Evolution is based on multiple lines of evidence. Fossils, difference in DNA, parallel evolution of organisms compared to their parasites, just 3 examples. Scientific theories are constantly tested through diverse scientific fields.
There are many things of evolution not well understood, such as accelerated regions of differences in a genome (ie HAR genes) and function of the epigenome. However, that is no evidence that there is a God.
@robertmike57 That is a nice story, but not true. Ask yourself whether those who told you were dedicated to the evolutionarey explanation. Do you think for one minute they would tell YOU of the MYRIADS OF PROBLEMS, UNASWERABLE PROBLEMS with the so-called theory. What a bunch of fairy tales. You need to ask questions, not just swallow what is force fed to you.
As for evidence for God? Notice that one of the central themes of "science" is to try to explain why the apparent design really
@robertmike57 isn't design at all. Evolutionist always admit to the evidence of God, but then are forced to try to explain it away. Poor morons. When you can point to any complex design that is demonstrably the result of random destructive forces, then I will believe your your fairy tale. Don't cite anything from evolution. You can not use the thing you are trying to prove to prove the thing you are trying to prove. That is called a circular proof, and is a logical fallacy.
Even if you are offering to shit gold bricks for me, You are a creepy old dude dressed in less than flattering attire. And to top it all off, you're shouting at young people.
The problem is that I am not ignorant. I am well educated with about 30 years post doctoral level studies under my belt. I started out as an evolutionist, but found the evidence lacking. I moved on to theistic evolution but there was the same abundant lack of evidence. Then I began to read creationist literature and found an abundance of EVIDENCE. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, NOT JUST-SO STORY TELLING. You are the one that is ignorant, never having taken the skeptical view and looked over the fence
You put your trust in stories. I put my trust in physical evidence. Stories are not science. You have believed a bunch of men who have a vested interest in trying to destroy Christianity. You are the dupe of ideologues. They tell you all these nice stories of how they imagine things happened, and insist that their stories are sufficient to prove their assertions. That is not science, it is mythology. What is so sad is that there is an abundance of evidence that you simply refuse to see.
Psychological projection, YOU are the one that takes your "science" from a storybook full of fables, it's called the bible, and is demonstrably false, and has been proven so for hundreds of years.
I put my trust in the physical evidence. Whatever is the truth of the origins of the universe, the preponderance of physical evidence will point to it. What ever is true will prevail. The evidence supports the Bible. I did not come to this position by theology, but by science. Follow the evidence rather than just-so-stories.
Then go to your nearest natural history museum and be proven wrong in person.
"The evidence supports the Bible"
Talking snakes, talking donkeys, burning and talking bushes, rabbits that chew cud, and boats that can hold millions of species of animals for over a month never existed... ever.
If that were true, then the physical evidence would be insurmountable. But you have to resort to drawings of creatures, to comparisons of variation within the same species, to hypothetical relationships that only exist in the minds of the morons that think them.
Credulity is the bane of science. It is because you are too lazy to challenge the mental swill you are force fed, that science stumbles blindly down a path that ends in destruction. You are the blind leading the blind. Both perish
No, I looked at it for years, thought about it, and rejected it as unscientific, illogical, and frankly just a story crafted to dupe stupid people like you into throwing away any chance of life after death. You bought the lie, you will sleep in the lava for all eternity.
Creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well, and I mean all of them, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process and requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence.
Testable evidence? Where? What evidence for evolution has ever been tested anywhere on the earth. Keep in mind, that I reject the false idea that micromutations within a kind is any proof of the massive changes necessary to show speciation. Every thing ever presented to me boils down to variation within a kind. I embrace science. I reject substituting the imagination of man for evidence. I believe that science clearly points to a creator. It is observable, reproducable, and verifiable.
The claims of God are observable to me. The claims of God are reproducable over and over for many decades. The claims of God are verifiable and I have verifed them tens of thousands of times. Empirical observation does not require that YOU have to observe it. It only requires that it be observable. If you would end rebellion against God, you too would be able to observe, reproduce, and falsify. You are standing in a lab with no equipment nor power and saying God does not exist. He does.
