The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody knows what causes gravity. But you not only know what causes "evolution" but you know that behavior and consciousness are irrelevant to it. You know consciousness is irrelevant even though you don't know the nature of consciousness nor its cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Homo omisciencis is a remarkable creature. You not only know what's real (evolution) but you know what's not real (everything else) and you know because Darwin assumed populations remained steady and because Peers are the 7th step of the scientific method. You even know I'm rude because you keep insulting me, belittling me, and insulting my intelligence. You know I won't speak on the subject because the subject is the infallibility of Peers who know change in species must be caused by survival of the fittest and I keep taking about everything else.

None of this seems in the least bit odd to you.

Well not quite. We know what causes it, we do not know why. But yes, we do know what causes evolution. After all there is more evidence for evolution so perhaps we should know more.

Some things are not that hard to test in the real world. We know that a rock will fall if it is dropped. We know that life is the product of evolution. Why? Because we can test and confirm those ideas. There is a cool word for the process of learning by observing and testing. It is called science.

By the way, strawman arguments are not only rude, they are less than honest. They are not a proper debating technique.

Where have I ever insulted you? Or belittled you? I have pointed out your mistakes and errors and how you demonstrate that you do not know what your pretend to know. All of those are corrections. I would not be so rude to argue against Christianity by telling Christians that "You believe nailing a guy to a magic tree will keep you alive forever". That is about how bad your mischaracterizations of scientific discoveries have been. It does no good to misstate a case so poorly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. People deny the existence of God. Almost nobody denies the existence of science or the importance of experiment. What is being denied is the belief life mustta sprung from chemicals and evolved into the biosphere by the process of "evolution". What is being denied is your denial of facts and logic.

Very few people "deny the existence of God" and the theory of evolution has nothing to do with that. Most atheists point out that the burden of proof has not been met by those that believe in God. That is not the same as saying that God does not exist. Or specific versions of God have been refuted. That does not refute all versions of God.

By the way, moving the goal posts is another admission of defeat by you. Abiogenesis is a related but different topic than evolution. And I have never denied any facts or logic. You appear to be projecting again. That is the "sin" of the creationist.

 

[F1fan]

No!!! This is a belief of scientism.

Well it's your belief that there is voting in science, so you are the Scientismist.

I don't know how many thousands of times I've said experiment underlies ALL real science and "peer review" is NOT a part of the a scientific method. Peer review is irrelevant to reality and irrelevant to experiment.

Peer review is not part of the rules of experimentation. But it is a useful tool to make sure the results of experiments are accurate. Are you opposed to accuracy in science?

"Peers" are by definition the group of individual who all share the same assumptions.

And in science what assumptions are these? And after you list them, explain how they cause inaccurate results. Use facts.

Of course there is; BY DEFINITION. Reality is perceived through one's beliefs and all Peers share one belief.

If you think you are the sexiest man alive, every time you look at yourself in a mirror you will convince yourself you're correct. But scientists know they need to demonstrate they are the sexiest. They approach all questions about nature this way, that a question or prediction needs to be demonstrated, and in an objective way if they want to keep their job.

This is why you are no scientist, you have decided what you think the truth is, with no tests in reality.

Anything tjhat lies outside of their beliefs can't even be considered even when I point out that ALLKNOWN CHANGE IN SPECIES OCCURRED SUDDENLY AS A RESULT OF BEHAVIOR. It is outside the belief in "evolution" so they can't see the bolded letters.

The odd thing you keep talking about your own faults but trying to impose it on scientists. And apparently you aren't self-aware of this. Your beliefs are your failure. You offer no facts and data, just your belief. And you're who? Why do we care what you believe?

 

[rational experiences]

What I didn’t say in my last reply, is that observations are more than just “seeing”.

The observations of evidence include quantitative measures, measuring, comparing evidence against each other, studying the properties of evidence, and any other testing that can be done. These types of observations provide the necessary data (information) about the evidence.

Experiments are confined in the labs, in a controlled environment. But sciences deal with studying the real world, and as pointed out to you in post 1184, not every evidence can be achieve through lab experiments, such as his examples with astronomy and paleontology, where evidence must be discovered.

You are trying to limited sciences to experiments.

What you don’t understand that lab experiments are observations too.

And you are wrong about Abiogenesis about there being no experiments done.

Lab experiments have already been done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952 (which I have already mentioned in my last reply to you), Joan Oró in 1961 with using number of chemicals to form adenine (one of nucleotide bases in nucleic acids). There were also more recent experiments using different chemicals than Miller-Urey experiment, like experiments by Jim Cleaves and Jeffrey Bada.

But like I said, evidence aren’t confined in the lab, such as findings of whole bunch of organic matters from the Murchison meteorite in 1969, including 60 different types of amino acids, of which 17 of them that can form into known proteins.

Your ignorance is assuming that only lab experiments are evidence used in sciences. It the most blatant mistakes that you have made, based on false assumption and false interpretation of what “observation” mean.

Your ignorance is also forgetting that experiments are also observations!

