Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Unshakable faith in evolution.....

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
janesix
Posts: 3,437
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:27:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. What is it you want to talk about? Evolution or the origins of life?

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:34:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Atheistic priests have convinced many that science in general and evolution in particular are based on observations from the natural world and thus they are empirically or factually based. The interesting thing is that this is not the modern understanding of science among scientists themselves.

Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen:"On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). "That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. "It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. "But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. "Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. "Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. "That is physically impossible. "To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). "We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. "The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

The lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls)

http://youtu.be...

Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. "Variation (microevolution) is the real part. "The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. "Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. "Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. "What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. "Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding such as: to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic, etc. In reality, the line becomes sterile and dies out. As one characteristic increases, others diminish. "

Evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. "This is where the imaginary and magical part of the theory of evolution starts intruding into peoples' beliefs. "It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

-----
The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory." As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book "The Way of the Cell" published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."" Evolutionists often say "it evolved", but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.

There is much variation in bacteria. "There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones17). "But they never turn into anything new. "They always remain bacteria. "Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. "Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. "In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. "There is much variation in fruit flies. "There are many mutations. "But they never turn into anything new. "They always remain fruit flies. "Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" [Ridley2004, pg. 66]. This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:39:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia

The whole of evolutionary science does not rest on lumpers vs spiltters - there are many many lines of evidence in many different fields. Additionally, the fact that we (that includes you) don't know how life began is irrelevant to evolution. That unknown lies outside of the scope of evolution.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:45:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Survey data collected from 1986 to 2005 revealed disturbing information about scientific reporting across a host of fields. Almost two percent of scientists personally admitted to having "fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results."1 And when asked about their colleagues" actions, the falsification figure jumped to 14 percent.
Additionally, up to 72 percent perceived their fellow scientists as guilty of other questionable research practices. An analysis of the survey data published online in PLoS One concluded that "it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct."1
This study verifies the sentiment of the late evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Gould, who wrote in 1994, "The stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method," with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."2 In other words, scientists are human and capable of deception, just like people in any other field.
The published analysis also found that medical and pharmacological researchers reported a higher rate of misconduct, "supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests."3
If commercial interests can encourage the manipulation of research data, then why not other ideological interests? There have been many examples where a "scientific" conclusion was more the result of evolutionary bias than it was a deduction from the data that was examined. Fossils such as Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man, as well as embryonic recapitulation, vestigial organs, and the supposed evolutionary behavior of the peppered moth, were all widely-accepted evidence for evolutionary concepts until they were debunked by later research.
These are historical examples of data manipulation to fit a preselected conclusion. Coupled with the find that "around 46 per cent [of scientists] say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in"presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure,"3 they demonstrate the potential fallibility of scientists and their dependence, like all other people, upon starting assumptions in their interpretation of data.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 8:50:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:34:56 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Atheistic priests have convinced many that science in general and evolution in particular are based on observations from the natural world and thus they are empirically or factually based. The interesting thing is that this is not the modern understanding of science among scientists themselves.

Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen:"On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). "That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. "It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. "But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. "Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. "Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. "That is physically impossible. "To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). "We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. "The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature.

www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

The lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls)

http://youtu.be...

Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. "Variation (microevolution) is the real part. "The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. "Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. "Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. "What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. "Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding such as: to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic, etc. In reality, the line becomes sterile and dies out. As one characteristic increases, others diminish. "

Evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. "This is where the imaginary and magical part of the theory of evolution starts intruding into peoples' beliefs. "It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

-----
The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory." As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book "The Way of the Cell" published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."" Evolutionists often say "it evolved", but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.

There is much variation in bacteria. "There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones17). "But they never turn into anything new. "They always remain bacteria. "Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. "Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. "In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. "There is much variation in fruit flies. "There are many mutations. "But they never turn into anything new. "They always remain fruit flies. "Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" [Ridley2004, pg. 66]. This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth.

Copy pasta..
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 9:09:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia

Evolution, as a science relies neither on belief nor on faith. It is based on innumerable observations in taxonomy, genetics, embryology, geology and paleontology; many of which were predictions of evolution and almost all stand in direct contradiction of any other explanation that has ever been put forward.

Evolution is a reliable science because it regularly examines it's own assumptions by continually testing them in a variety of different ways, as well as seeking additional evidence through study to add to the precision of that description. It has been refined and updated to account for numerous such observations including, but not limited to, mendelivian genetics, DNA, endosymbiosis, and population genetics; all of which account for the biodiversity on the planet, and provides a detailed causative process that accounts for all the major lines of evidence in every way.

Any changes, or descriptions to modify evolution must go through a rigorous process of peer review, replication, and evidential support, and means that everything currently accepted as part of evolution has been done so because it can be shown to be evidently true.

Creationism and ID, on the other hand do not do any of this; primary challenges are conducted through politics, school boards, boards of education and with a host of lawyers. Work is not peer reviewed, nor subjected to any form of scrutiny; and both concepts have been factually refuted both in scientific terms, and in a court of law.

