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

I honestly believe that real suffers from brain damage.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

As I posted on another thread.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory."

And equally: Debating evolutionists on the topic of creation is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory.

0 Replies

What a great comeback. Did you work that out all by your lonesome? ummmm......loser.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Wilso wrote:
As I posted on another thread.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory."

And equally: Debating evolutionists on the topic of creation is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory.

What a crock of ****. There is a critical difference between evolutionists and creationists:

Evolutionists provide evidence for their claims. (Carbon dating, paleontological records, etc.)

Creationists claim that all the evidence they need is written down in some poorly-slapped-together and inconsistent bronze-aged text.

Creationists kill the conversation because they become a broken record regarding their "faith" that the book is accurate. Real scientists (evolutionists) take nothing on faith. Nothing. They need to be shown evidence. And if real, true, good evidence surfaces that shows a scientist he should believe otherwise.... HE WILL. Absolutely nothing like that can be said about creationists. I could take a creationist on a trip back in time to show them the earth forming billions of years ago and they'd be like, "I still don't believe you."

It's pointless. I honestly think that we should stop debating creationists in respected circles. It was a profound victory for the Christian right to get the American public to see it as a debate in the first place, when it really is analagous to debating whether the presents you get on December 25th come from mommy and daddy, or Santa Claus. "Well.. I believe Santa intelligently designed my parents to leave presents for me... so he sorta exists in that sense, right?"

Problem is, it's as fun as it is irritating. It's rather like playing that game at the arcade where you smack the hedgehogs that pop up with a mallet. Because when it comes to evolutionists.... we're usually the intellectual superior.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

It's pointless. I honestly think that we should stop debating creationists in respected circles. It was a profound victory for the Christian right to get the American public to see it as a debate in the first place

I disagree.

People who understand evolution and who understand why the creationist arguments are wrong, need to continue to explain things.

I don't look at it as a discussion. It's more of a simple explanation of scientific information. The fact that evolution happened is not debatable (within science), the evidence for it is incontrovertible. Debates occur at the philosophical level even though many creationists don't differentiate between philosophy and science.

Part of the reason we have this groundswell of ID and Creationism is because of a lack of communication from scientists about just how profound evolutionary theory is in their daily activities.

Religions have always know that people needed to be exposed to their ideas at an early age, this is why they fight so hard to get their ideas into public schools. Communication and impression is important. Even though it's tedious to have to explain to adults why their ideas about evolution are wrong, it's because they were allowed to be given incorrect information to start with that we now have to do damage control.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

What a great comeback. Did you work that out all by your lonesome? ummmm......loser.

Quote:

Loser

Loser? That's an original one wilso! Any help working that one out?

As to your cute message ("...and flys back to its flock to claim victory"): Look at the facts on this board:

Quote:

This is funny.......and very true.

by maporsche.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 is correct. And reading posts from pathetic losers like you baddog just continue to re-inforce it. At times like this I keep asking myself why I do it. In my life away from A2K, I don't have anything to do with sick freaks like you. So I'm leaving you to wallow in your delusions. I'll soon have a child who I've got to protect in order to prevent you worthless losers from filling her head with a bunch superstitious religious crap.

0 Replies

rosborne's last post explains all the reasons why we must continue to debate ID, because if we don't, fundamental religionists will end up winning the minds of the young with false information about science.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

stlstrike3 is correct. And reading posts from pathetic losers like you baddog just continue to re-inforce it. At times like this I keep asking myself why I do it. In my life away from A2K, I don't have anything to do with sick freaks like you. So I'm leaving you to wallow in your delusions. I'll soon have a child who I've got to protect in order to prevent you worthless losers from filling her head with a bunch superstitious religious crap.

Well - Bye. :wink:

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Here we go again, the old, "I have no evidence to support anything I say, so Ill try to trash yours". When did this topic morph from evolution to cosmology?

Circumstantial evidence becomes compelling when theres
1lots of it

2Nothing to refute each piece

3No similarly evidenced explanation exists.

The topic is 'don't tell me there's no evidence...' so it's sorta phrased as a challenge to present objections , is it not? Sorry if objections bother you.

I disagree with your implication that a bad theory is better than no theory at all. If no other explanation has been articulated, that is really no good reason to hang on to one that is poorly supported.