Yet humans by human choice apply the manipulation via physical applications of human choice based on pre owned natural bodies they already studied.

All science really proved was that creation had been released from the exact same place humans had.

And our bio water chemistry inside O standing on a planet in its heavens said so.

We own life after all body masses exist owning their own bodies. A meteor ends its body presence as the meteor.

If a human says after space filled in by gases and water I own life it does not equate to your thesis.

If we said all creative bodies were released from a previous preceding body then it would prove it had.

We state we came across as an eternal spirit human self pre formed image owned body only after earths heavens had filled in its spatial plane.

Creation was pre formed pre owned. We inherited what creation had already created.

 

[F1fan]

Of course I might be mistaken. There are a virtually infinite number of ways and reasons I might be wrong.

Infinite is an accurate number of how many things you are wrong about.

But nobody doubts that "Evolution" is exactly as is believed.

Educated people don't believe in evolution, it's not like religion. What educated people is accept that there have been hundreds of thousands of experiments that have met the minimum standard of 99.95% that evolution is a real phenomenon that explains the diversity of life on the planet. That is an exceptional success rate.

And here you have it. Your belief in scientism shines brightly in this question. ALL PROGRESS MUST COME FROM PEERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE RIGHT.

The peers are experts in biology. Do you have credentials that exceed these experts in biology? If not why should I listen to you?

Have you considered the possibility that so many experts agree on the results of science because it's correct? Of course that would make you wrong, and you've already admitted you could be incredibly wrong. My bet is on experts with credentials.

My contention is all peers are wrong because they have faulty assumptions which I've already listed numerous times but6 you can't see.

And I suggest you are wrong because your claims are assumed, and inaccurate. After all, you're on an internet forum, not a university. Who are you, again? Why should we listen to you over tens of thousands of experts in biology who you insist are wrong?

 

[F1fan]

Now believers in science can tell me how they know I'm wrong.

Do you doubt science exists?

And you have to demonstrate your claims are true. You can't ignore results in science, then throw out a lot of your unverifiable beliefs, and then expect others to show it's false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you doubt science exists?

And you have to demonstrate your claims are true. You can't ignore results in science, then throw out a lot of your unverifiable beliefs, and then expect others to show it's false.

Sorry, but we cheat. We demand that people use scientific evidence instead of rhetoric.

 

[YoursTrue]

Infinite is an accurate number of how many things you are wrong about.


Educated people don't believe in evolution, it's not like religion. What educated people is accept that there have been hundreds of thousands of experiments that have met the minimum standard of 99.95% that evolution is a real phenomenon that explains the diversity of life on the planet.

Really? Minimum standard of 99.95%? who set that? experiments that met the minimum standard, what's the minimum standard? (minimum standard?)

 

[F1fan]

Really? Minimum standard of 99.95%? who set that? experiments that met the minimum standard, what's the minimum standard? (minimum standard?)

So you're admitting to being poorly educated on science.

Why admit this in public instead of looking up the answer yourself?

 

[rational experiences]

Everyone is a human living in the one same human condition first.

Science a human practice is chosen.

To apply any study to pose theories.

Yet the whole time you are just a human.

You data state one body. You data state another body. You choose to do all comparisons. You make up the belief story as just a human.

Then pose it as science by human told stories. Which once was stated to be false preaching.

Reasoning a human scientist does not own natural presences by thinking upon it or about it. As thought concepts.

Groups choose the preaching status. Groups enforce the preaching status. If you don't apply to group consensus as just humans the group mocks you.

Sounds like human behaviour actually.

Natural never needed your opinion as you compare all natural bodies you look at and then infer the reasoning.

A non human is in fact sperm and an ovary as correctly termed human science studies. Form before a human life.

Science says a no....a non human...

A monkeys body type as it's closest know advice by human study. As physical medical applied reasoning. Or
An alien to microbe or bacterias via radiation inferences. Plus evolution.

Egotism wanting human status to claim my story is better than yours.

When a human did not exist human consciousness also did not exist is not rationalised.

Hence humans had to teach self presence is human conscious reality.

In that determined advice a human had to claim the following....

O earth as a pre formed planet existed.
It's heavenly body existed.

Mass heavens water oxygenated body what humans live within. Claiming the creator forms that had pre existed in creation supporting human life.

Was just basic human advice.

God status hence over ruled human theists. Basic advice you cannot theory about non human presence otherwise consciously you are considering by human conditions to cause it.

Was. Scientific proven human fact. To discuss anti terminologies.

Such as for a human to be compared to a monkey you infer a human is the monkey.

Science was told to accept that you are just a human for human survival rationally.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, but we cheat. We demand that people use scientific evidence instead of rhetoric.

Pesky facts, it lacks so much passion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Minimum standard of 99.95%? who set that? experiments that met the minimum standard, what's the minimum standard? (minimum standard?)

That is more of a physics standard, but the theory of evolution meets it:

5 Sigma What's That?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you're admitting to being poorly educated on science.

Why admit this in public instead of looking up the answer yourself?

If one is uneducated in a topic one can't help but give oneself away.

