U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 03-16-2013, 12:44 PM
Location: Florida
150 posts, read 164,411 times
Reputation: 73


Very funny thread in here filled with irony here

A question to the creationists or anti-evolutioners. What is your proof that disproves evolution? Don't ask me what is the evolutionists' proof. In the multiple pages somebody already proved evolution. Now where's the evidence that disproves evolution? Please explain without the bible, I am curious about the anti evolution crowd.

Old 03-16-2013, 01:01 PM
Location: Georgia, USA
23,272 posts, read 28,068,309 times
Reputation: 28716
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Are you claiming that the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is not a peer-reviewed, scientific journal? You do realize such claims would be a total lie, don't you? Also, it would be an error to insinuate that a well respected, accredited university like Baylor University is some off the beaten track, religious temple teaching hocus pocus. It's a fine University ... they even have professors and everything!
Perhaps you are unaware that the article was retracted. It seems the entire "peer review" was done by one person.

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 03-16-2013, 01:01 PM
7,371 posts, read 4,622,191 times
Reputation: 3133
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Species do evolve into new species. That is not the same as saying any species can evolve into any other species. A dog will not evolve into a cat or a tree. A chimp will not evolve into a human.

It is entirely possible, however, that a chimp could evolve into something new or a human into something new.

Study of DNA provides incontrovertible evidence, however, of common ancestors and can even estimate when it happened.

As far as humans are concerned, the question is how much will we alter natural selection by the tremendous influence we have on the world around us.
Since correlation does not imply causation, I fail to see how DNA provides incontrovertible evidence of common ancestors. It provides supporting evidence to be sure. But not incontrovertible. It's merely on the order of "if we had common ancesters, we might expect X to be true, and we find X to be true". There's no proof there. X could be true for a completely different reason.
Old 03-16-2013, 01:02 PM
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,774,217 times
Reputation: 2033
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
No, I didn't say that at all. That's your story, remember? Evolution being a proven fact, and all. You evolutionists are really a hypocritical bunch ... always projecting too. You all beat this drum and parrot this "it's scientifically proven, damn it"! But it isn't proven at all ... not even close to being proven. It's nothing more than a "hypothesis", like the Big Bang. The scientific method requires one to DEMONSTRATE a phenomenon, and it's mechanisms of action that support the theoretical ... then that demonstration has to be repeatable by others, before it is "scientifically" proven. Has any of that happened? NO! But that doesn't seem to stop you people from a lot of false claims suggesting that's been done, or that it's so close to being done now, it's only a matter of time! (as we see in the next bit of your post).

Do you think I have not heard this before? Do you think that I haven't already reviewed this information? That's how I form my opinions, suzy. I don't parrot other people's opinions ... I review and analyze all sides, which allows me to make informed assessments.

I believe yours, and many other's biggest error is in failing to look at the full picture and scope of the issue personally, but instead, simply accepting someone else's claims and conclusions. It's only natural that those involved in this research are going to make claims ... these people are funded by lots of cash, and of course, they're not going to devote a decade of work and millions of dollars, only to throw up their hands and say ... welp, we tried, but we're still stuck in the mud, and are spinning our wheels. And though this particular effort to construct RNA is just one element of the debate, it's a great example of evolution science and it's basic approach.

It might be helpful to use an analogy that can illustrate just how far these scientists have gotten in their efforts of creating an RNA strand. Take a car as an example. The engineers have this car that they want to construct using an existing car as their model. So far, they haven't even been able to figure out how to attach the wheels. That leaves a great deal of unsolved work in front of them. This is true of the effort to construct a portion of a strand of RNA. They have been unsuccessful in figuring out how to attach an existing nucleotide to an existing section of RNA. So, about 99% of the hard part of creating RNA hasn't even begun.

I don't know ... and neither does anyone else. And there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when you don't know ... that's called honesty. You evolutionists ought to get better familiar with that, because you don't really know any more than anyone else does about how life originated.

Those of us who subscribe to the theory of intelligent design have not, and need not identify the nature of the designer, to recognize the signs of artificial versus natural characteristics. When I look at the inner workings of a swiss watch, I need not know who made it, or how they made it, or where the parts came from, or where the knowledge and skill was acquired, in order to deduce that someone must have made it.

We humans rely on our own basic common sense to make such discernments relative to any number of things. One of my favorite examples is Mount Rushmore. You'd have to be a blithering idiot to believe that it was a result of natural processes of wind and rock erosion occurring over millions of years. One brief glance at the structure is enough to conclude that someone deliberately carved those faces into the rock. We don't need to identify who the sculptor was, or what tools he used, or the methods employed in oder to reach that rational conclusion ... all the evidence required to conclude that is provided by the structure itself.

DNA is exponentially more complex, and the telltale signs which identify deliberate, purposeful design is even more obvious, even though we don't know who the designer was, or the methods employed to construct it. The evidence of design is provided by the structure itself.
Evolution is consistently being proved again and again in the labs and right in front of our eyes. You seem to take issue that because all the questions surrounding the origin of life have not been answered, therefore evolution isn't true. However you fail to realize evolution only explains the mechanism when you and others mistake evolution for some catch all word involving our origin of life.
Old 03-16-2013, 01:03 PM
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,125 posts, read 21,963,098 times
Reputation: 6128
Originally Posted by AnonymouseX View Post
Hahaha the crazy Christians will love that. Apes AND African. I'm pretty sure some of the religious kooks just declared a fatwa on you!
There are many Christians in Africa.
Old 03-16-2013, 01:07 PM
7,371 posts, read 4,622,191 times
Reputation: 3133
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Let me ask you...do you believe everything in the Bible happened as it was written? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you believe the stories in the Bible?
One does not have to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to see that atheism is irrational. Theism and atheism are both irrational. The only rational position is agnosticism.