Gotta point out that bearing false witness is a sin, BroCope.
You are seriously screwed if god exists, and punishes people not based on what they believe, but on what they accepted based on it's voracity. He gave us reason, try to exercise it at SOME point in your life.. since so far you've shown yourself to be literally deluded by your christ-psychosis.
Au contraire, I was able to see for the first time since I was taught evolution in 1960. The physical evidence, moron, the physical evidence. Not your mind enslaving stories.
You were never taught evolution if you can't even understand what speciation is, or that evolution takes place in populations, or use the word "evolutionIST".
Speciation when I was taught evolution was Darwinian speciation - you know "The Origin of Species". It was not until the late 70's and 80's that the teaching of evolution was changed from that to "change over time". I am 62 years old, a campus preacher for 32 years. I have been debating this issue since before you were born. I observed, I watched as evolutionists saw that the evidence for Darwinian speciation was completely absent. When it could not be defended by evidence, they did switchd
It has only been in the last 20 years that the focus of evolutionists has changed from trying to assert that fossils show evolution (the connection being imaginary), to doing the old bait and switch. Point to change within a species, tnen claim that that natural ability to vary proves speciation must have happened. You still have to show actual speciation having ever happened, either in the past or the present. The argument from variation is bad logic.
It is like saying, "I know how to completely rebuild my car's drive chain. I'll prove it. See, I can fill the tank with gas".
I consider anyone who thinks that the ability of species to show great amounts of variation is proof that they had a common ancestor with another species as mentally diseased. No scientist of any worth would use such non-sequitors to prove the unprovable.
I pointed to a new species all together.. if you deny it as speciation then you are ignorant, there are no two ways to it.
You were duped by creatotards and now you can't reform or even look at how your opinions are demonstrably false, or you will have shown that you have been wrong over and over for decades.
You are an intellectual coward. You don't wish to learn, only to spout ridiculous rhetoric in an attempt to make your argument look more credible, it is not.
Darwin didn't even know about genes and genetic drift, I suggest you pick up even a grade-school level biology book and learn something about biology before you croak, old man.
Oh right.. you define postdoctoral experience as sitting outside campuses spouting bullshit! I didn't realise that... in that case I guess you do have over 30 years of postdoctoral experience... hahaha imbecile!
Here we go again. You are not well educated and you do not have any post doc experience. You just copy pasted things about CP violations without even knowing what it all was... you misunderstand science and critisize the misunderstanding. You claimed CP violations explain the matter antimatter problem (WTF?!) - you are a complete and utter liar. That's the worst thing, you trot out these "I am educated" claims to try and give credence to your bullshit, you are nothing but a lying hypocrite!
@infinity730 Yes I kinow. It is the shortcoming of every proponent of evolution I have ever debated. As for me, it is a subject I have studied, AT GREAT DEPTH, for close to four decades. I was educating myself when your parents were screwing on junior prom night,
yes. I think it was $39.95. BTW, not confused, sharp as a razor, with an IQ in the stratosphere, and a degree in science, and 33 years of post doc level study.
change in allelic frequencies = variation within a kind. No evolution going on there. Evolution is the supposed explanation for the multitudes of species, not the variations we see within species. In the end you will find out you have traded an eternity of joy for a fairy tale not so well told. Imagination has become the replacement for evidence in modern day scientists. Think up a strange explanation. Your ability to think it proves it must have happened just that way.
What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.
Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
Really now. Take a cancer cell, and rename it and you have a new species? All you have is a cancer cell. And if I am not mistaken, we know exactly who that cell came from. That is no example of a change of kind. It was a cancer cell, it still is a cancer cell.
The thing is I do understand evolution. I can see it is a gigantic fairy tale. It violates every principle of science. The shame is that you won't see it until 10 seconds before you hit the molten lava. But by then it will be too late for you.
Not likely smokey. In order for anything to be in the realm of science, it has to be observable, reproducable, and falsifiable. Evolution is none of them. Never been observed. Never been reproduced, ever. Been falsified many times over but it will not die. Highest honor? or Impregnable myth.