And of course we can never forget that Dunning Kruger is a very real thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Infinite is an accurate number of how many things you are wrong about.


Educated people don't believe in evolution, it's not like religion. What educated people is accept that there have been hundreds of thousands of experiments that have met the minimum standard of 99.95% that evolution is a real phenomenon that explains the diversity of life on the planet. That is an exceptional success rate.




The peers are experts in biology. Do you have credentials that exceed these experts in biology? If not why should I listen to you?

Have you considered the possibility that so many experts agree on the results of science because it's correct? Of course that would make you wrong, and you've already admitted you could be incredibly wrong. My bet is on experts with credentials.

Evolutionists usually graphically explain in publications that humans descended (ascended?) from gorilla/monkey looking type animals. And that's where that lineage seems to stop. With humans. At least so far.
zallinger_opener.jpg (645×430) (yalealumnimagazine.com)

 

[YoursTrue]

So you're admitting to being poorly educated on science.

Why admit this in public instead of looking up the answer yourself?

In other words, you have no substantiation for your comment except to insult me. OK. (thanks, that kind of fits the mode here...) You've proved it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists usually graphically explain in publications that humans descended (ascended?) from gorilla/monkey looking type animals. And that's where that lineage seems to stop. With humans. At least so far.
zallinger_opener.jpg (645×430) (yalealumnimagazine.com)

That is merely an artists rendition. It is far too simple. Of course the lineage "stops" here. Scientists cannot see into the future.

 

[YoursTrue]

Infinite is an accurate number of how many things you are wrong about.


Educated people don't believe in evolution, it's not like religion. What educated people is accept that there have been hundreds of thousands of experiments that have met the minimum standard of 99.95% that evolution is a real phenomenon that explains the diversity of life on the planet. That is an exceptional success rate.




The peers are experts in biology. Do you have credentials that exceed these experts in biology? If not why should I listen to you?

Have you considered the possibility that so many experts agree on the results of science because it's correct? Of course that would make you wrong, and you've already admitted you could be incredibly wrong. My bet is on experts with credentials.


And I suggest you are wrong because your claims are assumed, and inaccurate. After all, you're on an internet forum, not a university. Who are you, again? Why should we listen to you over tens of thousands of experts in biology who you insist are wrong?

Have they found fossils of the "missing link" (or UCA) of humans/bonobos/gorillas/chimpanzees, etc.?

 

[rational experiences]

Science is only stated by humans living as humans for humans.

Mockery not a human involved in the group belief the owned human coercive response.

Human known. Human warned before involving the scientific machine reasoned theisms used that destroys sacrifices life.

Reason to own status theism by group status to be owner correct is intentional in fact is only about machine theories only.

To argue.

Water oxygen microbiology is natural within water and our bio mainly human water bodies water also. What is in water mass is inside out bodies also.

Science studied by humans.

Science is abstract by human reasoning. Is not human by intent in other words. The terms of science.

Only medical human DNA advice is exact for human intent human life.

Science hence says my mockery says humans today are monkeys by my scientific data. All science inferred.

By humans making the claim. Science ends at the monkey.

Intent I own machine using your bio heavens changing it. Intent in the past where science theories a human in the past is a monkey.

He takes gods ground mass in presence converts it into a gas status...presence removed. As if life is standing in the gas heavens on the ground by science thesis.

Hitler. Said after bible God preaching only blonde hair blue eyed man is acceptable.

Looking for gods powers I will destroy you all. By inferred Jew. As El gods power had sacrificed earth crystalline mass and human DNA. The jewEL.

As man in bible by highest holiest in gods image is cloud white man image in blue sky eye sun thesis as highest God surviving man.

Just a man body image in clouds after a ground mass nuclear reaction. As in fact the state image was encoded into heavens by an ancient origin sun blasting of all bodies in space. Nuclear conversion origins

Scientific theism is cosmic origins is only for machines.

Biblical science stated. Man's form To be with God at the end.

Satanic ist...
Science all ists used by human groups

Knowledge all changed converted bodies. The ist human chosen studies advice. All once higher earth forms gone with dead bones.

Life lives owning living bones with bio flesh human.

They theory against us. The human state science choices.

Science looks at the past. Takes God now presence matter converts it into a past state that it never owned a gas.

Science copying gas heavens take God earth into gas. Is not any past thesis it is an applied conversion now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have they found fossils of the "missing link" (or UCA) of humans/bonobos/gorillas/chimpanzees, etc.?

Define what you mean by the "missing link".

That is a rather worthless terms that only creationists use today. Has the evolution of man "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"? Yes, it has been.

 

[F1fan]

Evolutionists usually graphically explain in publications that humans descended (ascended?) from gorilla/monkey looking type animals. And that's where that lineage seems to stop. With humans. At least so far.
zallinger_opener.jpg (645×430) (yalealumnimagazine.com)

Looking at pictures isn't going to sufficiently inform you about the evolution of humans. I suggest you do more study. You've already admitted you lack basic understanding of science, so you have a severe deficit of knowledge. Should you be debating this issue?