Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Deny the evidence all you want, but it won't go away.

Many people who "know the Bible" don't seem to realize it's largely religious mythology, replete with factual errors and contradictions.

This is why we find you so exasperating, YT. You accept poorly evidenced mythology unquestioningly, but stubbornly deny extensively supported, tested, peer reviewed facts.

The evidence held within the diagram is put together subjectively. It is without proof. Whether you do or don't believe in a Creator is not the question. The diagram is simple conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

Deny the evidence all you want, but it won't go away.

Many people who "know the Bible" don't seem to realize it's largely religious mythology, replete with factual errors and contradictions.

This is why we find you so exasperating, YT. You accept poorly evidenced mythology unquestioningly, but stubbornly deny extensively supported, tested, peer reviewed facts.

Plus, where's the testing you say supports the diagram? I hope you will answer instead of leaning on the idea that I am uneducated, biased, and things like that. So where's the testing you say supports the diagram? What tests support the diagram's outline or evidence. Tests.

 

[YoursTrue]

Deny the evidence all you want, but it won't go away.

Many people who "know the Bible" don't seem to realize it's largely religious mythology, replete with factual errors and contradictions.

This is why we find you so exasperating, YT. You accept poorly evidenced mythology unquestioningly, but stubbornly deny extensively supported, tested, peer reviewed facts.

Furthermore, the Bible itself says there are things hard to understand. I am not playing games with what the Bible says. From what it says, yes, I choose to believe it. My belief may differ from what some others believe. I don't believe God is a trinity, or that hellfire is waiting for the "unsaved." Simply no proof of the continuance by natural selection of the different clads forming. If you'd like to provide the test results rather than surmising I'm willing to look. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence held within the diagram is put together subjectively. It is without proof. Whether you do or don't believe in a Creator is not the question. The diagram is simple conjecture.

No. Cladograms are based upon species that existed at some point. They are demonstrably transitional. There are accurately dated.

How is it "conjecture"? You know that you should not use this claim. You are once again apparently breaking the Ninth Commandment. Even if you believe a false claim about others with all of your heart it is still breaking that Commandment if you are wrong, and it can be demonstrated that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus, where's the testing you say supports the diagram? I hope you will answer instead of leaning on the idea that I am uneducated, biased, and things like that. So where's the testing you say supports the diagram? What tests support the diagram's outline or evidence. Tests.

Can you be specific? I can give some specific examples but you might need to talk to an expert in the field to explain how others are tested.

 

[Valjean]

The evidence held within the diagram is put together subjectively. It is without proof. Whether you do or don't believe in a Creator is not the question. The diagram is simple conjecture.

Please stop it, YT. You're making baseless claims again. Calling something subjective or conjecture does not make it so. We've explained how science works; how it's based on objective evidence, but even these basic principles seem to be completely lost on you.

Plus, where's the testing you say supports the diagram? I hope you will answer instead of leaning on the idea that I am uneducated, biased, and things like that. So where's the testing you say supports the diagram? What tests support the diagram's outline or evidence. Tests.

But you won't accept evidence. The facts are just too dissonant; your religious mythology too comfortable. If nothing we could offer you would shake your faith, why do you even ask? Any explanations or evidence we could give you would be based on facts and techniques that you refuse to accept.

You know perfectly well that evolution and old Earth geology are better evidenced than the biblical mythology you keep falling back on, but you don't really rely on evidence, do you?

Furthermore, the Bible itself says there are things hard to understand. I am not playing games with what the Bible says. From what it says, yes, I choose to believe it. My belief may differ from what some others believe. I don't believe God is a trinity, or that hellfire is waiting for the "unsaved." Simply no proof of the continuance by natural selection of the different clads forming. If you'd like to provide the test results rather than surmising I'm willing to look. Thanks.

You may look, but you won't accept anything not congruent with your theology. You accept the Bible on blind faith, with scant evidence. You keep asking for biological or paleontological evidence, but don't accept it when given.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please stop it, YT. You're making baseless claims again. Calling something subjective or conjecture does not make it so. We've explained how science works; how it's based on objective evidence, but even these basic principles seem to be completely lost on you.

