Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?

[Sunni Man]

Acknowledging evolution doesn't make a person an atheist.
It's so difficult for some people to grasp.

True, not all people who believe in evolution are atheists.

But the majority of atheists believe in evolution. ...

 

[BULLDOG]

Acknowledging evolution doesn't make a person an atheist.
It's so difficult for some people to grasp.

True, not all people who believe in evolution are atheists.

But the majority of atheists believe in evolution. ...

Of course they do. They are usually rational thinking individuals who evaluate available information instead of just believing what they were told.

 

[S.J.]

The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies. If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it. Where have I heard that before?

You yourself blabbered that before.

Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.

You like to blabber, I see.

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

 

[denmark]

The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies. If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it. Where have I heard that before?

You yourself blabbered that before.

Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.

You like to blabber, I see.

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

 

[DGS49]

Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically. If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds. When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result: The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.

"Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented. But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it. Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.

But we have reached the point where Evolution has gone from being a "theory" to being a "religion."

That is, when an apparently inconsistent fact comes to light, rather than re-examining the THEORY to see why it can't explain the inconvenient fact, the fact itself is castigated, along with those who brought it up, because the Theory is PRESUMED to be unassailable.

That, my friends is the difference between religion and theory.

 

[Hollie]

Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically. If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds. When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result: The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.

"Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented. But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it. Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.

But we have reached the point where Evolution has gone from being a "theory" to being a "religion."

That is, when an apparently inconsistent fact comes to light, rather than re-examining the THEORY to see why it can't explain the inconvenient fact, the fact itself is castigated, along with those who brought it up, because the Theory is PRESUMED to be unassailable.

That, my friends is the difference between religion and theory.

Biological evolution has both a documented history of observation and a fossil record to record changes in species.

Your reference to the EYE as a problem for biological science is not a problem at all. Your read on an ID’iot / creation website, right?

 

[S.J.]

The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies. If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it. Where have I heard that before?

You yourself blabbered that before.

Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.

You like to blabber, I see.

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

 

[denmark]

You yourself blabbered that before.

Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.

You like to blabber, I see.

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.

 

[S.J.]

Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.

You like to blabber, I see.

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.

You ignored the OP's point entirely and instead focused on one word, followed by a wisecrack for the purpose of prodding him like you would poke a bee hive...to get a reaction. The OP contained links and presented an intelligent and substantive argument. Your response was trolling.
My post was to point out that the left (who advance an unprovable theory as fact) subscribe to the belief that repeating a lie often enough will convince people that it's true. Your response to that was similar to your response to the OP...trolling.

 

[denmark]

You like to blabber, I see.

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.

You ignored the OP's point entirely and instead focused on one word, followed by a wisecrack for the purpose of prodding him like you would poke a bee hive...to get a reaction. The OP contained links and presented an intelligent and substantive argument. Your response was trolling.
My post was to point out that the left (who advance an unprovable theory as fact) subscribe to the belief that repeating a lie often enough will convince people that it's true. Your response to that was similar to your response to the OP...trolling.

It is clear by the OP’s thread title and his opening paragraph that he does not understand science. He did not present any intelligent argument, just cut/paste some material that suited his beliefs.
No science expert in the world who studies biological nature would agree with the thread’s title.

Even the OP agreed that “microevolution” is valid, so he must realize its concept has so much evidence that its considered a fact.
Scientists have plenty of evidence for “macroevolution” and consider the phylogenetic data that represents it as a strong theory.
Origin of life is another matter, dealing with mostly speculation.

If you are really interested in science, you should educate yourself on those subjects before trying to argue about them.

 

[Astrostar]

It starts with the theory of evolution in biology. Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it. Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.

One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel. We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time. This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time. The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times. What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26). This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime. He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book. We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end. It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet. As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.

That said, this is what NASA states:
"General relativity also provides scenarios that could allow travelers to go back in time, according to NASA. The equations, however, might be difficult to physically achieve.

