The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Boss]

Faith, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is not applicable in science.
If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "spiritual nature" ain't it.

Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual. I do not have any need to prove spiritual nature to you or anyone but myself. It has been proven to myself. I don't require your validation or expect you to believe me. I have never claimed I could prove it scientifically or otherwise.

If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. There is evidence for some microevoultion... that is exploited and used to prop up a faith-based belief in macroevolution.

Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity. If you believe consensus proves things, you are not practicing science, you're practicing faith. You are actually doing what science was invented to challenge.

 

[Boss]

......MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.
Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.
MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.

There's Overwhelming Evidence for evolution

Indeed, there is substantial evidence to support a theory of MICRO-evolution. Small, adaptive change of species within a genera to sometimes spawn a new species. To date, that is the ONLY kind of evolution supported by evidence.

1. The Fossil Record is Mind-blowingly clear and gets filled in more every year with transitional species as ONLY evolution would predict.
Any ONE of Millions of fossils found in the wrong strata Could have disproved evo.
Guess what? ODDS please?
1a. The only possible kweationist klown explanation for this is "god is trying to fool us/test our faith by planting evidence of evo."

The fossil record is not mind-blowingly clear. We observe species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. We've never seen the evidence to support any type of evolution across genus taxon. I don't know what religious people claim, I don't get into appeals to ridicule. If you wish to ridicule others, that's fine... it's not scientific and doesn't support your theory. However, it is generally thought to be the tool of someone who doesn't have an argument.

2. On your own body you have useLess anatomical Remnants like the Coccyx/old Tail, Wisdom Teeth, appendix.

Where is the evidence that humans once had a tail? Where is the evidence that wisdom teeth and appendix are useless? You don't have that? Well, then you are practicing a faith-based belief.

The coccyx in particular is a crucial anchor point for many muscles and ligaments in the lower pelvic floor, not to mention an essential part of the tripod which enables you to sit. It also positions your anus so you can take a dump.

Technically, humans do have a tail for about 4 weeks as embryos. But here's the newsflash... ALL mammals have this. It is part of our vertebrae.

3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
(Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
Odds if it was false please?

+

DNA, I have dealt with already in this thread, you should try reading first. DNA is not a friend to your theory of macroevolution. In fact, it is a fundamental roadblock you cannot overcome. Darwin simply didn't know about DNA or mitochondria. He didn't realize that a mitochondria is unable to produce the needed amino acids and enzymes to create something different than it was designed to work with.

That fact is proven in the 100 year-old fruit fly experiments where billions of generations of fruit flies were totally unable to produce not one single new amino acid or enzyme. Even IF they had been successful in producing something new, the odds of random mutations causing the creation of the complete set of enzymes needed for a new genera is calculated at around 10^180 ...there are only about 10^50 atoms in the entire universe. In other words, it defies mathematical odds.

 

[HUGGY]

......MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.
Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.
MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.

There's Overwhelming Evidence for evolution

Indeed, there is substantial evidence to support a theory of MICRO-evolution. Small, adaptive change of species within a genera to sometimes spawn a new species. To date, that is the ONLY kind of evolution supported by evidence.

1. The Fossil Record is Mind-blowingly clear and gets filled in more every year with transitional species as ONLY evolution would predict.
Any ONE of Millions of fossils found in the wrong strata Could have disproved evo.
Guess what? ODDS please?
1a. The only possible kweationist klown explanation for this is "god is trying to fool us/test our faith by planting evidence of evo."

The fossil record is not mind-blowingly clear. We observe species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. We've never seen the evidence to support any type of evolution across genus taxon. I don't know what religious people claim, I don't get into appeals to ridicule. If you wish to ridicule others, that's fine... it's not scientific and doesn't support your theory. However, it is generally thought to be the tool of someone who doesn't have an argument.

2. On your own body you have useLess anatomical Remnants like the Coccyx/old Tail, Wisdom Teeth, appendix.

Where is the evidence that humans once had a tail? Where is the evidence that wisdom teeth and appendix are useless? You don't have that? Well, then you are practicing a faith-based belief.

The coccyx in particular is a crucial anchor point for many muscles and ligaments in the lower pelvic floor, not to mention an essential part of the tripod which enables you to sit. It also positions your anus so you can take a dump.

Technically, humans do have a tail for about 4 weeks as embryos. But here's the newsflash... ALL mammals have this. It is part of our vertebrae.

3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
(Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
Odds if it was false please?

+

DNA, I have dealt with already in this thread, you should try reading first. DNA is not a friend to your theory of macroevolution. In fact, it is a fundamental roadblock you cannot overcome. Darwin simply didn't know about DNA or mitochondria. He didn't realize that a mitochondria is unable to produce the needed amino acids and enzymes to create something different than it was designed to work with.