Nevertheless, have you shown that it's verifiably (testably) true? I don't think so. That you say you've said it before, etc., can you please provide the tests that were performed again? Shouldn't take you too long to at least provide a link. I surely hope you won't say that the Urey Miller experiment is proof/evidence/certainty that evolution happened, particularly survival of the fittest or natural selection. Thanks. (Because it isn't.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Please stop it, YT. You're making baseless claims again. Calling something subjective or conjecture does not make it so. We've explained how science works; how it's based on objective evidence, but even these basic principles seem to be completely lost on you.

But you won't accept evidence. The facts are just too dissonant; your religious mythology too comfortable. If nothing we could offer you would shake your faith, why do you even ask? Any explanations or evidence we could give you would be based on facts and techniques that you refuse to accept.

You know perfectly well that evolution and old Earth geology are better evidenced than the biblical mythology you keep falling back on, but you don't really rely on evidence, do you?


You may look, but you won't accept anything not congruent with your theology. You accept the Bible on blind faith, with scant evidence. You keep asking for biological or paleontological evidence, but don't accept it when given.

The part about being better than what the Bible says, nope, sorry. Maybe I'm just one of the ones that the "medicine" worked for. But unless you see it, it's going to stay as it is. (No proof anyway.) It's almost like tests with medicines. percentages are taken from tests. Some work; some don't. But doctors prescribe them anyway. Really not knowing if it will benefit the patient, taking a chance. And then there are the placebos. That can 'work' sometimes just as well as the pharmaceuticals. (So much for testing.)
As I said, keeping out the spectre of a Creator, the only thing keeping evolution alive right now is the presumption/assumption/figuring that humans are in the ape family coming from previous forms, and that somehow it is speculated (yes, speculated) that there is an "Unknown Common Ancestor." Speculated because there is no proof, no fossils of any sort showing distinct connection between the types. Doesn't matter than some water dwellers flop around on land. This does not prove evolution. It obviously may lead some people to believe it means evolution, but it's actually worse than pharmaceutical testing. At least those are tests with percentages taken as to effectiveness.
You can keep saying what you will without proof or providing tests, but that does not mean evolution is how it all happened. Now of course, if evolution isn't the answer or reason or way it all happened, then of course we go back to S. Hawking who figured well, if it isn't God (and I don't blame him because I have sympathy for him) then it must be "natural means," or physics, etc. however he figured it must have (might have) happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please stop it, YT. You're making baseless claims again. Calling something subjective or conjecture does not make it so. We've explained how science works; how it's based on objective evidence, but even these basic principles seem to be completely lost on you.

But you won't accept evidence. The facts are just too dissonant; your religious mythology too comfortable. If nothing we could offer you would shake your faith, why do you even ask? Any explanations or evidence we could give you would be based on facts and techniques that you refuse to accept.

You know perfectly well that evolution and old Earth geology are better evidenced than the biblical mythology you keep falling back on, but you don't really rely on evidence, do you?


You may look, but you won't accept anything not congruent with your theology. You accept the Bible on blind faith, with scant evidence. You keep asking for biological or paleontological evidence, but don't accept it when given.

I will say this, but it does not nullify what the Bible says. There are masses of people with religion. And they fight and kill one another. So just like someone said God "met" Moses in the wilderness, also Abraham and others, He does not reach everybody's heart, or mind, that's for sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please stop it, YT. You're making baseless claims again. Calling something subjective or conjecture does not make it so. We've explained how science works; how it's based on objective evidence, but even these basic principles seem to be completely lost on you.

But you won't accept evidence. The facts are just too dissonant; your religious mythology too comfortable. If nothing we could offer you would shake your faith, why do you even ask? Any explanations or evidence we could give you would be based on facts and techniques that you refuse to accept.

You know perfectly well that evolution and old Earth geology are better evidenced than the biblical mythology you keep falling back on, but you don't really rely on evidence, do you?


You may look, but you won't accept anything not congruent with your theology. You accept the Bible on blind faith, with scant evidence. You keep asking for biological or paleontological evidence, but don't accept it when given.

In other words, you won't provide even one test, even though it's been vouched that tests prove evolution, is that right? C'mon, just one link to a test that proves evolution, ok? And I'm not talking about beaks changing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nevertheless, have you shown that it's verifiably (testably) true? I don't think so. That you say you've said it before, etc., can you please provide the tests that were performed again? Shouldn't take you too long to at least provide a link. I surely hope you won't say that the Urey Miller experiment is proof/evidence/certainty that evolution happened, particularly survival of the fittest or natural selection. Thanks. (Because it isn't.)

