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

[SkepticThinker]

There are major, and I mean major flaws in your theories. Unfortunately you want to make up stories as to how it all might have happened. No use splaining anymore. But...anyway... That's how it goes.

So many that you can't even point out a single one! I mean, you've been going on about "holes" and "flaws" for pages and pages now; where's the evidence backing up your claim? What holes? What flaws?

You're the one making up stories here.

 

[YoursTrue]

So many that you can't even point out a single one! I mean, you've been going on about "holes" and "flaws" for pages and pages now; where's the evidence backing up your claim? What holes? What flaws?

You're the one making up stories here.

But I have pointed out the basic major flaws. That is (1) there is no proof other than like a mystery story (piecing fossils together as if this means evolution), and (2) no real-time basic proof (yes, I know that science, you say, has no "proof" of anything...-is that right?) of one form morphing (evolving over time) into another form. If you don't understand what I mean by that, and I DO understand the reasoning behind many of the conjectures about evolution, then all I can say is: hope everything goes well with you. Nice talking with you, thank you. (Oh, and p.s. -- it's like another "piece of evidence" is that one form resembles another...again, as if that's proof (oh no! not proof -- can't say that...) of evolution. Yes, well, have a nice day. Those are not the major flaws in the theory for you -- they are right now the major and very basic (I mean bottom line almost) flaws as far as I'm concerned.

 

[metis]

Speciation has been established through observation, so here's a link that connects to links on studies: Speciation - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I have pointed out the basic major flaws. That is (1) there is no proof other than like a mystery story (piecing fossils together as if this means evolution), and (2) no real-time basic proof (yes, I know that science, you say, has no "proof" of anything...-is that right?) of one form morphing (evolving over time) into another form. If you don't understand what I mean by that, and I DO understand the reasoning behind many of the conjectures about evolution, then all I can say is: hope everything goes well with you. Nice talking with you, thank you. (Oh, and p.s. -- it's like another "piece of evidence" is that one form resembles another...again, as if that's proof (oh no! not proof -- can't say that...) of evolution. Yes, well, have a nice day. Those are not the major flaws in the theory for you -- they are right now the major and very basic (I mean bottom line almost) flaws as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to use the word "proof" that way then there is "proof" of evolution. You just deny the evidence and that is not a proper thing to do. When evidence is given to you that puts the burden of proof upon you. We can and have "proved" evolution. You need more than denial to have a valid claim.

We have solved mystery after mystery in biology by applying evolution. It gives answers that work. No problem in biology has ever been solved with creationism.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to use the word "proof" that way then there is "proof" of evolution. You just deny the evidence and that is not a proper thing to do. When evidence is given to you that puts the burden of proof upon you. We can and have "proved" evolution. You need more than denial to have a valid claim.

We have solved mystery after mystery in biology by applying evolution. It gives answers that work. No problem in biology has ever been solved with creationism.

I do want to use the word proof that way. There is no proof of evolution insofar as the Darwinian theory goes. Some say looks and fossils are evidence of -- evolution. But it is not true proof. It is 'truly' only conjecture and supposition. For instance, there is evidence that water can be transformed to ice. That's proof that water can be transformed to ice. And the evidence is backed up by proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do want to use the word proof that way. There is no proof of evolution insofar as the Darwinian theory goes. Some say looks and fossils are evidence of -- evolution. But it is not true proof. It is 'truly' only conjecture and supposition. For instance, there is evidence that water can be transformed to ice. That's proof that water can be transformed to ice. And the evidence is backed up by proof.

Then you are wrong and have been shown to be wrong. Multiple times. Do I need to provide the definition of evidence for you again and explain how the theory of evolution is testable and falsifiable? Once I do that anything that I post that supports the theory of evolution is evidence for it no matter how much you dey it.

You only make yourself look bad by denying clear evidence. If you do not understand the evidence you have the option of asking for clarification but that is it.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to use the word "proof" that way then there is "proof" of evolution. You just deny the evidence and that is not a proper thing to do. When evidence is given to you that puts the burden of proof upon you. We can and have "proved" evolution. You need more than denial to have a valid claim.

We have solved mystery after mystery in biology by applying evolution. It gives answers that work. No problem in biology has ever been solved with creationism.

I suppose you think that the initial start of life (per the first combustion, transformation, adherence of molecules, making of molecules) will be found by science? I know by now you don't think that's an answer, but it is. Because (keep reading).
And do you think that substance is duplicated and emerging until evolution of the Darwinian theoretical kind can be found or duplicated? Please don't give me a model where men supplied the electric, the charges, the elements to simulate some sort of process as engineered by mankind. I know it's difficult because there is no "scientific" explanation in the Bible as to how God did it other than by his own work, but hopefully you will not tell me that science will/may figure it out someday by natural methods and observation. Let's play the idea that even if they could (which they can't), but even if they could (they can't -- ) it will be beyond one's normal lifespan on this earth to see or find out about humans evolving to, um, something else -- maybe called humanoid, since as has been said -- evolution of kinds or species that cannot interbreed and multioply takes a loooonnnggg time. Way past 70-100 years of a lifetime of one person's observation. Like hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years, which is currently way past a "normal" lifespan.
Anyway, I'm going to sleep, the body needs sleep by design, I can philosophisize why it does, but with all the thinking ability, it is highly unlikely that the need for sleep came about by itself, without direction. By now I can figure what evolutionists might think, but I think (and so do many evolutionists) there's more to it than mere natural biological reasons. We can go into laws, but as I said, I have limited time, and so do you. Good night for now.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are humans. Everyone today a baby.

The baby of our owned self defines how innocent a human life is.

Our destroyer adult humans express smart egotist human comments and display their atrocious human answers in behaviours right now.

In the past human life thinkers knowing history state how barbaric and animalistic human behaviour was.

Most of you still use and display that human behaviour today

Many groups controlled by their owned destroyer criminal activity against life's law. To exist. To own rights to exist. To own rights to exist in our highest forms. Healthiest natural innocent human form.

Which includes human expressed mentality. Used by the adult not the human baby.

Lots of humans might own a human body but you certainly aren't displaying highest ownership our spirituality.

The mentality and read worded thinking said by many humans isn't even read for the mental status being expressed secretly in some of the answers written on forums.

Whose secret motivations a self group supported is our destroyer humans in living presence.

Always discussing dead things when we only own life living right now.

We're all warned before about this human mental state imposed by science looking back as minus use of numbers and not a whole form just number 1.

Once accepted socially spiritually as our highest human lives and the only accepted statement just number 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose you think that the initial start of life (per the first combustion, transformation, adherence of molecules, making of molecules) will be found by science? I know by now you don't think that's an answer, but it is. Because (keep reading).
And do you think that substance is duplicated and emerging until evolution of the Darwinian theoretical kind can be found or duplicated? Please don't give me a model where men supplied the electric, the charges, the elements to simulate some sort of process as engineered by mankind. I know it's difficult because there is no "scientific" explanation in the Bible as to how God did it other than by his own work, but hopefully you will not tell me that science will/may figure it out someday by natural methods and observation. Let's play the idea that even if they could (which they can't), but even if they could (they can't -- ) it will be beyond one's normal lifespan on this earth to see or find out about humans evolving to, um, something else -- maybe called humanoid, since as has been said -- evolution of kinds or species that cannot interbreed and multioply takes a loooonnnggg time. Way past 70-100 years of a lifetime of one person's observation. Like hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years, which is currently way past a "normal" lifespan.
Anyway, I'm going to sleep, the body needs sleep by design, I can philosophisize why it does, but with all the thinking ability, it is highly unlikely that the need for sleep came about by itself, without direction. By now I can figure what evolutionists might think, but I think (and so do many evolutionists) there's more to it than mere natural biological reasons. We can go into laws, but as I said, I have limited time, and so do you. Good night for now.

You appear to be a bit confused. Evolution does not deal with where life came from. That is abiogenesis. It is a logical error to move the goal posts to abiogenesis since evolution does not depend on any one specific abiogenesis event. It could have been a natural event. That is what the evidence supports so far. The first life could have been brought by aliens. Or, and this is the least likely of all, the first life could have been magically poofed into existence by a supernatural entity. I know, that lost one is far fetched. The point is that it does not matter. Once life was here it evolved.