In the end you will know, but it will be too late. You will not be able to plead ignorance because I will shut your mouth, and then I will toss you into the lake of fire myself.
Okay then, when has it been observed, and cite a true speciation event, not a variation within a species. When has it been reproduced, either in the field or in the laboratory. And BTW, don't cite anything that required intervention by a man, because evolution is a random and non-directed process. Anything that requires man's intervention proves creation not evolution. The falsification that Darwin proposed is the existence of massive amounts of transitional fossils showing accumulated chang
So show the massive amounts of transitional fossils. You are told they exist by your indoctrinators, but in reality they don't exist. And don't cite some nice little drawing of a tree with similar looking critters that have no existence in the fossil record. Those drawings are simply a man's belief of what things should have looked like, not evidence but imagination. Because a man can imagine it does not make it so. That is not science but story telling.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. ) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
Speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
There is not a variation within a species.. it is a COMPLETELY NEW SPECIES.
"fish in==>fish out. "
EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE IN POPULATIONS
Chordates in =>(millions of years of a population reproducing)=>Humans out
When a monkey picks flees off it's neighbor, that is peer review also. If a man is ignorant of the truth, and comes up with a fantastic just-so-story, then asks an equally ignorant person to review it, how does that process guarantee truth? When someone goes into the peer review process believing something that is unscientific, and finds others who believe the same, how is that in any way going to ensure that the truth is found? You are as blind as those who have mislead you.
I consider talkorigins to be as unscientific as you are. I wouldn't accept their opinion if my life depended on it. Oh, BTW, I guess it does. Since the Bible is true, and they value the idiocy of man above God's word, they will be in Hell alongside of you.
@infinity730 It is just that it took me a year to run out of interesting things to comment on, and be reduced to responding to numbskulls.
BroCope 1 year ago
Evolution is based on multiple lines of evidence. Fossils, difference in DNA, parallel evolution of organisms compared to their parasites, just 3 examples. Scientific theories are constantly tested through diverse scientific fields.
There are many things of evolution not well understood, such as accelerated regions of differences in a genome (ie HAR genes) and function of the epigenome. However, that is no evidence that there is a God.
robertmike57 2 years ago 3
@robertmike57 That is a nice story, but not true. Ask yourself whether those who told you were dedicated to the evolutionarey explanation. Do you think for one minute they would tell YOU of the MYRIADS OF PROBLEMS, UNASWERABLE PROBLEMS with the so-called theory. What a bunch of fairy tales. You need to ask questions, not just swallow what is force fed to you.
As for evidence for God? Notice that one of the central themes of "science" is to try to explain why the apparent design really
BroCope 1 year ago
@robertmike57 isn't design at all. Evolutionist always admit to the evidence of God, but then are forced to try to explain it away. Poor morons. When you can point to any complex design that is demonstrably the result of random destructive forces, then I will believe your your fairy tale. Don't cite anything from evolution. You can not use the thing you are trying to prove to prove the thing you are trying to prove. That is called a circular proof, and is a logical fallacy.
BroCope 1 year ago
FAIL. So Very Fail.
Even if you are offering to shit gold bricks for me, You are a creepy old dude dressed in less than flattering attire. And to top it all off, you're shouting at young people.
It isn't any wonder that you are being ignored.
I'm surprised that the cops weren't called.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 3
BroCope, ignorance of a scientific subject is not an argument against it, no matter how much you wish it is.
infinity730 2 years ago 2
The problem is that I am not ignorant. I am well educated with about 30 years post doctoral level studies under my belt. I started out as an evolutionist, but found the evidence lacking. I moved on to theistic evolution but there was the same abundant lack of evidence. Then I began to read creationist literature and found an abundance of EVIDENCE. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, NOT JUST-SO STORY TELLING. You are the one that is ignorant, never having taken the skeptical view and looked over the fence
BroCope 2 years ago
You put your trust in stories. I put my trust in physical evidence. Stories are not science. You have believed a bunch of men who have a vested interest in trying to destroy Christianity. You are the dupe of ideologues. They tell you all these nice stories of how they imagine things happened, and insist that their stories are sufficient to prove their assertions. That is not science, it is mythology. What is so sad is that there is an abundance of evidence that you simply refuse to see.
