Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?

[denmark]

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Listen Beginner Boy..
I have been posting on this for years, started strings on it, and pointed AND Bumped up a sampling of one issue in it just to deal with the DISHONEST OP and Dopes like you IN this thread
ie, this
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
(there are others too)
You stupid male Twat, can't you see the board?

And since the OP said there is NO EVIDENCE, a Credible link with TONS of evidence would have alone be valid rebuttal.
Understand 2 digit guy?

Now it's back to a High IQ mb for me, and back to remedial ed for you 12 IQ Clown..
`

You appear to have emotional issues that don’t compensate for a schizophrenic mind!
Or, you are playing too many games.

 

[james bond]

Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
"NO evidence"?

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Contents

• 
  
  
  • 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
    • 1.1 Genetics
    • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
    • 2.1 Atavisms
    • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
    • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
    • 2.5 Vestigial structures
    • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
  • 3 Evidence from paleontology
    • 3.1 Fossil record
    • 3.2 Limitations
    • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
  • 4 Evidence from biogeography
    • 4.1 Continental distribution
    • 4.2 Island biogeography
    • 4.3 Ring species
    • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
  • 5 Evidence from selection
    • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
    • 5.2 Invertebrates
    • 5.3 Microbes
    • 5.4 Plants and fungi
    • 5.5 Vertebrates
  • 6 Evidence from speciation
    • 6.1 Fossils
    • 6.2 Invertebrates
    • 6.3 Plants
    • 6.4 Vertebrates
  • 7 Evidence from coloration
    • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
    • 7.2 Camouflage
  • 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
  • 9 See also
  • 10 References
  • 11 Sources
  • 12 External links

Have nice page.
This one is mine.
Read it and weep.
`

What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

 

[abu afak]

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

I criticized you WITH Merit.
I refuted James Turd's blanket claim 100% with or without explanation/aspect.

THEN I did go on to explain and bump a thread I already started a while back to deal with "an aspect" you asked for because YOU MISSED My linking to it in this thread AND MISSED it looking at the section.
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

Your concerns were already addressed by me you (previous dufus) and now Dishonest Clown.
You remain 100% Refuted on those concerns.
Fukk you junior.

`

 

[denmark]

Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
"NO evidence"?

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Contents

• 
  
  
  • 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
    • 1.1 Genetics
    • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
    • 2.1 Atavisms
    • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
    • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
    • 2.5 Vestigial structures
    • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
  • 3 Evidence from paleontology
    • 3.1 Fossil record
    • 3.2 Limitations
    • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
  • 4 Evidence from biogeography
    • 4.1 Continental distribution
    • 4.2 Island biogeography
    • 4.3 Ring species
    • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
  • 5 Evidence from selection
    • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
    • 5.2 Invertebrates
    • 5.3 Microbes
    • 5.4 Plants and fungi
    • 5.5 Vertebrates
  • 6 Evidence from speciation
    • 6.1 Fossils
    • 6.2 Invertebrates
    • 6.3 Plants
    • 6.4 Vertebrates
  • 7 Evidence from coloration
    • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
    • 7.2 Camouflage
  • 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
  • 9 See also
  • 10 References
  • 11 Sources
  • 12 External links

Have nice page.
This one is mine.
Read it and weep.
`

What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

Why do you need to bring a god into your explanation? You don’t know what God may have done!
By using God, you are always putting the cart before the horse, instead of looking for evidence that is objective.

 

[denmark]

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

I criticized you WITH Merit.
I refuted James Turd's blanket claim 100% with or without explanation/aspect.

THEN I did go on to explain and bump a thread I already started a while back to deal with "an aspect" you asked for because YOU MISSED My linking to it in this thread AND MISSED it looking at the section

Your concerns were already addressed by me you (previous dufus) and now Dishonest Clown.
You also remain 100% Refuted on your previous concerns.
Fukk you junior.
`

Is it difficult to control your irrational emotions?
In this thread, I was responding mostly to the OP and later SJ, not you.

 

[deanrd]

First Dinosaur Tail Found Preserved in Amber

Looks like most dinosaurs were probably covered with feathers.

 

[deanrd]

Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
"NO evidence"?


Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Contents

• 
  
  
  • 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
    • 1.1 Genetics
    • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
    • 2.1 Atavisms
    • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
    • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
    • 2.5 Vestigial structures
    • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
  • 3 Evidence from paleontology
    • 3.1 Fossil record
    • 3.2 Limitations
    • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
  • 4 Evidence from biogeography
    • 4.1 Continental distribution
    • 4.2 Island biogeography
    • 4.3 Ring species
    • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
  • 5 Evidence from selection
    • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
    • 5.2 Invertebrates
    • 5.3 Microbes
    • 5.4 Plants and fungi
    • 5.5 Vertebrates
  • 6 Evidence from speciation
    • 6.1 Fossils
    • 6.2 Invertebrates
    • 6.3 Plants
    • 6.4 Vertebrates
  • 7 Evidence from coloration
    • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
    • 7.2 Camouflage
  • 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
  • 9 See also
  • 10 References
  • 11 Sources
  • 12 External links

Have nice page.
This one is mine.
Read it and weep.
`

This is why most Republicans think college is bad for America.