That fact is proven in the 100 year-old fruit fly experiments where billions of generations of fruit flies were totally unable to produce not one single new amino acid or enzyme. Even IF they had been successful in producing something new, the odds of random mutations causing the creation of the complete set of enzymes needed for a new genera is calculated at around 10^180 ...there are only about 10^50 atoms in the entire universe. In other words, it defies mathematical odds.

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

 

[abu afak]

Indeed, there is substantial evidence to support a theory of MICRO-evolution. Small, adaptive change of species within a genera to sometimes spawn a new species. To date, that is the ONLY kind of evolution supported by evidence.

There is No micro and macro, there is only "Evolution" which over time increases genetic distance.
Periodically resulting in New subspecies, then new species, etc.
One can see this even within our own Homo Genus, and immediately with-out it in our primate relatives.

The fossil record is not mind-blowingly clear. We observe species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. We've never seen the evidence to support any type of evolution across genus taxon. I don't know what religious people claim, I don't get into appeals to ridicule. If you wish to ridicule others, that's fine... it's not scientific and doesn't support your theory. However, it is generally thought to be the tool of someone who doesn't have an argument.

False.
"Suddenly" is in GEOLOGIC time, NOT "suddenly" as in 1 generation/Kweationism/godDidIt.
(You gotta love the Necessary Disingenuity of kweationist klowns.)
And that is what evolution would predict, now tweaked with 'Punctuated Equilibrium'.
A "sudden" change in (ie, mini Ice age/Whole Ice Age from, ie, asteroid hit or mega-Volcano) changes the climate and species either adapt or go extinct. Or more gradual ones of course.
Environment dictates what 'fittest' is and flora/fauna adjust/adapt or go extinct.

A shame about god/dog letting all those Imperfect 'kweations' go extinct. No?

Where is the evidence that humans once had a tail? Where is the evidence that wisdom teeth and appendix are useless? You don't have that? Well, then you are practicing a faith-based belief.The coccyx in particular is a crucial anchor point for many muscles and ligaments in the lower pelvic floor, not to mention an essential part of the tripod which enables you to sit. It also positions your anus so you can take a dump. Technically, humans do have a tail for about 4 weeks as embryos. But here's the newsflash... ALL mammals have this. It is part of our vertebrae.

I didn't say Humans once had a tail, I said our evolutionary Ancestors did.
The Coccyx is NOT Crucial. LIE.

Here ya go Goofy:"

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted (Notes). These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death [footnotes]

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the Coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]​

3. Since evolution was proposed 150 years ago, there's been a science/tech explosion like no other period. Many new sciences have come into being, any one of which could have Disproved evolution.
(Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc, etc, etc)
Guess what? They are all consistent with or help Confirm it.
Odds if it was false please?

DNA, I have dealt with already in this thread, you should try reading first. DNA is not a friend to your theory of macroevolution. In fact, it is a fundamental roadblock you cannot overcome. Darwin simply didn't know about DNA or mitochondria. He didn't realize that a mitochondria is unable to produce the needed amino acids and enzymes to create something different than it was designed to work with...

DNA of course IS a friend of Evo, or Obviously it would all be over and you BS god could have filled Noah's ark with all your favorite Biblical Goofball animals/"Kinds".

Ironically, [perhaps] the world's foremost expert in speciation/genetics/Evolution (and Critic of Kwazy Kweationism) is a Fruit Fly specialist!
Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He is also the author of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
He runs the terrific and very active blog Why Evolution Is True
LOL
`

 

[Boss]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

 

[Boss]

There is No micro and macro, there is only "Evolution" which over time increases genetic distance.

Well the only evolution is small changes within a genus taxon to produce new species within the same genera. So you are right.. there is only ONE kind of evolution and that is it. The kind of evolution where fish become dogs and whales walk on land... that's a fairy tale not supported by science.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say Humans once had a tail, I said our evolutionary Ancestors did.
The Coccyx is NOT Crucial. LIE.

The only evolutionary ancestor homo sapiens have is homo erectus. We're all part of the genus Homo. And yes... the coccyx, as I stated, is the anchor point for numerous muscles and ligaments in the pelvic floor, part of the tripod that enables us to sit and also, serves to position our attached anus in the proper position so we can shit. I think that is pretty damn crucial.

 

[Boss]

As for your BULLSHIT from Talkorigins.org.... you need to present some reputable and credible SCIENCE source instead of an atheist activism website. I don't come here posting things from creationist's websites passing that off as science, I expect the same respect. So drop the propaganda from your atheist activists on a mission and present some credible science and we'll talk.

 

[Boss]

DNA of course IS a friend of Evo, or Obviously it would all be over and you BS god could have filled Noah's ark with all your favorite Biblical Goofball animals/"Kinds".

Ironically, [perhaps] the world's foremost expert in speciation/genetics/Evolution (and Critic of Kwazy Kweationism) is a Fruit Fly specialist!
Jerry Coyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He is also the author of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
He runs the terrific and very active blog Why Evolution Is True
LOL

Appeal to ridicule is not acceptable science. Sorry.

