Fallacies of Evolution

That you cannot actually quote anything from the source that supports your fallacious allegation is a de facto concession on your part.

And projecting your own shortcomings when it comes to science is your problem, not mine.

 

Yet nobody has been able to produce this so-called overwhelming evidence.

Gravity is observable and scientific evidence supports it. One can see the evidence almost
immediately. You can't say that about evolution. Gravity is also a Law as well as a theory.
Evolution is only a theory.

Please provide evidence gradually transitioning species. All you'll find is this complete
species and that complete species without any evidence of gradual transitioning. Oh, please
don't Google and put up that "transitional fossils" from Wikipedia. You'll notice that there isn't
one single "gradually transitioning" fossil in the lot.

You haven't been paying attention. I'm not using, nor have I mentioned, some book of superstitions
or some sky giant. I'm only interested in science and not religious beliefs.

Obviously you can't support your belief in evolution. I've used science at every turn of this discussion
and for some reason you and others can't deal with the fact that evolution is based on very weak
theories. I guess that's why your only recourse is to run from science and blame religion. You
certainly can't make your point with science. However, I can and have made my points based
solely on science.

All evolutionists have to offer is what they "believe may have happened". They have no supportive
evidence. They also have artists draw pictures of what they "believe may have happened", i.e.
extrapolation with artistic renderings. Since there is no evidence available to fill in the blanks they
create scenarios to fit their beliefs. There is much evidence to support gravity.

Let's keep this scientific and leave your superstitions and sky giants out of this.
Good grief.

 

What has this got to do with me? Seriously. You're calling me a Creationist? Why?
I've used science and nothing but science to support the fallacy of evolution. For some
reason you're having trouble accepting the incredibly weak theory of evolution. I believe
it's because you have a very limited knowledge of science, at least you haven't been able
to use it to support your belief.

I dare you to keep this discussion based on science and not run from it which is apparently
the modus operandi of the non scientific types (such as you and others) on this thread.

Why is keeping it about science so difficult?

 

It would seem your understanding of "Science" runs counter to and in opposition to that which is understood by scientists and the informed. Virtually every well established and verified scientific concept or data presented is rejected by you as fabrication. It no longer makes logical sense to provide you with educated or rational debate because we all know it will be ignored and ridiculed regardless of established fact...Basically, you suck at this dude.

 

Wrong.

Evolution is observable, scientific evidence supports the Theory of Evolution which is our best and currently only explanation for diversity of species.

Gravity is observable, scientific evidence supports the Theory of Gravity which is our best explanation for attraction between masses.

The law of Gravity is an analytical statement, it is not a theory, all it does is model the resultant forces between masses it does not explain anything.

Science 101.

 

I quoted Darwin accurately and you know it. You can't deal with the truth because
it flies in the face of what you've been told to think and say. So far you've ran as fast
as you can from the truth. You're terrified otherwise you'd use science to defend your
case. All you've done is cut, run and call me names.

For my entertainment I've provided the quote. I can't wait to see how you run from
this... again.

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies,
as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Charles Darwin (1859), The
Origin of Species, p. 280.

You haven't provided any gradually transitioning species fossils.
Put up or shut up, as they say.

 

Change "by scientists" to "some scientists" and "informed" to "indoctrinated".
I very educated and informed with science.

Correction. Evolution is not verified science. It's extrapolation. Do you not understand
this? For someone who claims being informed you're not very informed.

You're running away because you can't provide an iota of gradually transitioning species. I've
asked for the evidence. You've provided nothing but typical "ignorance of science" pablum.
In other words you suck at this dude. You can't even put up one shred of evidence I've asked.
Instead you parrot the usually tripe you and others have been told to say.

Good grief. Put up or shut up and quit running away from the facts.

 

I rest my case...Have A Nice Day

I'm gonna run away now

 

Correction. I'm right.

Scientific evidence does not support the Theory of Evolution. Why you might ask? Because the
evidence isn't there. All science has is this species and that species. There isn't a single
shred of evidence to honestly connect one from the other. Only a guess at best. You can see the
guess work (extrapolation) with the drawings and animated videos (artistic renderings) posted
ad infinitum.

Darwin said the geological record will provide the gradual transition from species to species.
There's nothing.

Science 101.

I believe I already said that.

Is your next step going to be evidence of gradually transitioning species or will you provide
more extrapolation with artistic renderings? By the way, don't play the religious game that
the others who can't provide scientific evidence because of their lack of understanding
science have been trying to do. I'm not part of that. I'm all about science.

 

QUOTE="Prunepicker, post: 1067243181, member: 66214"]What has this got to do with me? Seriously. You're calling me a Creationist? Why?
I've used science and nothing but science to support the fallacy of evolution. For some
reason you're having trouble accepting the incredibly weak theory of evolution. I believe
it's because you have a very limited knowledge of science, at least you haven't been able
to use it to support your belief.

I dare you to keep this discussion based on science and not run from it which is apparently
the modus operandi of the non scientific types (such as you and others) on this thread.

Why is keeping it about science so difficult?[/QUOTE]
.

