More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

Irish/Scottish/English here.

So would you say that is a bit of racism? Or would you call it evolution? After all, wasn't it a common belief that certain races (per the Darwinian model) were superior over others?

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because someone that has been shown to be a fool (Behe in this case) has made a claim does not mean that there are "holes" in the theory. All of Behe's claims of Irreducible Complexity that he has made have been refuted. Most of them before he even published his work. By the way, that was not a science that he did either. To be science one must follow the scientific method. He did not do so when he published his work.

Please quote and link when making such claims. Vague claims only get vague refutations. No one on the evolution side is afraid to discuss actual evidence and proper claims.

And please, no more claims of "holes" until you can properly support your work. Tell me, as a Christian do you think that you should obey the Ninth Commandment? This is a very serious question.

There is simply no proof whatsoever that evolution of the Darwinian model has occurred. It is all conjecture. Thus, the holes exist in the form of proof (that is, fossils that do not show or prove evolution at all).
I worked for a professor in a college some time ago, and he had a laboratory with experiments. By combining or separating certain elements he could produce another product. This is science. There is nothing whatever to prove or show evolution of the Darwinian model. Nothing. Not one fossil, not one landslide, not one element or being shows or proves Darwin's theory. So far all I've gotten from supporters of evolution is telling me I'm wrong. But there is no proof whatsoever that evolution as explained by Darwin and his supporters is true. Nothing. Fossils do not prove evolution. Fossils prove that something existed. That's what fossils prove.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. The plethora of different hominin fossils makes it difficult to sort out the process of human descent. The "mess" is the very large and diverse amount of evidence that needs to be sorted out.

It shouldn't make anything difficult if evolution was really the way living organisms came about. I worked for a professor in a college some time ago, and he had a laboratory with experiments. By combining certain elements he could produce another product. This is science. There is nothing whatever to prove or show evolution of the Darwinian model. Nothing. Not one fossil, not one landslide, not one element or being shows or proves Darwin's theory. So far all I've gotten from supporters of evolution is telling me I'm wrong. But there is no proof whatsoever that evolution as explained by Darwin and his supporters is true. Nothing. Fossils do not prove evolution. Fossils prove that something existed. That's what fossils prove.

 

[YoursTrue]

Explain what kind of evidence you are even willing to consider.

Evidence that shows one form moving (evolving) into another. By form, I don't mean a virus. I don't mean humans producing a group of long legged individuals.
I mean specifically a form such as a type of fish (like codfish, let's say) moving into a landroving animal. To see a fish that can move on land is NOT proof of evolution into a landroving organism. It's proof that there's something that is an organism that can move on land and live in water. So the evidence would be to see the evolution of a fish moving into a fish that can wobble on land for a while and turn eventually become a complete land rover, no longer able to breathe under water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is simply no proof whatsoever that evolution of the Darwinian model has occurred. It is all conjecture. Thus, the holes exist in the form of proof (that is, fossils that do not show or prove evolution at all).
I worked for a professor in a college some time ago, and he had a laboratory with experiments. By combining or separating certain elements he could produce another product. This is science. There is nothing whatever to prove or show evolution of the Darwinian model. Nothing. Not one fossil, not one landslide, not one element or being shows or proves Darwin's theory. So far all I've gotten from supporters of evolution is telling me I'm wrong. But there is no proof whatsoever that evolution as explained by Darwin and his supporters is true. Nothing. Fossils do not prove evolution. Fossils prove that something existed. That's what fossils prove.

There you go breaking the Ninth Commandment again.


You may have worked for a professor. You clearly do not understand what science is. It is not limited to the laboratory.

Tell me, as a Christian is it okay to lie for Jesus? This is a very serious question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is simply no proof whatsoever that evolution of the Darwinian model has occurred. It is all conjecture. Thus, the holes exist in the form of proof (that is, fossils that do not show or prove evolution at all).
I worked for a professor in a college some time ago, and he had a laboratory with experiments. By combining or separating certain elements he could produce another product. This is science. There is nothing whatever to prove or show evolution of the Darwinian model. Nothing. Not one fossil, not one landslide, not one element or being shows or proves Darwin's theory. So far all I've gotten from supporters of evolution is telling me I'm wrong. But there is no proof whatsoever that evolution as explained by Darwin and his supporters is true. Nothing. Fossils do not prove evolution. Fossils prove that something existed. That's what fossils prove.

