Atheists can you prove that science is correct?
in Religion

whiteflame · June 2018

@Royalty

I think another large part of what differentiates our points of view on the topic is what thresholds we're using. Your threshold is that you must "witnessed it with my own two eyes", which isn't going to happen insofar as showing how a species evolved in the past. No one can demonstrate to you how something happened tens of millions of years ago because there were no recording devices available then to see this process in motion. More importantly, even if we did have some kind of recording device that could stretch back that far, the most we'd be able to see is the first steps of human evolution. What you're actually requiring in order to believe evolution is far more substantial: a series of evolutionary events leading up to the first Homo sapien. That's likely quite a few events, and even if I could somehow show you that, I don't know if you'd be convinced because your argument (for quite a while now) has been that I have to show that humans came from monkeys, despite the fact that that has never been either my argument nor integral to evolutionary theory.

It has never been my argument that I could show you that evolutionary theory is correct. From the start of this discussion, I made clear that it's impossible to prove science "correct" in the sense that a theory can be proven absolutely certain. It cannot, regardless of how good the data is. My argument (and the threshold for why I ascribe to evolutionary theory) is that there are enough pieces out there that indicate that this theory is supported by the available evidence. Unless you believe that our genetics just happened to be closest to apes based on random chance, genetics tell us what we are closely related to evolutionarily. Evidence extends beyond genetics to phenotypic traits like the ones I listed before (e.g. prehensile hands, opposable thumbs, the ability to walk upright). We have found fossils that date to times that make sense for evolutionary theory, each of which represent a stage of development between an ape ancestor and humans. Are these definitive evidence? I'd say not, but I would also say that I haven't heard another theory that takes all of this evidence into account. If you have one, please, let me know. I'd love to hear it. But, as a scientist, I can't just say "well, all this evidence exists, but I choose not to believe the implications of it." Maybe you think differently. Maybe you think some of this evidence isn't as clear as I do, and I'd love to hear why, or maybe you think that the biblical evidence is simply stronger and points elsewhere. I don't know where to go from there if that's what you believe. I can only present you with evidence, I can't make you accept it.

Evidence · June 2018

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

MayCaesar said:

Modern science is not correct and has never been intended to be correct. The goal of science is to find a theoretical model matching the observable data as closely as possible, not to find some objective truth of the Universe. We cannot describe everything in the Universe with 100% precision (and likely we never will be able to), but we can find models giving very accurate predictions of experimental outcomes - and modern science has come pretty far in that accuracy. Calculating and cross-matching the gravitational constant down to 0.005% is pretty neat! The explanation of the observed effects is derived from these models and is a function of them. It is likely that there is more than one possible set of models giving accurate description of the observable data, leading to different visualizations and interpretations.

Theist models, however, are not included in the space of these sets. Theism does not follow a rigorous consistent method, it is more of a fantasy fiction, it gives almost zero useful testable predictions, and its wild stories have zero evidence behind them, aside from a few words in an ancient folklore book.

If you are looking for the singularly "correct" description of the world, then science will disappoint you. Science, however, will provide a tool set sufficient for any practical questions you may have. Theism does not provide either.

Past predictions in the Bible have already come and gone.

Why is the Bible "fantasy fiction" or what that is written in there makes it fantasy fiction?

Where did humans first come from and how was space, the planets and everything on them formed?

@whiteflame gave a very good response. Let me address a more general part of your questions.

First of all, the predictions in the Bible are extremely vague, and interpretation of almost any historical event can be stretched enough to fit one of the possible interpretations of the Bible verses. This is the "Nostradamus" effect, when predictions seem to be true if you want them to be true - but if you read them literally, you will see that they do not predict anything specific. This is what fiction does. Science is different, science gives exact predictions, down to measurable numerical quantities. You can prove a scientific prediction right or wrong. You cannot prove a theistic prediction right or wrong due to the nature of those predictions, hence those predictions have little practical relevance.

This is what, in general, differs science from theism. Theism involves confirmation bias as the core of its construction process: rather than trying to obtain a practically useful and experimentally hardened tool, it tries to obtain a model that matches the tales produced by a combination of folklore, fiction and traditions. In other words, the story theism tells is already predefined, regardless of any data, and theists need merely to tune the model in a way that matches that story best. This is crucial: it should match the story produced by human storytellers, not the observable data.

Science instead tries to describe the infinitely vast array of data we can observe and interact with. Our models can change, sometimes by 180 degrees, when our improving technological capabilities reveal something we have been missing before. However, every popular model science features is hard-tested for any possible errors. We perform the same type of experiments for decades to make sure we are not missing anything fundamental. When we say that a theory describes the data well as a result of thousands peer-reviewed research projects, this theory truly is resilient - and practically useful. All the fancy technology we have today: computers, cars, airplanes, smartphones, Internet, GPS, home electricity - all the result of scientific research.

What has theism produced instead? Do we have any technology that appeared as a result of following the Biblical prophecies? No, and for a good reason: those prophecies are not based on the observable data, hence they cannot contribute to using this data to better suit our needs.

---

Now, to your real question: how can we be sure that the theory of Evolution, that the Big Bang, that the whole history of the Universe and of the humanity that science predicts - is correct? Well, we can never be 100% sure that it is correct. Our data is always incomplete, our theories always have some flaws and gaps, and - let us be honest here - there are questions that science simply may not be able to answer by its very design. "Why did the Big Bang happen?" - this question may not be answerable, since the cause-effect connection is something we derived from the observable Universe, and it may not apply to the time "before" this Universe was born. Perhaps the only answer we can give is "It happened, and we can study its consequences - that is it".

However, what we do know led us to construct very solid models that withstood the test of time and countless observations. We have found thousands pieces of data derived from our assumption that the Big Bang occurred - hence it probably occurred. We have found remains of hundreds human species, sub-species and pre-species, and the structure of their remains matches very well what we expect from our evolutionary theories. At this point, for the interpretation of these theories to be "wrong", we must truly have been missing something obvious, or we are extremely unlucky and only have been finding the outliers, instead of the relevant data points. Not to say that it is impossible for us to be wrong, but it is extremely unlikely that we are wrong about something as fundamental as the idea of Evolution.

This is the advantage of the scientific viewpoint over the religious one: the consequences of applying scientific method honestly and rigorously are very solid and trustworthy theories, not unverifiable tales that are a product of human imagination. If we have no direct evidence of the existence of angels, then we will not assume that angels exist - regardless of what any book may say. We will instead try to understand where the stories of angels in those books came from, and we do understand it pretty well nowadays from studying folklore and literature of the same people who produced the Bible and seeing a lot of connections there. Ironically, science explains the Bible much better than theism does.