BroCope 2 years ago
"You put your trust in stories."
Psychological projection, YOU are the one that takes your "science" from a storybook full of fables, it's called the bible, and is demonstrably false, and has been proven so for hundreds of years.
infinity730 2 years ago 2
I put my trust in the physical evidence. Whatever is the truth of the origins of the universe, the preponderance of physical evidence will point to it. What ever is true will prevail. The evidence supports the Bible. I did not come to this position by theology, but by science. Follow the evidence rather than just-so-stories.
BroCope 2 years ago
"origins of the universe"
The origin of the universe is cosmology, evolution is biology, they have nothing to do with each other in science.
infinity730 2 years ago
"I put my trust in the physical evidence"
Then go to your nearest natural history museum and be proven wrong in person.
"The evidence supports the Bible"
Talking snakes, talking donkeys, burning and talking bushes, rabbits that chew cud, and boats that can hold millions of species of animals for over a month never existed... ever.
infinity730 2 years ago
"but by science"
Science.... Modern Science has demonstrated the fact of evolution occurring many hundreds of thousands of times over.
You are not a proponent of science, you wish to destroy it with the worst of ammunition: incredulity.
infinity730 2 years ago
If that were true, then the physical evidence would be insurmountable. But you have to resort to drawings of creatures, to comparisons of variation within the same species, to hypothetical relationships that only exist in the minds of the morons that think them.
Credulity is the bane of science. It is because you are too lazy to challenge the mental swill you are force fed, that science stumbles blindly down a path that ends in destruction. You are the blind leading the blind. Both perish
BroCope 2 years ago
"physical evidence would be insurmountable"
IT IS, YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT IT
infinity730 2 years ago
No, I looked at it for years, thought about it, and rejected it as unscientific, illogical, and frankly just a story crafted to dupe stupid people like you into throwing away any chance of life after death. You bought the lie, you will sleep in the lava for all eternity.
BroCope 2 years ago
Creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well, and I mean all of them, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process and requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence.
infinity730 2 years ago
Testable evidence? Where? What evidence for evolution has ever been tested anywhere on the earth. Keep in mind, that I reject the false idea that micromutations within a kind is any proof of the massive changes necessary to show speciation. Every thing ever presented to me boils down to variation within a kind. I embrace science. I reject substituting the imagination of man for evidence. I believe that science clearly points to a creator. It is observable, reproducable, and verifiable.
BroCope 2 years ago
The claims of God are observable to me. The claims of God are reproducable over and over for many decades. The claims of God are verifiable and I have verifed them tens of thousands of times. Empirical observation does not require that YOU have to observe it. It only requires that it be observable. If you would end rebellion against God, you too would be able to observe, reproduce, and falsify. You are standing in a lab with no equipment nor power and saying God does not exist. He does.
BroCope 2 years ago
Delusional monotheist is delusional.
infinity730 2 years ago
FAIL
infinity730 2 years ago
Gotta point out that bearing false witness is a sin, BroCope.
You are seriously screwed if god exists, and punishes people not based on what they believe, but on what they accepted based on it's voracity. He gave us reason, try to exercise it at SOME point in your life.. since so far you've shown yourself to be literally deluded by your christ-psychosis.
infinity730 2 years ago
Brocope, you are woefully ignorant of modern science.
I suggest you watch ALL parts of the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series from AronRa.
youtube . com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC&search_query=foundational+falsehoods+of+creationism
I will not comment until you have watched them, and understand that evolution is a fact, and that creationism is complete bullshit.
infinity730 2 years ago 2
please, hold your breath
BroCope 2 years ago
"I began to read creationist literature "
You were duped.
infinity730 2 years ago
Au contraire, I was able to see for the first time since I was taught evolution in 1960. The physical evidence, moron, the physical evidence. Not your mind enslaving stories.
