Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[Hollie]

You've seen fossils right? And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.

this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years

Actually, yeah, it does.

Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum

 

[eots]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

you need try and and use more than fallacy to support your weak argument

 

[eots]

You've seen fossils right? And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.

this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years

Actually, yeah, it does.

Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum

care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?

 

[Hollie]

You've seen fossils right? And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.

this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years

Actually, yeah, it does.

Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum

care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?

Already did.

Your anti-science, conspiracy theory addled views are best argued among those like you.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

you need try and and use more than fallacy to support your weak argument

You have been unable to offer a single, coherent comment.

 

[eots]

Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books

The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American

 

[eots]

You've seen fossils right? And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.

this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years

Actually, yeah, it does.

Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum

care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?

Already did.

Your anti-science, conspiracy theory addled views are best argued among those like you.

You are really pathetic in your use of fallacy and lack of substance

 

[Hollie]

You've seen fossils right? And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.

this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years

Actually, yeah, it does.

Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum

care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?

Already did.

Your anti-science, conspiracy theory addled views are best argued among those like you.

You are really pathetic in your use of fallacy and lack of substance

You're so befuddled, you're flailing around like a angry conspiracy theorist.

 

[Hollie]

Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books

The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American

Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks

 

[eots]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

you need try and and use more than fallacy to support your weak argument

You have been unable to offer a single, coherent comment.

That's your opinion..but what is not opinion is in none of your have presented any information to support your assertions and have been completely dependent upon fallacies

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory

A fact? Then show us the proof.

You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

you need try and and use more than fallacy to support your weak argument

You have been unable to offer a single, coherent comment.

That's your opinion..but what is not opinion is in none of your have presented any information to support your assertions and have been completely dependent upon fallacies

Yet another of your goofy conspiracy theories.

 

[eots]

Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books

The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American

Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks

Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand

 

[Hollie]

Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books

The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American

Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks

Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand

Your meetings at the Flat Earth Society must be a real hoot.

 

[Mr.Right]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

View attachment 39585

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

 

[Mr.Right]

Atheist Thomas Nagel branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism
The philosopher Thomas Nagel is not taking phone calls.

His secretary at New York University says there have been hundreds, all wanting to reach the modern “heretic,” as a current magazine cover labels him, but he is not taking the bait.

Handout"What has gotten into Thomas Nagel?"
All he did was argue in a new book the evolutionary view of nature is “false,” and now grand forces have descended upon him. He does not want to talk about it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...agel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-da

I've made this argument before. Scientists are either dependent on funding for their research, and guess who decides who gets theirs, and are afraid to speak out, or they're worried about what happened to this guy happening to them. It's a conspiracy. Plain and simple.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.

View attachment 39585

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.

 

[Mr.Right]

View attachment 39585

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.

Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.

 

[Hollie]

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.

Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.

Correct. The theory only survives because of the global conspiracy.

 

[Mr.Right]

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.

Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.

Correct. The theory only survives because of the global conspiracy.

Glad you agree. I knew you'd come to senses.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.

Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.

Correct. The theory only survives because of the global conspiracy.

Glad you agree. I knew you'd come to senses.

The best way to discredit you conspiracy theory loons is to let you rattle on.