---

The final point I want to make is about theism as it is defined: belief in the creator. Does science reject the existence of the creator? Not necessarily. It is very much possible, for example, that we live in a Matrix created by higher beings in another dimension. Or maybe some extra-dimensional alien civilization created our Universe and left it alone. Finally, who knows, maybe the God really exists and direct this world. However, a) we do not have any evidence of any of this being true, and b) our current theories not involving any of this work pretty well for us, so there is a good chance that this Universe indeed appeared naturally and humanity indeed appeared on its own, rather than being artificially created by someone.

Granted, we do not understand very well how life emerges in the first place and what exactly defines the evolution path it is going to take. Is Silicon-based life possible? Maybe. How abundant is life in the Universe? We do not have even an approximate idea, with hypotheses ranging from "We are the only life in the Universe" to "Life is so abundant, it probably exists in some form on every tiny asteroid". Nor do we understand anything about what defines when and how a Universe appears - maybe it does not really appears at all, and exists only in my minds, that have their own rules of existence we cannot even imagine.

There is a lot of questions science is far from answering at this point. We are incredibly ignorant overall, and we probably do not know even 0.0001% of the most fundamental things there is to know. But science is pragmatic. Scientists have the strength and humility to admit when we do not know something: we are in the process of constant learning. And while theism and science are not mutually exclusive, theism in itself does not have this property of pragmatism, and for a theist to admit that "Maybe the god does not really exist" is virtually unheard of. We, scientists, will not in general deny the possibility of god's existence - however, we prefer not to speculate about something no data is available on and to assume that if we have not encountered it so far while by all accounts we should have, then it probably does not exist.

@MayCaesar said; Now, to your real question: how can we be sure that the theory of Evolution, that the Big Bang, that the whole history of the Universe and of the humanity that science predicts - is correct? Well, we can never be 100% sure that it is correct. Our data is always incomplete, our theories always have some flaws and gaps, and - let us be honest here - there are questions that science simply may not be able to answer by its very design. "Why did the Big Bang happen?" - this question may not be answerable, since the cause-effect connection is something we derived from the observable Universe, and it may not apply to the time "before" this Universe was born. Perhaps the only answer we can give is "It happened, and we can study its consequences - that is it".

To answer; "Why did the Big-bang happen?" scientifically would be like answering: "Why can Peter Pan fly?" scientifically. Now we can step outside of science and simply say: "It happened", and we can trace and study its consequences back on Neverland somewhere on planet Earth that's spinning, twirling and riding on the expanding magical Spacetime fabric. That's why this topic was posted in "religion" right?

Evidence · June 2018

Royalty said:

whiteflame said:

Royalty said:
This question will go hand in hand with what I'm asking.

According to Evolution, where do humans come from?

I had an answer kind of thought out, but honestly, every time I look back at the question, something about it rubs me the wrong way. So, I'll reframe the question: according to evolutionary theory, how did the species Homo sapiens come about? I think that's what you're trying to ask, though if I'm missing some key piece, let me know.

Much like other species, evolutionary theory posits that human beings radiated out from a common ancestral species. Based on our genomes, our traits, and similarities to other living organisms, there is good reason to believe that this common ancestor would have belonged to the order of primates. At some point along the evolutionary tree, that order branched, and while there are various suborders, infraorders and superfamilies we could talk about, one of the smaller branches that came off of it was Hominidae, or the hominids. Based on fossil evidence, this is believed to have occurred between 15 and 20 million years ago, and the common ancestor is thought to have diverged from Hylobatidae (gibbons). Our ancestors continued to diverge, forming a subfamily distinct from orangutans, and eventually forming a taxonomic tribe called Hominini, which includes our bipedal ancestors and chimps. Those tribes parted ways later, fully separating bipedal hominids from other hominids. Other changes accumulated over the past 4 million or so years that led to the creation of a distinct species, Homo sapiens.

So, to try and answer your question more directly, humans "come from" a common ancestor. The closer you get to the present, the more related that ancestor is to us. Likewise, the further back in time you go, the less related the ancestor is to us today.

Yeah, you answered my question. That's what I was looking for.

Ok. So now, evolution claims that humans basically come from monkeys. So, that would mean that there was a change of kinds. Meaning there was change of kinds from species/animal to human. Thus, what I'm asking is, can you give me observable evidence of a change of kinds? Common sense would tell me that if humans came from a type of monkey millions of years ago, humans should still be coming from monkeys. They wouldn't have just changed from monkey to human one time. That's how I see it.

@Royalty ; you don't seem to understand the doctrines of the Evolution Religion. They don't say that "man came from any type of monkeys", .. but what this White-supremacist Religion claims is that we ARE monkeys, apes in particular. They see us as animals that belong to the ape family. You, me, we are considered animals and are to be treated as such.

You also don't seem to understand what "They" mean by "common ancestor", .. which, if you had the Power of the Holy Spirit in you would see/understand that it is just another way of admitting that "evolution/speciation" actually NEVER happens, but this magical "Common Ancestor" can give birth to several different species, then disappear from the face of the earth. It's the white-god-mans play on words.
Now I don't mean white skinned man, because as you well know that Blacks can give birth to white skinned babies, .. what I mean is what "They" consider "white man"!
They consider themselves gods that came from planets from distant galaxies, and somehow got lost in their god-ness, by experimenting, including stories on how many of Them "seen that the daughters of the human-animal-ape men were beautiful", so they mated with them and lost their god-ness, and became dumb, forgetting who They really were, and got stuck here on earth (they get many of this from the Book of Enoch, the Book of Giants and other Dead sea scroll writings, including the Kabballah, Dianetics, Book of Mormo, Allen G. White, Madam Blavatsky and so on). This doesn't just go with "White supremacists, but Blacks also, like this book taken from those "lost books":

Image: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/BgzkjsJaj7c8aaZC4ipyJ10p3G4IhfiNfnPvT6WzNp0T3BLZ6hfTlpabdQByLv1gBEFlHajhME-B7CzIdh1J4JhaBAjL0ZD1rXsgdlxKaxrEZMPFKQwbO58xLjOgwtN9vLkNOtTcmSU-FHhwcNznIK8Wl7CHetr5LyZrIHlB-HZTobBDvnY=s500-pd-e365-pc0xffffff

So what They have to do now is take total control of this so called Planet Earth, and start changing it, so eventually They could eliminate the animal in themselves, leaving the god-ness, .. and return to their original form. This is now being done on a world-wide scale, which of course will exterminate all animal life on earth, leaving only their white-god-self dead or alive, and having once again found their original technologies, "They" are building space-ships so when this is all done, they can once again return to their own worlds, and again rule the galaxies.

