Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics. And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly? Please be specific.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.

Actually, you do. Why? Because the theory of evolution is the accepted paradigm for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth. So let's discuss who has the burden of proof, shall we:

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

8. Burden of Proof
Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
Your only argument is that other arrogant and self-proclaimed intellectuals agree with your theory. The one thing you all have in common is that you keep failing to prove anything you claim.

Oh poor you. Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did that happen later in your life?
Your argument is rapidly deteriorating into flinging shit. Can't you people debate like adults?

When an adult decides to post a reasonable argument here, I'll debate him/her. The rest only get what they deserve. Care to start acting like one? Or will you settle for what you deserve?
 
I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
People have a tendency to confuse the two.
My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.
 
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion,

Liar.

SJ said:
it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.

You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table. Oh dear.
And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?

It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.
Ok, well I guess that's all you have.
 
I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
People have a tendency to confuse the two.
My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.

You are confused. Natural selection IS the mechanism that drives evolution. You can't have one without the other. Genetically engineered? Well, in some respects we are. Natural selection operates at the genetic level by selecting traits that confer an advantage. Artificial selection does as well. And in some respects, artificial selection affects our species as well. Today, we are taller, heavier, and more intelligent than we were in the past. And that is largely because of choices we've made as a civilization, from what we eat, how we educate our children, the types of housing in which we live, the technology we use. etc.
 
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion,

Liar.

SJ said:
it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.

You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table. Oh dear.
And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?

It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.
Ok, well I guess that's all you have.

It's not all I have. It's all you deserve.
 
My position has nothing to do with religion,

Liar.

SJ said:
it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.

You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table. Oh dear.
And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?

It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.
Ok, well I guess that's all you have.

It's not all I have. It's all you deserve.
It's all you have.
 
Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics. And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly? Please be specific.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.
There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.

Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
The case for evolution has been made. Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
 
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.
There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.

Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
The case for evolution has been made. Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
And the verdict is insufficient evidence. But keep attacking Christianity as a way of proving your theory because we all can see it's all you have.
 
Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics. And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly? Please be specific.
I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion,

Liar.

SJ said:
it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.

You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table. Oh dear.
And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.

Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
 
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.
There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.

Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
The case for evolution has been made. Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
And the verdict is insufficient evidence. But keep attacking Christianity as a way of proving your theory because we all can see it's all you have.
You poor dear. I understand that you find science to be a threat to your belief in magic and superstition.
 
Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat. And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility. It only speaks to your lack of substance.
There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.

Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
The case for evolution has been made. Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
And the verdict is insufficient evidence. But keep attacking Christianity as a way of proving your theory because we all can see it's all you have.
The evidence is insufficient only for you Benny Hinn Academy attendees.
 
Which one? There are many.
When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.

It is a specific type of drug resistance.

Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.

Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.

If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.

Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.

This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.

Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.

The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.

They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.

Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.

Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.

Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.

Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.

Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.

Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.

It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.

Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.

MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.

MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.

Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.

This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.

However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.

The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.

The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.

A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.

Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.

CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.

The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.

In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.

The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.

Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.

CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.

Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.

Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.

Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.

Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.

However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.

For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.

For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.

Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.

Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.

The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.

Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.

Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria

Brilliant. But irrelevant.

Hardly. Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are wrong.

1. I haven't stated anything yet so how can I be wrong?
2. Eots argument is true but irrelevant to the discussion,
3. Just because you agree with him doesn't make him right.
 
The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.

Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.

I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.

The only ignorance and pride I'm seeing here is yours, Predfan. Your I can't debate excuse is nothing but a cop out. The truth is you have no answers to refute the evidence that proves evolution to be a lie.

1. No evidence has been presented.
2. He knows nothing about evolution so there just isn't any way it can be discussed. I'd spend all my time trying to educate him on evolution and there would be no debate. It is what it is and I can't change that.
 
01-creationist-bible-thumper-e1282174135888.jpg
 
Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it, is the result of an intelligent Creator.

To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.

The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.

Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.

I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
I'll debate anyone about anything. if you want to claim that your opponent is ignorant just to save your ignorant pride, well, you could do whatever you want.the fact is that you are a craven coward.
 
Gentlemen, here is the problem as I see it. The OP wants to know where the mountain of evidence for evolution is. For you people to deny what is without a doubt a literal mountain of evidence supporting evolution compiled by hundreds of thousands of people over the past 150 years is simply willful ignorance. To continue to insist that it doesn't exist when presented to you is nothing more than a pretense to claim some sort of moral victory for your wounded pride. It is immature, at best, and an insult to all those who have dedicated their lives to advance our understanding of the world through the scientific method. If you truly want to know what that evidence is, what it tells us, and what you can learn from it, I suggest that instead of waving your dicks in the air and declaring it "not evidence", you actually analyze that data with your brains and then tell us IN DETAIL what your objection is, and why. Simply saying "it is not "proof" is nothing more than a cop out. You know it. I know it, and so does everyone else here. So please stop this charade and either decide that you want to have a serious discussion or get out of the fucking kitchen.
 
no..nothing like electricity

There was HUGE resistance to electricity - it was the power of the devil. The same attitude is present regarding evolution, and in time, it will be viewed as just as nutty.

Evolution is fact, there is no question, no doubt or debate. Some mechanisms are not fully understood, but evolution simply is.
people like you say that sort of thing so often, I have to wonder if you're really trying to convince yourself.
 
No, he is not wrong. And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university. Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account. Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars. What weakness!


Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by fellow Young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism in 1989, and frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in private schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted in federal court of 58 counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. In a separate federal court case in early 2015, Hovind was found guilty of contempt of court.

Education

Patriot University
In 1971, he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois, and later received 4 degrees, all from unaccredited institutions. From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[1] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind received a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[notes 1][7] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.[8]

Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, having unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[9][10] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $37 per credit.[11][12]

Karen Bartelt, an organic chemistry professor who debated Hovind,[8] stated that his doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science. She noted that Hovind's dissertation is incomplete,[notes 2] of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.[13]

In 2010, Patriot responded to Wikileaks' claim to have revealed Hovind's dissertation, writing that the Wikileaks file was not the "finished" product, but that they would not release the full dissertation,[14] which is unusual among academic institutions. As a general rule, doctoral dissertations are published by the associated university and made available to the public, so that other students conducting research may reference them.[13]

Hovid is a science illiterate and clown
 
the only other science so contested is man made climate change which seems also to be plagued with hidden agenda and a mixture of science.,politics and philosophy

The only ones contesting either are people who know less than nothing about them. You, for example, have demonstrated NO knowledge of the theory of evolution. Simply declaring it "not proven" is not a demonstration that you understand anything about it. Moreover, if evolution is wrong, then you must demonstrate why it is wrong, and then advance some proposal that better explains the compiled evidence than the one the entire scientific community has settled on. Otherwise, you simply look like a fool trying to waste everyone's time.
 
I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
People have a tendency to confuse the two.
My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.
It's like looking at a skyscraper and saying, where did that come from? It's obvious that someone designed and built it, yet people have no problem believing that all of the complexity we see in nature just happened by chance. Some people will believe anything.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom