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.
So no one has an observeable scientific evidence to prove Darwin's theory to begin with? Interesting.
I think the OP pretty much fails. He wants to have his believes proven wrong with an observable scientific evidence; however, he can't produce one to support his own belief in Darwin's theory.
That's the way the scientific method works.
The cumulative evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, and DNA supports the Theory of Evolution.
All you have to do is provide one piece of evidence that does not fit. He does not have to "prove" the Theory. You must disprove it.
However, evolution has been observed in the laboratory. Bacteria grown in culture through many thousands of generations since 1988 are evolving into different species with different growth requirements.
So no one has an observeable scientific evidence to prove Darwin's theory to begin with? Interesting.
I think the OP pretty much fails. He wants to have his believes proven wrong with an observable scientific evidence; however, he can't produce one to support his own belief in Darwin's theory.
And this is why I despise religion - especially christianity, and even more especially fundamentalist christianity. This is why I have no respect, and nothing but contempt and a small measure of pity, for christian fundamentalists. Because people like you and Eusebius (assuming he's for real, and not actually a clever anti-religion troll) make it your mission in life to poison the minds of our nation's children with this deceitful, barbaric ignorance. People like you are helping destroy our society.
What contempt your "god" must feel for you, that you are willfully - no, gleefully - betraying one of his greatest gifts to humanity - our intelligence, our ability to think for ourselves. Shame on you.
The cumulative evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, and DNA supports the Theory of Evolution.
All you have to do is provide one piece of evidence that does not fit. He does not have to "prove" the Theory. You must disprove it.
However, evolution has been observed in the laboratory. Bacteria grown in culture through many thousands of generations since 1988 are evolving into different species with different growth requirements.
Well said and interesting information. I didn't know about it but I have wondered whether something like that has been done. It seems obvious that bacteria would evolve in real time.
And this is why I despise religion - especially christianity, and even more especially fundamentalist christianity. This is why I have no respect, and nothing but contempt and a small measure of pity, for christian fundamentalists. Because people like you and Eusebius (assuming he's for real, and not actually a clever anti-religion troll) make it your mission in life to poison the minds of our nation's children with this deceitful, barbaric ignorance. People like you are helping destroy our society.
What contempt your "god" must feel for you, that you are willfully - no, gleefully - betraying one of his greatest gifts to humanity - our intelligence, our ability to think for ourselves. Shame on you.
Good post Albert..... So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.....Bertrand Russell
So no one has an observeable scientific evidence to prove Darwin's theory to begin with? Interesting.
I think the OP pretty much fails. He wants to have his believes proven wrong with an observable scientific evidence; however, he can't produce one to support his own belief in Darwin's theory.
You've got me stumped again! How has the OP failed? He set us a challenge and is waiting for someone to meet that challenge. He doesn't have to produce any evidence of proof. Only to wait.
He isn't asking for anyone to prove his 'belief' as you put it, wrong. He's asked for anyone to produce a scientist in the field of biological science who disagrees with the theory of evolution and for what reasons. That's it. Can you find one?
Ta. San's video by the way is required watching as it is a stunning exposure of the endemic lying by Creationists.
(1) even if everything the said was true and evolution was not a valid model to explain the evidence, that would not make either Creation or Christianity true by default
(2) all the evidence fits evolution -or to be more correct - evolution - theory fits the evidence. It is almost an axiom that what creationism does is pick and adapt the evidence to fit the theory.
(3) They lie and lie. Now ignorance is one thing. Like the scientific unfeasibility of the ice -shell theory, the Flood caused the comets theory and the various contradictory Explanations of where the flood water went to (somehow the Flood seems to be the biggest feasibility debate going on, beating even Eden) such as Hovind's crackpot argument that the present amount of water a molecule deep could cover the earth.
But when the refutation is ignored and the same thing is presented with the usual misdirection, notably, nobody can be sure because they didn't 'observe' it, then ignorance is no longer an excuse and lying for Faith -based reasons is the only motivation. We then get the institutionalized lying such as we saw in the video.
Even aside from the fact that this list of 'scientists who question Darwin' even if correct, would represent a miniscule fraction of scientists, it is a gross misrepresentation, not only because a majority of them are not even really scientists, and those that are don't really work in the relevant field to be able to pronounce on evolution, but because the majority of them don't reject or deny evolution and common descent.
Numbers don't make a thing true of course, but a recent post made it clear that the numbers fallacy only applies to numbers of people who have no expertise in the subject. Those who do have expertise do count as a good reason to take their views as pretty sound on the matter - which is why this list was faked in the first place.