Now you might say: "Ah come on Evidence, this is crazy talk. No one believes that after killing themselves and everyone around them, that they can travel the universe looking for some planet they came from?" I beg to differ, the Mormons believe it, and as do Blacks,

.. so do "They", the white-gods;

and here is historical proof:

So either we all turn to Christ by traveling that narrow path that is the Way, the Truth and the Life and be saved, or join these crazy demonic Religions and kill everyone around us including ourselves!?

Erfisflat · June 2018

@evidence said
" you would see/understand that it is just another way of admitting that "evolution/speciation" actually NEVER happens,"

Right on, all that is missing from the magical formula is a dash of millions of years thrown in, and everything can come from nothing, and bacteria turn to humans! Simple, really.

Royalty · June 2018

whiteflame said:

@Royalty

I’m having a really hard time understanding you. You acknowledged the evidence that there have been actual, observable radiations of species, but you say they’re of the same species? If they cannot interbreed, how are they the same species? It sounds like you want more than evidence of a new species coming from another, but you’ve been saying that a change of kinds is basically a change of species. Why doesn’t this meet your threshold? What about this is not believable? I’m still very unclear. The example of monkey to man (putting aside my qualms with that phrasing) as I’ve repeatedly stated, is a massive shift in traits that required multiple evolutionary events. It goes dramatically beyond the threshold for a change of species. Why are you requiring me to meet that threshold in order to prove that evolution has objectively verifiable evidence of radiations of species? Why do I have to prove human evolution true in order to prove that evolution occurs? You’re conceding the evidence, but still stating that you don’t believe it. You should be clear why that is the case.

If a new species is forming, it is, by definition, not the same kind of species as the one it came from. You want a bird changing into another bird, but you’ve ignored the evidence I’ve given for lizards, flies, owls and finches (which, last I checked, are birds) radiating and forming new species. If witnessing a speciation event is necessary to meet your threshold and substantiate evolution, why do these not count? It seems like the only reason they don’t for you is because your definition of species doesn’t match the reality. Massive changes don’t usually happen between species, that’s why they’re so closely related taxonomically. If you want more than that (i.e. radiations of genera, class, family, etc., as would be the case for humans and other primates), then that’s a different story and I’ve already addressed the issues with doing that, none of which you’ve acknowledged.

Yes they're of the same species, meaning that bacteria did not transform into something else. It stayed as bacteria. If they cannot interbreed, they cannot become a different species. So bacteria breed (or whatever it's called) breed with other bacteria, but they still remain as bacteria.

It doesn't meet my threshold because bacteria are still bacteria, birds are still birds, dogs are still dogs, fish are still fish, etc. But, somehow, monkeys mysteriously turned to humans. That's what I don't understand and don't believe. Yes, monkeys have some human characteristics, but that doesn't mean that we came from monkeys. All animals have some form of human characteristic.

How could the traits of a monkey shift just one time out of the millions or billions of years that they've existed? Why don't monkeys continue transforming into humans today if their traits shifted? How did they go back to monkeys?

I'm requiring you to meet my threshold because what I'm asking for, is the same thing that atheists -those who believe in science and evolution - ask for when they want proof of God existing. So, what I'm basically trying to get at is that, you have faith in something that you've never witnessed yourself. You have faith in something that man created because DNA, genetics, the theory of evolution, all came from man and 99.99% of what these men said, cannot be proven. A lot of people that have read the bible and perhaps like yourself, don't believe in God's creation. But, how do they know what was created first and what wasn't? Was anyone there during that time? No. So people have faith and believe in what man says, just as I believe in what the bible says. No one can prove that the earth circles around the sun or the sun circles around the earth (I'm not saying you said that, but this is what I've been told before). The only way we will know, is if we go to space ourselves and witness either the earth rotating around the sun or vice versa. Yes, there are records of fossils, and this and that, but where did that all come from? It came from man. So what would make Evolution & science anymore credible than the bible if you cannot show observable evidence besides a few things? You understand what I'm trying to get at. You cant show observable evidence for all the things that evolution claims. I believe somethings of science, things that I can observe with my own two eyes, but I don't believe in their theory of how everything was created and how humans came along.

Fossil records for me don't work. I want to see observable evidence. So if evolution says that birds, lizards, etc. came from dinosaurs, show me the lizards, birds, etc. coming from the dinosaurs. I want to see it happening right in front of my very 2 eyes.

I'm not sure youre understanding what I'm asking for. I don't want fossil records. I can go dig up a bone right now somewhere in a field and say oh this is a fish that was a dinosaur trillions of years ago, then I can write it down somewhere and make it public and everyone would believe it. But that doesn't mean that its going to be true. I want to see evidence of what evolution says of how humans, animals, the earth, etc. were created - I want to see those animals, humans, on and on being created today. I dont want fossil records or genetics, I want visual evidence, real time evidence.

whiteflame · June 2018

@Royalty

...If you're going to use the term "species," I would really prefer that you use it correctly. Again, a new species is defined by its inability to interbreed with other species, regardless of your impression of the word.[https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species] I asked that you specifically define the taxonomic breakdown that you're using, yet you keep referring to species. There are different species of birds, many of which look dramatically different. It sounds like you want to use a different threshold for taxonomy, but you're not being at all clear about what that threshold is. For example, all birds occupy the same class of animals. That class is absolutely massive, and exhibits a massive degree of diversity. A class is several taxonomic ranks above a species, meaning that it moves far beyond the realm of showing a species radiation event. So, no, birds are not by definition all of the same species, nor are bacteria.

So, I'm trying my best to figure out precisely what it is you want. You appeared to want evidence that an organism produces offspring that belongs to a different species. I've provided multiple pieces of evidence that prove that. Now, you appear to want evidence that an organism produces offspring that are dramatically different from the original organism. I've now said this so many times that I'm honestly running out of patience: I have never, from the start of this discussion, argued that this kind of thing happens. Ever. Not once. Nor do I intend to argue that position. I've argued, and will continue to argue, that individual speciation events result in offspring with groups of changes that distinguish them from their parent species. Those changes accumulate over the course of many speciation events, and result in more distinct species. You haven't really addressed any of this argument. Instead, you keep straw-manning evolutionary theory and my argument.

In fact, practically all of your responses dismiss the evidence without engaging with the points I'm making. Why does it matter that monkeys share several very specific and important traits with humans? Because it's very hard to believe that each organism developed specific traits independently. Other organisms (non-primates) share significantly fewer traits with humans, and those traits are almost universally not so specific and functionally important as those that we share with primates. How do you explain that degree of specific similarity? Why do primates bear so much similarity to humans, while other organisms bear far less?