BroCope 2 years ago
"I was taught evolution in 1960"
You were never taught evolution if you can't even understand what speciation is, or that evolution takes place in populations, or use the word "evolutionIST".
You need to take a biology course.
infinity730 2 years ago
Speciation when I was taught evolution was Darwinian speciation - you know "The Origin of Species". It was not until the late 70's and 80's that the teaching of evolution was changed from that to "change over time". I am 62 years old, a campus preacher for 32 years. I have been debating this issue since before you were born. I observed, I watched as evolutionists saw that the evidence for Darwinian speciation was completely absent. When it could not be defended by evidence, they did switchd
BroCope 2 years ago
It has only been in the last 20 years that the focus of evolutionists has changed from trying to assert that fossils show evolution (the connection being imaginary), to doing the old bait and switch. Point to change within a species, tnen claim that that natural ability to vary proves speciation must have happened. You still have to show actual speciation having ever happened, either in the past or the present. The argument from variation is bad logic.
BroCope 2 years ago
So much FAIL in one little brain, no wonder you believe in storybook land where pi equals 3, a dirt man and a rib woman and zombie jesus.
infinity730 2 years ago 2
It is like saying, "I know how to completely rebuild my car's drive chain. I'll prove it. See, I can fill the tank with gas".
I consider anyone who thinks that the ability of species to show great amounts of variation is proof that they had a common ancestor with another species as mentally diseased. No scientist of any worth would use such non-sequitors to prove the unprovable.
BroCope 2 years ago
youtube . com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC
This playlist is all you need to PROVE TO YOURSELF that evolution is a demonstrable fact.
IF YOU DONT WATCH IT, THEN YOU ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT
I have nothing more to say to you.
infinity730 2 years ago
I pointed to a new species all together.. if you deny it as speciation then you are ignorant, there are no two ways to it.
You were duped by creatotards and now you can't reform or even look at how your opinions are demonstrably false, or you will have shown that you have been wrong over and over for decades.
You are an intellectual coward. You don't wish to learn, only to spout ridiculous rhetoric in an attempt to make your argument look more credible, it is not.
infinity730 2 years ago
Darwin didn't even know about genes and genetic drift, I suggest you pick up even a grade-school level biology book and learn something about biology before you croak, old man.
infinity730 2 years ago
Oh right.. you define postdoctoral experience as sitting outside campuses spouting bullshit! I didn't realise that... in that case I guess you do have over 30 years of postdoctoral experience... hahaha imbecile!
pubuman 2 years ago
Here we go again. You are not well educated and you do not have any post doc experience. You just copy pasted things about CP violations without even knowing what it all was... you misunderstand science and critisize the misunderstanding. You claimed CP violations explain the matter antimatter problem (WTF?!) - you are a complete and utter liar. That's the worst thing, you trot out these "I am educated" claims to try and give credence to your bullshit, you are nothing but a lying hypocrite!
pubuman 2 years ago
@infinity730 Yes I kinow. It is the shortcoming of every proponent of evolution I have ever debated. As for me, it is a subject I have studied, AT GREAT DEPTH, for close to four decades. I was educating myself when your parents were screwing on junior prom night,
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope You aren't worth the time and effort I am using right now to ridicule you for addressing a year old comment.
infinity730 1 year ago
yes. I think it was $39.95. BTW, not confused, sharp as a razor, with an IQ in the stratosphere, and a degree in science, and 33 years of post doc level study.
BroCope 2 years ago
are you, the uploader, the loud confused old man shouting on the campus trying to sell styrofoam boxes? and if so how much is one box?
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
Heres what you have to debunk:
Biological Evolution:
The change in allelic frequencies in a population of living organisms over time.
Good luck.
infinity730 2 years ago
change in allelic frequencies = variation within a kind. No evolution going on there. Evolution is the supposed explanation for the multitudes of species, not the variations we see within species. In the end you will find out you have traded an eternity of joy for a fairy tale not so well told. Imagination has become the replacement for evidence in modern day scientists. Think up a strange explanation. Your ability to think it proves it must have happened just that way.
