Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[Mr.Right]

When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something

Are you blind? How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it. Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.

I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.

That is correct. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.

How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.

It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.

It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.

And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid. Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent. I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light". But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule. You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you. I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point? It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth. So be it.

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

 

[orogenicman]

When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something

Are you blind? How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it. Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.

I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.

That is correct. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.

How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.

It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.

It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.

And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid. Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent. I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light". But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule. You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you. I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point? It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth. So be it.

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Mr.Right]

When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something

Are you blind? How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it. Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.

I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.

That is correct. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.

How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.

It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.

It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.

And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid. Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent. I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light". But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule. You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you. I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point? It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth. So be it.

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you blind? How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it. Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.

I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.

That is correct. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.

How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.

It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.

It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.

And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid. Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent. I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light". But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule. You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you. I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point? It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth. So be it.

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

 

[Mr.Right]

I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.

That is correct. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.

How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.

It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.

It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.

And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid. Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent. I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light". But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule. You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you. I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point? It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth. So be it.

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

 

[orogenicman]

That is correct. Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.

It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.

And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid. Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent. I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light". But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule. You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you. I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point? It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth. So be it.

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

 

[Mr.Right]

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

 

[Mr.Right]

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.

 

[Hollie]

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.

Those who deny the fact of evolution as supported by science, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it obviously missed you, so you're excused.

 

[Hollie]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

 

[eots]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

 

[S.J.]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.

 

[orogenicman]

You've proven nothing to be incorrect. All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science. Congratulations.

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.

Actually, it can. Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit. THAT would falsify the theory of evolution. I wish you good luck finding one. Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is. And your characterization of the science as being one that creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does. Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it. He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had. THAT is what all the sciences do.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.

fact

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

: a true piece of information

Full Definition
1
:a thing done: as

a obsolete :feat

b :crime <accessory after the fact>

c archaic :action
2
archaic :performance, doing
3
:the quality of being actual :actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a :something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>

b :an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
:a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact

Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.

Where is this mountain of evidence for God?

I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.

fact

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

: a true piece of information

Full Definition
1
:a thing done: as

a obsolete :feat

b :crime <accessory after the fact>

c archaic :action
2
archaic :performance, doing
3
:the quality of being actual :actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a :something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>

b :an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
:a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact

Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?"

It's everywhere, it's all around you – every plant and animal is proof of evolution; indeed, you are proof of evolution.

It's just that you're likely too blinded by religious dogma to see the truth.

 

[Mr.Right]

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.

If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that. Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution. Next.

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.

The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are. Congratulations.

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.

Actually, it can. Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit. THAT would falsify the theory of evolution. I wish you good luck finding one. Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is. And your characterization of the science as being one that creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does. Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it. He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had. THAT is what all the sciences do.

OK, genius. Why don't you tell us how the first cell originated. What was that? Scientists don't know? How can this be? OK. Try this. How about you tell us how species evolve? That should be easy, since it's settled science. I believe that science tells us that they somehow add new information to their DNA. Is that correct? If this is true, why don't we have a single example of this ever happening? There is also the fact that that you cannot add new information to DNA. It can only work with what's available. There is also no evidence of beneficial mutations. Not a single one. Mutations actually DESTROY INFORMATION. This is a scientific fact. You can cling to your little fairy tale. People who can think for themselves know better. You believe in evolution because you WANT too. Because the alternative is abhorrent to you. A living God, that everyone must answer too. You reject Him out of sinful pride and cling to the lie. I've wasted enough time on you. I'm out of here.

 

[Hollie]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

View attachment 39585

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

 

[Hollie]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.

Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.

 

[bodecea]

So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?

Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?

Why can't you answer the simple question. Are you a young earth creationist?