Both rely primarily on unsupported assumptions that can neither be demonstrated, nor disproved; or rely on data and arguments that have already been disproved without any additional categories.

Any objective way of determining the origins of life, demonstrable fall on the side of evolution, and not one fact or piece of evidence stands directly opposed to it, despite arguments to the contrary based on misrepresentation, cherry picking or out right dishonesty.

The extent to which evolution is supported within the scientific community is neither because of faith; as it is one of the best supported theories in all of science and is therefore evidently true beyond any reasonable doubt, nor religion as a result.

It is not politicized by scientists either, as all confirmations, updated, corrections, support, tests, and validations of it are solely and unilaterally performed within the scientific arena.

On the other hand, Creationism is solely a political movement; with no attempt to do any rigorous science as it's position has to be believed regardless of how many facts stand in direct contradiction to it and therefore cannot be corrected no matter how wrong it is, and relies primarily on lies, distortion, and political and rhetorical maneuvering to try and sell it's position.

This is particularly ironic, as often Evolution is cited by many Creationist websites on moral grounds; yet so many of it's main proponents are forced to repeatedly lie in order to promote it.

Given this, it is pretty and obviously clear that everything you seem to be claiming is not true; and instead solely and fully applies to the position it is pretty clear your trying to support.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:07:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.

I quoted a microbiologist. Argue with him.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:12:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 8:39:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia

The whole of evolutionary science does not rest on lumpers vs spiltters - there are many many lines of evidence in many different fields. Additionally, the fact that we (that includes you) don't know how life began is irrelevant to evolution. That unknown lies outside of the scope of evolution.

We are yet to witness any act of evolution. The so called fossil record shows rabbits existed in an era before dinosaurs. I'm picturing rabbits and raptors in harmony together. Perhaps it was a sabor tooth jagrabbit. Sounds very reliable. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:15:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I'll pause to wait on a reply to how male and female of over 10,000,000 species evolved at the exact same time in order to mate with each other and reproduce in the first place.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:21:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:12:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:39:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia

The whole of evolutionary science does not rest on lumpers vs spiltters - there are many many lines of evidence in many different fields. Additionally, the fact that we (that includes you) don't know how life began is irrelevant to evolution. That unknown lies outside of the scope of evolution.

We are yet to witness any act of evolution. The so called fossil record shows rabbits existed in an era before dinosaurs. I'm picturing rabbits and raptors in harmony together. Perhaps it was a sabor tooth jagrabbit. Sounds very reliable. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy

Every significant aspect of evolution, it's processes and mechanisms have been repeatedly validated both in the lab and in naturally occurring conditions in the field.

No, the fossil record doesn't have rabbits and dinosaurs in the same strata, ever. That is simply a lie either by you, or who you quoted it from.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:28:20 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Evolution defined as the process of all life forming from the same primordial pond scum over billions of years is science fiction. It is a mixture of reality and fantasy.

Evolution defined as change and growth in a life form over a period of time is perfectly observable in any reproduction cycle. However the time is nothing like billions of years. Cells divide and multiply very fast. Some life forms obviously reproduce a lot faster than others.
Change and growth from a single cell to an adult version of the life form can be observed in any life form and you can also observe changes and growth in things which are mixed and matched as in cross breeding and cross pollination.
All of it happens relatively fast and can be observed in a human lifetime. That is reality.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:31:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:28:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Evolution defined as the process of all life forming from the same primordial pond scum over billions of years is science fiction. It is a mixture of reality and fantasy.

Evolution defined as change and growth in a life form over a period of time is perfectly observable in any reproduction cycle. However the time is nothing like billions of years. Cells divide and multiply very fast. Some life forms obviously reproduce a lot faster than others.
Change and growth from a single cell to an adult version of the life form can be observed in any life form and you can also observe changes and growth in things which are mixed and matched as in cross breeding and cross pollination.
All of it happens relatively fast and can be observed in a human lifetime. That is reality.

Cross pollination of flowers gives us...

Flowers
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:33:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Interviews on evolution.

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:34:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:31:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:28:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Evolution defined as the process of all life forming from the same primordial pond scum over billions of years is science fiction. It is a mixture of reality and fantasy.

Evolution defined as change and growth in a life form over a period of time is perfectly observable in any reproduction cycle. However the time is nothing like billions of years. Cells divide and multiply very fast. Some life forms obviously reproduce a lot faster than others.
Change and growth from a single cell to an adult version of the life form can be observed in any life form and you can also observe changes and growth in things which are mixed and matched as in cross breeding and cross pollination.
All of it happens relatively fast and can be observed in a human lifetime. That is reality.

Cross pollination of flowers gives us...


Flowers

Crossbreeding of dogs gives us...

Dogs
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:38:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
You can breed humans a billion times. You will get...

Humans.

Dwarfism is a mutation, yet still they have nonmutated descendants.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 11:52:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Stein:What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins:Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it"s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein:(voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.
Prof Dawkins:Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.

