The problem here is that there *is* evidence to back up the theory of Evolution, but that the same unwillingness to look at the evidence for is the same is as you claim that othere have about the evidence against. Here's the rub. I've heard the theories of the non-evolution folks. They don't answer many of the questions that are out there. For example if Evolution doesn't exist, then why are there animals now that didn't exist in the past? Where did they come from if they weren't created at the start of time? Evolution however does explain that very phenomenon.
"Unwillingness" goes both ways, doesn't it. All of you Darwinists are supremely unwilling to consider the HUNDREDS of books and THOUSANDS of papers showing evidence against this archaic and simplistic hypothesis, which Darwin himself admitted was quite unscientific. Really? What ARE "the theories of the non-evolution folks"? I've never heard any myself. Clearly you don't understand how science is supposed to work. There are many different reasons "why there are animals now that didn't exist in the past." 1. Adaptation. MInor changes modify plants and animals. 2. Breeding. Humans have intentionally bred "animals that didn't exist in the past." We even cloned sheep identical to their parent. 3. But most important is the fact that IF DARWINISM FAILS, and clearly it does, IT MUST BE REJECTED. Nothing to "replace" it is necessary. You reject failed hypotheses. End of subject. We simply say, "We don't know!", NOT "Charlie Darwin is the best idea we can come up with."
And digginit did not return to answer either of these two scientific questions, nor has even one of his fellow Darwinists stepped up to the plate, notwithstanding their joint claims of scientific wisdom and intellect.
Yes hundreds of books and thousands of "papers" CLAIMING proof from the same few sources. Like a fake news story that originates at one place and is propagated by many and then that "propagation" is used as evidence of truth. It must be so because lots of people wrote about it. surely you are familiar with religious apologetics? that god made man from dust and women from man's rib. Haven't heard that one before? If adaptation is an explanation of why there are animals now that didn't exist in the past, you have just made the case for evolution. If organism can manifest physical changes in order to cope with environmental changes, you have just argued that "survival of the fittest" is actually valid. There is NO animal species that was bred into existence. Dogs remain dogs. Pigs remain pigs. Horses remain horses. You can't "breed" a pony from a cat and dog. How does reproducing an identical genetic clone buttress your argument of breeding new species? Your third argument is nonsensical. IF evolution fails? So far it hasn't at least according to every damn observation, experiment and prediction that has been made to date. That is what elevates Evolution from a "common" theory (hypothesis) to a "scientific theory" (a step far above hypothesis but below scientific law). But you are correct, if proven wrong any theory must be rejected. To suggest that ToE is simply the best we can come up with is either profound ignorance or simple stupidity since it ignores the massive volumes of evidence including its myriad correct predictions.
So what makes the hundreds of books and thousands of papers that confirm evolution any more or less valid than your hundreds of books and thousands of papers that show evidence against? If all you're basing it on is a word count...we're in a dead heat methinks. Other than "God got bored and started creating things"...I've never heard any myself. Largely because no one can be arsed to post any. I've asked for an answer to why **** exists now when it didn't did previously...and so far you're the only one who's answered and even then there are problems. Well there is the one where God got stoned and said "Ok...<ffffttt>we take a beaver, give it a duck's bill. Hey! I'm God, whatcha gonna do. <fffft> It's a mammal, but it lays eggs. Hey Darwin! Yo!" That's [smurf]ing evolution! If the environment changes, any member of a species that has a minor change that allows for it to be better adapted to the changes and allows for a greater chance at passing along it's minor-changed DNA...is natural selection. Technically that's evolution. Forced evolution, but evolution none the less. And that falls flat on one point. We weren't around to breed the first mammals. We weren't around to create the first fish. The first birds, the first amphibians. Since each of these are separated by flipping great chunks of time...unless they can prove that there is some mechanism that goes "Well @#$%, we're running out of critters. <spins the wheel> Dinosaur Time!" While Darwin may have gotten a few things wrong, it doesn't invalidate the current theory of evolution as that was based on his works, tested, and the flaws in his theory replaced by ones that make better sense. That's the thing that so many people do not understand about Science. Science says "This is as good as it gets based on what we know right now. That's what a working theory is. Hell, gravity is a theory and we know that when my butthead of a cat knocks something off of the table it's gonna fall down. Science has the ability and frequently does go "Well {smurf}! "A" says that "B" can't exist, but here's "B" staring us right in the face. Guess it's back to the drawing board about "A" 'cause we buggered something up." As our understanding grows and changes, so too do our theories. It's not the best idea we have. As stated above, what we currently believe is based on his work and evolved from there. A great example was what we believed "cold" to be. They actually believed that it was a substance that could cause things to get cold. Add something with that "substance" to something that was already cold and you can make it colder. Which is true. Take tub of ice and add some salt. The mixture falls below 32 degrees F and you can freeze ice cream which you can't do with ice alone. But that theory turned out to be pure cobblers. People who looked at the theories of the day went said " 'ang on a minute, that can't be right" and from those theories...developed the theories that led to the laws of thermodynamics. The theory of Evolution is just like that. As we learn more and more...our understanding grows. And if we learn something that makes us toss it right out on its ear...it's because it answered MORE of the questions and did a better job of it than the current theories. But so far no one has found that. The ones that do come up...don't answer the questions as well and more often than not leave more questions unanswered than the current theories.