I have not argued that the traits of a monkey "shifted" just one time in history. I've argued that they have evolved a broad variety of traits and become distinct species a massive number of times over the past tens of millions of years. That's how every modern ape and monkey species came into existence. Why aren't they transforming today? I would argue that, in many ways, they are. Humans as a species have changed quite a bit (particularly genetically and with regards to skin color) over our time on this planet, and other primates have shown signs of understanding complex language. You keep assuming that evolution is a continuum, that we are saying monkeys can evolve backwards or forwards in a very directed fashion. No one is arguing that. New species are new species, and they evolve in new ways. The idea that species could devolve or somehow transform into another species that currently exists is not an argument any scientist worth their salt is going to make.

I don't understand why you're dismissing fossils, and, for that matter, I don't understand why you're dismissing the entirety of scientific literature on the basis that it was written by humans (and, make no mistake, that's what you're doing by arguing that it "came from man"). The bases that make up DNA, as well as their homology between species, are not a creation of human beings. Our capacity to analyze them is, but the actual structure of DNA is not. Fossils are the same. You can argue that fossils are sometimes misconstrued or misunderstood, but they are not creations of human beings. They are physical objects dug up by human beings. The fact that humans write about interesting findings doesn't mean that the findings themselves are human in origin - a bone from a dinosaur of the Cretaceous period didn't originate from human beings (by the way, digging up a bone in a field, doing absolutely no analysis of it, and claiming it has an origin trillions of years in the past would net you derision and not much else). None of this is faith-based. I'm not sitting here telling you what I believe. This is objectively true evidence that, as you say, I can see right in front of my very 2 eyes. If it's your claim that all of this evidence is fabricated, then I ask you to provide proof that literally the entirety of paleontology and genetics are fabricated. That's what you're basically claiming by arguing that "99.99% of what these men said, cannot be proven." We can prove genetic homology. We can prove where and when certain fossils originated, and often even determine how those animals died. This provides evidence of a relationship between animals that exist today and animals that existed in the ancient past. I may not have witnessed the individual events occurring that led to those speciation events, but I think it's incredibly dismissive to argue that all of this evidence is essentially moot so long as we cannot peer into the past.

We can't know precisely when each life form came to be, but we can make some extremely well-informed inferences regarding how life interrelates, and some of the events in the history of life on this planet that facilitated life as it is today. It's not faith to take the evidence and those inferences and construct a conclusion that fits them. If there's any faith in this process, it's faith that the scientific method yields evidence that we should believe. Our "belief" is in objective, repeatable, and verifiable evidence. Sure, theories that stem from those methods may not be absolutely proven, but they function as models, taking into account the evidence we see and placing it in a framework that makes the most sense. The further you stretch the evidence, the more you have to function based on faith, and theories like evolution take all of the evidence into account at face value. It's not belief to do so. And I'd say there's a tremendous amount of faith involved in dismissing that evidence, regardless of how well supported it is. You say you want visual evidence, yet you're dismissing any and all objective evidence on the basis that it was discovered by humans. I'll be the first to admit we cannot absolutely prove that every individual step in the development of a life form currently on this planet occurred as we think it did. It's impossible to do so. But to argue that the entire derivation of the theory is faith-based when the process of deriving evolutionary theory is iterative and based on clear and verifiable evidence just dismisses every single field of science as if it meant nothing. It treats the scientific process as effectively no more valuable than random conjecture.

Evidence · June 2018

@whiteflame said: We can't know precisely when each life form came to be, but we can make some extremely well-informed inferences regarding how life interrelates, and some of the events in the history of life on this planet that facilitated life as it is today. It's not faith to take the evidence and those inferences and construct a conclusion that fits them. If there's any faith in this process, it's faith that the scientific method yields evidence that we should believe. Our "belief" is in objective, repeatable, and verifiable evidence. Sure, theories that stem from those methods may not be absolutely proven, but they function as models, taking into account the evidence we see and placing it in a framework that makes the most sense. The further you stretch the evidence, the more you have to function based on faith, and theories like evolution take all of the evidence into account at face value. It's not belief to do so. And I'd say there's a tremendous amount of faith involved in dismissing that evidence, regardless of how well supported it is. You say you want visual evidence, yet you're dismissing any and all objective evidence on the basis that it was discovered by humans. I'll be the first to admit we cannot absolutely prove that every individual step in the development of a life form currently on this planet occurred as we think it did. It's impossible to do so. But to argue that the entire derivation of the theory is faith-based when the process of deriving evolutionary theory is iterative and based on clear and verifiable evidence just dismisses every single field of science as if it meant nothing. It treats the scientific process as effectively no more valuable than random conjecture.

Observing, measuring, testing, drawing bones of dead lizards and dead birds and documenting these observations is science. Inferring reasoning, conjecturing, speculating, guessing, presuming, making up assumptions and suppositions how this lizard over millions and billions of years "evolved/speciated" into that bird (or visa-versa) is NOT science.

Look at this video by Richard Dawkins:

What you have here is science, the part where we can observe the chimp, the bonobo, the human, the gorilla and the orangutan, and we can even find bones of them buried in graves or dirt, .. but what is NOT science is the 4-Common Ancestors with no pictures, no bones that anyone has found anywhere, and what is even more unscientific is that not one of those four "common ancestors" even have a species allotted to them? You see, those common ancestors could of been ANYTHING, from bone fragments to some old worn out tires from a junk yard!

No one, .. not Darwin, not Richard Dawkins, not Christopher Hitchens, not Einstein, Not Lawrence Krauss, .. No One will ever tell you what those "common ancestors" were, whether creatures or just worn out tires from a junk yard!? But from what they show is that these, these things, or whatever creatures that they were, they either gave birth, or split into two completely different lifeforms. Here are the unsubstantiated, yet very strong religious claims that every Evolutionist believes without question, based only on "blind faith":

Image result for picture of Dawkins why are there chimpanzees poster

1. Going from top left 'T', .. this "common ancestor" gave birth to, or split into a chimpanzee and a bonobo.

2. The next "common ancestor" Dawkins points at in time (0:22) gave birth to the first 'T' common ancestor #1 above, AND the white suburban Christian housewife which he estimates happened "about 6,000,000 years ago".

3. The next 'T'-common ancestor gave birth to, or changed into the #2 common ancestor, and to the gorilla.

4. The last 'T' common ancestor on his chart gave birth or changed into; the #3 common ancestor, and the orangutan, .. again, millions and billions of years ago!

I would agree with @Royalty, and what I've been arguing for a long time; that the entire derivation of the evolution-theory is faith-based, and the process of deriving evolutionary theory is iterative and based on tricks and pseudoscience that's relied on unverifiable evidences named simply; "Common Ancestors". Such claims dismisses every single field of science as if it meant nothing. It treats the scientific process as effectively no more valuable than random conjecture, even mockery of the human intellect!

The ONLY way any normal human being could possibly believe in such claims, especially as if they were science, is if that person has already been MK-Religiously brainwashed into believing that they are not a human who was created in his Creators image, but an animal, a dumb ape.
And as we seen from history of such indoctrination being used on even the simplest human like Ota Benga for example, that they would rather die than accept such dehumanizing beliefs. (shot himself in the stomach)

So please Whiteflame, stop conflating science with outrageous, unsubstantiated and even dangerous Religious beliefs!?
BUT, ..
if you could define just the four above "common ancestors" (not going to ask you for the common ancestors of the existing eight million living species), then maybe we could at least start considering this Evolution story scientifically, but not until then!?

We cannot allow Religious ministers like Richard Dawkins pretending to be scientists, proselytizing their outrageous beliefs in the name of science! You can't just go around pointing at a chimpanzee and a kidnapped, chained Black Pigmy, or a white suburban housewife and claim they evolved/speciated from some unknown creature that has never been seen, nor has any evidence of it found because they vanished, died out, and disappeared millions and billions of years ago! We just can't allow this to go on! We will have to separate Religious fanatics like Dawkins and other ministers like Lawrence Krauss that make up ASU's Origins Project, .. from actual scientists!

whiteflame · June 2018

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

Royalty · June 2018

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Royalty · June 2018

@whiteflame

Evolution and science are very confusing philosophies when it comes to the creation of all things and they cannot give answer for all things.They require much time, which we do not have much left of.

with_all_humility · June 2018

Royalty said:

@whiteflame

Evolution and science are very confusing philosophies when it comes to the creation of all things and they cannot give answer for all things.They require much time, which we do not have much left of.

Evolution proves nothing and makes assumptions about everything.

whiteflame · June 2018

Royalty said:
An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Alright, let's test that. You claim that an intelligent designer takes into account the evidence I've presented. How does an intelligent designer explain very specific phenotypic and genotypic similarities between organisms? How does an intelligent designer take into account the various fossils that showcase marked similarities to living organisms?

The rest of your response sounds like a gut feeling to me. You don't believe that humans came from monkeys (again, that's not what I've been arguing, and it sounds like you're assuming that a common ancestor would be a monkey, which I've never stated) because it doesn't sound logical. I'm not sure why it's illogical, and you're not engaging with my evidence at this point, but you're stating that you feel like it doesn't make sense. The bases that you're using for establishing this disconnect seem... strange to me. No one is arguing that the Earth "was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed," and even if they were, that argument has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Yes, monkeys are not as intelligent as human beings, though once again I think you're functioning under the assumption that we came from monkeys, which continues to be your distortion of my argument. Evolution led to increased skull size, which was associated with increased brain size, from a common ancestor that likely did have markedly lower intelligence than do humans today. They didn't "create" us, they evolved slowly over time until some of their much later generations became us. This didn't happen in one step.

Royalty said:

@whiteflame

Evolution and science are very confusing philosophies when it comes to the creation of all things and they cannot give answer for all things.They require much time, which we do not have much left of.

I don't see how science can be classified as a "philosophy" (nor do I see how evolution can), but if your response to both is "they can't explain everything, so I can't understand/believe them," then that's pretty short-sighted. Just because a means of acquiring information is restricted in the amount of information it has acquired/can acquire doesn't mean that the information that means actually acquires is flawed. An example: I see someone across the street who is wearing glasses. I don't know anything else about that person, and, given the fact that I'm not likely to interact with them in any meaningful way, that probably won't change. Even if I did interact with them, there would always be things about them that I didn't know. Does that mean that my perception of them wearing glasses is flawed?

It seems even stranger to argue that, because science will require time to garner more proof for a given theory, we should ignore or dismiss it. Are you saying that you don't believe evolution because certain aspects of it will take time to prove? That seems dismissive of the evidence we already have without any explanation. You would have to dismiss literally every scientific theory on that basis, since all of them could be proven more thoroughly. Hell, if the threshold you're setting for believing something is "must explain all things and not require extensive periods of time to prove them" then any means of explaining the world around us falls outside of your threshold. If that's the case, why do you believe anything?

whiteflame · June 2018

with_all_humility said:
Evolution proves nothing and makes assumptions about everything.

Evolution isn't a proof. It's a theory that takes into account available evidence and provides a framework for how that evidence came to be what it is. Again, if you have another theory that takes that evidence into account, or you can disprove the evidence, feel free.

MayCaesar · June 2018

Royalty said:

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a gradual process. Consider learning how to speak: at first you learn to pronounce various sounds, then you learn to form words, then simple sentences, then complex sentences. A child at the age of 2 is definitely nowhere near an educated adult's level of intelligence and way with the language - does it also look unbelievable to you that this adult at some point used to be a 2 years old child?

The evolution processes take a long time to occur, and we are rarely able to see the evolutionary effects as they occur and recognize them for what they are. Was there a point in your life when you observed your own personal growth in a matter of seconds? Probably not. Yet if you look at what you were like 20 years ago, and compare yourself then to yourself now, then you will see that you are a completely different person now.

Finally, you do not need to "believe" in evolution; belief is not how science works. What should be enough is that the evolution theory describes a wide array of observable evidence with extreme precision, hence this is a practically useful theory. Like me and whiteflame said many times in this thread, "belief" is not a part of the equation when it comes to science; rational approach is. It is okay to follow a certain religion and its description of the world's history, but it is also useful to realize that when you are sick and looking for a cure, the product of studies on human anatomy and evolution is what you should acquire - not the product of the religion of your choice.

Royalty · June 2018

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a gradual process. Consider learning how to speak: at first you learn to pronounce various sounds, then you learn to form words, then simple sentences, then complex sentences. A child at the age of 2 is definitely nowhere near an educated adult's level of intelligence and way with the language - does it also look unbelievable to you that this adult at some point used to be a 2 years old child?

The evolution processes take a long time to occur, and we are rarely able to see the evolutionary effects as they occur and recognize them for what they are. Was there a point in your life when you observed your own personal growth in a matter of seconds? Probably not. Yet if you look at what you were like 20 years ago, and compare yourself then to yourself now, then you will see that you are a completely different person now.

Finally, you do not need to "believe" in evolution; belief is not how science works. What should be enough is that the evolution theory describes a wide array of observable evidence with extreme precision, hence this is a practically useful theory. Like me and whiteflame said many times in this thread, "belief" is not a part of the equation when it comes to science; rational approach is. It is okay to follow a certain religion and its description of the world's history, but it is also useful to realize that when you are sick and looking for a cure, the product of studies on human anatomy and evolution is what you should acquire - not the product of the religion of your choice.

You gave the example of looking back 20 years ago, which I can do. But, I can look back millions or billions of years ago because I wasn't here. So that is irrational. Secondly, you mention that belief is not how science works. But, science is all about belief other wives you wouldn't believe the 'evidence' it presents. The Evolution Theory is what the name is, the Evolution Theory. A theory is set of ideas or a system of ideas that are intended to explain something. So I don't believe in the ideas, philosophies and religions that white folks invented to make us stupider. Just like with the theory of the earth spinning and rotating around the sun.

If belief is not how science works, give me some observable evidence that evolution is true, something that I do not have to believe happened, or have faith in, but that I can see with my own two eyes occurring right in front of me.

Judaism · June 2018

Of course evolution happened, the rabbis never denounced it, they had the theory in the Talmud centuries before Darwin. Same with the Zohar. Everyone admits it, Creationists have no support whatsoever when it comes to the rabbinic writings, which coincide with science.

Judaism · June 2018

Why is there a debate over evolution? It'd be like debating the Big Bang, its worthless. Again, Rav Nachmanides wrote of it in the Middle Ages.

Erfisflat · June 2018

Judaism said:

Why is there a debate over evolution? It'd be like debating the Big Bang, its worthless. Again, Rav Nachmanides wrote of it in the Middle Ages.

Agreed, both ideas are pseudoscientifical and archaic nonsense and only the morons from the middle ages would even consider the idea.

Royalty · June 2018

Judaism said:

Why is there a debate over evolution? It'd be like debating the Big Bang, its worthless. Again, Rav Nachmanides wrote of it in the Middle Ages.

It's not a debate. It's more of a persuade me forum.

MayCaesar · June 2018

Royalty said:

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a gradual process. Consider learning how to speak: at first you learn to pronounce various sounds, then you learn to form words, then simple sentences, then complex sentences. A child at the age of 2 is definitely nowhere near an educated adult's level of intelligence and way with the language - does it also look unbelievable to you that this adult at some point used to be a 2 years old child?

The evolution processes take a long time to occur, and we are rarely able to see the evolutionary effects as they occur and recognize them for what they are. Was there a point in your life when you observed your own personal growth in a matter of seconds? Probably not. Yet if you look at what you were like 20 years ago, and compare yourself then to yourself now, then you will see that you are a completely different person now.

Finally, you do not need to "believe" in evolution; belief is not how science works. What should be enough is that the evolution theory describes a wide array of observable evidence with extreme precision, hence this is a practically useful theory. Like me and whiteflame said many times in this thread, "belief" is not a part of the equation when it comes to science; rational approach is. It is okay to follow a certain religion and its description of the world's history, but it is also useful to realize that when you are sick and looking for a cure, the product of studies on human anatomy and evolution is what you should acquire - not the product of the religion of your choice.

You gave the example of looking back 20 years ago, which I can do. But, I can look back millions or billions of years ago because I wasn't here. So that is irrational. Secondly, you mention that belief is not how science works. But, science is all about belief other wives you wouldn't believe the 'evidence' it presents. The Evolution Theory is what the name is, the Evolution Theory. A theory is set of ideas or a system of ideas that are intended to explain something. So I don't believe in the ideas, philosophies and religions that white folks invented to make us stupider. Just like with the theory of the earth spinning and rotating around the sun.

If belief is not how science works, give me some observable evidence that evolution is true, something that I do not have to believe happened, or have faith in, but that I can see with my own two eyes occurring right in front of me.

That you were not there is not important, because the world was there, and there is evidence left from those times. And no, that evidence is not to be "believed"; it is instead to be compared with the theory you would like to investigate, to see whether the theoretical predictions match this evidence or contradict it. It is not any more about belief than 2+2=4 is about belief; it is about rational investigation and careful interpretation of the results. You do not have to believe the scientists; the evidence is there for you to explore on your own. I will repeat again: belief is NOT a part of the equation, in any way.

You cannot see evolution happening in front of your eyes in a matter of minutes, because that is not how biological processes work. If you only accept such immediate evidence, then you will be disappointed in science: we go quite a bit deeper than that in our research. If you do not accept the existence of electrons because you have not seen one with your naked eye, then nothing can convince you otherwise. If you have closed your mind for the evidence, then that evidence has no power over you, and any appeal to it will be pointless.

Evidence · June 2018

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a gradual process. Consider learning how to speak: at first you learn to pronounce various sounds, then you learn to form words, then simple sentences, then complex sentences. A child at the age of 2 is definitely nowhere near an educated adult's level of intelligence and way with the language - does it also look unbelievable to you that this adult at some point used to be a 2 years old child?

The evolution processes take a long time to occur, and we are rarely able to see the evolutionary effects as they occur and recognize them for what they are. Was there a point in your life when you observed your own personal growth in a matter of seconds? Probably not. Yet if you look at what you were like 20 years ago, and compare yourself then to yourself now, then you will see that you are a completely different person now.

Finally, you do not need to "believe" in evolution; belief is not how science works. What should be enough is that the evolution theory describes a wide array of observable evidence with extreme precision, hence this is a practically useful theory. Like me and whiteflame said many times in this thread, "belief" is not a part of the equation when it comes to science; rational approach is. It is okay to follow a certain religion and its description of the world's history, but it is also useful to realize that when you are sick and looking for a cure, the product of studies on human anatomy and evolution is what you should acquire - not the product of the religion of your choice.

You gave the example of looking back 20 years ago, which I can do. But, I can look back millions or billions of years ago because I wasn't here. So that is irrational. Secondly, you mention that belief is not how science works. But, science is all about belief other wives you wouldn't believe the 'evidence' it presents. The Evolution Theory is what the name is, the Evolution Theory. A theory is set of ideas or a system of ideas that are intended to explain something. So I don't believe in the ideas, philosophies and religions that white folks invented to make us stupider. Just like with the theory of the earth spinning and rotating around the sun.

If belief is not how science works, give me some observable evidence that evolution is true, something that I do not have to believe happened, or have faith in, but that I can see with my own two eyes occurring right in front of me.

That you were not there is not important, because the world was there, and there is evidence left from those times. And no, that evidence is not to be "believed"; it is instead to be compared with the theory you would like to investigate, to see whether the theoretical predictions match this evidence or contradict it. It is not any more about belief than 2+2=4 is about belief; it is about rational investigation and careful interpretation of the results. You do not have to believe the scientists; the evidence is there for you to explore on your own. I will repeat again: belief is NOT a part of the equation, in any way.

You cannot see evolution happening in front of your eyes in a matter of minutes, because that is not how biological processes work. If you only accept such immediate evidence, then you will be disappointed in science: we go quite a bit deeper than that in our research. If you do not accept the existence of electrons because you have not seen one with your naked eye, then nothing can convince you otherwise. If you have closed your mind for the evidence, then that evidence has no power over you, and any appeal to it will be pointless.

