[Discussion] Can we deny evolution?

[Fountain]

Says the guy who conveniently calls a demographic "terrorists" and refuses to believe statistical evidence of right-wing violence because he can't handle the truth and makes up conspiracies to justify his frustrations.

Even though i never called the entire demographic of muslims terrorists.

You're a "free thinker" as in you don't care about facts or what's real.

Like the fact that despite calling yourself an atheist and having a grudge against Christianity you are okay with Islam. That you acted like you cared for free speech once and declined on multiple occassions to being an sjw yet coincidentally, every time i reply to you (of all people) my comments go missing, and i even get banned.

That you like to instigate and provoke all the time even when i'm not talking to you. But that's okay.

That you basically have a free pass to do and say whatever you want on the forums.

That you say "facts" bother me, but you can't handle them yourself.

That you couldn't answer a question regarding guns a long time ago.

And that you recently couldn't answer a question that had to do with you making a claim about 75% of the country being Christians.

THESE are facts. Solid facts.

You live in your own little bubble and that's all that matters.

Aren't you the one living in a bubble here?

 

[NarutoKage2]

Whether evolution is true or false, this question can only be answered by people who are academically disciplined in science, so I wouldn't want to formulate an answer on a subject which I don't major in; contrary to certain others in this thread who are wannabes.

And the quotation is pretty stupid made by someone who is ironically stupid-intelligent at the same time. The heat of the sun is actually observable - you can see it, feel it and hear it. You can mathematically calculate it. Evolution is not observable so the comparison is scientifically illegitimate. Evolution is fundamentally a theory in the end, so it has data which support it and data which refute it as well. It's not classified as a fact until it is actually observable.

Evolution has been observed, multiple times and even in the lab. As an example, simply read the chapter ‘before our very eyes’ in Richard Dawkins book the greatest show on earth.

 

[TheEvilOne]

I answered why I have belief in mine being correct.

Not really. You kept dodging my questions.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Evolution hasn't been proven as fact. :tea:

 

[Lightbringer]

Evolution hasn't been proven as fact. :tea:

Yes it has actually. The "theory of evolution" isn't about whether or not evolution exists. It's existence has already been observed and is undeniable at this point.

 

[Made in Heaven]

Yes it has actually. The "theory of evolution" isn't about whether or not evolution exists. It's existence has already been observed and is undeniable at this point.

That explains this then, huh?

You must be registered for see links

So he couldn't show evidence/proof of it's so called "undeniability", maybe you have some???

 

[Lightbringer]

That explains this then, huh?

You must be registered for see links

So he couldn't show evidence/proof of it's so called "undeniability", maybe you have some???

So because one guy couldn't answer a question, then evolution doesn't exist? What kind of desperate logic was that? Even I don't like Richard Dawkins so this means absolutely nothing to me. The question itself was duplicitous and was fashioned in a way to seemingly discredit Dawkins so that creationists, like yourself, can cite it later on as "evidence." But, Richard Dawkins did actually answer the question in an article he wrote. So your attempt at saying he couldn't answer a question, therefore evolution is false is no longer valid.

You must be registered for see links

Here's a few links that explain some of the evidence to evolution we have, as there are tons of it.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

The evidence for evolution

"Darwin and other 19th-century biologists found compelling evidence for biological evolution in the comparative study of living organisms, in their geographic distribution, and in the fossil remains of extinct organisms. Since Darwin’s time, the evidence from these sources has become considerably stronger and more comprehensive, while biological disciplines that emerged more recently—genetics, biochemistry, physiology, ecology, animal behaviour (ethology), and especially molecular biology—have supplied powerful additional evidence and detailed confirmation. The amount of information about evolutionary history stored in the DNA and proteins of living things is virtually unlimited; scientists can reconstruct any detail of the evolutionary history of life by investing sufficient time and laboratory resources.

Evolutionists no longer are concerned with obtaining evidence to support the fact of evolution but rather are concerned with what sorts of knowledge can be obtained from different sources of evidence. The following sections identify the most productive of these sources and illustrate the types of information they have provided."

