Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Polymath257]

Posted Jun 17, 2011
The Scientific Atheism Fallacy: How Science Declares that God Is Dead, But Can't Prove It
Without proof, should a scientist be an atheist?
Posted Jun 17, 2011

Without proof, a scientists should be a *skeptic*. That implies requiring evidence prior to belief in something.

 

[LightofTruth]

There are several lines of evidence in support of the idea. Do you care to look at them or will you just handwave them? Here's a good place to start. How much evidence have scientists found for human evolution?

When you've read that, here's a good piece about genetic evidence Error - Cookies Turned Off

after you've read and understood those, let me know.

Like I said, there was a previous habitation of the earth before it was created as we know it today. that explains the evidence of non-human creatures in the fossil record

 

[SugarOcean]

The default of non-existence is only your opinion.

True.
Theirs is what is known as a negative proof fallacy.
Negative proof fallacy:

 

[Polymath257]

Like I said, there was a previous habitation of the earth before it was created as we know it today. that explains the evidence of non-human creatures in the fossil record

Sorry, but that explanation was tried and it failed to explain the observable evidence. It was called Catastrophism and postulated a series of catastrophes, with the Noadhic flood that last one, which wiped out life and restarted.

The evidence for life prior to humans goes back hundreds of millions of years (billions if you include bacteria and other single celled life). That humans evolved from such prior life is evident from the fossil record we have.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

True.
Theirs is what is known as a negative proof fallacy.
Negative proof fallacy:

You got that completely backwards.

 

[Polymath257]

True.
Theirs is what is known as a negative proof fallacy.
Negative proof fallacy:

Which is *precisely* the tactic used above to support theism.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Like I said, there was a previous habitation of the earth before it was created as we know it today. that explains the evidence of non-human creatures in the fossil record

So you just hand wave it without reading it. OK, if you're not interesting in intellectually honest discussion, I'm really not interested in wasting any more time. Believe whatever crazy bull**** you like.

 

[Audie]

Good.
Pseudoscience should be shunned.
Maybe it had to do with the fact that Palmarini is a cognitive scientist, not a biologist with a relevant background or track record? And his coauthor is a philosopher?
And NOT that people were afraid of the truth, as you seem to be implying?
I mean, it seems these clowns just wanted to make names for themselves.

New critique intends to rebut Darwin’s ideas - The Boston Globe
"This new critique intends to rebut Darwin’s ideas but seems largely to misunderstand evolutionary theory"

The only way to arguecagaindt ToE-so far- is to
distort, misrepresent or otherwise devise a strawman
to savage.

It does not embarrass a creo to say the dumbest things!
Total ignorance of the subject they go forth with garbage,
lies they read and think they be the snatky slayers
of evolution!

You'd think our creos would have more self respect
than they display!

 

[Audie]

What was man before he was man?

What was poodle before it was poodle?
(Hint; you do not have a clever knock em dead question;
you are bring silly)

 

[LightofTruth]

Sorry, but that explanation was tried and it failed to explain the observable evidence. It was called Catastrophism and postulated a series of catastrophes, with the Noadhic flood that last one, which wiped out life and restarted.

The evidence for life prior to humans goes back hundreds of millions of years (billions if you include bacteria and other single celled life). That humans evolved from such prior life is evident from the fossil record we have.

I know you don't care, but according to scripture the earth was surrounded by water and no life was existing before we have the account of creation. Now, how long it existed in that state, or what existed before that state we are not told. The evidence shows that the earth had a population before it was destroyed and water came to surround it which would block the sun's light.

 

[LightofTruth]

Yet you're demanding proof from everyone else. Do you see the double standard?

An intelligent creator is not an absurd idea. So why do you pretend it is?

 

[LightofTruth]

And the Pastafarians will agree with you. They believe that intelligent creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm more inclined to the Invisible Pink Unicorn myself, but I don't take either seriously. Maybe I'm just a Discordian.

Is that supposed to refute the idea of God?

 

[LightofTruth]

Sorry, but that explanation was tried and it failed to explain the observable evidence. It was called Catastrophism and postulated a series of catastrophes, with the Noadhic flood that last one, which wiped out life and restarted.

The evidence for life prior to humans goes back hundreds of millions of years (billions if you include bacteria and other single celled life). That humans evolved from such prior life is evident from the fossil record we have.

Having a fossil record is NOT evidence of evolution! All it shows is that there were other species inhabiting the earth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Having a fossil record is NOT evidence of evolution! All it shows is that there were other species inhabiting the earth.

Having a fossil record, combined with the changing morphology across observable time is, though.

 

[Polymath257]

Having a fossil record is NOT evidence of evolution! All it shows is that there were other species inhabiting the earth.

It also shows *when* they were on Earth and *where*. And, from their anatomy, we can determine relations between those species and thereby that evolution occurred.

This, by the way, was evident to those studying fossils by the early 1800's. With more information, that conclusion has been supported even more.

 

[Polymath257]

Is that supposed to refute the idea of God?

No, just to show you an equally reasonable alternative view of a deity.

 

[Polymath257]

An intelligent creator is not an absurd idea. So why do you pretend it is?

It is o less or more absurd than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems that the more we learn as scientific and archaeological finds come to light, the less people believe in Evolution.

What gave you that insane idea? From which propaganda site did you pull that little dishonest gem?

Scientist and Darwinism tell us that life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species, their not really sure how, and it made new and diverse species

The how is actually pretty well understood, as that is literally what evolution theory is: an explanatory model about HOW biological processes both introduce and "filters" changes in geno- and phenotype....

But yet there are no not one piece of evidence found of a gradual change from a "self-replicating molecule" to all the different species. There are no evidence of gradualism or that later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.

You're joking, surely?

We don't find a fish changing to land crawler or a lizard changing to bird, there nothing that would show the lineage of any species.

lol, whut?
Is this satire?

I find it kind of hard to take you seriously as the examples you give here are exactly things we have excellent fossil as well as genetic records of..............

Evolution along with the 'Big Bang' idea are losing the people as more evidence comes to light.

First of all, one is biology and the other is physics. How big bang was pulled into this all of a sudden is a mystery.

Secondly, what you say is off course hogwash. The very opposite of your statement is true, off course.

How could the universe just appear out of nothing

Not what the big bang says.

, and be spinning in all different tangents rather than one way as they should, or the universe be larger than we can even chart in such a short time. Scientist scramble to come up with another way or adjustment to the theory. but the more they try, the more convoluted it becomes. Many of these ideas of man are being discovered to be unsupported, or no longer seem to have any validity with people today

Cliché PRATTs found in decades old creationist propaganda.
Nothing new under the sun it seems....

 

[LightofTruth]

So you just hand wave it without reading it. OK, if you're not interesting in intellectually honest discussion, I'm really not interested in wasting any more time. Believe whatever crazy bull**** you like.

It also shows *when* they were on Earth and *where*. And, from their anatomy, we can determine relations between those species and thereby that evolution occurred.

This, by the way, was evident to those studying fossils by the early 1800's. With more information, that conclusion has been supported even more.

Relations doesn't spell evolution.

 

[LightofTruth]

Having a fossil record, combined with the changing morphology across observable time is, though.

Give examples that show "changing morphology".