 

[james bond]

I criticized you WITH Merit.

I criticized you with having no merit and feces for brainz. You have not and cannot explain vestiges. We have never seen a tailed monkey become a tailess one, i.e. primates to anthropoidea. This is part of atheist scientists' explanation of modification with descent for humans (transistion).

Furthermore, we do not have useless organs. The appendix, for example, stores beneficial bacteria for the digestive system. If there is a function for the organ, then it is not vestigial.

Thus, you have to put on your dunce cap and sit in the corner.

 

[james bond]

What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

Why do you need to bring a god into your explanation? You don’t know what God may have done!
By using God, you are always putting the cart before the horse, instead of looking for evidence that is objective.

Because that is how it is explained in Genesis. We have a supernatural creator who created the universe and everything in it. This the creation science theory based on the Bible. The only supernatural part is God and Genesis. The proof is that the five manifestations that are needed ot have this condition is force (God), space, time, matter and motion. Evolution is also based on "faith-based" science of an impossible dark energy, dark matter, infinite singularity, quantum particles that pop into and out of existence and cosmic inflation. None of these can happen under classical physics nor quantum mechanics. They are all philosophy of cosmology. I should ask you why do you have to bring in impossibilities, philosophy and the atheist religion into science?

 

[james bond]

I criticized you WITH Merit.

I criticized you with having no merit and feces for brainz. You have not and cannot explain vestiges. We have never seen a tailed monkey become a tailess one, i.e. primates to anthropoidea. This is part of atheist scientists' explanation of modification with descent for humans (transistion).

Furthermore, we do not have useless organs. The appendix, for example, stores beneficial bacteria for the digestive system. If there is a function for the organ, then it is not vestigial.

Thus, you have to put on your dunce cap and sit in the corner.

Your post is a non sequitur
Just because "You have not seen" something doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
(the Main basis of Your Kweationist FALLACY)

Vestiges are EVIDENCE It did.
WE are tailless apes with our Coccyx as a Remnant.

Many more undeniable examples my thread on the topic here which you WHIFFED On.
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

FUKK YOU, YOU GRATUITOUS/FALLACIOUS/DISINGENUOUS 'replying' INDOCTRINATED ASSHOLE.


`

There, there. You do not have to get angry like I kicked you in the balls or something. Instead of small balls, you need to grow a pair and stand up to criticism of false scientific "faith-based" atheist beliefs. It's part of arguments over evolutionary imaginings.

What you state about the coccyx is low brow internet atheist pop culture. No reputable scientist will state there is no function with the coccyx. It is the point of connection for various tendons and muscles. Moreover, it stabilizes the body when a person is in an upright seated position. A person would have difficulties sitting and walking without a coccyx.

 

[abu afak]

I criticized you WITH Merit.

I criticized you with having no merit and feces for brainz. You have not and cannot explain vestiges. We have never seen a tailed monkey become a tailess one, i.e. primates to anthropoidea. This is part of atheist scientists' explanation of modification with descent for humans (transistion).

Furthermore, we do not have useless organs. The appendix, for example, stores beneficial bacteria for the digestive system. If there is a function for the organ, then it is not vestigial.

Thus, you have to put on your dunce cap and sit in the corner.

Your post is a non sequitur
Just because "You have not seen" something doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
(One of the Main bases of Yours/other Kweationist FALLACIOUS attempts)

Vestiges are EVIDENCE It did.
WE are tailless apes with our Coccyx as a Remnant.

Many More undeniable examples my thread on the topic here which you (have STILL) WHIFFED On.
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

FUKK YOU, YOU GRATUITOUS/FALLACIOUS/DISINGENUOUS 'replying' INDOCTRINATED TROLLING ASSHOLE.



`

 

[Hollie]

Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
"NO evidence"?

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Contents

• 
  
  
  • 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
    • 1.1 Genetics
    • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
    • 2.1 Atavisms
    • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
    • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
    • 2.5 Vestigial structures
    • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
  • 3 Evidence from paleontology
    • 3.1 Fossil record
    • 3.2 Limitations
    • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
  • 4 Evidence from biogeography
    • 4.1 Continental distribution
    • 4.2 Island biogeography
    • 4.3 Ring species
    • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
  • 5 Evidence from selection
    • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
    • 5.2 Invertebrates
    • 5.3 Microbes
    • 5.4 Plants and fungi
    • 5.5 Vertebrates
  • 6 Evidence from speciation
    • 6.1 Fossils
    • 6.2 Invertebrates
    • 6.3 Plants
    • 6.4 Vertebrates
  • 7 Evidence from coloration
    • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
    • 7.2 Camouflage
  • 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
  • 9 See also
  • 10 References
  • 11 Sources
  • 12 External links

Have nice page.
This one is mine.
Read it and weep.
`

What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

The gods reused the same parts?

