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

[YoursTrue]

The entire thread is overflowing in evidence. You should read some of it sometime.

It's overflowing in evidence of life not coming about of its own accord.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is the prevailing scientific theory that best fits all the available evidence and best explains the diversity of life on earth.

The "available evidence" does not prove evolution. It Proves there were animals that died, it proves some of them died many years ago. It also proves that gorilla-bonobo-chimpanzee-human DNA are all DIFFERENT. Not the same.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, no, we're not changing the subject yet.
So to be clear, you don't have any actual "holes in the theory" that you can actually name or list or anything?

I'm not interested in opinions, that would be where you are actually coming from. You place your opinions about the Bible above all else, apparently. I'm interested in evidence, which you are clearly not.

The holes are there - in the form of swampy messes. I'm not talking about the Bible right now, although I do believe it is from a superior intelligent source. I am speaking strictly of the very swampy mess in the reasoning of evolution. Just to be more specific, there IS NO PROOF that fish evolved to land roving evidence. Etc. Anyway, yes, it's a swampy mess. And it looks like it will never clear up.
Meantime, Lucy doesn't do the job of proving evolution of the Darwinian kind.
Speaking of which, what bones were there to prove Lucy, especially as exemplified in the manufactured drawing composition of what little Lucy looked like?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The holes are there - in the form of swampy messes. I'm not talking about the Bible right now, although I do believe it is from a superior intelligent source. I am speaking strictly of the very swampy mess in the reasoning of evolution. Just to be more specific, there IS NO PROOF that fish evolved to land roving evidence. Etc. Anyway, yes, it's a swampy mess. And it looks like it will never clear up.
Meantime, Lucy doesn't do the job of proving evolution of the Darwinian kind.
Speaking of which, what bones were there to prove Lucy, especially as exemplified in the manufactured drawing composition of what little Lucy looked like?

I do not know what a swampy mess means in this context. I do know that there is evidence that supports the evolution of tetrapods from fish ancestors. Tiktaalik is one piece of that evidence. Tiktaalik is also a very fine example of the predictive power of the theory.

Lucy has been splain' human evolution to us for some time now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The "available evidence" does not prove evolution. It Proves there were animals that died, it proves some of them died many years ago. It also proves that gorilla-bonobo-chimpanzee-human DNA are all DIFFERENT. Not the same.

No evidence proves any scientific theory. Scientific theories are always tentative and supported by evidence. Some theories, like the theory of evolution, are so well supported it would take very robust findings to upset them. Such evidence has not yet been found. If we were to see some of what you claim as evolution--livings things morphing into completely different types of living things--that would be evidence to reject the theory. This has never been seen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This here representation of Lucy is insane. I.N.S.A.N.E.

Why? You seem to have forgotten that the burden of proof is now upon you. Lucy is evidence for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's overflowing in evidence of life not coming about of its own accord.

Oh my!! Where is your hypothesis? If you do not have on you just lied since we went over the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The holes are there - in the form of swampy messes. I'm not talking about the Bible right now, although I do believe it is from a superior intelligent source. I am speaking strictly of the very swampy mess in the reasoning of evolution. Just to be more specific, there IS NO PROOF that fish evolved to land roving evidence. Etc. Anyway, yes, it's a swampy mess. And it looks like it will never clear up.
Meantime, Lucy doesn't do the job of proving evolution of the Darwinian kind.
Speaking of which, what bones were there to prove Lucy, especially as exemplified in the manufactured drawing composition of what little Lucy looked like?

LOL!!! You lose every time that you abuse the word "proof". You only demonstrate that you do not even have a ninth grade level of understanding of what you are talking about.

Seriously. let's have a discussion about the concept of evidence and the scientific method. You will be a better debater if you understand these concepts.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL!!! You lose every time that you abuse the word "proof". You only demonstrate that you do not even have a ninth grade level of understanding of what you are talking about.

