does evolution exsist
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
- Status
Prove anything exists and you will make philosophical history - I.e. prove Bishop Berkeley's POV is wrong (you will be the first in 300+ years)
Math is a tautology closed unto itself with ASSUMED axioms and permitted operations - it make no statement that anything exist and is not about anything material. That is why, within this assumed frame work, relationships can be proven.
You are not intellectually or educationally advanced enough to understand what Bishop Berkeley demonstrated 300+ years ago, so I will not try to educate you to point where you understand the point he was making.
I am not debating Bishop Berkeley.
There is a poster on sciforums named Billy T.
There is a sentence at the top of this page that contains the word "Reply".
Can you prove it?
The ONLY occurrences of the word "reply" on this page in a sentence is in your posts. And now, of course, in my post.
Do we really have to go through this?...
When you reply to the post it has "Reply to Thread", that is why i sadi to hit the button.
Bearing in mind that it's the point Billy is making then I'd say yes.
In which case it's on a different page, neh?
Bearing in mind that it's the point Billy is making then I'd say yes.
In which case it's on a different page, neh?
yes...proven.
leopold99:
The theory of evolution does not rest on a single piece of "lab evidence". Rather, its truth and proof rests on the overall accumulation of evidence from many fields of enquiry, many observations of the natural world, and (yes) some laboratory studies.
Go to www.talkorigins.org and search for "evidence for evolution". See what you can dig up. They even have articles on the laboratory experiments which support the theory, if that is your fixation.
There's no difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is simple microevolution over a long time period.
If you believe in microevolution, then logically you must also believe in macroevolution.
Do you believe in microevolution, leo?
Correct. Is this really the first time you've heard this? You really aren't reading widely, are you?
No, it doesn't. Asexual reproduction, in and of itself, does not result in any changes to a genome.
The fossil record supports evolution.
Why? Because you're incapable of thinking about post #225 at the level of, say, an 8 year old child? Or because it's inconvenient for you to take an honest approach to the questions put to you there?
Ok. Let me get this straight. There are no problems that you can see in post #225. Is that what you're saying?
And yet at the same time you have no answers to the questions put to your there?
How can you identify that there are no problems in that post when you admit you haven't got an inkling about what the answers to the simple questions I put to you are?
Sure you do. You're continually cutting and pasting out-of-context quotes from creationist websites. I'm sure you believe they are true. And since you obviously can't answer the simplest questions regarding evolution, you must be taking answersingenesis's word on the slightly-more-complex issues you're cutting and pasting. In other words, it's all faith for you. Your brain hasn't engaged at any point.
Sure. Look at any sequence of descent that you like. For example, trace from australopithecus to modern apes. Or from ambulocetus to modern whales. Or from dinosaurs to modern birds. Or whatever. Any line of descent will do.
Non sequitur.
Are you saying you can't find the Kitzmiller information? Not good at searching the web?
I'm sure they do on occasion. This is another non sequitur. Evolutionist lies don't alter the facts of the Kitzmiller trial. In particular, they don't alter the outright fraud that the judge found there on the part of the creationist defendants. I'm sure you agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Already done.
Let me ask you again: who told you that birds descended from reptiles? Or, where, specifically did you learn that? Or, to be more exact, which creationist website told you that scientists beleive that birds descended from reptiles?
Or did you just make that idea up yourself?
What don't they agree with me about?
You agree that at least some transitional fossils exist, then?
It would be easy to name the museum if it is existed. Chances are you didn't read it. Did you make this up, too?
Fossil fraud is a huge problem for whom?
You missed the point.
So explain it to me.
The theory of evolution does not rest on a single piece of "lab evidence". Rather, its truth and proof rests on the overall accumulation of evidence from many fields of enquiry, many observations of the natural world, and (yes) some laboratory studies.
Go to www.talkorigins.org and search for "evidence for evolution". See what you can dig up. They even have articles on the laboratory experiments which support the theory, if that is your fixation.
There's no difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution is simple microevolution over a long time period.
If you believe in microevolution, then logically you must also believe in macroevolution.
Do you believe in microevolution, leo?
Correct. Is this really the first time you've heard this? You really aren't reading widely, are you?
No, it doesn't. Asexual reproduction, in and of itself, does not result in any changes to a genome.
The fossil record supports evolution.
Why? Because you're incapable of thinking about post #225 at the level of, say, an 8 year old child? Or because it's inconvenient for you to take an honest approach to the questions put to you there?