Nothing is "verifiably true". There always could be a crazy exception to almost anything. Theories are tested by them making predictions. If the predictions fail it can very often refute a theory. If the prediction is fulfilled it does not "prove" the theory, but is strong evidence for it.

And no, the Miller Urey experiment is not proof or even evidence for evolution. It is evidence for abiogenesis. If you do not understand why or worse deny it that only tells us that you still do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, you won't provide even one test, even though it's been vouched that tests prove evolution, is that right? C'mon, just one link to a test that proves evolution, ok? And I'm not talking about beaks changing.

How many times do you need to be told that there are no "proofs" in science? There is only evidence. We can give you tests that confirm evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The part about being better than what the Bible says, nope, sorry. Maybe I'm just one of the ones that the "medicine" worked for. But unless you see it, it's going to stay as it is. (No proof anyway.) It's almost like tests with medicines. percentages are taken from tests. Some work; some don't. But doctors prescribe them anyway. Really not knowing if it will benefit the patient, taking a chance. And then there are the placebos. That can 'work' sometimes just as well as the pharmaceuticals. (So much for testing.)
As I said, keeping out the spectre of a Creator, the only thing keeping evolution alive right now is the presumption/assumption/figuring that humans are in the ape family coming from previous forms, and that somehow it is speculated (yes, speculated) that there is an "Unknown Common Ancestor." Speculated because there is no proof, no fossils of any sort showing distinct connection between the types. Doesn't matter than some water dwellers flop around on land. This does not prove evolution. It obviously may lead some people to believe it means evolution, but it's actually worse than pharmaceutical testing. At least those are tests with percentages taken as to effectiveness.
You can keep saying what you will without proof or providing tests, but that does not mean evolution is how it all happened. Now of course, if evolution isn't the answer or reason or way it all happened, then of course we go back to S. Hawking who figured well, if it isn't God (and I don't blame him because I have sympathy for him) then it must be "natural means," or physics, etc. however he figured it must have (might have) happened.

Wow, you still do not understand even the basics of science. How is that possible? Quite a few people have explained this to you countless times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please stop it, YT. You're making baseless claims again. Calling something subjective or conjecture does not make it so. We've explained how science works; how it's based on objective evidence, but even these basic principles seem to be completely lost on you.

But you won't accept evidence. The facts are just too dissonant; your religious mythology too comfortable. If nothing we could offer you would shake your faith, why do you even ask? Any explanations or evidence we could give you would be based on facts and techniques that you refuse to accept.

You know perfectly well that evolution and old Earth geology are better evidenced than the biblical mythology you keep falling back on, but you don't really rely on evidence, do you?


You may look, but you won't accept anything not congruent with your theology. You accept the Bible on blind faith, with scant evidence. You keep asking for biological or paleontological evidence, but don't accept it when given.

It's like an enduring game. No amount of evidence and reason will suffice, but please keep presenting it while denial is continued. Show tests when there is no indication that evidence will be understood or sincerely reviewed.

I got tired of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How many times do you need to be told that there are no "proofs" in science? There is only evidence. We can give you tests that confirm evidence.

Fish are still fish. And On the Hook Fish and Chips rules! That's the test. If fish were not still fish, it would be chicken and chips. It's conclusive and undeniable. I said so.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's like an enduring game. No amount of evidence and reason will suffice, but please keep presenting it while denial is continued. Show tests when there is no indication that evidence will be understood or sincerely reviewed.

I got tired of it.

OK, but where are the tests that prove/demonstrate/evidence/manifest the process of evolution by natural selection?

 

[YoursTrue]

Fish are still fish. And On the Hook Fish and Chips rules! That's the test. If fish were not still fish, it would be chicken and chips. It's conclusive and undeniable. I said so.

