Proof of evolution -at last-

[YoursTrue]

Evolution stands to our observances and just plain old common sense in that all material things appear to change over time and life forms are material things.

Going back to chimps again...

 

[YoursTrue]

I also find it deceiving on how so called "Scientists" will make statements that Arti and Lucy is the final fact that humans evolved from hominids. Especially when they dont tell you the "400 discovered fossil specimens" of Ardipithecus are mostly 400 scraps of teeth and bones which they sell as 400 specimens.
They do not tell you the pelvis of Lucy were so crumbled up, and chalky mush, and when these so called "Scientists reconstructed the pelvis, they used 80% imagination to come to the conclusion that Australopiticus walked upright.
They dont tell you that the backbone, and forelimbs shows this not to me true.
They MADE feet of Ardi and Lucy, EXACTLY THE SAME AS HUMAN FEET, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT.
the Laetoli footprints of MODERN HUMAN feet, were just assumed to be that of these extinct apes, whilst there is silence on the fact that these prints are hundreds of miles away from the skeletons discovered by paleontologists.
If you were to listen to these "Scientists" one will think they have silid evidence that man evolved from an early hominid ape like creature, and their published papers and books are so overwelmingly written as to believe it is a proven fact, that anyone can be deceived in believing what they write.
However, when creationist scientists also investigate on these claims, and show these lies and deceit, the evolutionists have only one answer.

Creatinists are not real Scientists!
Wou dont find these evolutionists explaining why they deceived and lied, nope.
they only take a position of authority, and damn any evidence against their claims.

From my side, I do watch evolutionists' videos, and I do the same with what creationists scientists show.

I find it hilarious that the evolutionists nev3er answer the observations on creationists, but simply attack and ignore them.

Thats why I also do not accept evolution.
It is a religion with no evidence.
It is a religion where evolutionists think their children are more human, and their parents more ape, than they.

Interesting point about human predecessors. Like parents closer to?? Gorillas? Bonobos? etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution stands to our observances and just plain old common sense in that all material things appear to change over time and life forms are material things.

I used to believe that about evolution. I no longer do.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing proves the Earth is round or that germs cause disease, either. Do you disbelieve these theories, as well?
If you believed only what was proven, rather than what was well evidenced, your mind would be blank.

Q: Is there more evidence for the claims of the Bible, or the claims of biologists?

Nobody ever gets proof of anything outside of mathematics, so why do you keep bringing up proof? Scientists aren't looking for proof, they're looking for evidence. People believe what's evidenced, not what's proven.

You seem to be talking about abiogenisis and chemical evolution, here. This is an entirely different field from biological evolution.

It doesn't matter any more what some say about the disconnect between evolution and abiogenesis. You can't possibly believe evolution without looking at the start of so-called life on earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

This seems like sour grapes to me.

Did you make claims in that other thread that were shown with evidence to be factually in error?

Did you not admit that you did not know if Darwin held the belief you claim was his basis for formulating a theory of evolution?

Did you claim that the theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin was intended to explain the origin of life?

Where in the theory does this claim of origins come up?

Why would you knowingly include factual errors as the basis for your claims?

What do you think is the point of attacking a man 140 years dead if you do not think of him as some sort of prophet to what you dismiss without regard as a religion?

Did you establish that Darwin is the sole basis for the theory of evolution and attacking him would topple a theory over which progress has moved beyond Darwin in science?

Do you think that reporting quotes out of context is a valid means to rebut science?

You did not just report your beliefs in that thread. You made claims that demand your support and lead to valid and reasonable questioning by others. That your claims did not hold up is not the fault of those pointing out their flaws.

 

[gnostic]

Maybe I didn't understand something. The OP was right! In other words, nothing proves evolution. (Thanks.)

And in all the years that you have been here, you still haven’t learned your repeated errors that PROOFS aren’t the same as EVIDENCE.

Sciences don’t “PROVE” any hypothesis or theory, they “TEST” the hypothesis or theory with observations of evidence or observations within experiments.

Proof is only a LOGICAL STATEMENT or LOGICAL MODEL, often expressed in the forms of mathematical “equation” or “set of equations”.

The terms “proof” and “prove” are mathematical terminology which can be used as parts of the explanations or parts of the predictions within a hypothesis or a theory, but mathematical equations (thus proofs) are not themselves evidence. Equations aren’t true, until they are tested using evidence.

When you ask people “to prove” some things, you would’ve trying to solve equation or the set of equations. Proving the equations, may involved some works of solving equations, through -

• simplifying the equation,
• unifying a set of equations into a single larger or small equation (depending on its purpose),
• or breaking down a single complex equation into a set of multiple smaller, manageable equations
• Etc

The following examples are proofs expressed in forms of mathematical equations:

The equation in Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation...

