Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1587 Aug 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No Mitch, evolution is based upon evidence. You remember evidence, don't you?
That is the stuff that your myth based beliefs totally lack.
What evolution have you observed, of did your teachers observe?
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1588 Aug 18, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Ring species! NEXT!?!?
Point me to the person that observed the evolution of the ring species

You are believing on faith of what a man told you. As was he.. Faith.

No proof

And what did the ring species evolve from and to
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1589 Aug 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No Mitch, evolution is based upon evidence. You remember evidence, don't you?
That is the stuff that your myth based beliefs totally lack.
Darwin's theory of the evolution of kind?

The birds of the galapokois? I know I misspelled it.

They are still birds right, not new kinds, right

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1590 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Observable?
Repeatable?
Evidence.
Your qualifiers?
Take a tape measure.

Measure the key parameters of an Australopithecus sediba, Homo Habilis, Homo Georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo heidelburgensis, and Homo sapiens skull.

Now do it again.

Now do it again.

You will find, repeatably and testably, that the key measurements of these skulls will vary in a pattern consistent with evolutionary change. You are free to observe this as many times as it takes you to be convinced that whether or not evolution really occurred, these skulls show a pattern of differences consistent with the predictions of evolution.

In fact evolution is the only consistent, logical, realistic explanation we have for the fact that these skulls exist. Even better, evolution predicted they would exist before any of them were even found.

That is why (among other reasons), biologists accept that evolution is responsible.
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1591 Aug 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you are a moron.
Damn! That was not name calling, that was an accurate description. Hmm, let me think of one...
Ahh here you go:
Horace!!
I knew I could not get an intelligent conversation

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1592 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
What evolution have you observed, of did your teachers observe?
You do realize that there is more than one way to observe something, don't you?

We can observe the evolution of man through the fossil record, through homology, through the nested hierarchies of DNA, ERV's, embryology etc..

So how much money do you have?

Would you like to buy a clue?
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1593 Aug 18, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, to all three, look it up!
Tell me who observed the evolution of man to ape?

It's the rules of your faith, not mine.

Tell me

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1594 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Point me to the person that observed the evolution of the ring species
You are believing on faith of what a man told you. As was he.. Faith.
No proof
And what did the ring species evolve from and to
When an observation is either predicted by a theory or explainable by that theory, it supports the theory. No faith required.

We can explain why ring species are evidence consistent with evolution. Can you explain why they are not?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1595 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin's theory of the evolution of kind?
The birds of the galapokois? I know I misspelled it.
They are still birds right, not new kinds, right
Now look at the fossils found 150 million years ago. Not just archeopteryx, there are now 30+ species that blur the lines between dinosaur and bird.

This convergence was predicted by evolution long before these fossil were found. Evolution explains them.

Are these 30+ species still birds? Or dinosaurs? Or both? Why do they appear in nature just as evolution predicted, but they take "creationism" with its supposed separate kinds completely by surprise? Why is it that we always see supposedly separate kinds converging if we go back far enough in the fossil record?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#1596 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
Darwin's theory of the evolution of kind?
The birds of the galapokois? I know I misspelled it.
They are still birds right, not new kinds, right
I wonder if there are different kinds of birds or just a bunch of different names for things that are all the same kind.

Maybe birds that fly are one kind and birds that swim are another. But there are some that fly AND swim...

What do YOU think?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1597 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me who observed the evolution of man to ape?
It's the rules of your faith, not mine.
Tell me
The old "were you there?" myth.

We predict what we would expect to see, TODAY, if an explanatory theory is true. What would we expect to see TODAY, if evolution is true?

Convergence of kinds in the fossil record. Yep, we see that.

Placement of chance elements in the genome in a nested hierarchy consistent with the nested hierarchy of the fossil record. Yep, we see that.

No instances in the fossil record of a derived form existing before any of its possible antecedents. Yep, we see that.

None of this is "faith". More like a forensic investigation. Think how many criminals would walk if "were you there?" was the standard of proof in the courtroom.

