Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[orogenicman]

No, Eots, the morons are you fellows that go up against literally mountains of evidence with your willfull ignorance.

willfull ignorance?.

You all could be possessed I suppose.

And you could be an idiot.

No response to my post #257?

 

[Mr.Right]

They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written.

If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.

So why aren't they being written?

They are being written. There are many scientists, many of them atheists, who disagree with evolution. The majority is not always correct. Especially when they must toe the party line in order to get funding. There is also the threat of retribution by ones peers for disagreeing with the establishment.

 

[orogenicman]

They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written.

If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.

So why aren't they being written?

They are being written. There are many scientists, many of them atheists, who disagree with evolution.

Names, please.

The majority is not always correct. Especially when they must toe the party line in order to get funding. There is also the threat of retribution by ones peers for disagreeing with the establishment.

Not only is that not true, it has never been true. Posting lies about the scientific community is against the very religious tenants in which you profess to believe. You do recall a certain commandment that demands that you refrain from bearing false witness, right? RIGHT?

 

[S.J.]

First of all, science is not about proof. Mathematics is about proof. Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence. You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron? That's very funny.

And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.

What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable. Be specific.

well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith

You hit the nail on the head. Evolution requires more faith than creationism.

There is no requirement for faith in the mechanisms of science. Faith is only a requirement for belief in magical spirit realms.

Then you should be able to give us something other than speculation.

 

[Tuatara]

Names, please.

Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.

 

[rightwinger]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

 

[S.J.]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

 

[rightwinger]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

 

[guno]

I accept you can't tell the difference between a theory and evidence. That's why you're batshit crazy.

He is a christophrenic

 

[S.J.]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims. And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.

 

[Mr.Right]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims. And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.

There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?

 

[guno]

Science matters because it is not dependent on faith, it depends on skepticism and doubt. Nothing is ever proven, only disproven. A prevailing theory can last for decades, centuries even, and then be cast aside. Yet science moves on, making new discoveries and eliminating possibilities that have been found wanting.

The War On Science The Creativity Post

 

[orogenicman]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Holy batcrap!

Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination. Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News

 

[orogenicman]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims. And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.

Breeding is simply artificial selection. Evolution is natural selection. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[orogenicman]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims. And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.

There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?

This is yet another case of creationists creating a lie (i.e., bearing false witness) and then running with it no matter how many times the lie is spelled out for them, This argument, the 'no transitional species' argument, is false. ALL species are transitional.

 

[orogenicman]

They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written.

If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.

So why aren't they being written?

They are being written. There are many scientists, many of them atheists, who disagree with evolution.

Names, please.

<snip>

...crickets chirping....

 

[Hollie]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims. And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.

There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?

It's pretty clear that "facts" are not elements that Flat Earth aficionados are familiar with.

There are are great many examples of transitional fossils.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

CC200 Transitional fossils

CC200.1 Transitional fossil abundance

 

[rightwinger]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence

You're confusing evidence with similarities. If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.

Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims. And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.

Dogs and cats branched off of a common ancestor. They didn't turn into each other.

 

[Hollie]

And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.

What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable. Be specific.

well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith

You hit the nail on the head. Evolution requires more faith than creationism.

There is no requirement for faith in the mechanisms of science. Faith is only a requirement for belief in magical spirit realms.

Then you should be able to give us something other than speculation.

I did.

You were completely befuddled and unable to refute the facts you never learned at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.

 

[Hollie]

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.

The evidence has been presented. You're entitled to live in a world of self-imposed ignorance and invented conspiracy theories, however, you are still the stuff of ridicule.