What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[YoursTrue]

The science is not convincing only to the scientifically illiterate.

It convinces you that life just came about without a primary source of intelligence. (shrug.) It -- just -- happened that way by means of -- natural selection.

 

[F1fan]

Juries receive evidence. Sometimes the juries are prejudiced, sometimes the lawyers lie, sometimes the accused lies, and sometimes the jury makes the wrong decision, based on -- you guessed it --

Jurors can be unskilled thinkers. Scientists are trained to reason via evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jurors can be unskilled thinkers. Scientists are trained to reason via evidence.

Still, as you would probably say, no proof. The evidence is not proof. Some may claim it's proof, that it's true demonstrating evolution, but there is nothing to back it up literally as if it just happened. There are fossils. There are time elements. None of that is demonstrating that evolution by natural selection happened. It demonstrates that there were living organisms that are dead. The theory is conjecture, not insofar as chemistry or genetics, but as the theory of evolution goes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jurors can be unskilled thinkers. Scientists are trained to reason via evidence.

Viruses remain viruses no matter how many times they mutate. They still remain viruses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Juries receive evidence. Sometimes the juries are prejudiced, sometimes the lawyers lie, sometimes the accused lies, and sometimes the jury makes the wrong decision, based on -- you guessed it --

So what? Can you please stop making pointless and rather stupid arguments? The scientific method has a way to correct for such actions. How do you correct the endless errors in the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still, as you would probably say, no proof. The evidence is not proof. Some may claim it's proof, that it's true demonstrating evolution, but there is nothing to back it up literally as if it just happened. There are fossils. There are time elements. None of that is demonstrating that evolution by natural selection happened. It demonstrates that there were living organisms that are dead. The theory is conjecture, not insofar as chemistry or genetics, but as the theory of evolution goes.

but we do have evidence, in fact more than enough evidence for any rational,, please note the word "rational" jury to find that the Bible is not reliable when it comes to the sciences.

 

[rational experiences]

It's why you claim a theory of evolution.

Science versus science.

A man a theist is human is man.

Biology man says all evidence supports human biology and life only ever belonged on earth. Planet earth the human only argument. Theism.

Occult theists begin with false nothing from out of space themes not including earth in any consideration where they walk stand. As the human.

Reason.i.e. or j.e. a nose point is scrofia pig. Sus.

Reference old Sanskrit avedic nuclear lies. About three animal beast symbols.

As particular animals living with humans in their cities were attacked bodily too. Reason they stopped eating cows and pigs. Meat conditions plague worms. Witness cows phenomena deaths no organs blood or tongues etc. To say a cow is now a holy God...not man.

Real good reasons.

Expected cow life loss in modern day heavenly experiment. To become sick.

Just as themed now a woman is maths science all unholy abominated hateful men thoughts. Thoughts by men as men living a human a baby man human also.... mutual equal humans our one species Real evil terms.

Expectation you'll be cellular body removed to one only human cell..as I watch. Then my machine can own electricity.

Lucky father human man's many sex acts with human mother saved my life. But lots of babies health would now be missing. Not mother womb maths as a woman. Ignored.

That type of theist your brother a human was always. A theist the theist a human only argument by humans as humans.

You all seem to own mind problems to not recognise that circumstance arguing against yourself human.

 

[Heyo]

But that doesn't mean it's true. And if a person cannot admit that -- it's just something that is as it is right now.

That's science for you. Theories are never assumed as "the Truth™", that's only in religion.
The ToE is just the best (well, the only) model that explains the facts. When new facts are discovered, the theory is subject to change or dismissal.
Currently there simply is no alternative model (as shown in a different thread). And there are no facts contradicting the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? Can you please stop making pointless and rather stupid arguments? The scientific method has a way to correct for such actions. How do you correct the endless errors in the Bible?

I usually don't like to talk this way (like you talk), but your posits are perfectly dumb. Have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's science for you. Theories are never assumed as "the Truth™", that's only in religion.
The ToE is just the best (well, the only) model that explains the facts. When new facts are discovered, the theory is subject to change or dismissal.
Currently there simply is no alternative model (as shown in a different thread). And there are no facts contradicting the theory.

Alternative model such as what? The facts do contradict the theory. Because -- There are no facts that support the theory despite scientists trying to fit pieces in and make it true, and it's as if it were a game to put pieces of the puzzle in a frame with lots of unmatched pieces and parts that just aren't there at all. whatever if you say so. Have a good one. None of you have shown/proved/evidenced anything about life evolving from -- the possibility that a few molecules appeared and grew into various substances. The proof of no proof is absolute. It's not there. Fossils are there. Viruses are there. They are proof that they're there, unless you want to play the semantics game. But, like another poster implied, you weren't there before you were conceived.

 

[rational experiences]

I was told the Nuremberg trials stated no human experiments are allowed.

Seeing Rich men religious men were involved in illegal human experiments searching for gods power in a human genetics they claimed owned it historic. All human themed. In humans as humans being human.

Lying of course as all humans DNA is human DNA owned by humans. My DNA isn't owned by any other body. I own it.

No human no experiment no idea about data gathering as no human would be choosing to impose such evil lies. As no human exists when you explain the no human position.

When a human says no human in a heavens space only single celled microorganisms are there instead. In between humans walking around owning their human body.

Your choice as evil human men as humans state evil meaning is the choice only.

Did not have to make those choices says you have options in choice.

Hence asking a human owning life is total human. In a changed or changing body what they think. Is fake. Always by law the human.

In law a human is human as two human parents first then two human babies healthy or sick...human.

