", as if there, in that term, "evolution" just means change, any kind of change. Such a dishonest use of language that capitalizes on the ambiguity of language, in particular regarding the word "evolution" which carries causal implications regarding a very specific kind of change with a specific direction, from so-called "simple" to more complex and sophisticated functionality*. Those causal implications being that this particular change is caused by chance, by accident, spontaneously according to the forces of nature (also referred to as "by necessity" and in the part you quoted as "naturalistic explanations") somehow supposedly defying (the laws of) entropy and hydrolysis in the process (as explained in my comment in the other thread where someone is quoted using the terms "polymerization" and "depolymerization" for example, other terms apply as well).

*: from what cannot be apropiately referred to as machinery to highly technological advanced machinery in gradual steps or in stages over millions of years

Evolutionists play around with how they use the word "evolution" like that (just treating it as if any kind of change will do, or is evidence for "evolution" happening) to support their argument and mantra that "evolution is a fact". But it's just a sneaky trick that capitalizes on the ambiguity of language, since like I said, "evolution" carries other implications with it than just any old change, it also triggers the thoughts of a variety of evolutionary storylines and ideas/philosophies wherein that word "evolution" or grammatical variants are used when they are being promoted under the marketinglabel "science".

Notice also that the term "naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis" is also misleading, as if the term "abiogenesis" on its own isn't already referring to (or carrying the implication of) a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life (with it, or triggering that implication or thought in the one who hears or reads it, having that effect on people). I.e. as if there can be unnaturalistic explanations of abiogenesis (as if that word only refers to 'life from non-life' or something stripped down from all the implications the word carries like that; just like it's done with the word "evolution" stripped down to the general definition of "change", any kind of change caused by just about anything, equating entropy with evolution/change as well).

a reply to: whereislogic

But it's just a sneaky trick that capitalizes on the ambiguity of language

Not exactly.
It's more a confusion between technical terminology and lay terminology.

Evolution is "only" a theory. Right?
General relativity is "only" a theory. Right?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Raggedyman

I don’t get angry little man, I learn. I go to bed with new knowledge and wake up with new questions.

You think you have all the answers, so you wake up the same ignorant chimp you were yesterday, and the day before that, and the decade before that.

Well clearly you went to bed, woke up without any scientific information big man and it’s pretty evident you don’t learn
Go back to bed wake up and pompously moan on ats in this thread again about me and I will simply ask for evidence to evolution till you skulk away like a scolded child

I didn’t offer any answers, just asked for evidence, evidence you can’t find nor won’t, justanother hot air puffing, blow out evolutionary atheist fundamentalist, moaning because he is looking foolish because he can’t answer the creation numpty

Seriously, how silly do you look to all the people reading along and not being able to form even a child like answer to my question

Learn, learn quickly, younare not that smart, tuck your tail and bail out, my advice

I will be here, it’s fun to expose ignorance

a reply to: Raggedyman


Stop preening yourself as if you would actually read any evidence provided by any rand poster who disagrees with you. I’ve gone back and forth with you many times in good faith and the end result is always the same, your refusal to read anything that contradicts your personal views while injecting some lame ass “gotcha”. You have yes interest whatsoever in having evidence in favor of the evolution spoon fed to you. It’s nothing but an excuse to mock others. You’re as much a Christian as I am. The only difference is I don’t play make believe.


That’s all fine and good. You’re clearly entitled to your opinions. Just don’t pretend that you have any interest in being exposed to a point of view that doesn’t fit into your confirmation biases when your stated goal is to mock anyone who doesn’t think like you.

originally posted by: Phage

Evolution is "only" a theory. Right?
General relativity is "only" a theory. Right?

General relativity has experimental evidence to demonstrate it is a valid theory. E = mc2 has been demonstrated many times over. Even photons, with no mass, act according to the extension of the equation: E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2, where p is momentum. General relativity postulates that mass bends spacetime, so during an eclipse, the starlight was found to contract towards the alignment indicating that the mass of the moon and sun together cause a more intense bending of the light than just one cosmic body alone - this again reinforced his theory because massive objects bend spacetime. It was also further reinforced by the Lorenz transformation which shows that as an object goes fast, its mass changes.

General relativity is consistent, repeatable, and has much evidence to back it.

Evolutionary theory does not. We have never actually observed an organism evolving into another. Scientists just extrapolate and speculate that adaptive mechanisms can cause an organism to change into another.

Evolution has to ignore the facts, whereas general relativity resonates with the facts

a reply to: ManFromEurope

One needn't be anti-science to see the gaping holes in evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton
We have never actually observed an organism evolving into another.

You always come back with this diatribe. Speciation takes thousands, or tens of thousands of years. So no, nobody has witnessed an organism change from one to another species or genera. To ask for that proof is stupid.

I hope you had a nice weekend. It looks like this week is going to be Groundhog Day on the forum...

a reply to: TerraLiga

We have also never directly seen a star go supernova ... however we have seen that they do this.

They use this along with the "show me the empirical evidence" clap trap. Its like they read the abstract to "what is science" and not go look at the content.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
"We have never actually observed an organism evolving into another."

You always come back with this diatribe.

There is no empirical evidence that evolution of an organism is possible. It is not a diatribe, it's a simple statement that doesn't get convoluted in semantics.

Speciation takes thousands, or tens of thousands of years.

Artificial selection in a lab should be able to reproduce it much quicker, especially considering that fruit flies reach sexual maturity and can reproduce in about 10 days.

To ask for that proof is stupid.

originally posted by: Noinden
They use this along with the "show me the empirical evidence" clap trap.

Ahh yes, never question evolution. Who needs real evidence when you have faith?

a reply to: cooperton

No, as usual your reading comprehension is lacking. Don't try to shoe horn a hypothesis into a theory. IF you had been trained in science, as you claim, you would know you don't do that.

Theories have evidence.

Unlike your little God.

originally posted by: Noinden

Theories have evidence.

Yeah good call, then we shouldn't even call it a theory anymore. The evolution fairy tale has no evidence for it, therefore people are left only with baseless faith to believe in it. Hubris and totalitarian control of the peer-review process will ensure that there is no dissension to the faith.

“The central argument against teaching the creation theory in public schools is that it is religion masquerading as science. But according to Dr. Carl Sagan, evolution is a religion which masquerades as science. . . .

“No theory, whether scientific or political, can be sustained if a wall must be built to keep adherents in and opponents out. If the bondage which flows from a flawed political ideology like communism can be denounced, should not the wall surrounding the citadel of evolution be torn down and the opponents allowed to do battle on an equal basis? . . .

“Evolutionists don’t want to fight. They have already declared victory and view any assault on their domain as pretension. Could it be that the reason they want to avoid a fight is because they evolved from chickens?”​—Cal Thomas’ column in the New York Daily News, Friday, August 22, 1986.

Funny. The reality is that they pretend to fight, but almost only use cheap shots while they set up fights that they can control the outcome of, like the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial or the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham* debate, sort of like this guy in this movie:

*: or any young earth creationist

A little more about the phrase “allowed to do battle on an equal basis” (since someone might feel like arguing that is already the case, just like the people in the crowd in the movie above don't know about the wound and think they are doing battle on an equal basis):

Excellent idea, let’s pit creation vs nature on an even basis. Let’s put the evidence for each on the table and debate every piece, one by one.

Let’s start with creation. OK, go.

a reply to: whereislogic

Just so you know... the "debate" with ken ham vs bill nye was set up by creationists at their establishment

And included a whole 1 min rebuttal time... lol

And even creationists were bewildered afterwords... i sat through it in a church, and it was completely silent afterwords...

It was just sad