The Evolution Fraud

[Ringel05]

It means you made up your mind about not "willing to suspend incredulity, religious and other various woo-woo and magical hooha."

Then you misunderstand, as evidenced by your creative edit that misrepresents me.

People who believe those things will not change their minds in light of new info. That is close minded, by definition.

Yes, "hooha" is my current opinion of the 1000s of competing and conflicting religious myths, all completely unsupported by evidence. It's not close minded to have that opinion. That's where you stumble.

We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind. Supposedly science is supposed to be the absence of bias, bias creates closed minds, you have a bias and your mind is closed.

 

[alang1216]

Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition. We do not observe it happen today. I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time. That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see. We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.

So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.

False. I still consider all of those myths possible.

Anything else?

 

[Ringel05]

We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.

False. I still consider all of those myths possible.

Anything else?

False. Given your obvious biased, extremely negative labeling of these "myths" you're lying to yourself and rationalizing for self justification otherwise you wouldn't use such demeaning labels for something you obviously look down your nose on.

Anything else?

 

[james bond]

I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

Here is a recent example of a new human find, dubbed homo luzonensis, but is being ignored because it does not fit the transitional fossils of homo sapiens. What kind of science ignores the evidence when it contradicts their main theory?

New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions | Evolution News

Let's see what happens to this fossil discovered around April 2019.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.

False. I still consider all of those myths possible.

Anything else?

False. Given your obvious biased, extremely negative labeling of these "myths" you're lying to yourself and rationalizing for self justification otherwise you wouldn't use such demeaning labels for something you obviously look down your nose on.

Anything else?

Oops,wrong again. I would use the same label for astrology, or straight chiropractic, or tarot cards, homeopathy, or essential oil nonsense.

Bring evidence of the efficacy/truth of any of those things, and that could change. I invite all comers,in that respect.

Go ahead and present evidence of the age of the earth to one of these yec goobers, see what happens.

Sorry bro, you are not going to put words in just the right order, or whine about me, and eventually end up at the false position that science is closed minded and magical thinking is open minded.

 

[james bond]

So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?

I'm just saying it violates the "present is the key to the past" thinking. Also, we cannot observe what happened in the "past" of millions of years. Thus, how can you even bring Baconian science into this? It means you are wrong.

Moreover, instead of claiming logical disagreements with no evidence, why don't you explain how tailed to tailless monkeys happened? You can't. You could not answer when I asked the question. If I destroyed one common ancestor, then haven't I destroyed them all?

 

[Ringel05]

We're not talking about opinions we're discussing science, scientists and the scientific method, in that context you made a decision and closed your mind.

False. I still consider all of those myths possible.

Anything else?

False. Given your obvious biased, extremely negative labeling of these "myths" you're lying to yourself and rationalizing for self justification otherwise you wouldn't use such demeaning labels for something you obviously look down your nose on.

Anything else?

Oops,wrong again. I would use the same label for astrology, or straight chiropractic, or tarot cards, or essential oil nonsense.

Sorry bro, you are not going to put words in just the right order, or whine about me, and eventually end up at the false position that science is closed minded and magical thinking is open minded.

Well I tried to get you to see where you're bias interferes with your judgement, didn't think it would work with someone so lock-minded but there was a chance however slim. Enjoy your rationalizations, it's pretty much all you have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is nothing in decent from a common ancestor or natural selection that violates the Baconian method.

Not for natural selection as that is observable, but it's variations within a species. Not the common ancestor that is defined by Darwin. You are caught trying to introduce a false statement into a true, scientific observable one. One that was discovered by a creation scientist first. Typical of immoral atheist scientists, Darwin stole his claim saying he came up with it at the same time. If common ancestry is so common in plants and animals, then why does it not occur with today's creatures? Moreover, there is no transitional fossils that we see. In fact, there are absolute zero transitional fossils. All the human skulls or fossils they found are of people who lived in the past and died where they were found.

There is so much wrong with that statement but you've been told that many times so I won't bother repeating the reasons. I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

There is nothing scientific in one of your statements except a false claim. I have pointed out neatly your attempt to put together a false statement with a true one in your argument. It is not I who is wrong, but you and it bears repeating that you made a false scientific claim. Thus, no common ancestry in plants and animals have happened due to lack of evidence.

Let's take the claim of a tailed to a tailess monkey as a transition. We do not observe it happen today. I would think we would see some kind of gradual shortening of the tail over time. That's two adequate pieces of evidence that we do not see. We still have tailed and tailless monkeys.