And we know that life as we know it today is the product of evolution. Now you may claim that God lied and only made it look absolutely as if life is the product of evolution but then you would have to answer for his motivation. Why do you think that God is a liar? Most Christians do not believe this. That is why most Christians accept the fact of evolution.

I know that you will probably not like this but there is almost no difference between you and a Flat Earth Christian. They are only slightly more literal in their interpretation of the Bible than you are. Like you they have to deny reality. They have to deny science. But they are a bit more consistent in their beliefs than you are. The Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, though you might need to understand some geometry to understand this. It never describes the Earth as a sphere.

 

[rational experiences]

The man adult once owning his innocent same self baby life told everyone ICE was God earths stone saviour newly formed.

Reason history God stone.

Evolution in cold space first sealed stone to be present. Space thesis stone.

Second event stone was unsealed converting in suns big bang hot dense blasting.

Advised by a human living inside burning gases in space memory water.

Water says science is the spirit of our life that formed as holy form in space is no God nor any alien.

Science said water sealed the stone only in that event putting water and it's already pre owned microbes into the bodies of stone. Water sealed stone first evil historic seal.

Then he says ice saved God as stone had already been sealed by water.

When science says ice saved the stone to remain sealed he meant it.

Knowing space no longer owns stone sealed.
Water cannot keep stone sealed ice did as it owns the coldest effect support to own solid form.

Ice owning a spatial forced reaction of causes.

Science removed ice proves water cannot hold the seal as watery sink holes open as the proof science wants to de evolve life in water and drop our earth cities back inside of earth where he put us originally.

As waters origin owning life first.

As origins of science as science practicing science as humans origins of science is scene of the crime A crime A. The answer.

You already know science is causing it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I have pointed out the basic major flaws. That is (1) there is no proof other than like a mystery story (piecing fossils together as if this means evolution),

The only hole here, is in your knowledge base.
This isn't evidence against evolution. This is just another claim, and a demonstrably false one at that.

and (2) no real-time basic proof (yes, I know that science, you say, has no "proof" of anything...-is that right?) of one form morphing (evolving over time) into another form.

I think this is hilarious everytime.
If such evidence WOULD exist, it would not support evolution. Instead, it would CONTRADICT it.

Why do you complain about there being no evidence to contradict evolution while pretending otherwise?

In evolution, species don't "morph into another form". And most certainly not overnight.
Instead, species, over the course of many generations, gradually evolve into subspecies. Not "some other form", as if cats could one day produce dogs.

No. In evolution, you can't outgrow your ancestry.
So if your ancestors are primates, then you are a primate and all your descendends will also be primates. None of your descendends, not even billions of years into the future, will become felines for examples.
If that were to happen, evolution would be falsified.

If you don't understand what I mean by that, and I DO understand the reasoning behind many of the conjectures about evolution

The stuff you actually write down on the topic, suggests otherwise.

(Oh, and p.s. -- it's like another "piece of evidence" is that one form resembles another...again, as if that's proof (oh no! not proof -- can't say that...) of evolution.

No. Mere resemblances are not proof or evidence of evolution.
Had you been paying attention when the dozens of people explained this to you, you'ld know this by now.

Yes, well, have a nice day. Those are not the major flaws in the theory for you -- they are right now the major and very basic (I mean bottom line almost) flaws as far as I'm concerned.

So, the two "flaws" or "holes" you decided to point either were 1. a bare claim rooted in ignorance and 2. a strawman argument.

And then you finish up with a good ol' ad hominim.

Good job. Kent Hovind will be proud of you.

 

[Polymath257]

But I have pointed out the basic major flaws. That is (1) there is no proof other than like a mystery story (piecing fossils together as if this means evolution), and (2) no real-time basic proof (yes, I know that science, you say, has no "proof" of anything...-is that right?) of one form morphing (evolving over time) into another form. If you don't understand what I mean by that, and I DO understand the reasoning behind many of the conjectures about evolution, then all I can say is: hope everything goes well with you. Nice talking with you, thank you. (Oh, and p.s. -- it's like another "piece of evidence" is that one form resembles another...again, as if that's proof (oh no! not proof -- can't say that...) of evolution. Yes, well, have a nice day. Those are not the major flaws in the theory for you -- they are right now the major and very basic (I mean bottom line almost) flaws as far as I'm concerned.