There never was a theory.

We argue I believe yet own no proof..
as you're just human only.

Lying a human condition.

No human owns why any type of mass exists anywhere created. You were not involved in creation. Hence its not science. What you lie about.

A sexual being conscious identity is by sex...sex created life of self recreated so then argues. As sex is the human creator. Which we express as a human type of thinker.

Why you argue. About man being a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I usually don't like to talk this way (like you talk), but your posits are perfectly dumb. Have a good evening.

Oh my!! I am shocked.

Please tell me how so. You may be accusing others of your sins again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alternative model such as what? The facts do contradict the theory. Because -- There are no facts that support the theory despite scientists trying to fit pieces in and make it true, and it's as if it were a game to put pieces of the puzzle in a frame with lots of unmatched pieces and parts that just aren't there at all. whatever if you say so. Have a good one. None of you have shown/proved/evidenced anything about life evolving from -- the possibility that a few molecules appeared and grew into various substances. The proof of no proof is absolute. It's not there. Fossils are there. Viruses are there. They are proof that they're there, unless you want to play the semantics game. But, like another poster implied, you weren't there before you were conceived.

If the facts contradict the theory why have you not been able to post even one of them? Please post a fact that contradicts the theory of evolution.

And your poor example deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. And when you bring up abiogenesis you have admitted that you lost. Evolution does not need natural abiogenesis. It only needs life and a god could have magically poofed life into existence 3.8 billion years ago. You seem to believe that god poofed life into existence much more recently.

Why do you debate anyway? You have shown that you will not debate rationally. Do you do so to convince yourself? You are not going to convince anyone that is unsure.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human was telling a personal truth. You don't argue about not being a human.

Basic Intelligence.

Which is not the quantifiable equal mutual first human position

A man adult origin. Wasn't man's sperm. First man owned sperm...no baby.

A woman adult origin. Wasn't a man's ovary. First woman owned ovary no baby.

The information says you own no legal rights today baby man liar.

In human theory.

Baby man a self idolator is human man proved you self deitised your own human man being.

Proven you did. Behaviour is yours.

Everyone for thousands of sex only created lives for thousands of years living dead are babies only.

No theory.

As you don't speak on behalf of first two now dead humans.

Was a previous humans legal argument.

The dead own no place in laws argument. As they now are skeletal dusts. First human in science laws.

Truth by data.

Skeletal dust proved that it had only belonged with a biological human life.

 

[rational experiences]

If the facts contradict the theory why have you not been able to post even one of them? Please post a fact that contradicts the theory of evolution.

And your poor example deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. And when you bring up abiogenesis you have admitted that you lost. Evolution does not need natural abiogenesis. It only needs life and a god could have magically poofed life into existence 3.8 billion years ago. You seem to believe that god poofed life into existence much more recently.

Why do you debate anyway? You have shown that you will not debate rationally. Do you do so to convince yourself? You are not going to convince anyone that is unsure.

In consciousness of the human man.

Man theist theoried about Satan not God. Wanted god by typified thesis gods position removed. As he wanted power. He said God held it.

Basic.

Man held an unnatural constant mind control by a machine. Machine gained power not a man. He gained it by his mind.

Mind changes man's creAtor human penis to woman history now removed.

Man puts penis into anal passage where bacteria's exist. Of man.

Man in mind says mens penis sex act is creator of life.

Says bacterial passage. Proof a man said my brother's are P o of TA...a Hebrews science symbol.

Why a satanic mind inherited said I gained the power of Satan by a n a l sex. His living proof. Reality.

Man died from bacteria's put onto body. Proven wrong.

Man of science quoted our life began from bacteria's.

Human the whole time living human as human making all quotes as the human.

If you were a talking bacteria you'd own legal rights. Is a legal argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but! the process is too incredible to think/believe it came about by -- evolution.

Argument from incredulity / awe.


Doesn't it bother you to keep having to engage in the same fallacies over and over and over again?

(Kind of by itself. although I think someone will say, "Oh, no, it's not 'by itself.'" -- whatever --)

Yeah, indeed... "whatever".
Your standard reply every time someone corrects your mistakes.

Sorry. You all can say whatever you want per scientists' theories about dinosaurs becoming birds, but again -- like the cell developing into you or someone else, it doesn't add up to evolution. Because that's how "you" say you got here, more or less. Now why? Because it doesn't make sense and no scientist can show it does make sense. Even if they publish tomes of literature with examination saying it DOES make sense. So -- with all that being said -- have it as you will -- I'm leaving it there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What it incredible about it?

Here is the process in a nutshell:

Small changes add up over the years.

It reminds of me of something Tracie Harris once said on the atheist experience. Paraphrasing:


I find it baffling that you have no problems believing that a man was created from dirt and a woman from that guy's rib, in a magical garden that also has a talking snake and a tree with magical fruit, or believe in a physically impossible flood with an absurd story about animals and a handful of humans living on a physically impossible boat for a year, or believe that a guy managed to survive while in a fish for 3 days, or believe that the sun literally "stopped" in the sky when a trumpet was blown........ but something as simple as "changes add up over the years" just blows your mind...........................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that insofar as dinosaurs becoming ("evolving") to be birds, large or small.

Birds ARE dinausours.
Just like humans ARE mammals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

lol, I don't see the "piles of evidence,"

That's not surprising when you spend your time in this position

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It convinces you that life just came about without a primary source of intelligence. (shrug.) It -- just -- happened that way by means of -- natural selection.

How many more times must you be informed of the fact that evolution addresses the diversity of life and not the origins thereof, before it will sink in?