@MayCaesar - That you were not there is not important, because the world was there, and there is evidence left from those times.

We see chimps, bonobos, gorillas and 8 million other species along with about 7 billion humans. So now how on Big-Banged globe can you say these were there millions and billions of years ago? We thought science was observing the world around us in the here and now, so to say something was here millions of years ago, and how they speciated over and over again starting from amoeba which we have today, to all them different creatures (which we also have today) is NOT science, but huge assumptions based on some strong Religious beliefs, .. starting from a deep rooted hate of God our Creator.

MayCaesar - And no, that evidence is not to be "believed"; it is instead to be compared with the theory you would like to investigate, to see whether the theoretical predictions match this evidence or contradict it. It is not any more about belief than 2+2=4 is about belief; it is about rational investigation and careful interpretation of the results. You do not have to believe the scientists; the evidence is there for you to explore on your own. I will repeat again: belief is NOT a part of the equation, in any way.

I believe 2+2=4! But if someone tells me that some unknown, never observed creature like this "Common Ancestor" that gave birth, or changed into two other creatures, one; again of another never observed, unknown 'common ancestor' of which even the type of species it was is a mystery, and another completely different species, well we really would like to have at least one evidence of it, wouldn't you agree?!?
How can we believe that an admittedly unknown creature like theses "common ancestors" could somehow give birth, or change/speciate into another completely different species like a human, AND another 'common ancestor' then tell us that it just simply vanished off the face of the earth??

And then you say that: "belief is NOT a part of the equation, in any way", .. well that seals it for me. If something like this evolution-story is forced on me that I have to accept whether I "believe-it-or-not", .. all kinds of alarms go off! I for one want evidence that has some substance before I go believing in something, .. especially something so fantastic as this; "It really did happen millions, and billions of years ago, .."

MayCaesar - You cannot see evolution happening in front of your eyes in a matter of minutes, because that is not how biological processes work. If you only accept such immediate evidence, then you will be disappointed in science: we go quite a bit deeper than that in our research. If you do not accept the existence of electrons because you have not seen one with your naked eye, then nothing can convince you otherwise. If you have closed your mind for the evidence, then that evidence has no power over you, and any appeal to it will be pointless.

OK, so if not minutes, then how about hours or days, .. or even my whole lifetime? Women give birth in hours, but In the past 60 years of my life I did not see even one common ancestor speciate, either give birth, or turn into two separate species, .. has ANYONE? Not only that, but Evolutionist admit this speciation could never happen, .. that "no species of a type could give birth to, or change into another species"! So I mean if even Evolutionist admit evolution/speciation never happens, and that this theory is not based on whether we "believe it or not", then I guess they expect us to accept it on blind faith, like any Organized Religion does!?

I don't know how this kind of mentality could be considered science??

Erfisflat · June 2018

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

MayCaesar said:

Royalty said:

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

An intelligent designer. I still dont grasp the understanding of evolution. It simply doesnt make sense to me. For me, it's not reality to believe that humans come from monkeys or that the earth was created by a tiny dust particle that collapsed. It's just no logical to me because dust for one is not intelligent and monkeys are not intelligent as man is, thus they couldn't have created us. If you say we share the same ancestor, that means we came from monkeys.

Evolution is a gradual process. Consider learning how to speak: at first you learn to pronounce various sounds, then you learn to form words, then simple sentences, then complex sentences. A child at the age of 2 is definitely nowhere near an educated adult's level of intelligence and way with the language - does it also look unbelievable to you that this adult at some point used to be a 2 years old child?

The evolution processes take a long time to occur, and we are rarely able to see the evolutionary effects as they occur and recognize them for what they are. Was there a point in your life when you observed your own personal growth in a matter of seconds? Probably not. Yet if you look at what you were like 20 years ago, and compare yourself then to yourself now, then you will see that you are a completely different person now.

Finally, you do not need to "believe" in evolution; belief is not how science works. What should be enough is that the evolution theory describes a wide array of observable evidence with extreme precision, hence this is a practically useful theory. Like me and whiteflame said many times in this thread, "belief" is not a part of the equation when it comes to science; rational approach is. It is okay to follow a certain religion and its description of the world's history, but it is also useful to realize that when you are sick and looking for a cure, the product of studies on human anatomy and evolution is what you should acquire - not the product of the religion of your choice.

You gave the example of looking back 20 years ago, which I can do. But, I can look back millions or billions of years ago because I wasn't here. So that is irrational. Secondly, you mention that belief is not how science works. But, science is all about belief other wives you wouldn't believe the 'evidence' it presents. The Evolution Theory is what the name is, the Evolution Theory. A theory is set of ideas or a system of ideas that are intended to explain something. So I don't believe in the ideas, philosophies and religions that white folks invented to make us stupider. Just like with the theory of the earth spinning and rotating around the sun.

If belief is not how science works, give me some observable evidence that evolution is true, something that I do not have to believe happened, or have faith in, but that I can see with my own two eyes occurring right in front of me.

That you were not there is not important, because the world was there, and there is evidence left from those times. And no, that evidence is not to be "believed"; it is instead to be compared with the theory you would like to investigate, to see whether the theoretical predictions match this evidence or contradict it. It is not any more about belief than 2+2=4 is about belief; it is about rational investigation and careful interpretation of the results. You do not have to believe the scientists; the evidence is there for you to explore on your own. I will repeat again: belief is NOT a part of the equation, in any way.

You cannot see evolution happening in front of your eyes in a matter of minutes, because that is not how biological processes work. If you only accept such immediate evidence, then you will be disappointed in science: we go quite a bit deeper than that in our research. If you do not accept the existence of electrons because you have not seen one with your naked eye, then nothing can convince you otherwise. If you have closed your mind for the evidence, then that evidence has no power over you, and any appeal to it will be pointless.

An axiom that adds the " belief" aspect is human interpretation of data. Humans err, and humans lie. When you add an unfalsifiable axiom like "billions of years" or "millions of light years", this also adds a faith based belief.

Evidence · June 2018

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to do with this as a response to me. I'm not going to defend Richard Dawkins, nor do I have to personally agree with his conclusions. None of my argument is reliant on him being an expert, and none of the things you're taking issue with from this video are points I'm making. I don't know what you think I'm conflating, but I've been very clear where the gaps in the evidence are, and why the theory exists to fill them. And I don't see where anyone has argued that humans are "dumb ape[s]", as that actually seems to contradict the theory - the idea is that humans evolved bigger brains and became far more technically proficient with tools than any other animal in existence.