That would explain vestigial bones, for example. As the gods were directing Santa’s Elves on the assembly line of human/animal production, it’s not surprising that a few bones would get mixed up and placed in the wrong human and animal.

5 Useless Body Parts


I think what really happened is that it was Miller time too early and the gods just decided to have a little fun with the hyper-religious.

 

[harmonica]

more believable than a human being energized by ''god''

 

[harmonica]

Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
I hope he is not a teacher!

he doesn't know what he believes

 

[denmark]

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

Why do you need to bring a god into your explanation? You don’t know what God may have done!
By using God, you are always putting the cart before the horse, instead of looking for evidence that is objective.

Because that is how it is explained in Genesis. We have a supernatural creator who created the universe and everything in it. This the creation science theory based on the Bible. The only supernatural part is God and Genesis. The proof is that the five manifestations that are needed ot have this condition is force (God), space, time, matter and motion. Evolution is also based on "faith-based" science of an impossible dark energy, dark matter, infinite singularity, quantum particles that pop into and out of existence and cosmic inflation. None of these can happen under classical physics nor quantum mechanics. They are all philosophy of cosmology. I should ask you why do you have to bring in impossibilities, philosophy and the atheist religion into science?

My objective investigative perspective is AGNOSTIC, as is real science. Beliefs (and knowledge claims) should be based on personal experiences, data/evidence, and logical interpretations.

The Bible is an ancient relic from ignorant people. Why do you want to believe in those primitive stories? Do you maintain emotional baggage from your family & cultural influences during childhood?
Your scientific understanding is low grade. You would benefit from more education in those objective fields of study.

 

[james bond]

What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

The gods reused the same parts?

That would explain vestigial bones, for example. As the gods were directing Santa’s Elves on the assembly line of human/animal production, it’s not surprising that a few bones would get mixed up and placed in the wrong human and animal.

5 Useless Body Parts


I think what really happened is that it was Miller time too early and the gods just decided to have a little fun with the hyper-religious.

Vestigial organs are still a hypothesis that atheist scientists and you believe in due to the stupid religion of atheism. There are no vestigial organs. Why don't your atheist men cut their nipples off and you remove your coccyx then? I would pay to see how you do afterward .

 

[Hollie]

Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!

Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it. Can you?

The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:

Common descent - Wikipedia

Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys. It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules? There are lot more differences with that. Certain DNA has more effect than others. The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.

The gods reused the same parts?

That would explain vestigial bones, for example. As the gods were directing Santa’s Elves on the assembly line of human/animal production, it’s not surprising that a few bones would get mixed up and placed in the wrong human and animal.

5 Useless Body Parts


I think what really happened is that it was Miller time too early and the gods just decided to have a little fun with the hyper-religious.

Vestigial organs are still a hypothesis that atheist scientists and you believe in due to the stupid religion of atheism. There are no vestigial organs. Why don't your atheist men cut their nipples off and you remove your coccyx then? I would pay to see how you do afterward .

Not true at all. Denial of vestigial bones / organs is standard fare for ID’iot creation ministries.

Among the relevant science and medical communities, they are well known and documented.

A sad thing that you ridicule what you don’t understand. Your ID’iot creation ministries must have done the research so that the hyper-religious could present a clear, defendable case.

I’m sure that you can provide a link to those research studies, right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It starts with the theory of evolution in biology. Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it. Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.

One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel. We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time. This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time. The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times. What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26). This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime. He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book. We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end. It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet. As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.

That said, this is what NASA states:
"General relativity also provides scenarios that could allow travelers to go back in time, according to NASA. The equations, however, might be difficult to physically achieve.

One possibility could be to go faster than light, which travels at 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second) in a vacuum. Einstein's equations, though, show that an object at the speed of light would have both infinite mass and a length of 0. This appears to be physically impossible, although some scientists have extended his equations and said it might be done.

A linked possibility, NASA stated, would be to create "wormholes" between points in space-time. While Einstein's equations provide for them, they would collapse very quickly and would only be suitable for very small particles. Also, scientists haven't actually observed these wormholes yet. Also, the technology needed to create a wormhole is far beyond anything we have today."

Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities

Here is how we travel into the future which we can do on a limited basis today (skip to 7:33)..

How the fuck are we going to be able to time travel when no one from the future came here?


You and NASA are stupid.


.

 

[james bond]

There are libs who enjoy looking freaky due to wanting to be different. I'd love to see them get operations in order to prove their fake vestigial claims. Darwin should have been a role model for this instead of being one for Adolph Hitler. Maybe some atheists will be that way in their second life. Oh noes!

15 Human "Vestigial" Organs and Functions
15 Human Vestigial Organs and Functions

 

[james bond]

You and NASA are stupid.

You can read worth shit you dolt!