One possibility could be to go faster than light, which travels at 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second) in a vacuum. Einstein's equations, though, show that an object at the speed of light would have both infinite mass and a length of 0. This appears to be physically impossible, although some scientists have extended his equations and said it might be done.

A linked possibility, NASA stated, would be to create "wormholes" between points in space-time. While Einstein's equations provide for them, they would collapse very quickly and would only be suitable for very small particles. Also, scientists haven't actually observed these wormholes yet. Also, the technology needed to create a wormhole is far beyond anything we have today."

Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities

Here is how we travel into the future which we can do on a limited basis today (skip to 7:33)..

The same as religion. No proof of "god" whatsoever.

 

[Flopper]

It starts with the theory of evolution in biology. Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it. Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.

One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel. We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time. This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time. The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times. What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26). This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime. He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book. We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end. It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet. As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6). This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.

That said, this is what NASA states:
"General relativity also provides scenarios that could allow travelers to go back in time, according to NASA. The equations, however, might be difficult to physically achieve.

One possibility could be to go faster than light, which travels at 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second) in a vacuum. Einstein's equations, though, show that an object at the speed of light would have both infinite mass and a length of 0. This appears to be physically impossible, although some scientists have extended his equations and said it might be done.

A linked possibility, NASA stated, would be to create "wormholes" between points in space-time. While Einstein's equations provide for them, they would collapse very quickly and would only be suitable for very small particles. Also, scientists haven't actually observed these wormholes yet. Also, the technology needed to create a wormhole is far beyond anything we have today."

Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities

Here is how we travel into the future which we can do on a limited basis today (skip to 7:33)..

Well, it's good know the Bible doesn't directly address time travel but of course there is some verse in the Bible to prove it can't happen.

 

[Flopper]

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.

You ignored the OP's point entirely and instead focused on one word, followed by a wisecrack for the purpose of prodding him like you would poke a bee hive...to get a reaction. The OP contained links and presented an intelligent and substantive argument. Your response was trolling.
My post was to point out that the left (who advance an unprovable theory as fact) subscribe to the belief that repeating a lie often enough will convince people that it's true. Your response to that was similar to your response to the OP...trolling.

It is clear by the OP’s thread title and his opening paragraph that he does not understand science. He did not present any intelligent argument, just cut/paste some material that suited his beliefs.
No science expert in the world who studies biological nature would agree with the thread’s title.

Even the OP agreed that “microevolution” is valid, so he must realize its concept has so much evidence that its considered a fact.
Scientists have plenty of evidence for “macroevolution” and consider the phylogenetic data that represents it as a strong theory.
Origin of life is another matter, dealing with mostly speculation.

If you are really interested in science, you should educate yourself on those subjects before trying to argue about them.

One of the comforting things about religion is you don't have to be concerned or confused about the world around you because all you need to know is in the book and if ain't in the book, you don't need to know it.

The Bible is not a book of science or history but rather a book that teaches us principals to live by. Why is it that people try make it into something that it is not and thus alienates millions of people.

 

[Flopper]

Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically. If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds. When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result: The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.

"Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented. But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it. Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.

But we have reached the point where Evolution has gone from being a "theory" to being a "religion."

That is, when an apparently inconsistent fact comes to light, rather than re-examining the THEORY to see why it can't explain the inconvenient fact, the fact itself is castigated, along with those who brought it up, because the Theory is PRESUMED to be unassailable.

That, my friends is the difference between religion and theory.

There have always been people that support or reject a theory to the extent that it becomes a religion. That was the case with Germ theory which was widely ridiculed. Even when the research of Pasteur and Koch was published, it was 50 years before the scientific community would fully accept it. The Miasma Theory and Four Humors were defended with religious zeal. However as their work was duplicated in laboratories around the world, the scientific community dismissed these alternative theories and those that support them.

When it comes to matters of science, scientific research will eventually determine what is fact and what is just faith. If supporters of the biblical version of the creation of the species are correct, eventually their will be enough scientific research to convince scientists that that the theory of evolution is faulty. However, I doubt there will ever be enough evidence in support of the theory of evolution to convince the religious faithful.