---Richard Dawkins interview,"No Intellignce Allowed" documentary
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:04:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:31:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:07:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.

I quoted a microbiologist. Argue with him.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, yet your post is about that topic.

That simply means that YOU don't understand evolution. Also, this is a website for DISCUSSION. You don't just copy and paste someone else's stuff and then not engage with anyone on the topic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:32:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
We had This

http://youtu.be...

Then this

http://youtu.be...

And then this

http://youtu.be...

And finally this...

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:38:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:31:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:07:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.

I quoted a microbiologist. Argue with him.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, yet your post is about that topic.

That simply means that YOU don't understand evolution. Also, this is a website for DISCUSSION. You don't just copy and paste someone else's stuff and then not engage with anyone on the topic.

There's nothing to understand. It's like me explaining spaghetti monsters to you. Evolution, like the spaghetti monster is a belief in mythological ideas. What do you want to tell me about Evolution. I need a good laugh.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:40:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:31:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:07:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.

I quoted a microbiologist. Argue with him.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, yet your post is about that topic.

That simply means that YOU don't understand evolution. Also, this is a website for DISCUSSION. You don't just copy and paste someone else's stuff and then not engage with anyone on the topic.

I'll give you a chance to explain to me how male and female of over ten million species evolved magically at the exact same time in order to mate and reproduce with each other in the first place.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:42:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 11:12:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:39:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia

The whole of evolutionary science does not rest on lumpers vs spiltters - there are many many lines of evidence in many different fields. Additionally, the fact that we (that includes you) don't know how life began is irrelevant to evolution. That unknown lies outside of the scope of evolution.

We are yet to witness any act of evolution.

Actually, we have many examples of evolution:

http://listverse.com...

The so called fossil record shows rabbits existed in an era before dinosaurs.

That is simply false. You've got some bad information, bud. I challenge you to substantiate this claim with unbiased evidence/source.

I'm picturing rabbits and raptors in harmony together. Perhaps it was a sabor tooth jagrabbit. Sounds very reliable. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 1:54:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
https://books.google.com...

Stephen Jay Gould admitted: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:34:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:40:37 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:31:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:07:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.

I quoted a microbiologist. Argue with him.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, yet your post is about that topic.

That simply means that YOU don't understand evolution. Also, this is a website for DISCUSSION. You don't just copy and paste someone else's stuff and then not engage with anyone on the topic.

I'll give you a chance to explain to me how male and female of over ten million species evolved magically at the exact same time in order to mate and reproduce with each other in the first place.

If you ever even payed attention to anything a biologist said about the topic of evolution, gender evolved once, all gendered species evolved from there.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:35:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 1:42:46 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:12:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:39:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Religion of "Evolution", What true faith must be...

Evolution Science Trustable/Untrustable?

Lumping vs. Splitting

http://youtu.be...

The Lumpers vs. Splitters(on finding old skulls) Richard Dawkins, molecular biologist, Atheist

http://youtu.be...

-Richard Dawkins interview:

DAWKINS: Umm, well, by a very slow process.
STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: NOBODY KNOWS HOW IT GOT STARTED. We know the kind of event that it MUST have been. We know the sort of event that MUST have happened for the origin of life.
STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, WE DON"T KNOW
STEIN: So, you have NO idea HOW it started?
DAWKINS: No, no, nor has ANYBODY.

http://m.imdb.com...

"The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

-Harvard's Andy Noll, Molecular Biologist

*Politicization of science
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.*

-Wikipedia

The whole of evolutionary science does not rest on lumpers vs spiltters - there are many many lines of evidence in many different fields. Additionally, the fact that we (that includes you) don't know how life began is irrelevant to evolution. That unknown lies outside of the scope of evolution.

We are yet to witness any act of evolution.

Actually, we have many examples of evolution:

http://listverse.com...

The so called fossil record shows rabbits existed in an era before dinosaurs.

That is simply false. You've got some bad information, bud. I challenge you to substantiate this claim with unbiased evidence/source.

I'm picturing rabbits and raptors in harmony together. Perhaps it was a sabor tooth jagrabbit. Sounds very reliable. Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy.

Are you sure?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:36:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Precambrian era rabbit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:41:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 2:34:08 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:40:37 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/19/2016 1:31:55 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 11:07:55 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:35:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 1/18/2016 8:02:45 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

So, you have no idea what evolution is.

I quoted a microbiologist. Argue with him.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, yet your post is about that topic.

That simply means that YOU don't understand evolution. Also, this is a website for DISCUSSION. You don't just copy and paste someone else's stuff and then not engage with anyone on the topic.

I'll give you a chance to explain to me how male and female of over ten million species evolved magically at the exact same time in order to mate and reproduce with each other in the first place.

If you ever even payed attention to anything a biologist said about the topic of evolution, gender evolved once, all gendered species evolved from there.

There's no logical reason for it to evolve. Asexuality has no need for 2 seperate mating partners. This is mythology 101 and a 1/2
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...