Thread: What evidence do you need?

I think that I'd need to see a monkey turn into a brilliant Japanese gardener right before my eyes. And all of its hair better be gone too. I'm not taking any half assed evidence. And I'd want to have it on camera so as to be able to prove to myself that it wasn't just a delusion brought on by the deep rooted, faith-based fervor that always seems to accompany scientific studies.

Bothe evolution and creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

Bothe evolution and creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you?

But based on your sig, it's not even worth opening the can of worms that is discussing with you. Oh and of course, your own "atheist test" thread you ignored so well after the arguments started to flood in.

Buuut... here I go anyway!

First of all, evolution has been proven in the sense of "smaller scale" that is:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

Proves the concept of evolution right there.

Oh and, did you ever stop to consider the fact that your god might not exist? Do you really think it's a logical approach to believe in what YOUR specific god told you (note: not all of the other thousands of religions or many many other gods out there), or the approach of trying to explain a certain idea based on our very own observations?

Oh and, please do point out the illogical parts.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I think that I'd need to see a monkey turn into a brilliant Japanese gardener right before my eyes. And all of its hair better be gone too. I'm not taking any half assed evidence. And I'd want to have it on camera so as to be able to prove to myself that it wasn't just a delusion brought on by the deep rooted, faith-based fervor that always seems to accompany scientific studies.

Unfortunately, that's not how evolution works. The theory of evolution states that apes and humans descended from a common ancestor, but sometime many thousands of years ago, these races branched into two separate, distinct species. A modern-day ape will most likely not evolve into a human.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Bothe evolution and creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

Evolution has essentially been proven time and again. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence that support it, while the only thing we have to go on in terms of "proof" for divine creation is a book written 2,000 years ago, during a time when sea monsters were still considered a reasonable threat. Not to mention the endless editing that has taken place over the millennium. Honestly, if you truly believe that the bible as we know it today is the same one written thousands of years ago, you're either delusional or insane.

I find it a shame that evolution is still referred to as a theory, when it is FACT. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I have a single concept for you: Occam's Razor.

And another thing; why does everyone have such a mistrust of science? The first step in the scientific process is to make an observation, then try to explain it using logical, rational arguments. You could look at a watch and say, "it works because a watch maker crafted it with intense care and designed so that all the tiny, moving components within would mesh, etc." or you could say, "It runs because fairies trapped within use their magic powers to turn the hands in exact time." One solution is clearly more logical. The same principle applies here. You could say, "life originated many billions of years ago when a unique series of events set the wheels in motion," or you could say, "Some great, divine, invisible being suddenly decided one day to spontaneously create life from nothing, while the devil planted fossils to confuse humans, etc." Which is the logical one and which is the fairy tale? Hmm...

Sorry if I offended anyone, but I'm really getting sick of all this creationism vs. evolution bullshit. We could rant endlessly on the subject, but none of us would ever budge on the stance we currently hold. Just thought I'd try out this ranting thing, and I must admit, it really is quite calming.

/rant.

If evolution is true than why are there still monkeys and apes?

Originally Posted by legonut4

If evolution is true than why are there still monkeys and apes?

http://listverse.com/2009/04/08/top-...science-myths/
^this

Evolution is not equal to progress. Monkeys and apes are well-enough adapted to their environment to survive effectively; therefore, they do not need to rapidly evolve into wildly different organisms. Besides that, they are evolving...even humans are evolving, and at an amazing pace, too.

Do not forget the Hardy-Weinberg Principle. There are 5 conditions that must all be true to stop evolution within a certain population. Unless all 5 conditions hold true, the population can be considered to be "evolving."

Originally Posted by kingerman

or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

Btw, the Earth revolves around the sun. Proven by biased, "scientific" explanations.

What I find amusing is that the scientific method is not anti-God, nor
anti-creator, but merely anti-creationism (pertaining specifically to the design of
biological entities). Creationists therefor end up believing in a God that's limited
to having to intervene in a system that would otherwise be "perfect" and in no
need of maintenance to achieve a desired effect. Does anyone else see what's
wrong with that?

If one believes that God was responsible for the making of the universe, they
have to also acknowledge that all of the complex physical phenomena
(headache, insanity-inducing complexity) are the result of this almighty God.
Evolution is terribly simple and mundane in comparison, not to mention easy
to grasp. It's as simple as understanding that the light and heat that
emanates from a star is the result of a fusion reaction. Fusion, conceptually,
is very easy to grasp, but we don't see arguments about that. Why?

Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are you looking for?

we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fool

Those "scientific fools" are the reason why you're reading this right now, and the same science that shows evolution also is responsible for modern medicine, water purification, and the Haber process (which means most of us don't starve to death).

The irony of an ignorant cretin calling the smartest people on the planet fools is staggering.

Bothe evolution and creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

A supernatural explanation is by definition unfalsifiable. Evolution is evidence based and can be disproven. One is faith based, one is not. They are completely different in every way.

I'm going to get another infraction for this, despite it being perfectly accurate but oh well: you're still a moron. Almost every time you open your metaphorical mouth you show your complete lack of knowledge, intellect, and critical thinking skills.

If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are you looking for?

You know the idea that microbes cause diseases? You know, that thing we know for a fact? Yes, that one. You know it's called the Germ THEORY of Disease?

Educate yourself on what theory means in a scientific context.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Bothe evolution and creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

You're a fuckin idiot. People like you make me sick.

If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory

You DO of course realise that theory is the highest achieveable status when talking science, right? Just like the theory of gravitation... oh and:

You know the idea that microbes cause diseases? You know, that thing we know for a fact? Yes, that one. You know it's called the Germ THEORY of Disease?

Educate yourself on what theory means in a scientific context.

^This.

Again, did you EVER even read the newsline of this article?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

If not, let me write it here: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

You making statements like that just goes to show how ignorant you really are o_O

Originally Posted by kingerman

Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are you looking for?

If you wish to play this game, how can we even be certain of anything around us? We have evidence of the matter, such as the ability to control our own hands, but how can we be sure they exist? How do we know that the way we see red is how everyone else sees red? Technically, we can't be sure of anything, including the fact that the reality we live in truly exists. We can get a pretty darn good idea, though. That's what all of this comes down to: which theory has the most evidence to back it up in a logical, rational manner. Evolution wins, hands-down.

Look I'm not going to engage any of you i have said my piece and gettin outta here,looks like you people have limited theists to debate.I think i know why only a few theists out of the 23509 DV population comes here.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Look I'm not going to engage any of you i have said my piece and gettin outta here,looks like you people have limited theists to debate.I think i know why only a few theists out of the 23509 DV population comes here.

Well, at least you show up and make a few asinine comments before playing dodgeball and then running away. I'll give you that.

However, if you ever decide to actually have a debate or even answer a question, I would like to know how belief is a choice. That seems to be the #1 issue of dodgeball in this forum.

Originally Posted by kingerman

Look I'm not going to engage any of you i have said my piece and gettin outta here,looks like you people have limited theists...

You "limit" yourself. All you do is preach with nothing to back it up. That's what you get for calling the people who made your computer possible or the people who could save your life some day, due to the "evil" scientific discoveries, fools.

A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes.

Well one would wonder in what way God could be perfect. Just know that the scientific methodology is made to describe nature the way it is. By denying general science you deny to marvel god's creation.

Originally Posted by kingerman

we can also count on science to make mistakes.

Evolution isn't one of those mistakes. Sorry, but your knowledge of the world is 150 years out of date.

Educate yourself. Don't run from knowledge. Your god will look down on you for it.

Yeah science makes mistakes, God on the other hand doesn't. Earthquakes and tsunamis are all part of his big perfect plan.

Originally Posted by kingerman

A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes.

Science can research and have respect for God; why are you not considering that? Science is still open to the idea of God but there is no present evidence; just like life on another planet.

Science makes mistakes in the sense that it is corrected and developed. However, what do you say of religion that presumes things that are blatantly wrong? (eg. not using condoms, blood transfusions, voting manipulation)?

Originally Posted by kingerman

Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are you looking for?

Why do you keep ignoring the question?!?!?!

This entire thread is dedicate to this one question which you are grotesquely ignoring;

What evidence do you need to be convinced evolution is real and that you are wrong?

Please try answering the question this time.

~

Poor O'nus.

The R/S forum curse is terrible, isn't it? You ask a question, and it gets ignored.

Pretty much, the law of this forum is

"Any question is the equivalence of Creation vs. Evolution"

Anyway, O'nus, for me, I would like some good evidence that is actually evidence.

Lol, I don't think I can get more specific than that. All the "evidence" made for Evolution is always vague, and twisted by speculation. Some good pure evidence that does not require one to already have a theory in mind is good for me.