And again... The only kind of evolution there is any evidence for is small adaptive changes withing a genera. There has never been any evidence to support any other kind of evolution.

 

[HUGGY]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

 

[Boss]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

 

[HUGGY]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

 

[Boss]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

 

[Hollie]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You would do well to actually learn about the science you stutter and mumble about but don't understand. Your "macro evolution" meme is right out of the Henry Morris playbook. You really should check your membership to the Christian fundamentalist / Flat Earth Society groups at the door. Your knowledge of science just screams out amateur with your pontificating.

 

[Hollie]

As for your BULLSHIT from Talkorigins.org.... you need to present some reputable and credible SCIENCE source instead of an atheist activism website. I don't come here posting things from creationist's websites passing that off as science, I expect the same respect. So drop the propaganda from your atheist activists on a mission and present some credible science and we'll talk.

You don't understand the damage you do to your attempt at argument when you launch into screeching tirades about Atheist activism websites. Talk origins is a valuable source of science compilation. A lot of the data refutes conjecture and speculation to include your claims to magical spirit realms but that's not the fault of science. Fear, superstition and ignorance are not virtues.

If you were the least bit honest, you would simply acknowledge your religious fundamentalism and not use your fundamentalist beliefs to vilify science.

If you choose to vilify peer reviewed science as "Bullshit", you're welcome to. Just bear in mind that it does presume an agenda on your part.

 

[sealybobo]

We've taken this as far as we can boss. You need to move on now.

No fucker... YOU need to move on now! Fuck you... you don't tell me what to do.

I've figured out your agenda. It takes days of discussion to figure out your actual agenda. Sorry buddy but no way your hypothesis carries the same weight as evolution.

Sure it does... it does because I fucking SAY it does, smart ass! I don't have to back anything up here... just keep popping off my mouth like a big goddamn smart ass, appealing to popularity and ridicule like YOU! Wrap it all up by proclaiming Science backs up my opinion and proves God, everybody agrees with me and you're an idiot.

If you don't like it, tough shit... I'll be glad to mindlessly repeat it over and over for days and days in every fucking thread you're in. I don't need to back anything up, I don't need to make my case or present any evidence... I can run find some links to creationist websites and just keep on repeating my claims as facts... JUST LIKE YOU!

You are a dying breed

In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins

MORE appeal to popularity in absence of evidence to support your claims.

Nihilist like you make up about 5% of the human race... meaning, over 95% of us believe in something greater than self. YOU are the dying breed... the vast minority... the loser in life who is the outsider... the outlier... the nut ball kook.... the oddball... the one that people are ashamed to admit they know.

Plus look how stupid Mormons are. They are even dumber than Christians. So I don't suspect creationists to completely go away anytime soon, especially in the USA where you are free to be whatever stupid you want to be.

MORE appeal to ridicule because you can't back up your claims.

It's really all you have, isn't it? Appeal to popularity... appeal to ridicule... science on your side... rinse and repeat! Over and fucking over.

Get lost, loser.

Pot meet kettle. Lol.

I decided I do believe in your spirit God. But I believe it planted 1 life seed and all life on earth. What evidence do I have? Absolutely none. Same as you. So my theory is just as valad as yours. Both based on wild speculation and hunches.

 

[sealybobo]

And I know macro evolution is true. Only difference is science is on my side

No, science ISN'T on your side. You keep claiming that but it's just not true.

Quacking science once again?
The scientific consensus IS on his side.
TOE explains common ancestry of ALL animals, plants, etc.
The T in TOE represents theory.

"Spiritual nature" is a fantasy, in comparison.

Spiritual Nature has just as much scientific support.... which is NONE.

Consensus means jack shit.. it's appeal to popularity... has ZERO explanatory value.
...
What it all boils down to is, you have a faith-based belief in a theory. ...
You're exploiting science to push your faith-based beliefs. You're the quacker here.

---
Faith, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is not applicable in science.
If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "spiritual nature" ain't it.
.

Hey boss, you're dumb as fuck. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You would do well to actually learn about the science you stutter and mumble about but don't understand. Your "macro evolution" meme is right out of the Henry Morris playbook. You really should check your membership to the Christian fundamentalist / Flat Earth Society groups at the door. Your knowledge of science just screams out amateur with your pontificating.

Boss is so obvious even though he tries to come off as intelligent and not a Christian. Fucking judas

 

[sealybobo]

As for your BULLSHIT from Talkorigins.org.... you need to present some reputable and credible SCIENCE source instead of an atheist activism website. I don't come here posting things from creationist's websites passing that off as science, I expect the same respect. So drop the propaganda from your atheist activists on a mission and present some credible science and we'll talk.

What evidence do you have against macro evolution?

 

[Boss]

What evidence do you have against macro evolution?

You've got the scientific method backwards buddy, it's not anyone's place to present evidence against your hypothesis. It's up to you to PROVE your hypothesis. Okay, look.... What evidence do you have against God?