We also have see that the present isn't the key to the past. It's not just Charles Darwin who has been debunked, but Charles Lyell and James Hutton.

What can I say? Today's atheist scientists ignore too often evidence that goes against their evolution hypothesis.

The Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

Supply a valid, supported, competing theory for the diversity office on the planet.

ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey. It's one of evos claims for common ancestor hypothesis leading to macroevolution a gigantic claim of one species becoming a completely different species.

Anyway, there is no need to go further because you rarely have any answers worth thinking about.

ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.

What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?

 

[alang1216]

I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

Here is a recent example of a new human find, dubbed homo luzonensis, but is being ignored because it does not fit the transitional fossils of homo sapiens. What kind of science ignores the evidence when it contradicts their main theory?

New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions | Evolution News

Let's see what happens to this fossil discovered around April 2019.

You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.

 

[james bond]

ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.

What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?

It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours. It means I am right while you are wrong.

If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics. However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species. Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities. (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)

If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference. It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example. The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.

 

[james bond]

You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.

That's terrible and not what Darwin stated. Can you find your two claims in Understanding Evolution That's where I look up my evolution.

ETA: And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year. Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Clouds are 100% water vapor. Watermelon is 97%. Obviously clouds *evolved* from watermelon.
(Or is it the other way around?)

A>B>C>D

Sometimes D>C>B>A too. Evolution answers every question. If you don't understand how, you're just stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.

What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?

It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours. It means I am right while you are wrong.

If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics. However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species. Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities. (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)

If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference. It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example. The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.

If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics.

Yes, a very high percentage.

However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species.

Exactly. And as time goes by, the differences increase.

Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities. (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)

It's true, evolution shows God started small and we all evolved from the same DNA.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.

That's terrible and not what Darwin stated. Can you find your two claims in Understanding Evolution That's where I look up my evolution.

ETA: And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year. Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.

ETA: And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year. Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.

Is this new fossil explained in Scripture?

 

[Hollie]

Clouds are 100% water vapor. Watermelon is 97%. Obviously clouds *evolved* from watermelon.
(Or is it the other way around?)

A>B>C>D

Sometimes D>C>B>A too. Evolution answers every question. If you don't understand how, you're just stupid.

That was pointless.

Carry on.

 

[Hollie]

ToE is not being supported when you cannot answer why no evidence for tailed to tailless monkey.

What about the genetic similarities between us and all the monkey varieties?

It's obvious you do not have an answer to my questions, but I do yours. It means I am right while you are wrong.

If you mean genetic similarities by DNA, then there is a high percentage of similar DNA. This is based on statistics. However, the few percentage differences generate a much different species. Using just DNA, one gets a high percentage of similarities. (It means God, the designer, used the same DNA.)

If one counts the molecules or the actual differences between the species that their different DNA generated, then we find that there is a tremendous variance and difference. It explains why humans can walk upright while monkeys can't and why human brains are larger and better developed over those of chimps, for example. The small percentage of different DNA does explain the differences.

How do you know the gods used DNA?

Did the voices you hear tell you that?

 

[Hollie]

I think you also been asked what a 'transitional fossil' is and what it would look like but I don't recall you giving an answer.

Here is a recent example of a new human find, dubbed homo luzonensis, but is being ignored because it does not fit the transitional fossils of homo sapiens. What kind of science ignores the evidence when it contradicts their main theory?

New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions | Evolution News

Let's see what happens to this fossil discovered around April 2019.

Evolution news is a blog maintained by a fundamentalist clown. Let’s see what happens when the fundie crank submits his data for peer review.

 

[alang1216]

You may be the only one shocked that evolution is a complex interaction between time, place, climate, and environment. If you wanted a simple linear progression you were bound to be disappointed. Sorry.

That's terrible and not what Darwin stated. Can you find your two claims in Understanding Evolution That's where I look up my evolution.

ETA: And please do not forget homo luzonensis discovered this year. Let's see what the atheist scientists make of it.

Darwin lived 150 years ago, we've learned a bit since:

 

[Hollie]

So if you don't observe your straw man today it didn't happen in the past?

I'm just saying it violates the "present is the key to the past" thinking. Also, we cannot observe what happened in the "past" of millions of years. Thus, how can you even bring Baconian science into this? It means you are wrong.

Moreover, instead of claiming logical disagreements with no evidence, why don't you explain how tailed to tailless monkeys happened? You can't. You could not answer when I asked the question. If I destroyed one common ancestor, then haven't I destroyed them all?

Actually, forensics is a subset of science that can tell us a great deal about the nature of past events.