A Nice Explanation of Why "Evolution" is Nonsense

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree, anyone who believes in zombies or modern day perfect humans are nutters.

Find a mirror and tell the zombie worshiper you find there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You believe in evolution because you were told and indoctrinated into believing it is fact.

Just because you operate that way doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you admit that, while not perfect, evolution is the best theory we has to explain life?

Some might, not me. I don't regard it as a theory, it makes no predictions that we can test for in a lab, it is defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable, it's a hypothesis and yet it has some appeal, Darwin was a superb scientist but with what we know today it's wishful thinking to attach importance to it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not true at all. Theories can be facts.

Theories are falsifiable, facts are not.

True things are facts.

Just because one interprets something as a fact does not make it a fact.

Some theories are true.

Then they are not theories, they're facts.

Therefore, some theories are facts.

Is space curved? is it a fact?

 

[alang1216]

Some might, not me. I don't regard it as a theory, it makes no predictions that we can test for in a lab

Don't tell that to epidemiologists they predict the effects of chemicals on the genetics of populations of bacteria and viruses.

it is defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable, it's a hypothesis and yet it has some appeal, Darwin was a superb scientist but with what we know today it's wishful thinking to attach importance to it.

Importance like understanding the fossil record, genetics, anatomy, geographic distributions, etc.?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Don't tell that to epidemiologists they predict the effects of chemicals on the genetics of populations of bacteria and viruses.

That's not testing evolution, predict what a bacteria colony will develop into after a million generations then test that prediction.

Importance like understanding the fossil record, genetics, anatomy, geographic distributions, etc.?

Right, well none of those disciplines are affected by the veracity of evolution. Recall that evolution is an interpretation of the fossil record, nothing more.

Evolution is straightforward we are told, inevitable we are told, yet nobody has demonstrated that a colony of bacteria can eventually mutate into a colony of worms or shellfish, yet we are told this did happen and those who dare to doubt the dogma are attacked as lunatics.

 

[alang1216]

That's not testing evolution, predict what a bacteria colony will develop into after a million generations then test that prediction.

No need, it only requires a few generations for the genetics of a population to shift. Do you think it would suddenly stop changing as if there is a barrier?

Right, well none of those disciplines are affected by the veracity of evolution. Recall that evolution is an interpretation of the fossil record, nothing more.

Evolution is straightforward we are told, inevitable we are told, yet nobody has demonstrated that a colony of bacteria can eventually mutate into a colony of worms or shellfish, yet we are told this did happen and those who dare to doubt the dogma are attacked as lunatics.

Nobody has ever seen a black hole, a quark or Pangea, do you doubt they exist? There is a mountain of evidence that life descended from a common ancestor, do you doubt that? Do you have ANY other theory as to how that could be?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Theories are falsifiable, facts are not.

Well thats 100% wrong.

If I say it's a fact that the sun rises in the east, showing the sun rise in the west would falsify it. Which is just as likely as you finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, or a human fossil from 50 million years ago.

Just because one interprets something as a fact does not make it a fact.

Strawman. What makes it a fact is the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.

And that evidence is every observation ever made. That's why you changed the subject, when tasked with providing a contradictory observation. Because you don't have any.

Because there are none.

Then they are not theories, they're facts.

No, they are still scientific theories. A scientific theory is an explanation. True explanations are facts. Some theories are true.

Is space curved? is it a fact?

Just make your point in your own words. I dont do interrogations, nothing personal.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I say it's a fact that the sun rises in the east, showing the sun rise in the west would falsify it.

But the sun doesn't move, the earth rotates so as I said you don't know what you're talking about. I tried to warn you but you wouldn't listen Mr Knowall, there are facts and there are interpretations of facts learn the difference dummy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the sun doesn't move,

Which is also a falsifiable idea.

It could be directly falsified.

But instead it is confirmed as true, every time.

Just like the falsifiable theory of evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every fossil doscovery is a test of the theory of evolution.

Every mRNA study. Every geological study.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Every fossil discovery is a test of the theory of evolution.

So so is absence of an expected fossil discovery.

Every mRNA study. Every geological study.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And this semantic trifling is a waste of time anyway. You can call it a fact or you can call it Fred. It makes no difference whatsoever. The theory of evolution is true by any standard and any burden of evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So so is absence of an expected fossil discovery.

No, that's nonsense, since fossils are very rare. No educated and rational person would dig up a patch of ground, not find a fossil, and therefore declare that the species they were looking for did not exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So so is absence of an expected fossil discovery.

However if you have repeatedly surveyed a huge swath of land for any trace evidence of all of animals that should appear by the hypothesis -- and found none of them -- that is a good time to modify your hypothesis.

For example: if the childish Ark myth were true, we would be awash in fossils from tens of thousands of species that simply have never and will never be found in the areas where some should appear, if the childish Ark myth were true.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And this semantic trifling is a waste of time anyway. You can call it a fact or you can call it Fred. It makes no difference whatsoever. The theory of evolution is true by any standard and any burden of evidence.

Evolution predicts a continuous ancestral chain from trilobites back to to worms, that's a necessary condition if evolution be true. The fossil record has no evidence of such continuity and it is so blatant that those who study it call the appearance of Cambrian fossils an "explosion" because the period between the absence of Cambrians and their first appearance is geologically brief, "sudden".

So the missing fossil evidence either shows that our empirical expectations are wrong or these intermediate animals did exist but were not preserved.

There are no credible explanations though for the lack of preservation because within that strata we do find fossils of amoeba, jellyfish, plankton, conditions were clearly excellent.

But leaving that aside since there is no fossil evidence of this purported developmental process on what basis can one insist that there ever was such a process?

Claiming this or this is evidence of evolution is one thing, but claiming that an absence of evidence is unimportant is the antithesis of science.

No matter what is found and not found the precious hypothesis must be believed else one is and idiot.

Every thing that is found is twisted and interpreted as proof of evolution and everything that should be found but isn't is simply set aside as unimportant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution predicts a continuous ancestral chain from trilobites back to to worms, that's a necessary condition if evolution be true. The fossil record has no evidence of such continuity

Trilobytes were not ancestors of worms.

I think we're done here.

The next evolution denier I meet that knows a single damn thing about evolution might be the first.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, that's nonsense, since fossils are very rare. No educated and rational person would dig up a patch of ground, not find a fossil, and therefore declare that the species they were looking for did not exist.

Fossils are only found in certain places and they are often not rare in those places. If I don't see birds in my yard can I say "bird are rare"? of course not.

There are fossil beds in Cheng Jiang in China, littered with Cambrian fossils and the earlier strata there are also fossils but they are not what we expect from Darwinian reasoning. There are fossils, they were preserved, very delicate fossils too perfectly incredibly preserved.

This pattern - complex Cambrian developed, shelly life - preceded by almost nothing is repeated all over the earth, wherever we find Cambrian fossils we also always find the absence of expected precursors...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Trilobytes were not ancestors of worms.

Read what I wrote: "...from trilobites back to worms..."

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The next evolution denier I meet that knows a single damn thing about evolution might be the first.

My reason for denying evolution is sound, it is a scientifically reached decision. There is absolutely no fossil evidence that the Cambrian animals evolved as we'd expect from evolution theory.

Telling me I must believe a claim for which there is no evidence isn't science it is dogma, what the church did to Galileo.

I believed evolution until my late twenties, I know more about it than you ever will, I used to rip deniers apart. But I then stepped back and set aside wishful thinking and applied cold hard reasoning and logic. I will not believe unsupported claims just because its fashionable, I don't care who you are or what you say.