F = G (m1 m2) / r ^2​

...that’s what a mathematical proof looks like, it’s not evidence.

There are whole bunch of equations in Newton’s Laws of Motion (eg 2nd Law: F = m a), these equations are proofs, but they are not evidence.

Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence equation in Special Relativity (E = m c^2) is proof, it’s not evidence.

There are 10 equations in Einstein’s General Relativity, called Einstein’s field equations, like this one...

...they are all proofs, they are not evidence.

Ohm’s Law (I = V R) is proof, not evidence.​

I can go on, but you should get the picture as to what mathematical proofs are.

None of these equations (proofs) are true scientifically, unless you can support each one of them with physical evidence or with experiments.

Evidence are often physical, which can be observed or detected, and they should provide information (eg DATA) about them, data like -

• measurements of dimensions (eg length, width, etc),
• using those dimensions to calculate area, volume,
• measure their masses and densities,
• detect & measure electric current or voltage using multimeters,
• using oscilloscope to detect & measure electromagnetic waves like frequencies & wavelengths,
• measuring the speed of object, using speed camera, or back in the old days, calculate velocity and acceleration, by measuring the distance travel and using stop watch to measure time it took for object to travel that distance,
• you can take pictures of evidence or record every evidence on video, those pictures and videos would be themselves “evidence” & “data”.
• etc,

Like I said evidence should provide observations and information of the physical phenomena.

And those evidence and data are, what are used to test a hypothesis or theory, not mathematical equations. The evidence and data should either verify or refute a new hypothesis or current theory.

In fact evidence and data can be used to test equations (mathematical proofs), so evidence can actually be use to verify or refute the equations/proofs.

To give you an example of what are evidence in biology: autopsy of someone who had recently died. You can do an external examinations (which is normally the first step in any medical examination) or you can open the person up. Every measurements taken, every photos & every x-ray taken, every test done on blood or parts on the body (eg DNA tests, tox screen, alcohol levels, drug tests, fingerprints, teeth X-ray, etc) are all evidence and data to identify the person or identify how the person died (cause of death, eg natural cause, diseases, drug overdose, accidental death, murder, etc).

If it was homicide, you should again, be able to find evidence, like bullets, wounds from blade, blunt force weapons, poison, strangulation, etc.

Then there are other ways to identify who that person is, such as person may have driver’s license, passport, hospital records, tax records, criminal records, qualifications, etc, are all evidence and these will have information (data) about the person, like name, address, phone numbers, date & place of birth, etc.

Do I need to go on with list of evidence and data obtained from evidence or tests?

Like Neuropteron, you don’t understand the difference between proof and evidence, between proving and testing. They are not the same things (especially for scientists and mathematicians), and until you and Neuropteron learn the differences, you are both science-illiterate and maths-illiterate people.

So please, stop making the same mistakes over and over again, because confusion and stubborn ignorance are not a pretty sight.

 

[Valjean]

When planes travel "around" the earth, I don't think the pilot sees a flat earth. But perhaps you can explain about rotation. Maybe the moon is flat too in your opinion? Does the Moon Rotate?.

Huh?

 

[YoursTrue]

Huh?

lol -- ok, the moon rotates, doesn't it? The earth rotates also, doesn't it? Maybe it doesn't, you think perhaps?

 

[YoursTrue]

This seems like sour grapes to me.

Did you make claims in that other thread that were shown with evidence to be factually in error?

Did you not admit that you did not know if Darwin held the belief you claim was his basis for formulating a theory of evolution?

Did you claim that the theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin was intended to explain the origin of life?

Where in the theory does this claim of origins come up?

Why would you knowingly include factual errors as the basis for your claims?

What do you think is the point of attacking a man 140 years dead if you do not think of him as some sort of prophet to what you dismiss without regard as a religion?

Did you establish that Darwin is the sole basis for the theory of evolution and attacking him would topple a theory over which progress has moved beyond Darwin in science?
-
Do you think that reporting quotes out of context is a valid means to rebut science?

You did not just report your beliefs in that thread. You made claims that demand your support and lead to valid and reasonable questioning by others. That your claims did not hold up is not the fault of those pointing out their flaws.

Poor Darwin--speaks from the grave maybe somehow. NOW I wonder - if those turtles unique to the Galapolis (however it's spelled) migrated to another area -- how might they turn out?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Poor Darwin--speaks from the grave maybe somehow. NOW I wonder - if those turtles unique to the Galapolis (however it's spelled) migrated to another area -- how might they turn out?

Probably end up like dead ducks

 

[rational experiences]

I recently posted a commentary titled "Darwin's Illusion".
Since I spoke more or less extemperaneously my comments reflected my sentiments rather than having the aspiration to be scientifically accurate in every way.

