Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Great post, timber.

RL: The Darwins were believers in evolution before Charles had collected any evidence.

timber: So what?

Yes, that pretty much sums up the typical attitude of the evolutionist. Evidence is secondary, only there as window dressing to be interpreted in SOME fashion for evolution which is the presupposition, whatever might be required to uphold it.

It is well known that evolution got it's modern start, not as a 'scientific theory' but as a philosophical position, without evidence.

But , so what? Evolutionists don't need no stinking evidence.

1. No "theory" is ever "proved"....it is only "supported".

Evolutionists can get around any problem by claiming , 'well we may not know HOW evolution happened, we just know that it MUST HAVE happened'.

It is the ultimate in non-falsifiability, because no matter what objections are raised against evolution, their faith stands firm.

The evidence is secondary, even inconsequential, because it will ALWAYS be interpreted to support evolution.

Even if it could be argued that there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution, that presumed argument would in no way support some other origin explanation, nor would that presumed argument in any way give merit to a supernatural explanation of origin.

I cant give you any evidence that God created the world 7000 years ago, I dont have any. I CAN give you overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution, all current versions of it, is an ideological doctrine and a pseudoscience with no rational support.

gunga

Quote:

I cant give you any evidence that God created the world 7000 years ago, I dont have any. I CAN give you overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution, all current versions of it, is an ideological doctrine and a pseudoscience with no rational support.

Ive seen your attempts at "evidence" in the other thread and they are quite laughable.

Now thats what I call a compelling argument ( plays laugh track)

(despite your attempts at using petroglyphs and ICA stones as data)You admit that Creationism, ID, extra terrestrial seeding etc , have no evidence in support, yet by the same basis that you admit to a lack of evidence that supports your "belief" , you merely deny(IMHO mostly through ignorance) the boatloads of clear evidence that support science.
What I find rather frustrating is how you selectively like to admit to some points of science but fail to recognize that these same points support an evolutionary conclusion. EG

1.How do you deny that the earth is extremely old? (Your mathematical theory diatribes also affect the occurence of other conclusions re: radioisotopes and the occurence of daughter products in equilibrium with these isotopes. You cant ahve it both ways). Decision--clearly in fvor of science

2. The fossil record includes clear evidence that life proceeded from simple to complex, and the patterns of the distribution of life follow the patterns of drifting continents and environmental reconstruction (you have to rad about this more because the fossil record is THE key element in oilo exploration)

3.The fossil record clearly shows the branching "tree of life" for a large number of genera. Intermediate fossils abound in the record and the "gaps" are being filled in with regularity

(An interesting point about the fossil record is that it is one of the built in tests of predictability and falsifiability, as is atmospheric transfer geochemistry, geomagnetism, even hydraulics (heavier particles settle in water columns faster than lighter onnes -thus providing evidence for micro superposition) Falsifiability of superposition would have to deny the LAWS of Gravity.


4. The processes of structural geology and geomoprphology allow us to retrace the movements of the earths surface through time and simple things like scratches left over from glaciers, or mountain building cracks left in the rocks, provide absolute uncontestable data that the earth has played host to life in precisely the way we say it has.


5. Unambiguous data that species are not immutable has been collected over the last 200 years or so. This concept alone, where evolutionary thinking had its puny beginnings, is so profound that you have no way to counter it.


___________
RL your "broken record" pronouncements of the Darwin family and its traditional acceptance of evolution, is patently false. Erasmus wrote a few poems that , like the Bible, could loosely be interpreted to be \presaging evolution but without any substance other than stanza and meter . However, as you tangenetially mention "Evolution was a topic of interest in those times> Actually , since Lamarck and Buffon and Cuvier proposed these "philosophical postulates" there has been an interest in evolution because even early evidence seemed to suggest that SPECIES WERE NOT IMMUTABLE. Thats an important dawn concept. I can say that there are extraterrestrials out there, but without evidence, Im not a pioneer, Im merely a teller of tales .

Darwin , starting as a devout Creationist, came out the other side in about 1844 as someone with something important to say on the subject. He kept detailed journals on the subject and came up with a mechanism. Evolution wasnt a world beating concept without a mchanism. What Darwin did was rock the world by proposing the mechanism.

When he produced "The Origin..."edition 1 in 1859, he still wasnt altogether certain about his mechanism. By the time he completed his last edition,( vesrion 6) he had a very compelling argument and hed amassed a couple of journals on pigeon breeding, barnacle taxonomy, insect modifications, and the "incompleteness of the fossil record" He would be very pleased today ,were he alive, to see the strides that the sciences in quantitative stratigraphy and genetics have made.

"Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution and if you were anything other than the ignorant white-trash redneck you so clearly are, you 'd know that, blah, blah....

The answer you invariably get from evo-losers on that one goes sort of like

Quote:

"Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution and if you were anything other than the ignorant white-trash redneck you so clearly are, you 'd know that, blah, blah....

Which being translated into plain English means:

"If we get good enough with the ad-hominems, we might could get by with having to defend one untenable BS ideological doctrine instead of two of em..."

Chumly wrote:

Even if it could be argued that there is no overwhelming evidence for evolution, that presumed argument would in no way support some other origin explanation, nor would that presumed argument in any way give merit to a supernatural explanation of origin.

That's right, but that doesn't help evolution. A theory can only be so fubar, and you're better off WITHOUT a theory, i.e. just say "Hey, this is some sort of **** we don't really know anything about." Evolution is beyond that point.

Like I say, I have friends who are atheists and agnostics who do not believe in evolution.

Thats not the meaning of the word evolution Schmerdek. If you want to engage in that topic, start another thread. We have too mamny Cretinists and IDers trying to hop all over the place when they cant stand evidence .


Why is a rationale question , Simply stated IMHO its the nature of the chemical bond.