 

[abu afak]

`
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Contents

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Sources
• 12 External links

`

 

[S.J.]

Is "blabber" your favorite word? Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me. Problem solved.

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.

You ignored the OP's point entirely and instead focused on one word, followed by a wisecrack for the purpose of prodding him like you would poke a bee hive...to get a reaction. The OP contained links and presented an intelligent and substantive argument. Your response was trolling.
My post was to point out that the left (who advance an unprovable theory as fact) subscribe to the belief that repeating a lie often enough will convince people that it's true. Your response to that was similar to your response to the OP...trolling.

It is clear by the OP’s thread title and his opening paragraph that he does not understand science. He did not present any intelligent argument, just cut/paste some material that suited his beliefs.
No science expert in the world who studies biological nature would agree with the thread’s title.

Even the OP agreed that “microevolution” is valid, so he must realize its concept has so much evidence that its considered a fact.
Scientists have plenty of evidence for “macroevolution” and consider the phylogenetic data that represents it as a strong theory.
Origin of life is another matter, dealing with mostly speculation.

If you are really interested in science, you should educate yourself on those subjects before trying to argue about them.

This comment (post #6) does not refute anything. All I see is a hint that he is wrong, followed by a snide remark. Where's the argument?

Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
I hope he is not a teacher!

 

[denmark]

More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?

And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge? I'll wait.

My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.

You ignored the OP's point entirely and instead focused on one word, followed by a wisecrack for the purpose of prodding him like you would poke a bee hive...to get a reaction. The OP contained links and presented an intelligent and substantive argument. Your response was trolling.
My post was to point out that the left (who advance an unprovable theory as fact) subscribe to the belief that repeating a lie often enough will convince people that it's true. Your response to that was similar to your response to the OP...trolling.

It is clear by the OP’s thread title and his opening paragraph that he does not understand science. He did not present any intelligent argument, just cut/paste some material that suited his beliefs.
No science expert in the world who studies biological nature would agree with the thread’s title.

Even the OP agreed that “microevolution” is valid, so he must realize its concept has so much evidence that its considered a fact.
Scientists have plenty of evidence for “macroevolution” and consider the phylogenetic data that represents it as a strong theory.
Origin of life is another matter, dealing with mostly speculation.

If you are really interested in science, you should educate yourself on those subjects before trying to argue about them.

This comment (post #6) does not refute anything. All I see is a hint that he is wrong, followed by a snide remark. Where's the argument?

Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
I hope he is not a teacher!

OP’s comment on “coming from monkeys” shows that he’s ignorant of phylogeny and common descent concepts.
To learn about them and see some evidence, refer to the recent post #35 just prior to your last one (by Abu Afak).

 

[S.J.]

OP’s comment on “coming from monkeys” shows that he’s ignorant of phylogeny and common descent concepts.

Again, you focus on one word and hammer away at it like it means anything. It's a sarcastic statement to show the absurdity of your theory but since you're either unable or too lazy to make your case, you throw out an insult. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply claimed to have refuted the OP when you haven't even addressed it. Well, I've wasted too much time on you already and continuing to indulge you in your trolling would be pointless so cya later. Have a nice evening.

 

[james bond]

Science is a thing.
It doesn't believe anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.

Wrong. Science isn't a thing. It's supposed to be a disciplined study in a quest for knowledge that uses observable, testable and falsifiable explanations and predictions. I was talking about evolutionary science which isn't a really a study, but is a made up philosophy based on natural selection in order to show that God or the creator doesn't exist and that everything originated naturally. Not much follows the scientific method, but is circumstantial evidence and imaginary hypotheses. Thus, it's you who doesn't make any sense you low brow internet atheist.

 

[james bond]

Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
I hope he is not a teacher!

We have creation science and it is being taught in public schools in some states. We always had it, but around the 1850s evolution tried to take it out of the school curriculum and it gained momentum. Humans were created. They didn't evolve. One of the transitions is from tailed to tailless monkeys. We're supposed to have vestigial tails. However, this is all imaginary BS made up by secular or atheist scientists.