Do you realize that a 'real time morphing into another form' would be a *disproof* of evolution, right?

Given that evolutionary change of the degree you are asking for takes *millions* of years, why in the world would you expect to see it in real time?

That is sort of like saying we don't have real time proof that stars go through different stages as they age. Well, duh. Those changes take millions of years.

But what we *do* have is evidence that species change over time, provided by the ages of the rocks in which the fossils occur. We see how the changes in different lines happen over millions of years. We further have genetic evidence of those changes and an understanding of how those changes happen genetically.

Furthermore, we *do* have many examples of species changing over time. But you simply say something like 'they are still lizards', while missing the point that this amount of change in 100 years can lead to massive amounts of change in a million years.

So, the problem is that you are asking for evidence that *cannot* exist if evolution is correct. Do you understand that?

 

[Polymath257]

I do want to use the word proof that way. There is no proof of evolution insofar as the Darwinian theory goes. Some say looks and fossils are evidence of -- evolution. But it is not true proof. It is 'truly' only conjecture and supposition. For instance, there is evidence that water can be transformed to ice. That's proof that water can be transformed to ice. And the evidence is backed up by proof.

So you are essentially denying that we can have proof of any process that takes longer than humans have been around?

I say this is simply wrong. We can use the *known* processes to understand the past. When we do that, we see fossils of species that are no longer around. Furthermore, we see that the species at any given time are different, but similar, to those both before and after. This is a simple fact.

Given that living things reproduce, we conclude that those species at one time came from those at previous times and lead to those at later times. This *is* evolution. That biological species change over time.

Also, the rate of change can be determined and we find that it is slow enough that a mere 10,000 years would not be nearly enough for the type of large scale changes you seem to identify with evolution. Such changes take much, much longer than that. So there is literally no way we *could* see changes of that scale in the time that humans have had writing.

So asking for real time proof of changes that take millions of years is rather silly, don't you think?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I have pointed out the basic major flaws. That is (1) there is no proof other than like a mystery story (piecing fossils together as if this means evolution), and (2) no real-time basic proof (yes, I know that science, you say, has no "proof" of anything...-is that right?) of one form morphing (evolving over time) into another form. If you don't understand what I mean by that, and I DO understand the reasoning behind many of the conjectures about evolution, then all I can say is: hope everything goes well with you. Nice talking with you, thank you. (Oh, and p.s. -- it's like another "piece of evidence" is that one form resembles another...again, as if that's proof (oh no! not proof -- can't say that...) of evolution. Yes, well, have a nice day. Those are not the major flaws in the theory for you -- they are right now the major and very basic (I mean bottom line almost) flaws as far as I'm concerned.

1. That is false. As I've pointed out several times now, multiple fields of evidence gathered from multiple fields of science, by multiple groups of independent scientists all over the world over the last 150+ all point to the fact of evolution, with every new discovery reinforcing it even more. With absolutely no discovery falsifying it or even coming close. This is not a "hole" or "flaw."

2. This is also false. And based on a false premise that I have corrected you on no less than 3 times now. People who accept evolution never expect any animal to "morph" into any other animal because that is not AT ALL how evolution works. If anybody ever did see that happen it would FALSIFY evolution. I know you already know this though, because not only myself but several other posters have repeatedly explained this to you.
You say you understand how evolution works, but then with every post you make, you very thoroughly demonstrate that you do not understand it, and that's all despite the fact that there several posters have been working very hard for quite some time trying to help you understand it. You know what I think? You don't really want to understand it. It's the only explanation I can come up with at this point.

I guess you haven't noticed, but SARS-CoV-2 virus has mutated several times right in front of our eyes. There is your "real-time basic proof." I wonder how that happened if evolution is false, as you claim. Before you jump in with "yeah but it didn't change into something other than a virus," remember that nobody who understands evolution expected it to.

None of these things you've listed are "holes" or "flaws" of evolution or the theory of evolution.

 

[metis]

There is no proof of evolution insofar as the Darwinian theory goes.