However, considering the small flood of "evidence" against my deliberations it seems I have to recant in shame and dishonor.

Thanks for the many comments that made clear to me that not being a biologist or a scientist of any description, and questioning the infallible opinions of scientists is a serious lack of diffidence.

Thus I apologise for having the audacity to doubt, even question, the holy grail of evolution and its prophet without having the necessary education and accreditation.

Additionally, I realise now how impious of me not to be content with the undeniable truth -as many replies pointed out- consisting of at least 30.000 to 6 millions textual proof for evolution.

I see now, how lacking the necessary humility compeled me to ask for an example of evidence, and understand clearly why no one was willing to offer such evidence, since I obviously would not have understood it, but also I should have realised the need to unquestionably follow the majority in the face of such grandiose and uncontestable truths.

Wait!
there was one commentator that obviously took pity with my dismal ignorance.
He boldly (boldly because he stand alone in this endeavor) offered a solid source of evidence concerning the discoverie of Archaeopteryx, a transition from dinosaurs to birds. The akward fact that this example was made redundant by a group of critiks who declared it a fraud is compensated by the fact that another more enlightend group contested this judgement.

Comments such as ...

"It astonishes me how anyone not living under a rock can be unaware of such a well supported, obvious, easily tested mechanism".
"Creationists, that have no clue when it comes to the sciences, do not count. You are listening to liars and idiots".
"Scientists have provided more than enough evidence for evolution".
"I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone".
"all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it".
You have to prove that evolution is wrong, evolution is true, so it doesn't have to prove anything (my interpretation of this last comments).

...have really made me see the light.
(my apologies for not including more similar and encouraging comments)

I understand now that I lacked reasoning power by proudly assuming that the onus of proof laid with scientist when in reality I was the one having to prove that evolution did not take place.

In the face of such an avalanche of "belief there is proof" and emotion for the support of evolution as for Darwing elegant launch to deconstruct the belief in a creator, I see no alternative but to bend to the wisdom of the multitude.
The masses might have been wrong during the flood, but it's just a myth, in real life the majority is alway right, right?

Your many comments made me appreciate the need to revaluate my allegiance and switch to unquestionably follow the teachings of scientists since they are so much smarter and educated than me. Judging by your comments dare I say even yourselves ?

The question I pose myself now is, should I follow science as a substiture for religion ?
Should I leave the narrow road I've been indoctrinated to walk on or rather follow the broad road with the rest of mainstream humanity?

Or alternatively, should I wait until evolution becomes actually a real science rather ...
than (as one -pro evolution- comment puts it)
"an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it" ?

Difficult question indeed.

In gas burning irradiation fall out birds by their masses drop dead from the skies.

Fish shoals burnt in the sea mass die.

Two water varied life.

Dead means the atmosphere supporting the life was removed.

A theist in scientific quotes imagines a dinosaur irradiated gas burnt suddenly transfers its body into a new bird. As cooling took away his hot gas massive water atmosphere humidity life.

Lots of water held in the atmosphere already.

In an atmosphere not supporting dinosaurs. The closest small lizards today cold blood that need to lay in the sun.

That's right animals eating food still in their mouth were snap frozen instant.

They shrunk he says.

So we ask him why do you want to be a human theist who says your human thoughts own all purposes why a dinosaur became a bird when youre not anywhere in the vision.

Bodily.
Consciously.
Thinking?

Real reason. Real motivation. I want awards. I want human notoriety. I want the term holy grail meaning why one body can remain historic alive whilst becoming a lesser body.

So you review his human life. Human memories. Human only owned reasons.

Hadn't that greater higher massed human biology human once lived itself now changed into a lesser being? Conscious your own memories...the human?

The real reason. How did you personally bodily survive a human caused technological attack by sciences on life itself!

When science had ended its practice also?

No he says not true. Even after human life witnessed it's attack science was rebuilt and reused.

Reason why. Memories in total all human.

Science knows it never owned any answers about why the life nature on earth changed.

Reasoned in every incident he theories he personally and bodily is not there. In the thesis he bodily would also be deceased. As the human scientist.

It's what his owned theist had to accept he only wanted to idealise he knew for human egotism.

 

[F1fan]

lol -- ok, the moon rotates, doesn't it? The earth rotates also, doesn't it? Maybe it doesn't, you think perhaps?

You do know that Valjean is more science literate than you, yes?

 

[rational experiences]

Going back to chimps again...

A chimp in a changed biology as a baby born by sex is then sick. The chimp. You don't see it becoming like a chimp as it becomes sick do you. It doesn't morph into another animal.

If a humans loses their chemical cell biology by water mass support they can look chimp like mutated sick as downs syndrome humans do.