The difference that I see is that the theists acknowledge their belief is a matter of faith and atheists do not.

This is speaking in general terms of course.
Old 03-16-2013, 01:36 PM
9,065 posts, read 5,590,451 times
Reputation: 3824
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post

For any organism to exist, it must be a member of a complete, fully evolved and adapted species. There are no "half-wings" or "half eyes" in the sense that they are caught halfway along a process to some predetermined outcome. There are only the adaptations available to that species at that time for that environment.
because it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS Darwinian Evolution which is defined as evolving ... SLOWLY over VAST periods of time. Your definition suggests spontaneous appearance in a fully formed state. That's certainly not evolving slowly over time. But it does honestly define what has been found in the fossil records ... the spontaneous appearance of a multitude of fully formed species, which Darwin himself remarked as being troublesome to his theory. You simply twist the story in a very lame and transparent attempt to turn what Darwin considered problematic to his theories, as evidence in support of them. And you dare suggest someone else is dishonest?

Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Later evolution may allow the retrospective identification of a species as "intermediate" between two other points along a particular adaptive pathway, but natural selection is always and entirely ignorant of the future.
Later? It's been allegedly occurring for a couple BILLION years! We have already reached the point of "later". Have you even read your evolutionist bible? Even some of it? I don't think you have. "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, clearly defines his theories, and to his credit, it was either two or three chapters devoted to the problems with his theories and the missing evidence that would have to be found in the future in order to support them.

Here's what I would recommend .... READ YOUR BIBLE ... and then get back to us, leaving the distortions and reversals and flagrant untruths OUT. You can read it here for FREE:

Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
For example when the reptilian jaw joint was going through the process (which by the way is extremely well documented in the fossil record) of replacing the quadrate-articular "hinge" with dentary-squamosal "hinge" of mammals, it was not for the purpose of freeing up a couple of extra bones for the middle ear, even though that's exactly what happened. But more importantly, at all points in the process, even when it was only "halfway" complete, all the animals involved still had a perfectly complete, perfectly functional jaw along with a perfectly complete, perfectly functional ear.
What you just described is a change in an existing structure, but that structure, AGAIN, either spontaneously came into existence, or there was an evolutionary path which slowly developed that structure over time. Because I think it safe to assume that bacteria did not have jawbones of the variety found in those reptiles, that jawbone had to come into existence somehow. Darwin claims it develops over time. It's also safe to assume that during that transitional stage of thousands if not millions of years, countless numbers of creatures with partially developed jawbones would litter the geological landscape. THIS is what Darwin himself claimed ... this is what HE referred to as transitional fossils .. those creatures in which partially developed features could show the evolutionary changes over that deliriously slow process of these transitions from start to completion.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
My personal experience (after more than 30 years of debating creationists) is that evolutionists understand creationism a lot better than creationists understand evolution.

Certainly this thread reinforces that impression.
Well, you're not debating a creationist now .... I'm not waving any other fairytale in your face ... just your own, in all it's flaws in logic, reason and honesty.

So go read that book before continuing to rewrite the theory of evolution ... you are not authorized to edit the theory and make changes to it ... and I'll be here to highlight every attempt you make.

Last edited by CaseyB; 03-26-2013 at 05:55 AM.. Reason: rude
Old 03-16-2013, 01:37 PM
Location: Georgia, USA
23,272 posts, read 28,068,309 times
Reputation: 28716
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
Becuase you do not have non-disputable evidence that shows direct and complete connection to this ancestor. Therefore, it's not fact. Furthermore, evolution fails to explain why humans are the only species to develop complex language, the ability to speak, play music and so on. I find it degrading to teach that I'm nothing more than an animal and you have proven it as fact.
DNA provides the connection you deny exists.

Evolution provides all the explanation of the differences between humans and other species.

And if you are neither a mineral nor a plant, you are an animal. That's a fact.
Old 03-16-2013, 01:38 PM
3,744 posts, read 2,584,773 times
Reputation: 891
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
The fear and ignorance of the men who created him?
Old 03-16-2013, 01:49 PM
3,744 posts, read 2,584,773 times
Reputation: 891
[quote=kidkaos2]Or perhaps not believing in God is due to the fear and pride of the atheist.

The rational standpoint is "I don't know".[/quote]

Not believeing (accepting something to be true in the absence of all evidence) in god is because there is no reason or evidence to do so or to support such a conclusion. In fact all evidence that speaks to the issue tends to supporet the consclusion that there is NO GOD. You belief systems is so riddled with inconsistencies of logic and fact as to be rendered little more than a cartoon story. For example, a loving go creating a world chock frull of misery, torture, disease suffering and torment.

Example, A Perfect creator creating life forms chock full of errors, weaknesses, vulnerabilities etc. for example, is ALS a god-oops.

Very true. Science does that all the time, Then they go out and find the answers that they don't yet know.

Deceivers NEVER do that.

They just hold up their error-ridden cartoon book and say that "it's in the cartoon book, 'nuff said". They NEVER admit a lack of knowledge on their part - NEVER.

Last edited by Robin Rossi; 03-16-2013 at 01:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:29 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top