Seriously. let's have a discussion about the concept of evidence and the scientific method. You will be a better debater if you understand these concepts.

I do it purposely to use the word proof. There is none. Now some people might think there's no proof to say they're alive. Or they might contest that issue. We've already had the discussion about the 'concept of evidence.' I must tell you right now that there is nothing to show 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that life came about by itself and the forms of life we see are strictly a result of evolution. Period. Now I rest my case, and if you want, hey, take up your side. I've already discussed that there IS no evidence of evolution of the Darwinian kind. As I have said, viruses do mutate. Does that mean the Darwinian model of evolution is true? (No, it does not.) Now go ahead and prove (oops, not prove...) your side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do it purposely to use the word proof. There is none. Now some people might think there's no proof to say they're alive. Or they might contest that issue. We've already had the discussion about the 'concept of evidence.' I must tell you right now that there is nothing to show 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that life came about by itself and the forms of life we see are strictly a result of evolution. Period. Now I rest my case, and if you want, hey, take up your side. I've already discussed that there IS no evidence of evolution of the Darwinian kind. As I have said, viruses do mutate. Does that mean the Darwinian model of evolution is true? (No, it does not.) Now go ahead and prove (oops, not prove...) your side.

You are at best using that word improperly. It is only "true" if one is making the incredibly foolish mistake of using the mathematical definition of proof.

If you are using the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" you are lying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my!! Where is your hypothesis? If you do not have on you just lied since we went over the concept of evidence.

How about you lying? You keep saying I'm lying. But you really have no proof, then you back out by saying, 'well, in the scientific realm there is no proof of -- anything, I suppose. Almost. maybe." To keep it simple, batteries light up bulbs. That's proof that batteries light up flashlights. Also, someone had to make the battery, and someone made the flashlight.
As for proof of the opposite of evolution, most of the time I don't know I'm breathing (but I am). Two little nostrils for the most part take in air. It is essential to life in the human body. You will never convince me that sheer evolution without intelligence of an initiator of life could do that, bring that fabulous beyond human reason mechanism come about..You can try to reason it out; I know scientists do think things over -- trying to figure things out as to how it happened. But! and I basically rest my case -- they do not know how (1) it all started, and (2) how it "evolved" specifically with any sort of yes, proof, especially and I do mean especially, of the Darwinian type.
Now, since my body desires and demands sleep, I'm going to look for your initiation of your thesis upholding and explaining Darwinian type of evolutionary concept probably tomorrow. Or today, depending on time zone. Please notice I didn't use the word proof there.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are at best using that word improperly. It is only "true" if one is making the incredibly foolish mistake of using the mathematical definition of proof.

If you are using the legal standard of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" you are lying.

I'm not lying. I've already explained that I could not be on jury or render a verdict by some legal standards. And let's say as I research some things, even the Supreme Court of the United States changes its verdict sometimes. Based on -- varying opinions of the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about you lying? You keep saying I'm lying. But you really have no proof, then you back out by saying, 'well, in the scientific realm there is no proof of -- anything, I suppose. Almost. maybe." To keep it simple, batteries light up bulbs. That's proof that batteries light up flashlights. Also, someone had to make the battery, and someone made the flashlight.
As for proof of the opposite of evolution, most of the time I don't know I'm breathing (but I am). Two little nostrils for the most part take in air. It is essential to life in the human body. You will never convince me that sheer evolution without intelligence of an initiator of life could do that, bring that fabulous beyond human reason mechanism come about..You can try to reason it out; I know scientists do think things over -- trying to figure things out as to how it happened. But! and I basically rest my case -- they do not know how (1) it all started, and (2) how it "evolved" specifically with any sort of yes, proof, especially and I do mean especially, of the Darwinian type.
Now, since my body desires and demands sleep, I'm going to look for your initiation of your thesis upholding and explaining Darwinian type of evolutionary concept probably tomorrow. Or today, depending on time zone. Please notice I didn't use the word proof there.