Creationism in addition to its other idiocies and dishonesty, flip -flops in it view of science. If it doesn't suit their book it is a cabal of atheists trying to conceal the truth or at best a lot of fallible humans making guesses. But if it seems to suit them then they are held up as Authorities whose endorsement of Creationism should be all we need to believe.
It is utterly dishonest and quite understandable because Creationism doesn't care what is true or not but what fits in with their Faith. If it fits (or can be made to fit with some re-writing as we saw with Ken Ham's presentation of the half of the evolutionary tree that fits in the 'Kinds' theory while totally ignoring the half that didn't, we saw the attempt here recently to try to fiddle Genesis (with a few mined and Interpreted' quotes from Job) to get over the wrong order of Creation. Explaining that this only works if there is a human observer describing this and the only person who was supposed to be there at the time would know the correct order, not the misinterpreted-by-human-observer account.
This is simply ignored and that is when ignorance becomes dishonesty. I haven't even touched on the endemic pot -kettle projection where creationists accuse evolutionists and Bible 'Naysayers' (good term ) of ..well, everything wrong, misinformed and dishonest about themselves. I still think that the attempt to show (by a couple of creation -apologists on these werry forae) that evolution theory was not what evolution bods say but is actually the cats from dogs nonsense that Creationists say it is, but evolutionists conspire to conceal this because they know it doesn't work and instead pretent they believe a theory that actually does.
On the other hand creationist 'Kinds' theory seems self -contradictory because they also seem to flip -flop about whether evolution works within "kinds" (1) or doesn't work at all. This came out in the Giraffe -neck argument that first claimed the I/C fallacy that the neck couldn't evolve as the creature would die before it had finished evolving (this is why Behe's I/C argument fails as the feature continues to function even if it changes function through developing a secondary function which becomes the main one (2) and as soon as that argument was refuted, the evolution suddenly became ok and possible but was 'Micro' and still could be reconciled with Genesis. So..why try to argue anyway?
The fact is that not only do they not understand science, evolution and logical reasoning and do not want to, but they don't even understand their own theory.
(1) which itself flip -flops between something like species -defined as able to interbreed- and a groups of critters as diverse as lions and cats - which of course can't interbreed...quite apart from species interbreeding in not the mechanism of evolution anyway.
(2) The classic refutation of Behe's argument from Bacteria flagellum
Well said and interesting information. I didn't know about it but I have wondered whether something like that has been done. It seems obvious that bacteria would evolve in real time.
Cue the 'Micro/Kinds' get -out. Just like the Giraffe -neck, evolution is denied ('Not Observable' is a favourie) until the observation is demonstrated to where further Denial would not help to prop up faith but do more damage by making it look unreasonable, and so we get the 'Kinds' argument - they are still bacteria'. Thus evolution is now accepted but only within species/kinds - whatever they actually mean by that. It isn't a coherent theory but a Faith - based claim that there was a flood and all the animals now derive from the Ark specimens. It is nothing to do with biological science or even God, but all to do with propping up Genesis as literal fact. That is all it ever was about.
And now, if you good people will excuse me...I have Created a music thread which I need to Micro -manage..
The cumulative evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, and DNA supports the Theory of Evolution.
All you have to do is provide one piece of evidence that does not fit. He does not have to "prove" the Theory. You must disprove it.
However, evolution has been observed in the laboratory. Bacteria grown in culture through many thousands of generations since 1988 are evolving into different species with different growth requirements.
And thanks to Eusie for bringing this up on another thread and inspiring this informative look into the way creationists operate.
You are certainly welcome.
And in spite of all your post, you still have not proven that evolution from a simple cell eventually to a fish eventually to something that crawled out of the pond which eventually morphed into a knuckle dragger which eventually morphed into a human ever occurred. You have no proof humans evolved from knuckle draggers. So why say it as if it is a scientific fact? Who are the real liars here? The evolutionist scientist, that's who.
Eusie and GoCardinals have demonstrated yet again they are completely without any sane, rational argument against evolution.
Nor can they find a single, reputable scientist who can make a case against it.
They are like the Emperor with no clothes - strutting, smiling vacantly, and revealing their inadequacies in front of the world.
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.
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.
) of ..well, everything wrong, misinformed and dishonest about themselves. I still think that the attempt to show (by a couple of creation -apologists on these werry forae) that evolution theory was not what evolution bods say but is actually the cats from dogs nonsense that Creationists say it is, but evolutionists conspire to conceal this because they know it doesn't work and instead pretent they believe a theory that actually does. 
