Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It's their religion. So don't question it. They can't answer they just "know".

Seattle Troll Statue

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Look at this blatant dishonesty. Suggesting things that are fantasy doesn't make what I said go away. I've never even mentioned reptilian theories before on this forum at all. Maybe it's the most silly thing you could think of. That is low and desperate to try and pin that on me.

Sorry. It's easy to get confused.

Originally Posted by grod

Sorry. It's easy to get confused.

Grod, that link is a thread about the illuminati not reptilians.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Grod, that link is a thread about the illuminati not reptilians.

Thank you, that was the joke. The point was that they are both incredibly nonsensical.

I think you are either:

1.) An extremely thick witted 13 year old. If this is true, it's well past your bedtime, so you should sneak back upstairs.

2.) A common troll

...amirite?

that was the joke was it......

Originally Posted by Mystic7

that was the joke was it......

...Is that what you fap to?

And I'll ask of you to post no more YouTube videos, thank you.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

that was the joke was it......

You win!!! You're the 82nd poster!

I bow down to the awesomeness of Mystic.

I've always liked how religion repeatedly places the burden of proof on science.

"Explain how the wing could have evolved"
"Well ... [explanation]"

"Uh, explain how the eye could have evolved"
"[explanation]"

"Explain [something not yet well known]"
"Well we're not really sure of that one yet"
"HA! I KNEW IT. You can't prove anything."

The more sensible step for that last one would be "well, they've explained several things I previously thought were impossible, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to tell them they can't do it", instead of automatically assuming a win.

If I postulate any stupid thing you can imagine, you place the burden of proof on me. Rightly so. Replace the thing with religion (though some would argue it's also stupid!), and for some reason the burden of proof is reversed because it's religion!

I also like how no-one bothered to respond to my counter arguments, especially that one about evolution homing in on something.

If people want to disprove evolution, here is how you do it:


Find an example of an organ that is absolutely impossible to have evolved because it's that complex, and anything less than the entire thing means it doesn't work at all. Also bearing in mind that the evolutionary scaffold as it were may have disappeared. Or that it may have had a completely different use originally and it has been repurposed. Then explain completely and utterly why it is impossible for any part of it to have been useful. Bear in mind that someone offering a single valid argument why it could have been useful disproves your point.

Find a fossil that is in the wrong geological location. For instance a 1 million year old creature in say, 1000 year old rock (with no disturbances etc).

Explain why a large body of scientific evidence, such as the fossil record, gene spread, Darwin's finches etc are completely wrong.


The following is not disproving evolution:

Quoting "facts" from people with extremely bad science understanding and a biased agenda. For examples of bad science, refer to the probabilities of protein formation earlier in this thread from creationalist idiots, some bizarre references to the double slit experiment, and a complete misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in another thread somewhere.

Not making a single valid point, and when asked claiming people should look elsewhere for the facts.

Claiming X is wrong with no counter argument or reasoning.

And so on.

*sigh* It's not even worth it. But, Darwin's Theory of Evolution PERIOD...

By the way, you just like posting naked people dont you Mystic? lol

I assume you're referring to the Theory part?


A) Several theories in science have been proved such as the Theory of Relativity. Countless experiments in particle accelerators at CERN, etc have had their results predicted perfectly by the theory, and there is much other evidence, though I readily admit my physics is not good enough to understand advanced particle physics.

It's still called a theory though.

B) Laws are not necessarily true. Newton's laws of gravity work well as an approximation, but break down at speeds close to the speeds of light. Technically not a law as it's been proved wrong, though Newton was a brilliant scientist and the approximation is excellent in most circumstances on Earth.

It's still called a law.


Less time on the name, more time attacking the evidence.

Just look at the Name of the Thread, I've already disproved it. End of discussion. Lol jk

Evolution has already been disproven in this thread. Mystic did so by personally insulting people who believe in it and then posting Youtube videos that have nothing to do with anything. I haven't seen much solid argument against the irrelevant Youtube videos.

But here's Abba... http://youtube.com/watch?v=SuB8xWeA59I

More like DEVILoution, amirite?

Lol

Im sorry O'nus but do you realize your one letter away from a dark an evil place. ROFL!!!

silly thing about both evolution and religion are explinations of how something "could" have happened. Yes we can guess how the eye evolved...it could have gone this way. but we dont know if thats true. also, god could have "designed" eyes, but we dont know that either. It seems to me that there is not enough proof on either side for how things "could" have happened.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

silly thing about both evolution and religion are explinations of how something "could" have happened. Yes we can guess how the eye evolved...it could have gone this way. but we dont know if thats true. also, god could have "designed" eyes, but we dont know that either. It seems to me that there is not enough proof on either side for how things "could" have happened.

Right. There's just a remarkable continuity in eye structure among extant species. Don't mean nothing.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

silly thing about both evolution and religion are explinations of how something "could" have happened. Yes we can guess how the eye evolved...it could have gone this way. but we dont know if thats true. also, god could have "designed" eyes, but we dont know that either. It seems to me that there is not enough proof on either side for how things "could" have happened.

Imagine a crime scene in which a large amount of evidence is present linking someone to the crime. There are bloody fingerprints from the suspect all over the place, he has mentioned repeatedly that he hates the murdered person, he has no alibi, and there is almost no evidence to suggest he didn't do it.

Of course, it's possible that it was some third party and a bizarre series of events occurred that made it look as if someone else was the killer.

It's all about probabilities. If I claim unicorns exist you would be stupid to believe the possibility of them existing is equally likely as them not existing. If you claim that it's very likely exist despite no evidence, or very little reliable evidence, that's also stupid. The creditable stance is to be skeptical given that no one else has reliably documented their existence.

If you say "But I absolutely definitely saw a Unicorn" so they must exist, that is not proof either. You might have been hallucinating, misinterpretted something (maybe it was a white horse at a distance in a funny light on a complex background), or any other number of things.

Religious people not only seem to delight in rejecting scientific evidence from peer reviewed papers where the author has no agenda of their own, but to then use biased and unreliable circumstantial proof such as their feelings, or ambigious cases where the exact cause isn't known (e.g. a rare recovery from cancer). The amazing thing about science is that anyone can do an experiment for themselves. If I say the speed of light is approximately 3x10^8 m/s you can test this for yourself. If you disagree that is explained as well. Science always is willing to accept something is wrong that was previously thought right if there is good evidence for it, which religion refuses to do.

It's also funny the claims people make. X recovers from cancer so it's clearly god. It's not a rare case where the immune system recovers and starts attacking an advanced cancer (or some other rare medical process such as the body ignoring the signals that cause new blood vessels to form and feed the tumour). After all, we get on average several cancers in our lives but our immune system kills it and we don't notice anything, but that's definitely impossible in this case. God cured that cancer!

When 9/11 happened, Todd Beamer's wife claimed God put him on the plane. Todd Beamer and other brave men like him were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and did something brave to save other people's lives. God didn't put him there (and fuck thousands of other people over due to an arbitrary decision). These people don't think about the stupidity of their statements. These people's losses are horrible, but stupidity and ignorance are no excuse.

But you never hear this comment sense point made. In that newspaper headline you don't get the full facts on how people survive cancers all the time, you only here ignorant people labelling it as God.

It's also funny that when a case that has no ambiguity comes along, such as losing a limb which we cannot regenerate, such as the leg, no one makes any claims that God causes these limbs to grow back. Strange eh.

Originally Posted by Elwood

Im sorry O'nus but do you realize your one letter away from a dark an evil place. ROFL!!!

~

That's not funny!