Not only that but the elements of the engine driving evolution - exponential reproduction rates with imperfect heredity, competition for limited resources, etc, ARE all directly observable. Given long enough, these elements make evolution virtually inevitable. And what do you know...all the evidence we can find today backs that up.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#1598 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
It's the rules of your faith, not mine.
There are no rules for your faith. You can believe any crazy thing you want as long as you work Jesus in there somehow.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1599 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me who observed the evolution of man to ape?
Marcus.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1600 Aug 18, 2013
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Point me to the person that observed the evolution of the ring species
You are believing on faith of what a man told you. As was he.. Faith.
No proof
And what did the ring species evolve from and to
Obviously, you did not even bother to google the term. If you are that lazy, why don't you just let me do your thinking for you?
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1601 Aug 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, to all three, look it up!
How do you observe evolution subduction?
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1602 Aug 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a tape measure.
Measure the key parameters of an Australopithecus sediba, Homo Habilis, Homo Georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo heidelburgensis, and Homo sapiens skull.
Now do it again.
Now do it again.
You will find, repeatably and testably, that the key measurements of these skulls will vary in a pattern consistent with evolutionary change. You are free to observe this as many times as it takes you to be convinced that whether or not evolution really occurred, these skulls show a pattern of differences consistent with the predictions of evolution.
In fact evolution is the only consistent, logical, realistic explanation we have for the fact that these skulls exist. Even better, evolution predicted they would exist before any of them were even found.
That is why (among other reasons), biologists accept that evolution is responsible.
Did you witness the evolution - and could a prediction be wrong....

So you are believing with blind faith correct
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1603 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that there is more than one way to observe something, don't you?
We can observe the evolution of man through the fossil record, through homology, through the nested hierarchies of DNA, ERV's, embryology etc..
So how much money do you have?
Would you like to buy a clue?
Ok, show me the fossil that directly links man to ape

There is none is there

BLIND FAITH
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1604 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that there is more than one way to observe something, don't you?
We can observe the evolution of man through the fossil record, through homology, through the nested hierarchies of DNA, ERV's, embryology etc..
So how much money do you have?
Would you like to buy a clue?
You are not following your own rules, and why so vile. I'm asking questions, and your vicious nature is not helping me see your point. Nor would it make me want to be around people like you

So subduction, point me to a change of kind.
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1605 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that there is more than one way to observe something, don't you?
We can observe the evolution of man through the fossil record, through homology, through the nested hierarchies of DNA, ERV's, embryology etc..
So how much money do you have?
Would you like to buy a clue?
Another point, without direct observation, and just GUESSING that this one evolved to that...could they be wrong..

FACE IT. You have blind faith
Mitch

Prior Lake, MN

#1606 Aug 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now look at the fossils found 150 million years ago. Not just archeopteryx, there are now 30+ species that blur the lines between dinosaur and bird.
This convergence was predicted by evolution long before these fossil were found. Evolution explains them.
Are these 30+ species still birds? Or dinosaurs? Or both? Why do they appear in nature just as evolution predicted, but they take "creationism" with its supposed separate kinds completely by surprise? Why is it that we always see supposedly separate kinds converging if we go back far enough in the fossil record?
Blur. Not clear right. So I suspect a guess right?
No concrete evidence right..no eyewitness right?

Evolution explains nothing - no concrete evidence...not repeateable no witness.

Predicted:
Journalists have begun making predictions about the winner of the coming election.
Despite predictions that the store would fail, it has done very well.
The figures and statistics are used for the prediction of future economic trends.
A GUESS RIGHT - what would make a scientists prediction better than those above

It's a guess right. BLIND FAITH

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 17 min thetruth 11,188
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chimney1 195,169
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr ChromiuMan 150,527
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Chimney1 29,450
Science News (Sep '13) 21 hr Ricky F 3,573
kitchen Fitters In Manchester Area Wed lihatsaja1 1
Ribose can be produced in space Apr 26 MIDutch 2
More from around the web