You miss the point, as Darwinists ALWAYS do. The POINT IS that NOBODY writes hundreds of books and thousands of papers suggesting that your OTHER favorite "theory," gravity, is a fraud. NOBODY! This is because the "theory of gravity" is clearly valid, unlike the hypothesis (you call it "theory") of evolution. Enlightened scientists don't make up things because of Scriptures. They analyze information and data, and consider plausible explanations, and random mutations, followed by *selection* is terribly implausible. In fact, many critics of Darwin are atheists or agnostics. Didn't you even know that? I won't bother to delve into the rest of your extended talk, because you never add information. You only detract from it.
It didn't persist, and parts of it were correct. You're the one pushing a fraud. The problem is you're pushing another fraud. Was it your goal here to demonstrate the penchant for deliberate fraud which is common to all creationists? If so, you were successful.
I wonder how many BIOLOGISTS actually think that Evolution is no longer a credible theory? I see lots of creationists and frankly some pretty loony sites promulgating the notion that evolution is not worthy of being a scientific theory, yet, I haven't seen any direct evidence that contradicts it. Even this site, which I'm not sure is completely serious claims that they are against “The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.” http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml I guess the fact that all living things share DNA isn't much of a clue to them.
Well if you're not willing to discuss the topic on a discussion forum site...then I guess there's no point in playing the game. Toodles!
The Theory of Gravity is valid? It is settled science? Hey everyone, ChemEngineer has settled the science on gravity and I am really looking forward to his paper and subsequent Nobel prize! Shall we try this one more time ChemEngineer, even if only to teach you to post stuff rationally? Fact = Mass has an attractive force Theory = An explanation for that attraction that consists of a body of evidence that it would be irrational to reject Fact = There is diversity of species Theory = An explanation for that diversity that consists of a body of evidence that it would be irrational to reject Now, you can carry on posting like you do, which bears all the hall marks of Creationism or, you can stop the games. If you have evidence that destroys the Theory of Evolution as a prevailing if not the only explanation for diversity then bring it on. You do understand that Darwin died a long time ago don't you?
Yes, it's ironic how someone can believe in evolution despite the lack of evidence to support it. Only someone who denies science can believe in evolution. It's also ironic that you can't provide undeniable evidence of evolution. You must have another reason, other than science, that prevents you from accepting the fact that evolution doesn't exist. What is it?
No there isn't. My willingness to look at the evidence, including having many hours of collegiate science and physics classes, is what gave me the reason to not accept evolution as a fact. I could not care less where the animals (life forms) come from. I want to see the gradual transitioning of species into other species which is what supposedly happened via evolution. The evidence doesn't exist. Nowhere in the fossil record are there any such examples. Everything single piece of evidence has a "story" that attempts to create a reason. Evolution doesn't explain anything. It's a story that makes up how the phenomenon happened. It's based soley upon extrapolation and artistic renderings.
Well you ought to care, because that is a vital question that begs an answer. Where did Homo Sapiens come from if we didn't evolve from something else? Where did the mammals come from? Where did the Birds? The Reptiles? Amphibians? Fish? Invertebrates? All these are separated by huge chunks of time. Let's take one species. Elephants. Evolution shows that the line of elephants starts back with Moeritherium, then goes to Paleomastodon, then to Gomphotherium, then splitting off into The Mammoth, the Asian and the Africian Elephants. Where did Moeritherium come from? Where did Paleomastodon come from? Where did Gomphotherium? What mechanism exists out there in the universe that is replacing one species with another? Is there some being/entity/machine/whatever that's saying "Well this one's a bit crap. Chuck it in the bin and let's create something that's almost like it...but just a little bit different."? If not Evolution...then what?
No I shouldn't. This is about the fallacies of evolution. There is no evidence of a species becoming another completely different species. Where is the gradual transitioning of a species changing into another species in the fossil record? There must be another reason, besides science, for evolutionists to not accept the facts.
There is no verified evidence supporting evolution. If there was you'd put it up. Instead all you do is put up your kneejerk remarks with nothing to back it up. You have yet to put up any evidence that hasn't been successfully and scientifically shot down.
That's all I've put up. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide any real evidence to support evolution. Not a single shred of viable evidence. But you have put up some kneejerk reactions that have no scientific evidence. Face it. You can deny science all you want but the fact remains that evolution has very little going for it. What's the real reason that you believe in evolution? It's not science because you are certainly unlearned in that area. It must be something else that has nothing to do with science.
Let's try this again. If. Not. Evolution. Then. What. Explains. Life. Forms. That. Exist. Now. That. Did. Not. Back. Then?
Every person I've had this discussion with has not been able to answer that question. If you're so smart and we're stupid for believing in evolution...then explain it to us.
