Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
    SUTG and might_duck have both provided evidence in this thread, you simply do not accept the evidence.
    I didn't see any specifics...except for saying that the fossil record supports evolution without any support.

    I have this crazy hunch that regardless of what evidence is cited, you will not accept it, and thus will continue to charge that all "evolutionists have struck out on giving any scientific evidence for it". What a silly tactic.
    It can work both ways. I could say that you will not accept creation and thus continue to charge creationists have struck out on giving any scientific support for their theory. This thread is meant specifically for the evidence of evolution but it is better for both theories to share the burden of proof. Regardless, where is the evidence?
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by macguy View Post
      I didn't see any specifics...except for saying that the fossil record supports evolution without any support.

      You're right, I didn't really get too specific - I simply listed some of the types of evidence in post 4. If you want specifics, read a biology journal. The evidence continues to pour in on a daily basis.

      Young Earth Creationism is obsolete.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by SUTG View Post
        You're right, I didn't really get too specific - I simply listed some of the types of evidence in post 4. If you want specifics, read a biology journal.
        Well, good thing that didn't get me...I usually hover over links for the sake of being safe.

        The evidence continues to pour in on a daily basis.
        The same applies to creationism...

        Young Earth Creationism is obsolete.
        Or OEC? Because quite frankly, looking at a biology journal will not tell me anything about the age of the earth.
        The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Evoken
          Really? Where?
          Posts two and four. My bad, might_duck hasn't cited specific evidence, only spoke of it.
          "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
            Posts two and four. My bad, might_duck hasn't cited specific evidence, only spoke of it.
            Batter up!! Three strikes and you're out!!
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • #36
              I wonder why no one has mentioned the infamous Cambrian Explosion yet...


              I love to hear naturalistic explanations for this event. They're always classic. *grabs a comfy chair and some popcorn*
              sigpic

              The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.

              Larry Hardiman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
                I wonder why no one has mentioned the infamous Cambrian Explosion yet...
                The layer known as the Cambrian must be where all those "mountains of evidences" that supposedly support macroevolution must lie.

                Better start digging, evolutionists. We're becoming impatient to hear some evidence that really supports your theory that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.
                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
                  Posts two and four. My bad, might_duck hasn't cited specific evidence, only spoke of it.
                  Sorry. I'm a lazy duck.
                  "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                  "The best things in life aren't things"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive
                    JustinFoldsFive ... is quite glad he does not obsess over a scientific theory)
                    Another evolutionist-in-training bites the dust.
                    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      i don't know about any of you guys, but the banana is all the evidence i need to know the world must have been created by an intelligent creator.

                      it's really just so obvious!
                      "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
                      -George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by audioseizure View Post
                        i don't know about any of you guys, but the banana is all the evidence i need to know the world must have been created by an intelligent creator.

                        it's really just so obvious!
                        Call me when you are ready to demo your attempt to make one from scratch.
                        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bob B
                          Another evolutionist-in-training bites the dust.
                          Bob, I simply no longer see the point in defending ToE. Maybe it's complacency. But if you would like to debate ToE, it's probably a good idea to do so with someone as fanatical about the topic as you. It's not that the evidence is lacking, but that you disregard each and every point without serious consideration. You have already revealed in previous threads that you believe the Bible is correct, and that which stands opposed to the "truths" contained in the Bible is incorrect. Essentially, you know which evidence you will and won't accept before you even find out what it is. "Does it agree with the Bible? Great! Oh, it disagrees with the Bible? Must be wrong!" There is simply no point in having a discussion.
                          "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
                            Bob, I simply no longer see the point in defending ToE.
                            Ok, so why not post to a thread you see the point in posting in?

                            It's not that the evidence is lacking,...
                            On this thread, that doesn't appear to be the case. So in keeping with the OP, did you wanna share some? If not, why bother making posts with empty promises on a thread you see no point in.
                            Help for

                            "...the Reformation broke with Rome but not Greece..." - Bob Enyart

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
                              Bob, I simply no longer see the point in defending ToE. Maybe it's complacency. But if you would like to debate ToE, it's probably a good idea to do so with someone as fanatical about the topic as you. It's not that the evidence is lacking, but that you disregard each and every point without serious consideration. You have already revealed in previous threads that you believe the Bible is correct, and that which stands opposed to the "truths" contained in the Bible is incorrect. Essentially, you know which evidence you will and won't accept before you even find out what it is. "Does it agree with the Bible? Great! Oh, it disagrees with the Bible? Must be wrong!" There is simply no point in having a discussion.
                              You seem to have a problem telling the difference between evidence and conclusions which people draw from the evidence. If you were clearer about this difference you would see that I don't reject evidence, but I frequently disagree with the conclusions which some evolutionists draw from such evidences.

                              As far as the Bible is concerned I did not conclude that macroevolution was wrong because it conflicted with the Bible, because frankly at the time that I rejected evolution I did not believe that Genesis was anything more than a fairytale.

                              No, my rejection of macroevolution was based on my training and experience in technical fields and my ability to examine people's technical ideas for flaws.

                              Macroevolution via random mutations (throwing away the failures) was once, before the discoveries about DNA, a fairly reasonable idea. With what was known 23 years ago about DNA and what was going on in cells I was able to see that the idea was not credible and so rejected it. I had expected at that time that a more credible mechanism would be forthcoming from the scientific community. This has not happened to date.

                              At the same time additional findings have been discovered over the intervening 23 years about what is going on in cells that make the challenge for a "naturalistic" mechanism "light years" more difficult, to the point where the concept is not only not credible, it is actually ridiculous. In my opinion most workers in the field probably recognize this, but like my initial reaction 23 years ago, feel that over time someone will be able to come up with a better and far more credible mechanism.

                              At this point in time, considering what has been learned about the amazing amount of organized information contained in the DNA of even the simplist lifeform known, the "random mutations" thing has got to be the biggest boo boo in the recent history (last 50 years) of evolutionary thought.

                              I will admit that I gave up on such "pie in the sky" many years ago and opted for a far simpler solution: multiple types of different creatures in the beginning, which coincidentally happens to roughly match what the simple story in Genesis relates.

                              It was tough for me to "eat crow" and admit that the "simple folk" had been right all along to believe in the Bible version of origins, but I finally had to face reality and admit that I had been wrong in believing that "10 million Frenchmen, i.e. scientists, couldn't possibly be wrong". They were and are. Tough. Face it.
                              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I try to view the evidence as leading into two distinct directions. One is based stringently on the metaphysical assumption that natural processes led to the universe and life as we observe it now. This conclusion is one drawn from natural philosophy without appealing to the metaphysical assumption of the supernatural and/or the divine. The other direction is one that accepts the metaphysical assumptions of the supernatural and/or divine. In this later philosophical world view there is also two distinct possiblities.

                                On one hand there is the view that the supernatural and/or the divine works through the natural world and that natural explanations are sufficient to explain the universe and this world. On the other hand there is the view that natural explanations are not sufficient to explain natural phenomenon.
                                Last edited by noguru; May 17th, 2007, 10:54 PM.
                                Militant Moderate

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X