Wow!! You really like breaking the Ninth Commandment. If you are going to keep doing that I don't see how anyone can take you seriously.

 

[Bear Wild]

Evidence that shows one form moving (evolving) into another. By form, I don't mean a virus. I don't mean humans producing a group of long legged individuals.
I mean specifically a form such as a type of fish (like codfish, let's say) moving into a landroving animal. To see a fish that can move on land is NOT proof of evolution into a landroving organism. It's proof that there's something that is an organism that can move on land and live in water. So the evidence would be to see the evolution of a fish moving into a fish that can wobble on land for a while and turn eventually become a complete land rover, no longer able to breathe under water.

So you will not answer your explanation about fossils. Your must be intentionally avoiding the question because you know the evidence is clear.
Instead you want evidence for an extensive change that would take long periods of time that we cannot measure in the lifetime of a human. And yet there are fish that can move over land and exist at least temporarily out of water which is evidence in of itself.

Please help us understand your explanation of fossils in stratified layer of rock.

 

[GardenLady]

So would you say that is a bit of racism? Or would you call it evolution? After all, wasn't it a common belief that certain races (per the Darwinian model) were superior over others?

What is a bit of racism? That Neanderthal DNA appears, from some research, to be more common (higher percent) among people of northern European descent, and notably those with blue or gray eyes? Given the pejorative use of "Neanderthal" in reference to people, it would seem to be a social disadvantage, huh? In reality, it most likely just reflects the geographic distribution of ancient populations.

Throughout history, there are been people using any possible excuse or non-excuse to be racists. Some creationists have claimed that all non-white races represent degradation from the supposed purity of the white Adam and Eve. Does that mean the bible is racist? And how about American fundamentalists?

How many other straw men do you have in your back pocket?

 

[YoursTrue]

There you go breaking the Ninth Commandment again.


You may have worked for a professor. You clearly do not understand what science is. It is not limited to the laboratory.

Tell me, as a Christian is it okay to lie for Jesus? This is a very serious question.

I know science is not limited to the laboratory. Of course, the Curies did work in a laboratory. And science has definitely shown that too much radiation can harm a person. But all that aside, do you believe in Jesus? Third of all, how did I "break the Ninth Commandment" (again)?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you will not answer your explanation about fossils. Your must be intentionally avoiding the question because you know the evidence is clear.
Instead you want evidence for an extensive change that would take long periods of time that we cannot measure in the lifetime of a human. And yet there are fish that can move over land and exist at least temporarily out of water which is evidence in of itself.

Please help us understand your explanation of fossils in stratified layer of rock.

I don't need to, because research on your part will show you if you care to do a good study of the subject. So I suggest you look up the problems with stratified layers of rock and time dating them, including and particularly, the fossils that are unearthed or within the strata. Meantime, regardless of fossils and/or dating and stratified layers of soil-rock, there is simply and unequivocally no proof of evolution from -- fossils.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know science is not limited to the laboratory. Of course, the Curies did work in a laboratory. And science has definitely shown that too much radiation can harm a person. But all that aside, do you believe in Jesus? Third of all, how did I "break the Ninth Commandment" (again)?

The Ninth Commandment is far more than a mere ban on lying. It is a ban on "bearing false witness". That means if you say something about someone else that is false, even if you believe it to be true, you have borne false witness. Many of your claims about others are demonstrably false.

And what do you mean by "believe in Jesus"? Was there a man named Jesus? Probably.

You have demonstrated a low level of knowledge of the sciences. That is why I offered to go over the basics of science with you. Why not go over those basics so that you do not repeat your mistakes of claiming "assumption" and "conjecture" and other falsehoods. You may not intend to tell a lie, but you have repeated falsehoods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to, because research on your part will show you if you care to do a good study of the subject. So I suggest you look up the problems with stratified layers of rock and time dating them, including and particularly, the fossils that are unearthed or within the strata. Meantime, regardless of fossils and/or dating and stratified layers of soil-rock, there is simply and unequivocally no proof of evolution from -- fossils.

Sorry, if you want to claim "problems" the burden of proof is upon you. Now there are lying sources that will claim that there are problems, but you need a lot more than that. Find a reliable source that claims there are such problems. I doubt if you can find one.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Ninth Commandment is far more than a mere ban on lying. It is a ban on "bearing false witness". That means if you say something about someone else that is false, even if you believe it to be true, you have borne false witness. Many of your claims about others are demonstrably false.