In other words, nobody could look at what is considered "proof" for Evolution and think, oh, this proves Evolution. One must already have the theory in mind.

Originally Posted by Noogah

"Any question is the equivalence of Creation vs. Evolution"

That is not a fair match; evolution is true and creation is not.

Either way, that is not what I am after.

Anyway, O'nus, for me, I would like some good evidence that is actually evidence.

Not very specific.

Lol, I don't think I can get more specific than that. All the "evidence" made for Evolution is always vague, and twisted by speculation. Some good pure evidence that does not require one to already have a theory in mind is good for me.

In other words, nobody could look at what is considered "proof" for Evolution and think, oh, this proves Evolution. One must already have the theory in mind.

See and this is a problem; many people do not understand or know of evolution so they do not even know what to ask for. Shouldn't that be an indicator of their ignorance? Should not that prove the persons laziness to educate themselves?

Fine, I will do the dirty work.

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence
+ A highly resolved primate cladogram based on DNA evidence is congruent with extant and fossil osteological evidence. A provisional primate classification based on this cladogram and the time scale provided by fossils and the model of local molecular clocks has all named taxa represent clades and assigns the same taxonomic rank to those clades of roughly equivalent age. Order Primates divides into Strepsirhini and Haplorhini. Strepsirhines divide into Lemuriformes and Loriformes, whereas haplorhines divide into Tarsiiformes and Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea when equivalent ranks are used for divisions within Platyrrhini and Catarrhini, Homininae divides into Hylobatini (common and siamang gibbon) and Hominini, and the latter divides into Pongina forPongo(orangutans) and Hominina forGorillaandHomo. Homoitself divides into the subgeneraH.(Homo) for humans andH.(Pan) for chimpanzees and bonobos. The differences between this provisional age related phylogenetic classification and current primate taxonomies are discussed.
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...fa51501d644eaa

Human Origins
+ New discoveries combine to indicate that all the major steps in human evolution took place in Africa. Skeletal analysis of oldest human forbears around 3 million years ago reveal many anatomical similarities to African Great Apes. These and biochemical resemblances indicate a common ancestry for humans and apes, perhaps only a few million years earlier. Enlarged knowledge through recent recovery of skeletons of several successive stages in the line leading to modern peoples shows that many attributes or skills by which we define humanity arose much more recently in time than heretofore believed.
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../245/4924/1343

The Fossil Record and the Early Evolution of the Metazoa
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...idence&f=false

Skull Fossil Evolution Chimps vs Humans
+ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd.../hominids2.jpg

DNA Tracing of Species
+ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...16_238_F1.jpeg

Human vs Chimp DNA Comparison
+ http://www.wired.com/news/images/ful...himp_dna_f.jpg

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion
+ We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
+ http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.abstract

African Populations and the Evolution of Human Mitochondrial DNA
+ The proposal tha tall mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) types in contempoary humans stem from a common ancestor present in an African population seom 200,000 years ago...two hypervariable segments of mtDNA were sequence from 189 people of diverse geograph origin... Geographic specificty was obesrved in that identical mtDNA types are share within but not between populations. A tree relating these mtDNA sequences to one another and to a chimpanzee sequence has many deep branches leading exclusively to African mtDNAs. An African origin for human mtDNA is supported by two statistical tests. With the use of the chimpanzee and human sequences to calibrate the rat eof mtDNA evolution, the age of the common human mtDNA ancestor is placed between 166,000 and 249,000 years. These results thus support and extend the African origin hypothesis of human mtDNA evolution."
+ http://tigger.uic.edu/labs/bios/robi...HumanmtDNA.pdf

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
+ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
+ http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What...5559914&sr=8-1

EVOLUTION, BY PBS, NARRATED BY LIAM NEESON (4-DVD SET)
+ https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/me...egory_Code=OTH

VIDEOS TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU


























UNDENIABLE CONCLUSIONS FROM ABOVE

- Evolution is fact
- Evolution is not including abiogenesis
- Humans are at least 3 million years old
- The earth is at least billions of years old
- It is impossible for Adam and Eve to have existed

Upon request, I can also pull forth evidence that homosexuality is biological (along with other fetishes). Though this is a bit irrelevant.

But my question is; what evidence do you need to know that evolution is real?

I have done the work for you.

What do you now need to be shown it is true and real?

~

Originally Posted by kingerman

Bothe evolution and creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

Troll?

Troll?

You know what... looking at all kingermans posts... it totally makes sense if he's a troll! Can't believe I didn't see that .__.