How are you defining "Darwinian theory" since there are a couple of different ways that can be rendered?

While you're at it, can you show "proof" for "Divine creation"

 

[Bear Wild]

I do want to use the word proof that way. There is no proof of evolution insofar as the Darwinian theory goes. Some say looks and fossils are evidence of -- evolution. But it is not true proof. It is 'truly' only conjecture and supposition. For instance, there is evidence that water can be transformed to ice. That's proof that water can be transformed to ice. And the evidence is backed up by proof.

So help us with your wisdom and explain the existence of fossils in geologic strata and what they do mean. Fossils were evidence in Darwin's theory. The changing patterns over time is evidence. For you to say it isn't you would have to have a better explanation for fossils.

So please educate us and give us your explanation of why there are fossils in the different geological strata. You must have a better explanation to state that they are not evidence.

Oh and as for proof.

Evolution is the search for fact, not proof. If it's proof you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall. - From the gospel of Indiana Jones.

Ok Evolution was substituted for Archeology and Proof for truth by it all still fits.

 

[YoursTrue]

How are you defining "Darwinian theory" since there are a couple of different ways that can be rendered?

While you're at it, can you show "proof" for "Divine creation"

Darwinian theory is that which means that surviving species or kinds in the matter of category come about as a matter of "natural selection" or sometimes described as that which is "survival of the fittest," that is without any divine guidance, but rather a result of natural forces more or less coming about by themselves. ("natural selection," or "survival of the fittest," depending on circumstances)
In order to define "divine creation," one must understand that, according to the Bible (since that is the divine book I go by), Adam and Eve were "divinely created," as well as Jesus. Did Jesus come about by semi-natural means? Yes, since he developed in Mary's womb, But was given life by God by means of the holy spirit. The biological fundamentals of procreation have been divinely established and allowed to continue, enabling life to continue. Since the Bible is not a scientific textbook, we can safely deduce (from the Bible and, as far as I am concerned, reality) that God, by means of divine inspiration, allows us to know that He started life on the earth. It (life) did not start itself, and vegetation and animal life did not come about by mechanical (biologic) means without divine guidance.
The proof of divine creation is life itself. If I look at a beautiful scene with trees and vegetation, I don't think "how nice--look what evolution did," but rather I think, "how beautiful," and I thank God and am in wonderment as to its beauty. Does this mean that I think each item on earth is divinely approved and created? No. But the fundamentals of life have been established by God. I hope this helps to explain how I view this. Does the continuance of life mean to me that God made things by the evolutionary process? (No, it does not, but He allows the force of life to move as it is currently.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Darwinian theory is that which means that surviving species or kinds in the matter of category come about as a matter of "natural selection" or sometimes described as that which is "survival of the fittest," that is without any divine guidance, but rather a result of natural forces more or less coming about by themselves. ("natural selection," or "survival of the fittest," depending on circumstances)

Absolutely horrible, desperately incomplete and misleading definition, you got there.

I give this definition an E-
The only reason I didn't give an F, is because you mentioned "natural selection".
That's actually on par with getting a point for not misspelling your name on a paper.

Care to try again?

It (life) did not start itself

Who says it did? Does H2O "form itself"? Does ice?
Or is it rather environmental circumstances in which such just spontanously forms according to the deterministic laws of physics / chemistry?

I'll go ahead and assume that this is what you actually mean and just expressed yourself in rather clumsy ways.

So anyhow, how have you determined that life can't / didn't form in that way?
How did you determine that some god created it instead?
Or is it rather a case that this is just what you believe because your religion tells you to?

, and vegetation and animal life did not come about by mechanical (biologic) means without divine guidance.

Again, evidence for this claim?
Or is it again rather a case of this just being what you believe because your religion requires you to?

The proof of divine creation is life itself.

The existence of life, in and of itself, is only evidence that life exists. Not how it came about.

If I look at a beautiful scene with trees and vegetation, I don't think "how nice--look what evolution did," but rather I think, "how beautiful," and I thank God and am in wonderment as to its beauty.

So, according to that logic, I'll assume that if you look at an ugly scene - many of which surely exist also, that you'll then conclude the opposite?