BroCope 2 years ago
talkorigins . org
Go learn something please.
infinity730 2 years ago
What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.
infinity730 2 years ago
Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
infinity730 2 years ago
Really now. Take a cancer cell, and rename it and you have a new species? All you have is a cancer cell. And if I am not mistaken, we know exactly who that cell came from. That is no example of a change of kind. It was a cancer cell, it still is a cancer cell.
BroCope 2 years ago
Define "kind" and I'll either show you how a change has taken place, or how it would go against evolution.
Either way, you'd lose. So go right ahead.
infinity730 2 years ago
The thing is I do understand evolution. I can see it is a gigantic fairy tale. It violates every principle of science. The shame is that you won't see it until 10 seconds before you hit the molten lava. But by then it will be too late for you.
BroCope 2 years ago
"It violates every principle of science."
Biological Evolution has the highest honor an idea can have in science, it's called a Scientific Theory.
infinity730 2 years ago
Not likely smokey. In order for anything to be in the realm of science, it has to be observable, reproducable, and falsifiable. Evolution is none of them. Never been observed. Never been reproduced, ever. Been falsified many times over but it will not die. Highest honor? or Impregnable myth.
In the end you will know, but it will be too late. You will not be able to plead ignorance because I will shut your mouth, and then I will toss you into the lake of fire myself.
BroCope 2 years ago
"Evolution is none of them."
Then you are ignorant, and deserve nothing but contempt.
infinity730 2 years ago
Okay then, when has it been observed, and cite a true speciation event, not a variation within a species. When has it been reproduced, either in the field or in the laboratory. And BTW, don't cite anything that required intervention by a man, because evolution is a random and non-directed process. Anything that requires man's intervention proves creation not evolution. The falsification that Darwin proposed is the existence of massive amounts of transitional fossils showing accumulated chang
BroCope 2 years ago
So show the massive amounts of transitional fossils. You are told they exist by your indoctrinators, but in reality they don't exist. And don't cite some nice little drawing of a tree with similar looking critters that have no existence in the fossil record. Those drawings are simply a man's belief of what things should have looked like, not evidence but imagination. Because a man can imagine it does not make it so. That is not science but story telling.
BroCope 2 years ago
"show the massive amounts of transitional fossils"
youtube . com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
infinity730 2 years ago
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. ) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
infinity730 2 years ago
Variation within a species is not evidence of transformation into another species. Your criteria for speciation is arbitrary. fish in==>fish out.
BroCope 2 years ago
"Variation within a species"
Speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
There is not a variation within a species.. it is a COMPLETELY NEW SPECIES.
"fish in==>fish out. "
EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE IN POPULATIONS
Chordates in =>(millions of years of a population reproducing)=>Humans out
infinity730 2 years ago
Pubmed search on "evolution" brings up:
Items 1 - 20 of 251125
So your one contention against over 250 thousand peer reviewed documents?
Evolution wins.
infinity730 2 years ago
When a monkey picks flees off it's neighbor, that is peer review also. If a man is ignorant of the truth, and comes up with a fantastic just-so-story, then asks an equally ignorant person to review it, how does that process guarantee truth? When someone goes into the peer review process believing something that is unscientific, and finds others who believe the same, how is that in any way going to ensure that the truth is found? You are as blind as those who have mislead you.
BroCope 2 years ago
"Never been observed."
Observed Instances of Speciation:
talkorigins . org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
infinity730 2 years ago
I consider talkorigins to be as unscientific as you are. I wouldn't accept their opinion if my life depended on it. Oh, BTW, I guess it does. Since the Bible is true, and they value the idiocy of man above God's word, they will be in Hell alongside of you.
BroCope 2 years ago
"I consider talkorigins to be as unscientific as you are"
Then you reject modern science. Go read Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution".
infinity730 2 years ago
How does your misunderstanding of evolution make it incorrect?
pubuman 2 years ago
That's funny!
DVaughnII 2 years ago
I don't think Bob Dylan would approve.
zweebex 2 years ago
You're performance is much better live.
EmptyQue 2 years ago