As bone structure human can change Stephen Hawking warning.

Which proved modern life owns a modern life atmospheric support and a theist a human who imposes all studies can convert earths gas mass until humans all become chimp like.

Chimps just die sick.

Then not scientific intelligent you can't destroy life by non practice sciences so called self destructive wisdom. As your brain gets destroyed also.

Science says by science as science for science not a chimp.....a healthy human science can detail a human becoming a chimp. As science a human practice only caused it before.

Intelligent natural human memory says the scientist is confessing about what human science and technology caused before.

The scientist then takes the subject proven human evolved healed cell rerurned into another category so you won't realise he confessed he caused it in natural life after the ice age.

As human science began its repractice only after the ice age. As theists theism.

Rome knew this advice human science was only after the ice age existed. Why no dead theorising was allowed.

Already knew.
Already were advised.

Human social law abstracted itself from rich man's science controls.

Branches were groups who gained power by rich man's support only.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Poor Darwin--speaks from the grave maybe somehow. NOW I wonder - if those turtles unique to the Galapolis (however it's spelled) migrated to another area -- how might they turn out?

I have no idea what you are trying to say?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Poor Darwin--speaks from the grave maybe somehow. NOW I wonder - if those turtles unique to the Galapolis (however it's spelled) migrated to another area -- how might they turn out?

Attacking Darwin and making up refuted claims about him does nothing to the theory of evolution. He is not a high priest or prophet of some religion on whose image science rests.

At least that is what you appear to be supporting. Who knows?

 

[Ella S.]

It doesn't matter any more what some say about the disconnect between evolution and abiogenesis. You can't possibly believe evolution without looking at the start of so-called life on earth.

...why not? Abiogenesis is how life started, biological evolution is how life has changed and continues to change. I don't really see the necessary overlap here.

 

[Valjean]

lol -- ok, the moon rotates, doesn't it? The earth rotates also, doesn't it? Maybe it doesn't, you think perhaps?

??????????? -- Sorry, I'm missing your point.
Why do you believe the Earth and moon rotate? Was it written in ancient tomes, by authors who had no idea what the solar system even was, or did you conclude this from empirical evidence and reproducible observations?

You can't straddle the empirical fence. Pick one: Science or mythology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

lol -- ok, the moon rotates, doesn't it? The earth rotates also, doesn't it? Maybe it doesn't, you think perhaps?

I don't believe the moon is real. There is no proof.

 

[rational experiences]

...why not? Abiogenesis is how life started, biological evolution is how life has changed and continues to change. I don't really see the necessary overlap here.

Human life exists survives.

We get sick on and off during natural life. Sometimes physically bodily changed by illness yet survives.

If you thesis about developing attacked human health it certainly isn't evolution. Science said if evolution of a species real then it's survival is of its own species.

A bird compared to a changed bird.

If you see an ape baby get sick and die you don't claim it de evolved or genetic shifted did you?

Evolution in science mass his claim fusion is fusing as it cools into a denser mass.

His heavens thesis is opposite denser gases thin as space cools the gases as historic advice.

Evolution as two opposing theoried.

So earth lost gases to become dense mass as fused mass is a solid.

How to obtain an out of space solid thin out earths gas density.

How to thin density cool it by frozen ice.

Heat exchanges stop.

Man's heavens thesis dense is a hot dense state is not currently cold clouds heavens. Evolved clouds.

Science taught evolved clouds owned gods ground images only. And evolved clouds were holy as they had evolved...the state of a cloud only.

 

[SA Huguenot]

This is the one true thing you posted.

No wonder that evolutionists cant grasp simple facts, such as your quote .(it was not my words.)
I made it clear that in failure to use scientific scrutiny, the Evolutionist have only one argument to defend their religion.
let me assist you for I know that evolutionists believe they are more primitive than their children.
Evolutionists say: "Creationists are not scientists".
They completely ignore the fact that these creationists also have their PHD's etc.
They also ignore the fact that the scientist who dont believe in evolution, does not do so because of lack of evidence for creation, but because of scientific lack of evidence and bias mixed with immagination, and self worshipping narsiscism by evolutionists who dont hesitate to push the simplest fossil down our throats as evidence that higher intelligent life and IQ developed from simple unguided natural processes.
They will not hesitate to tell anyone that an extinct ape tooth, of scull, even if clearly not human, are humanoids and had human feet because we found human footprints 800 miles away from our ape scull.
Pure speculation.
Then we have creationists who point these falsifications out, and guess what they are accused off:...
Evolutionists force a position of authority upon evolutionary scientists, without any validation.
If perhaps you still dont understand what I mean, feel free to ask me for a better explanation on why I believe you did not understand what I wrote.
I will gladly assist.