If not, then the "evidence" you cite does not tell you that which you claim it tells you.
Well... that, or you don't care that you hold a massively dishonest double standard.


Having said that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective opinion. Not an actual factual property of something. Opinions aren't evidence of anything, except that the person who has the opinion, holds that opinion.

Evidence on the other hand, is something that is independently verifiable. Opinions aren't independently verifiable.

Having said all that............ your conclusion doesn't even follow. Even if we would say there is such a thing as "objective beauty", that doesn't lead you to a "god" by any means, let alone a "god did it".

Does this mean that I think each item on earth is divinely approved and created? No. But the fundamentals of life have been established by God.

Evidence for this claim?
Or is it yet again another instance of what you believe only because your religion requires you to believe it?

I hope this helps to explain how I view this. Does the continuance of life mean to me that God made things by the evolutionary process? (No, it does not, but He allows the force of life to move as it is currently.)

Do you realize and understand that all the evidence (the geological record, the fossil record, the genetic record, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, geographic distribution of species, etc etc etc) goes directly against your claims here?

 

[Bear Wild]

Darwinian theory is that which means that surviving species or kinds in the matter of category come about as a matter of "natural selection" or sometimes described as that which is "survival of the fittest," that is without any divine guidance, but rather a result of natural forces more or less coming about by themselves. ("natural selection," or "survival of the fittest," depending on circumstances)
In order to define "divine creation," one must understand that, according to the Bible (since that is the divine book I go by), Adam and Eve were "divinely created," as well as Jesus. Did Jesus come about by semi-natural means? Yes, since he developed in Mary's womb, But was given life by God by means of the holy spirit. The biological fundamentals of procreation have been divinely established and allowed to continue, enabling life to continue. Since the Bible is not a scientific textbook, we can safely deduce (from the Bible and, as far as I am concerned, reality) that God, by means of divine inspiration, allows us to know that He started life on the earth. It (life) did not start itself, and vegetation and animal life did not come about by mechanical (biologic) means without divine guidance.
The proof of divine creation is life itself. If I look at a beautiful scene with trees and vegetation, I don't think "how nice--look what evolution did," but rather I think, "how beautiful," and I thank God and am in wonderment as to its beauty. Does this mean that I think each item on earth is divinely approved and created? No. But the fundamentals of life have been established by God. I hope this helps to explain how I view this. Does the continuance of life mean to me that God made things by the evolutionary process? (No, it does not, but He allows the force of life to move as it is currently.)

So you cannot answer about the fossils which we can touch and see but you have no problem with magic. God says an incantation and magically you have one person. God rips out a rib and says another incantation and you have poof a woman. Then you have god who gets Mary pregnant (sound just like Zeus) and Jesus born naturally. You believe all that and yet you cannot answer a question about the meaning of something that is real. With this kind of magical thinking you could never understand evolution or science. Every evidence given is given using evidence from nature without magic. So you can just tell us you do not believe in real explanations only magical explanations. Thus no one no matter how good the evidence is would be unable to convince you since it is not a magical explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

You appear to be a bit confused. Evolution does not deal with where life came from. That is abiogenesis. It is a logical error to move the goal posts to abiogenesis since evolution does not depend on any one specific abiogenesis event. It could have been a natural event. That is what the evidence supports so far. The first life could have been brought by aliens. Or, and this is the least likely of all, the first life could have been magically poofed into existence by a supernatural entity. I know, that lost one is far fetched. The point is that it does not matter. Once life was here it evolved.

And we know that life as we know it today is the product of evolution. Now you may claim that God lied and only made it look absolutely as if life is the product of evolution but then you would have to answer for his motivation. Why do you think that God is a liar? Most Christians do not believe this. That is why most Christians accept the fact of evolution.

I know that you will probably not like this but there is almost no difference between you and a Flat Earth Christian. They are only slightly more literal in their interpretation of the Bible than you are. Like you they have to deny reality. They have to deny science. But they are a bit more consistent in their beliefs than you are. The Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed, though you might need to understand some geometry to understand this. It never describes the Earth as a sphere.

One cannot have the "theory" of evolution without having life start SOMEWHERE. Therefore -- (I'll sum it up for you) -- evolution cannot have 'happened' without a start. Ya think?