Evolution is a fact?!

[SkepticThinker]

We were discussing evolution and the start of supposed evolution. Since there IS no evidence of the "start" of life on the earth except that life is here -- the only thing you have is dna from artifacts, which proves that these fragments have dna.

That's all we need to know evolution occurs, really. Life, which we have. And genetic inheritance. Which we have.
How that life got here isn't relevant to evolution. It's here. Life evolves.

That's what it proves. While I like and respect you, if you can't agree to that, there is nothing really more in this area of beginnings and evidence to talk about. Have a good evening. It's kind of like Isaac Newton's quote above -- he knows gravity by happenstance.

Oh ok. So the fact that you share DNA with your family members doesn't indicate that you are related to each other. (?)

Again, I wish you could hear how silly your arguments sound.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH

This article reinforces my point. Perhaps you could address that point for once.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"as He desires..." He can do whatever he wants, and does not take action if that is what He wants.

When did you demonstrate "he" exists?
You don't get to assign attributes to things for which you haven't demonstrated to exist in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see that the Bible says the earth was devoid, formless, dark, before God started making life on the earth. How did Moses know that? Was he a genius and maybe figured it out? Why wouldn't Moses think life always was on the earth?

When did you demonstrate that Moses ever existed?

The ancient Greeks believed that there was a formless void from which the original gods sprang forth from. How could they have possibly known that?
See how that question doesn't really work?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you feel about the following?
Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism (thefederalist.com)
(Plus thefederalist calls it "Darwinism." Darwinisn? Yes, Darwinism.

This is no where even close to a science publication.
Rather, it's a political publication.
if this is where you get your science information from, well, that explains a lot.

 

[tas8831]

It's simply not proven. So, because we have different ideas or definitions of what evolution is, and because I believe that scientists have discovered many useful things, such as vaccines, I do not believe that scientists have proven evolution of the classic kind. Humans have been around for -- ?? -- many years. Yet, as I see history, only a few centuries ago men were without harnessing electricity. It happened rather quickly.

Nice dodge.

Says much.

not as much as your lame response to this, however:

Evolution is a fact?!

 

[tas8831]

How do you feel about the following?
Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism (thefederalist.com)
(Plus thefederalist calls it "Darwinism." Darwinisn? Yes, Darwinism.

The Federalist????

A bunch of right-wing hacks and partisan knuckleheads.... Great source....

The author:

benjamindierker
Benjamin thinks, writes, and talks about economics, law, and public policy. His articles are intended to present issues in a new light to readers and do not necessarily reflect personal opinion. No articles represent the views of past or present employers.​

 

[tas8831]

This article reinforces my point. Perhaps you could address that point for once.

This one does not ever address anything, just dodges, diverts, and dances.

 

[tas8831]

"as He desires..." He can do whatever he wants, and does not take action if that is what He wants.

Begging the question is not evidence.

 

[tas8831]

It's simply not proven. So, because we have different ideas or definitions of what evolution is, and because I believe that scientists have discovered many useful things, such as vaccines, I do not believe that scientists have proven evolution of the classic kind. Humans have been around for -- ?? -- many years. Yet, as I see history, only a few centuries ago men were without harnessing electricity. It happened rather quickly.

Couldn't care less how you see it.
You ask for evidence. You get it. You ignore it. You ask again. You get it again. You comment on a single sentence from 6 scientific references and ignore the rest.
You ask again. You get it again. And again. And again. And Again. And each time you ignore it, dismiss it, miss the point of it (on purpose?), etc.

Run of the mill creationist with nothing to offer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Couldn't care less how you see it.
You ask for evidence. You get it. You ignore it. You ask again. You get it again. You comment on a single sentence from 6 scientific references and ignore the rest.
You ask again. You get it again. And again. And again. And Again. And each time you ignore it, dismiss it, miss the point of it (on purpose?), etc.

Run of the mill creationist with nothing to offer.

It's not evidence. It's like convicting someone with no eyewitnesses, based on things left behind perhaps, and frankly -- the history of animal life as well as plant life no longer convinces me of evolution. No matter how compelling the jury finds the things presented to them, they have been wrong in their conculsions. So that's how we differ, I no longer find the "evidence" compelling to form a conclusion that various forms came about by evolution.
When I was in school, I believed without question that what I was being taught about evolution was true. I did well because I memorized the textbooks. There was no alternative, no questioning of the material presented as written in the books.
But there is no real evidence of forms evolving. Nothing. Anything used is then put together by those who think they know, and so they guess things like: bonobos, chimpanzees and humans had an "Unknown Common jAncestor."

 

[YoursTrue]

Begging the question is not evidence.

And so--plate techtonics exist. So? Icebergs melting exists and threatens to hurt the lay of the land. So?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's all we need to know evolution occurs, really. Life, which we have. And genetic inheritance. Which we have.
How that life got here isn't relevant to evolution. It's here. Life evolves.


Oh ok. So the fact that you share DNA with your family members doesn't indicate that you are related to each other. (?)

Again, I wish you could hear how silly your arguments sound.

I'll reiterate as I understand it, what you said. We, you and I and others, have life. If we didn't have life, we wouldn't know life. We have genetic inheritance. This does not mean we evolved. If you think it does, please let me know so we can be at least agreeing on some-thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

When did you demonstrate that Moses ever existed?

The ancient Greeks believed that there was a formless void from which the original gods sprang forth from. How could they have possibly known that?
See how that question doesn't really work?

If someone wants to believe that, so be it. If I thought it made sense to me, I might go that way. So it makes me wonder why a person claims to be a "Christian," or -- a Jew -- and then say that Moses or Jesus did not exist. I figure it's family alliances, also national affiliation when making decisions.

 

[Valjean]

It's not evidence. It's like convicting someone with no eyewitnesses, based on things left behind.

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Give me physical or circumstantial evidence any day.

perhaps, and frankly -- the history of animal life as well as plant life no longer convinces me of evolution.

I suspect it never did. As you say, you just unquestioningly accepted what you were told in class. Now you seem to be unquestioningly accepting what you're told in church.

No matter how compelling the jury finds the things presented to them, they have been wrong in their conculsions. So that's how we differ, I no longer find the "evidence" compelling to form a conclusion that various forms came about by evolution.

Yes, juries make mistakes, however, luckily, in science, cases never close. The trial continues forever, accumulating more and more evidence.
I suspect that the "evidence" you find unpersuasive is incomplete and, from your comments here and elsewhere, not really understood.

When I was in school, I believed without question that what I was being taught about evolution was true. I did well because I memorized the textbooks. There was no alternative, no questioning of the material presented as written in the books.

Q.E.D.

But there is no real evidence of forms evolving. Nothing. Anything used is then put together by those who think they know, and so they guess things like: bonobos, chimpanzees and humans had an "Unknown Common jAncestor."

And here is why I question your knowledge and understanding of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's all we need to know evolution occurs, really. Life, which we have. And genetic inheritance. Which we have.
How that life got here isn't relevant to evolution. It's here. Life evolves.


Oh ok. So the fact that you share DNA with your family members doesn't indicate that you are related to each other. (?)

Again, I wish you could hear how silly your arguments sound.

Amazing. And you say my arguments sound silly.

 

[GardenLady]

But there is no real evidence of forms evolving. Nothing.

This statement is false. Completely false.

 

[YoursTrue]

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Give me physical or circumstantial evidence any day.
I suspect it never did. As you say, you just unquestioningly accepted what you were told in class. Now you seem to be unquestioningly accepting what you're told in church.
Yes, juries make mistakes, however, luckily, in science, cases never close. The trial continues forever, accumulating more and more evidence.

As I keep realizing, I see there really is no evidence. There are just artifacts, and some bits and pieces of bones. And I'm not.even bringing a Creator for the most part into the picture. Evolution no longer adds up.

 

[YoursTrue]

This statement is false. Completely false.

No it's not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it's not.

It is. Too bad that you do not know what is and what is not evidence. If one understands what is and what is not scientific evidence one can only say "there is no evidence for evolution" by openly lying. +