 

[NarutoKage2]

That explains this then, huh?

You must be registered for see links

So he couldn't show evidence/proof of it's so called "undeniability", maybe you have some???

I made a thread on here a few years back and someone posted a very interesting study, the chloroflaggenates (spelling) that adapted a 3 way signalling process that ‘added’ new information to the genome.

Regardless, not being able to answer a stupid and deliberately misleading question doesn’t bring evolution into doubt, only the intentions of the questioner.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Not really. You kept dodging my questions.

are you deaf man? my reasoning is influenced by cause and effect. that's no different than your's man.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Evolution hasn't been proven as fact. :tea:

Exactly,

it's only being painted as a fact. It's lies.

 

[TheEvilOne]

are you deaf man? my reasoning is influenced by cause and effect. that's no different than your's man.

no, its influenced only by blind faith that has been indoctrinated to you by your parents and the society.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

no, its influenced only by blind faith that has been indoctrinated to you by your parents and the society.

tell me more about how my thought process works despite questioning it earlier.

 

[TheEvilOne]

Evolution hasn't been proven as fact. :tea:

this is too much even from you.

 

[lagala]

Evolution? They're just re-working and re-wording it to fit their mythology.The truth is that evolution explains NOTHING. WE invent the explanations and then fit them into the theory and say, "See! Evolution explains it!"

 

[NarutoKage2]

Evolution? They're just re-working and re-wording it to fit their mythology.The truth is that evolution explains NOTHING. WE invent the explanations and then fit them into the theory and say, "See! Evolution explains it!"

Then what explains, according to you, whales and dolphins having lungs and living in the sea?

 

[lagala]

Then what explains, according to you, whales and dolphins having lungs and living in the sea?

I believe that they always had lungs because i never seen whales or dolphins without lungs.

Now if you claims to know why... then you need to explain, and show how it happened, when it happened, why the path was taken, and how many years ago this person witnessed such a happening.

Otherwise such statements will be faith based, both sides included.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I believe that they always had lungs because i never seen whales or dolphins without lungs.

Now if you claims to know why... then you need to explain, and show how it happened, when it happened, why the path was taken, and how many years ago this person witnessed such a happening.

Otherwise such statements will be faith based, both sides included.

thats not an explanation.

 

[NarutoKage2]

I believe that they always had lungs because i never seen whales or dolphins without lungs.

Now if you claims to know why... then you need to explain, and show how it happened, when it happened, why the path was taken, and how many years ago this person witnessed such a happening.

Otherwise such statements will be faith based, both sides included.

Why don’t they have gills like all other fish? Why do some sea creatures have gills, while some have lungs? Whether they always had them or not doesn’t explain anything and is an irrelevant deflection. Failure to answer why all fish breath through gills while dolphins and whales do not, means that you by default concede the argument to evolution, since you don’t have any alternative explanation for an observed phenomenon.

 

[Fountain]

Then what explains, according to you, whales and dolphins having lungs and living in the sea?

They're mammals. So they have Lungs. Why do they live in the sea and have fins and look the way they do? Because they're whales and dolphins, so they live in the sea and look the way they do. It's nature. Not everything that lives in the sea is a fish and everything that lives on earth is a mammal or walks on four legs.

Do you legitimately belive that they were fish once? If that was the case they'd still be fish. Why would they need to develop lungs when they could perfectly breath underwater. For that matter, if that was also the case why would there still be fish, just as there still are primates.

 

[Exaar]

They're mammals. So they have Lungs. Why do they live in the sea and have fins and look the way they do? Because they're whales and dolphins, so they live in the sea and look the way they do. It's nature. Not everything that lives in the sea is a fish and everything that lives on earth is a mammal or walks on four legs.

Do you legitimately belive that they were fish once? If that was the case they'd still be fish. Why would they need to develop lungs when they could perfectly breath underwater. For that matter, if that was also the case why would there still be fish, just as there still are primates.

I think your missing the point of his post.

Why would you create a creature that can only survive in water, has a body built for living in water but cannot breath in water and is forced to come to the surface for air. I'd hardly call that an intelligent design.