There you go again. I never "backed out". You do not understand the concept of evidence. That was why I posted a definition of evidence and then posted some. You had no response to it even after I pointed out the thread with the evidence in it.


And when you say that no one will ever convince you you are openly stating that you will be dishonest.

One very serious question:

How does lying for Jesus help Christianity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not lying. I've already explained that I could not be on jury or render a verdict by some legal standards. And let's say as I research some things, even the Supreme Court of the United States changes its verdict sometimes. Based on -- varying opinions of the evidence.

Sorry, but you are without excuse. The definition of evidence was given to you and you could not bring up any objections at all. At this point there is no question that you are being dishonest. Purposefully hiding from facts is dishonest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The "available evidence" does not prove evolution. It Proves there were animals that died, it proves some of them died many years ago.

I just explained how fossils tell us so much more than that and you're just going to repeat yourself again? Sorry, that's not going to fly.

The available evidence demonstrates that evolution is a fact of reality.

Once again. Evolution happens. That's a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation that describes how it occurs.

It also proves that gorilla-bonobo-chimpanzee-human DNA are all DIFFERENT. Not the same.

What the DNA demonstrates is that gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees are closely related, genetically. Like you and all your cousins and how you're all different but still related.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

The holes are there - in the form of swampy messes. I'm not talking about the Bible right now, although I do believe it is from a superior intelligent source. I am speaking strictly of the very swampy mess in the reasoning of evolution. Just to be more specific, there IS NO PROOF that fish evolved to land roving evidence. Etc. Anyway, yes, it's a swampy mess. And it looks like it will never clear up.
Meantime, Lucy doesn't do the job of proving evolution of the Darwinian kind.
Speaking of which, what bones were there to prove Lucy, especially as exemplified in the manufactured drawing composition of what little Lucy looked like?

Wow, so there are so many holes in evolution that you can't even name a single one! Post after post of people asking and you've got nothing.

Gimme a break already with this. Give an example or give it a rest already.

I've already pointed out in the past that we have many different Lucy specimens (Australopithecus afarensis) to examine. Scientists have uncovered the remains of more than 300 Australopithecus afarensis individuals to date. Nobody has to create "manufactured drawing compositions" of anything here. You really shouldn't get your talking points from creationist websites because they're outdated and long-ago debunked.


P.S. You should look up the mudskipper if you're so convinced that ocean dwelling creatures didn't or can't move onto land.
Do mudskippers and lungfishes elucidate the early evolution of four-limbed vertebrates? | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do it purposely to use the word proof. There is none. Now some people might think there's no proof to say they're alive. Or they might contest that issue. We've already had the discussion about the 'concept of evidence.' I must tell you right now that there is nothing to show 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that life came about by itself and the forms of life we see are strictly a result of evolution. Period. Now I rest my case, and if you want, hey, take up your side. I've already discussed that there IS no evidence of evolution of the Darwinian kind. As I have said, viruses do mutate. Does that mean the Darwinian model of evolution is true? (No, it does not.) Now go ahead and prove (oops, not prove...) your side.

So you use the word on purpose to intentionally obfuscate the conversation?
Why would an honest person be interested in doing such a thing?

 

[metis]

This here representation of Lucy is insane. I.N.S.A.N.E.

And why is this supposedly so?

 

[YoursTrue]

There you go again. I never "backed out". You do not understand the concept of evidence. That was why I posted a definition of evidence and then posted some. You had no response to it even after I pointed out the thread with the evidence in it.


And when you say that no one will ever convince you you are openly stating that you will be dishonest.

One very serious question:

How does lying for Jesus help Christianity?

I can see you just like to argue. And you don't back up your accusations, kind of like almost a theory. Without proof and in your case, evidence. As in ... Evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

And why is this supposedly so?

Because for one thing, as I understand it, "Lucy's" feet were never found. Therefore posing her as a hairy female (very hairy) with feet and breasts is a stupid ridiculous depiction.