 

If evolution is incorrect how do you explain endogenous retroviruses?
Endogenous retroviruses provide an example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection.Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences.
Retroviruses make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host.
Finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

 

I point you back to the site you posted and their sister site on evolution. At this moment, I have a dinosaur sitting on my shoulder. She's quite sweet. She says a few words, eats lots of different kinds of foods, and flies around when she's bored. Her ancestors can be traced all the way back to the largest Therapods (you know, the ones Jesus rode while wandering the desert), and the lineage is pretty clear.

There's Newton's Law of Gravitation. But that doesn't prove gravity. It could still be countless God-thoughts that act upon each other in direct proportion to the mass of the objects.

What is a "gradually transitioning" fossil and what would you accept as evidence of one? My guess is that it's whatever hasn't been found yet.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06

I have no doubt that given a little bit of time that you will.

After all, you did post this:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sly-jesus-is-not-real.379711/#post-1064390647

 

Blah.
One more time:
All what matters is that you cannot prove that your statement " one is not required to prove negative" is true with any logic and evidence.

 

If you want to debate some point in science, then do that.

If you want to redefine science, you should start a thread on that.

It's a little ridiculous to mingle your new definitions and methodologies as a debate style. It ends up leaving no basis for ANY argument.

 

what did Newton say about proving gravity and God in his what you call Law of Gravitation and what he called the mathematical principles of natural philosophy?
Do you care to know or to read anything which is beyond the limits you've imposed on your own mind?
Do you care to search and quote Newton on proving and God for us to know or you will continue living your only one given to you life with blind religious beliefs about Newton and other things mentioned above? Unless, of course, you believe that you can live as many lives as you wish up to infinite amount of lives. Do you believe you can?
And BTW - any reaction to Cantor's math or it is the same as to Newton"s Principia and any other reality surrounding you?

 

Who did define science? Go away because you cannot answer such a simple question. Sorry, because you cannot even understand such a simple question, go away.

 

"Proving gravity and god"??? I didn't say anything about that.

I'm having a hard time with your stream of consciousness, so maybe you can be more concrete.

My point is that Newton advanced science in a specific area, and we later found that our understanding of that time was a special case of a version of physics that incorporates aspects Newton simply didn't know about.

That is an example of how science works. We make progress in steps. The steps we take are sometimes found to be false, sometimes found to be only special cases in a larger context, and sometimes they last for a very long time, forming the foundation for serious progress.

 

Francis Bacon probably deserves major credit, but scientific method has been developed over significant time.

And, if you can't separate the issues of what science actually is and the argument in this thread, then it is you who needs to go away.

I'm tired of people trying to redefine science in a hand wavy way as a way of avoiding the answers to questions being discussed.

 

BZZZT Wrong again!

You were provided with a link to transitional fossils and your response was the typical science denial of a creationist. You did not provide a single shred of actual science to support your denial of the transitional fossils which is typical of all creationists.

So unless you can actually provide credible peer reviewed scientific evidence that factually refutes the ToE your responses will be classified according to your science denial AKA creationism.

Obviously it is you that is having a problem "keeping it about science"!

 

Darwin is asking a QUESTION not making a statement as you fallaciously alleged.

Hints: It begins with the word "WHY" and ends with a question mark "?".

Which part of Darwin's QUESTION do creationists have a problem comprehending?

Darwin is providing an EXPLANATION as to WHY there are not that many fossils. Which part of that explanation do creationists have a problem understanding? Do they not know what the term "extreme imperfection" means?

Blatant falsehood!

You were provided with the transitional fossils in post #1550 above.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-of-evolution.490664/page-78#post-1067233000

That creationist science denial refuses to accept the transitional fossil evidence does NOT mean that it was not provided or that it does not exist.

 

Still of yours?

 

All minds are limited. It's the nature of it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the conservation. Also, why should I care? I don't impose fear of death/punishment/afterlife/oblivion as a limit on my mind. I live in the present.

Any reaction to a red herring? No.

 

Blah.
One more time:
All what matters is that you cannot prove that your statement " one is not required to prove negative" is true with any logic and evidence.

 

I didn't say that you said, I asked what did Newton say about proving gravity and God in his what you call Law of Gravitation and what he called the mathematical principles of natural philosophy?

You gave me an example sometimes found to be only special cases in a larger context, but can you please give examples sometimes found to be false, and sometimes they last for a very long time.
I don't know about any scientific theory which doesn't stand to be true or nearly true from the start forever.
And I never heard about versions of physics. Can you name them?

 

It is science sub-forum, so the question is who is trying to redefine science has to be brought up.

I understand that you are using scientific method defined by Bacon and developed by others over significant period of time. I know Bacon and I suspect the others made no other contribution to science, so why could I be interested in their method? Explain.

I claim that the scientific method was developed by Galileo, Kepler and similar and was finally defined by Newton in what he called the mathematical principles of natural philosophy where he also explained place of God in natural philosophy; and all givers of natural laws up and including Einstein were following this well defined in 17th century method. Why should I abandon it and join overwhelming majorities of scientific the community?
.