Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[S.J.]

He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity. It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.

You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent. You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo. And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do. A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science. You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case. And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support. That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person. Because all you are doing is trolling. I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior. And I for one am sick and tired of it.

You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons. I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds. Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, in detail, with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based. Do that, and we can continue our discussion. Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you. It is up to you.

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You deny the reality of evolution, bubba. So what is your explanation? What merits your denial?

<Crickets chirping>

Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies. I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though. Now I hear those crickets.

 

[cnm]

Yeah, that's a good example, and something none of you want to discuss, even though you've made numerous references to "transitional species" and "common ancestors".

Because that's your very own magical belief.

 

[cnm]

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.

 

[cnm]

I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory. I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.

Did you not read the Ring Species post?

Oops, sorry, forgot, that would have been dismissed out of hand.

 

[orogenicman]

I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.

Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution. Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre. They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:

"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."

WTF??? If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.

WTF is right! The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's. It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to. It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "inter stellar planetary collision or meteors. Nor does it claim that we are star stuff. It says nothing whatsoever about any of that. It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species. If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand. The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.

Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from astronomical investigations of complex organic molecules in space. They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds. It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star. That is the only place they can be created. So when someone tells you that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about. But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?

I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists. Are you saying he/she is wrong? I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.

Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That person, by admission, is not a scientist. I am. I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.

To quote you, "But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?"

I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory. I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.

No sir, I don't have to start another thread. Myself and others here have offered plenty of evidence in support of evolution, but the only responses to that evidence that we have received have been exactly like yours, one liners with unexplained denial that the evidence even exists. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in their support. You and your friends have made clear that you don't believe that evolution occurs. The only explanation others have given (and you have given in your conversations with Mr. right, is that it conflicts with the Christian faith. Since most Christians don't see it that way, that explanation is not good enough. Furthermore, it is not enough to simply deny the theory. In science, when you do this, you are expected to propose an alternative that better explains the evidence than the accepted theory. And as I have already pointed out, special pleading is not acceptable. Since evolution is the accepted paradigm, and has been for generations, the burden, dude, IS on you. It is completely appropriate for scientists to insist that those denying a theory to expect an alternative. If you tried to make a special plea in ANY scientific conference as you have here, they would usher you off the stage. So I do expect you to give us your alternative, as I am certain, others here do as well.

As for the origin of species, we've been discussing this since the very first page, pal. Wake up.

 

[Hollie]

I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.

Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution. Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre. They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:

"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."

WTF??? If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.

WTF is right! The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's. It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to. It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "inter stellar planetary collision or meteors. Nor does it claim that we are star stuff. It says nothing whatsoever about any of that. It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species. If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand. The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.

Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from astronomical investigations of complex organic molecules in space. They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds. It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star. That is the only place they can be created. So when someone tells you that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about. But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?

I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists. Are you saying he/she is wrong? I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.

Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That person, by admission, is not a scientist. I am. I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.

To quote you, "But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?"

I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory. I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.

You have been given multiple links to evidence for transitional species. It's apparent it is you who is desperate to deny the evidence. It really is cowardly to demand evidence and when the evidence is provided to simply deny it was ever provided.

 

[S.J.]

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.

Go back and read the OP. The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence. Did you have a problem understanding it?

 

[cnm]

Defining a species

Defining a species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups — but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?

 

[cnm]

Go back and read the OP. The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence. Did you have a problem understanding it?

That can't be the case as mountains of evidence have been produced. Oops, forgot, you have a problem understanding it.

 

[orogenicman]

He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity. It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.

You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent. You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo. And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do. A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science. You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case. And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support. That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person. Because all you are doing is trolling. I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior. And I for one am sick and tired of it.

You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons. I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds. Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, in detail, with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based. Do that, and we can continue our discussion. Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you. It is up to you.

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You deny the reality of evolution, bubba. So what is your explanation? What merits your denial?

<Crickets chirping>

Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies. I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though. Now I hear those crickets.

I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread. How ironic is that?

Quit stalling. Your explanation....

 

[S.J.]

Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution. Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre. They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:

"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."

WTF??? If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.

WTF is right! The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's. It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to. It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "inter stellar planetary collision or meteors. Nor does it claim that we are star stuff. It says nothing whatsoever about any of that. It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species. If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand. The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.

Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from astronomical investigations of complex organic molecules in space. They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds. It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star. That is the only place they can be created. So when someone tells you that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about. But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?

I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists. Are you saying he/she is wrong? I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.

Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That person, by admission, is not a scientist. I am. I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.

To quote you, "But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?"

I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory. I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.

You have been given multiple links to evidence for transitional species. It's apparent it is you who is desperate to deny the evidence. It really is cowardly to demand evidence and when the evidence is provided to simply deny it was ever provided.

So, you are admitting you believe that one species became another, and so on?

 

[Hollie]

The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.

It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

 

[S.J.]

You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent. You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo. And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do. A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science. You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case. And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support. That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person. Because all you are doing is trolling. I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior. And I for one am sick and tired of it.

You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons. I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds. Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, in detail, with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based. Do that, and we can continue our discussion. Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you. It is up to you.

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You deny the reality of evolution, bubba. So what is your explanation? What merits your denial?

<Crickets chirping>

Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies. I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though. Now I hear those crickets.

I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread. How ironic is that?

Quit stalling. Your explanation....

Again, I don't have to provide an alternative to your theory for your's to be wrong. You don't win by default, you still have to make your case, which you have failed to do.

 

[orogenicman]

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.

Go back and read the OP. The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence. Did you have a problem understanding it?

And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist. Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear? To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.

 

[orogenicman]

Go back and read the OP. The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence. Did you have a problem understanding it?

That can't be the case as mountains of evidence have been produced. Oops, forgot, you have a problem understanding it.

He must be a really big guy as he sees a mountain as a mole hill.

No doubt, he also believes in Paul Bunyan.

 

[Hollie]

fact

\ˈfakt\noun
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.

Yes you are scientifically illiterate.

Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders

And just what is the definition of a species? There are different opinions. Which one do you use? There is also the question of kinds. Just because they are not fertile with each other does not mean they are different species, and they are still the same kind. They still have the same number of chromosomes.

There is no question of "kinds". That's a silly term used by ID'iot creationists / fundie zealots of the Christian "kind". It has no relevance to science.

 

[S.J.]

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.

Go back and read the OP. The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence. Did you have a problem understanding it?

And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist. Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear? To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.

Oh really? That's pretty good. You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it? Perfect!

 

[Hollie]

WTF is right! The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's. It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to. It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "inter stellar planetary collision or meteors. Nor does it claim that we are star stuff. It says nothing whatsoever about any of that. It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species. If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand. The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.

Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from astronomical investigations of complex organic molecules in space. They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds. It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star. That is the only place they can be created. So when someone tells you that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about. But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?

I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists. Are you saying he/she is wrong? I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.

Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That person, by admission, is not a scientist. I am. I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.

To quote you, "But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?"

I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory. I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.

You have been given multiple links to evidence for transitional species. It's apparent it is you who is desperate to deny the evidence. It really is cowardly to demand evidence and when the evidence is provided to simply deny it was ever provided.

So, you are admitting you believe that one species became another, and so on?

Other than by magic on behalf of your various polytheistic gawds, what accounts for the diversity of life on the planet.

Do you know what a transitional species is?

 

[orogenicman]

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You deny the reality of evolution, bubba. So what is your explanation? What merits your denial?

<Crickets chirping>

Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies. I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though. Now I hear those crickets.

I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread. How ironic is that?

Quit stalling. Your explanation....

Again, I don't have to provide an alternative to your theory for your's to be wrong. You don't win by default, you still have to make your case, which you have failed to do.

Of course not. No one wins by default. Since I have already stated the fact that scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit and the theory of evolution certainly does stand on its merits), it is not enough to simply state that it doesn't or that I have failed to support the science when clearly I have. And it is not enough to refute evolution. You MUST provide an alternative, otherwise, you are simply a crackpot with no leg to stand on. And if you are comfortable sitting there on your cracked pot deflecting the obvious, that, of course is on you.

 

[Hollie]

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?

You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.

Go back and read the OP. The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence. Did you have a problem understanding it?

And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist. Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear? To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.

Oh really? That's pretty good. You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it? Perfect!

Actually, it is you religious extremists who are making claims you cannot prove.