And what do you mean by "believe in Jesus"? Was there a man named Jesus? Probably.

You have demonstrated a low level of knowledge of the sciences. That is why I offered to go over the basics of science with you. Why not go over those basics so that you do not repeat your mistakes of claiming "assumption" and "conjecture" and other falsehoods. You may not intend to tell a lie, but you have repeated falsehoods.

It's up to you. There is no true real evidence proving evolution of the Darwinian kind. None. Including fossils. They do not prove evolution as described and imagined by Darwin. I have seen no "high level" of scientific knowledge from those who are on here for the most part. Not saying they don't have degrees in science, but saying that -- there is no real proof of evolution of the Darwinian concept. And"p saying that fossils and stratified layers of soil and erosion, etc., do not "prove" evolution as surmised by Darwin and continued by his followers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, if you want to claim "problems" the burden of proof is upon you. Now there are lying sources that will claim that there are problems, but you need a lot more than that. Find a reliable source that claims there are such problems. I doubt if you can find one.

LOL...sad really that all you do is tell me I'm wrong and stupid. lolol...

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, if you want to claim "problems" the burden of proof is upon you. Now there are lying sources that will claim that there are problems, but you need a lot more than that. Find a reliable source that claims there are such problems. I doubt if you can find one.

By the way, what would you consider a reliable source?

 

[YoursTrue]

Too bad that you did not understand what he said. Yes, it is complicated. He did not even hint that it did not happen.

That is correct, he did not hint evolution did not happen. But he more than suggested that the "research" or proof or findings leads to a -- big mess. And rightfully so. He said it's a BIG MESS. Such a mess is like trying to clear up a swamp. Of course, you keep assailing me and my present view of the matter. While not presenting evidence to support your claim that evolution is -- TRUE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's up to you. There is no true real evidence proving evolution of the Darwinian kind. None. Including fossils. They do not prove evolution as described and imagined by Darwin. I have seen no "high level" of scientific knowledge from those who are on here for the most part. Not saying they don't have degrees in science, but saying that -- there is no real proof of evolution of the Darwinian concept. And"p saying that fossils and stratified layers of soil and erosion, etc., do not "prove" evolution as surmised by Darwin and continued by his followers.

And there you go breaking the Ninth Commandment again. But that is because you do not understand the concept of evidence. If you claim to be a Christian I sincerely recommend that you stop using loaded language and making such obviously false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL...sad really that all you do is tell me I'm wrong and stupid. lolol...

Where did I say that you are stupid? Ignorant of the sciences, that is obvious. But that is not saying that you are stupid. And you won't even bother learning enough so that you can see that you are wrong. You are using the ostrich defense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct, he did not hint evolution did not happen. But he more than suggested that the "research" or proof or findings leads to a -- big mess. And rightfully so. He said it's a BIG MESS. Such a mess is like trying to clear up a swamp. Of course, you keep assailing me and my present view of the matter. While not presenting evidence to support your claim that evolution is -- TRUE.

You really should not quote out of context articles that you do not understand.


By your bad standards the Bible "proves" that God does not exist. Think about it.

And I offered to go over the basics of science with you. Until you understand what is and what is not evidence, and you clearly lack that understanding, you will not be able to comprehend any refutation. Hiding from reality is your only defense.

 

[YoursTrue]

And there you go breaking the Ninth Commandment again. But that is because you do not understand the concept of evidence. If you claim to be a Christian I sincerely recommend that you stop using loaded language and making such obviously false claims.

Did you ever consider that you are bearing and supporting false witness? About many things. I mean, have you ever considered? Whether you believe Jesus probably existed (some do not, but you think maybe he did, I won't even ask you why you think maybe he did exist..), but why quote a commandment you probably don't believe came from God to Moses as if you are accusing me of breaking something you don't believe in as a Commandment from God).. I will say it one more time, and then -- I may not continue this discussion because the rest is really up to you to prove that evolution as contrived by Darwin and his supporters is true by any type of real "provable" scientific evidence. The fossil record no longer proves evolution to me. It may prove evolution to you and others, but it no longer proves it to me, I have looked at the conjectures of scientists as well as the conclusions based on fossil evidence as if it proves the theory. I used to believe it. I no longer do.