Why should evidence be necessary to 'refute' assumptions that have been put forward without any solid evidence of their own?

Why should an objector have to prove a negative?

If BBers believe that a 'singularity' existed 'before' space/time, then proving the negative should not be the focus if no positive evidence can be produced.

I don't remember who it was that brought BB into the thread this time, but since BB/abiogenesis/evolution are all sold in one slick package in the public schools , I consider it fair game.

0 Replies

real wrote: I don't remember who it was that brought BB into the thread this time, but since BB/abiogenesis/evolution are all sold in one slick package in the public schools , I consider it fair game.

Conclusion: brain damage.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I disagree with your implication that a bad theory is better than no theory at all. If no other explanation has been articulated, that is really no good reason to hang on to one that is poorly supported.

Evolution is not poorly supported. It's one of the preeminent theories of modern science. It's astoundingly well supported. The BB is also not poorly supported.

real life wrote:

Why should evidence be necessary to 'refute' assumptions that have been put forward without any solid evidence of their own?

There's plenty of solid evidence. Just because you don't consider anything besides direct observation to be valide evidence doesn't change how science views evidence.

Evolution has been proven, there's no question about it. The evidence is not only solid it's, massive and irrefutable.

real life wrote:

If BBers believe that a 'singularity' existed 'before' space/time, then proving the negative should not be the focus if no positive evidence can be produced.

The BB theory doesn't use the word 'singularity' that's just the popular media. And nothing in the BB theory talks about what happened 'before' the inception point.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Evolution has been proven, there's no question about it. The evidence is not only solid it's, massive and irrefutable.

If the theory is not falsifiable (refutable) , then it's not science is it?

If there can be 'no question' about it, then you are in a position of belief/faith.

The reason is, that no matter what objection is raised, your answer will always be 'well, we may not be able to prove HOW it happened, but we are sure that it MUST HAVE happened.'

That's faith, but is it science?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Evolution has been proven, there's no question about it. The evidence is not only solid it's, massive and irrefutable.

If the theory is not falsifiable (refutable) , then it's not science is it?

It IS falsifiable. It just HASN'T been.

You refuse to acknowledge the nature of scientific proof. You seem to think scientific proof is some type of absolute philosophical proof, at least as long as it suits your need to challenge a theory. Of course, when it comes to supporting your own theories, you throw caution to the wind and just go with good old faith. At least be consistant.

0 Replies

faith = belief in poofism; no evidence
science = theories with evidence
therefore: faith is more reliable than science (according to real)

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Evolution has been proven, there's no question about it. The evidence is not only solid it's, massive and irrefutable.

If the theory is not falsifiable (refutable) , then it's not science is it?

.....You refuse to acknowledge the nature of scientific proof. You seem to think scientific proof is some type of absolute philosophical proof..

I'm not the one who stated that the 'proof' was 'irrefutable'. That was you.

rosborne979 wrote:

At least be consistant.

Good advice. Will you take it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Evolution has been proven, there's no question about it. The evidence is not only solid it's, massive and irrefutable.

If the theory is not falsifiable (refutable) , then it's not science is it?

.....You refuse to acknowledge the nature of scientific proof. You seem to think scientific proof is some type of absolute philosophical proof..

I'm not the one who stated that the 'proof' was 'irrefutable'. That was you.

rosborne979 wrote:
At least be consistant.
Good advice. Will you take it?

Is this the best you can do RL? Sophistry and semantic games, over and over again?

You've been playing this broken record for years now. Please show us a new trick. Nobody's falling for this one.

You refuse to accept scientific definitions for evidence and proof, and then you complain that neither exist while conveniently avoiding the fact that you simply don't like the working definitions.

You misrepresent science and scientific theories and then ask us to defend your strawman.

And when cornered you divert the discussion into some meaningless moras of tangled irrationality and logic while you change the subject.

I'll admit you're good at it, but it's getting tediously repetitive. Are there any new tricks left in your bag, or are they just the old washed up ones?

0 Replies

your last post was simply childish, real life

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

your last post was simply childish, real life

I agree.

Usually RL's delusionally evasive escape tactics are far more creative.

Maybe he's having a bad day. Are you ok RL? How's the kid doing? Healthy and happy I hope.

0 Replies

I wouldn't go so far as to identify real's post as "sophistry." It's downright elementary with no substance.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know