Ok. Let me get this straight. There are no problems that you can see in post #225. Is that what you're saying?
And yet at the same time you have no answers to the questions put to your there?
How can you identify that there are no problems in that post when you admit you haven't got an inkling about what the answers to the simple questions I put to you are?
Sure you do. You're continually cutting and pasting out-of-context quotes from creationist websites. I'm sure you believe they are true. And since you obviously can't answer the simplest questions regarding evolution, you must be taking answersingenesis's word on the slightly-more-complex issues you're cutting and pasting. In other words, it's all faith for you. Your brain hasn't engaged at any point.
Sure. Look at any sequence of descent that you like. For example, trace from australopithecus to modern apes. Or from ambulocetus to modern whales. Or from dinosaurs to modern birds. Or whatever. Any line of descent will do.
Non sequitur.
Are you saying you can't find the Kitzmiller information? Not good at searching the web?
I'm sure they do on occasion. This is another non sequitur. Evolutionist lies don't alter the facts of the Kitzmiller trial. In particular, they don't alter the outright fraud that the judge found there on the part of the creationist defendants. I'm sure you agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Already done.
Let me ask you again: who told you that birds descended from reptiles? Or, where, specifically did you learn that? Or, to be more exact, which creationist website told you that scientists beleive that birds descended from reptiles?
Or did you just make that idea up yourself?
What don't they agree with me about?
You agree that at least some transitional fossils exist, then?
It would be easy to name the museum if it is existed. Chances are you didn't read it. Did you make this up, too?
Fossil fraud is a huge problem for whom?
You missed the point.
So explain it to me.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
It's appalling what teachers are teaching our kids today about evolution. Everyone needs to see this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2QO3c9JL1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2QO3c9JL1A
you search for it james, post it when you find it.
and you chastise me for not knowing what i am talking about?????????
i guess the 50 or so scientists at the chicago conference had no idea they were wrong.
i believe in adaptation, the sherpas of nepal for example.
that's what i was taught in school.
oh, so THAT'S why. i was wondering why drumbeat said evolution wasn't about single cells. according to a link i posted evolution is indeed about single celled life. another fact that needs to be spelled out to our students. but of course it won't be because then our students will start asking hard questions like the following:
so tell me james ol' boy where did this mysterious cell come from and how on earth could it explain lifes diversity?
let's be honest here james, i don't know what to believe anymore.
despite my best efforts i cannot find an objective website on evolution.
both sides accuse the other of lying AND provides the proof of it.
there is no need for this.
i don't know what else to say.
do you want me to lie to you?
i am saying i understand the point you are trying to make with #225
i gave you an answer james, i said "I DON'T KNOW". i will not rehash this with you in the future.
i have no idea how to respond to this.
where do i find this info?
no, i suck at it. it's the major reason i posted the case abstract.
i will remember.
no but 3 lefts do.
no body told me, they are apparently dead.
i refuse to answer this because it is not what i said.
i never deleted it, go find it and read it.
apparently a few exist, yes.
yes, URL and all, even the website itself.
the point i was trying to make is fossils can be faked to where the layman will never know it.
judging by the responses in this thread it's easy to assume that ANYONE that challenges such a fabrication will automatically be labeled a creationist, called stupid, ignorant, an idiot, retard, unwilling to learn, etc, etc, ad nausum.
Yet again you demonstrate that you don’t understand that article. I’ll re-post a pertinent quotation from that article (for, I think, the third or fourth time).
The 'Modern Synthesis' says exactly what James R said: macroevolution is microevolution over a long time period. The Modern Synthesis is the accepted paradigm for evolutionary biology for the majority of evolutionary scientists. In some cases, some scientists think that is only partially true. Those instances were the subject of the Chicago meeting that you are so fond of misrepresenting. However, it is the significant majority accepted view amongst evolutionary scientists that micro- and macroevolution are coupled to at least some degree. This is clearly evidenced by the emphasis I placed in the above quotation.
Your continual misrepresentation of this source as evidence for your position is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Most of the moderators are in favour of making such intellectual dishonesty an instant banning offense.
I believe I posted, quite a few pages ago, in this absolute bloody trainwreck of a thread, an observed instance of a new weed emerging.
I posted it, you ignored it, Leo.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
I believe this thread needs a SCRAM.
they are all goatsbeards. what's the significance of that?
you would prove something if one of them was, say, a tulip.
saying that life arose from the elements is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty too.
are you going to apply this rule across the board or only to select posters?
- Status