Right...and so please tell me that you're eating fish when you're eating chips. Oh, wait, maybe the fish came after the chips. But ok, you're tired. I'm not because -- whether a person believes in God or not, there are serious, serious questions regarding the theory of evolution and its mechanisms. Serious questions. Guess what? I don't think anyone ever will be able to answer them. But that's me. Maybe who knows? Maybe someday they will be able to. Who knows? Some may figure that there is life on other planets, who knows -- maybe something "evolved" with life on a star -- why not? (Too hot?) have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fish are still fish. And On the Hook Fish and Chips rules! That's the test. If fish were not still fish, it would be chicken and chips. It's conclusive and undeniable. I said so.

you might be able to air dry fish and make them resemble chips. Who knows? There's another possible business if it hasn't already been discovered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, but where are the tests that prove/demonstrate/evidence/manifest the process of evolution by natural selection?

You have been given at least a few of them? Why didn't you ask questions about them then?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

given that one cannot automatically gain salvation if there is a God, ie if you don't believe you cannot be saved. if it turns out Christians are right, given the large amount of historical evidence supporting Christianity as being true, what is next for you?

Christianity isn't correct. If life on earth was intelligently designed, it was done so by somebody trying to deceive man into believing evolution by inserting the evidence that supports the theory into the ground and genomes, which is not a reasonable doubt - merely a logically possible albeit incredibly unlikely one. Also, even if that happened, even if the theory were falsified tomorrow and the paradigm evolve to a deceptive intelligent designer, a race of naturalistic extraterrestrials would be a more likely explanation than a supernatural god or gods.

I realize that you have already rejected that out of hand without consideration or counterargument, and so you go on expecting Jesus to greet you in heaven after death, but others can know that you are mistaken and don't feel threatened by this god or its alleged hell. That's for you and others who can't help it to fear. That's meant to keep you believing until death, and it's going to work, but a little thought and skepticism would have liberated you.

• "To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

Are you content as a person who aims to progress in life, to spend time making a life for yourself only to lose it ...ie when you die its kaput?

Sure. You're not, but it doesn't change your fate. It doesn't matter if you reject the possibility of the extinction of consciousness at death. If it's how it is, then that's your fate as well. And if there is an afterlife, you don't know that and don't know anything about what it would be like. You also don't know that you are just guessing, and guessing incorrectly.

As far as I see it,
if Christians are wrong, we end up the same as you...so what is there to lose exactly?

Thousands of hours (Bible reading, praying, in church) and tens or thousands of dollars in tithes. Many are kept in a juvenile state (magical thinking) and ignorant in service of faith (anti-science, anti-university, anti-critical thinking). Some will have children they don't really want because it's expected in Christian culture, which comes at a great cost in terms of dollars and lost opportunity.

When applied to this topic, it means most atheists cannot bring themselves to put in the effort...they are too lazy to study the issues, instead relying on muttonhead answers like "oh this is Pascal's Wager"...not realising that said criticism does not actually resolve the underlying dilemma!

We face no dilemma. That's in your mind.

Regardless of how the diagram is formulated, it's conjecture.

It's much more than that. It's fact. The theory is correct, and primate evolution as charted is also correct. For somebody unaware of the evidence and how to interpret it, it's all a guess.

The evidence held within the diagram is put together subjectively. It is without proof. Whether you do or don't believe in a Creator is not the question. The diagram is simple conjecture.

Since when is conjecture a problem for a believer? What you call conjecture in science meets your criteria for belief, so what's your objection? You could believe the science just as easily as the theology using the same method.

what the Bible says. From what it says, yes, I choose to believe it.

That's what I'm talking about. You're willing and able to choose what you will believe including biblical conjecture. The critical thinker is not.

Many people now who don't know the Bible that well are realizing things are not getting better. Just as it has been foretold.

Biblical prophecy is not evidence of transhuman understanding, so any foretelling in it is pretty meaningless regarding claims of it being of divine provenance. Also, never in history have so many people lived so well.

Did you say that you are Jehovah's Witness? I ask, because the last time they and I spoke, that's what they opened with when they came to the door - some variation of the world going to hell in a basket. They seemed shocked when I disagreed, and left, as if they had never heard that response and felt defeated by it. Their religion seems to be predicated on the belief that the world is broken and about to end. Other denominations also accept the idea of the world being wicked and slated for apocalyptic destruction, but I doubt that their proselytizers would walk away from somebody who disagreed about the state of the world.

where's the testing you say supports the diagram?

No testing is possible or necessary, just observation. Accumulated morphological and biochemical data confirms the accuracy of the diagram.