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

@whiteflame
But you assume that I'm an ape, an animal, when even our infants can tell the difference between the 8 million animals we have on earth, from human without opening up our scull and checking brain sizes!?

Now why didn't evolutionists claim Ravens, or Crows as our common ancestors?

.. oh yeah; "brain sizes", wouldn't fit the prearranges evolution model.

I'm not talking about "fossil evidence" of the 8 million species, we don't need to see fossil records of species we can see live today, right? What we want to see is just the four "common ancestors" as seen in Dawkins Evolution tree?
Now as I shown in the videos: "Evolutions dirty little secrets", we know why this Evolution story was invented, not just to take God out of the picture, but to degrade His image too.

So can you show us pictures, or at least some idea as to what species these four "common ancestors" were, and any idea how they were able to give rise (birth or transformation) to two distinct new species?

Judaism · July 2018

Erfisflat

Its no use debating you.

whiteflame · July 2018

Evidence said:
@whiteflame
But you assume that I'm an ape, an animal, when even our infants can tell the difference between the 8 million animals we have on earth, from human without opening up our scull and checking brain sizes!?

Now why didn't evolutionists claim Ravens, or Crows as our common ancestors?

.. oh yeah; "brain sizes", wouldn't fit the prearranges evolution model.

I'm not talking about "fossil evidence" of the 8 million species, we don't need to see fossil records of species we can see live today, right? What we want to see is just the four "common ancestors" as seen in Dawkins Evolution tree?
Now as I shown in the videos: "Evolutions dirty little secrets", we know why this Evolution story was invented, not just to take God out of the picture, but to degrade His image too.

So can you show us pictures, or at least some idea as to what species these four "common ancestors" were, and any idea how they were able to give rise (birth or transformation) to two distinct new species?

Believe it or not, you're an animal. We don't get to elevate ourselves outside of basic taxonomy simply because we don't want to be lumped in with large populations of non-humans.

I'm not assuming you're an ape. This isn't an assumption: you, like all human beings, bear a great deal of similarity to apes of today, with regards to physical and genetic characteristics. Taxonomy is the process of breaking down relationships between living organisms, and an important part of that process is grouping similar living things on the basis that they almost certainly bear that likeness based on the fact that they came from a common ancestor. You pose the question: why aren't ravens or crows our ancestors based on their intellect and capacity to use tools? There are a bunch of reasons, but I'll scale it down to a few.

Explaining how humans could have evolved from birds (we couldn't have evolved from ravens or crows, I'll come back to why) requires a lot more assumptions and a lot more evolutionary events. We're talking about the process of switching from feathers to hair, hollow bones to dense ones, wings to arms and hands, talons to feet and toes, beaks to mouths... the list goes on. Each of those is a node on an evolutionary chain, and the more nodes there are, the more evolutionary events would have to have occurred. There are far fewer nodes between a putative common ancestor for humans and, say, gorillas. There are also far fewer genetic differences between humans and other apes than there are between humans and any living bird. The more genetic differences there are, the more mutations have to have occurred in order to explain it, and lifeforms do a pretty good job ensuring that their DNA sequences don't mutate much.

That being said, humans have many important differentiating factors that separate us from animals. My pointing out that we have larger brains and are more proficient with tools is not an exhaustive list, and our capacity to distinguish ourselves from other animals isn't diminished by accepting that we are distantly related to them.

As for the rest of your post, I think you're misunderstanding something. Very few organisms that currently exist on this planet have been here for more than a million years. Conditions change, reducing access to necessary nutrients, increasing predation, dangerous weather conditions, or any number of other factors affect lifeforms across the planet. Plants and animals regularly go extinct within our lifetimes; we see evidence of this happening. So when you're asking for living ancestors to species that are alive today, it's kind of like demanding that you see my great, great, great, great grandfather in the flesh to confirm that I'm related to my eighth cousin twice removed. What you want simply isn't available, and that's not terribly surprising given how long it's been and the turnover of life over millions of years. Those common ancestors don't exist today because they've died out. As for how they gave rise to new species, I can only tell you how life today has given rise to new species and provide you evidence to show what pressures resulted in those changes. I can't tell you what specific selection pressures led to a single new species, much less two separate species, millions of years ago, but that doesn't mean that there's not ample evidence to support such events.

As for your claim about "Evolutions dirty little secrets", whatever you think was the impetus behind evolution as a theory, the evidence stands for itself. If the goal is to degrade God, as you say, evolutionary theory has done a pretty piss-poor job. If anything, I would say that a creator who set all of this in motion is more impressive than one who simply created life in its current form, but hey, maybe that's just me.

Vaulk · July 2018

If I were to name some of Evolution's dirty little secrets I'd start with

1. Darwin's own admission which is commonly and conveniently neglected: In order to further the theory of evolution, the fossil record would need to include innumerable transitional fossils.

2. To date, there is no evidence of any "Change of kinds" in evolution. There is no evidence to suggest in any way that anything has ever changed into anything else. There are simply fossils of creatures that died out and fossils of creatures that existed then and have withstood the test of time. Attempts to provide proof of a change of kinds by introducing single cell organisms into the evidence bag is preposterous on its face and an insult to even those arguing for evolution.

3. The acceptance of Darwinian Evolution. For years after Darwin concluded his theory of evolution... the Scientific community as a whole rejected it as there was insufficient evidence to conclude that he was accurate...by his own admission there would need to be "Innumerable" transitional fossils...for our laymen...this means so many that you couldn't realistically count them. So if Darwin admitted the necessity of these transitional fossils in order for his theory to be correct...how is it that, without the innumerable transitional fossils, we have accepted and even teach Evolution today? Enter the Piltdown Man.

1912, Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered "The missing link". The Piltdown Man was officially and irrefutably accepted as the missing link between Humans and Primates, subsequently...250 scientific publications alone were made of the Piltdown man and it's standing of irrefutable proof of Human evolution. An entire generation of education was altered because of this hoax as it entered Scientific textbooks across the Nation in the realm of public and higher education. When exposed as a fraud, a hoax, a lie in 1953...41 years after it had been accepted as truth...the Scientific community simply discarded the evidence but kept the notion that Evolution was legitimate, particularly Human Evolution.

4. Archaeoraptor: Hailed by evolutionists as the "Missing link" between Dinosaurs and birds This was another pillar of evolution, the foundation support column that held the theory high up on legitimate ground. Then it was discovered to be a fraud, another hoax, a lie, completely made up. It embarrassed National Geographic as respected Scientists in the field of study cast them in the light of Tabloid Journalism, creating the news rather than reporting it. So this would undermine yet again the theory of evolution right? Wrong, Evolution theory was just as strong after the discovery of the hoax as it was before, NOTHING changed despite the discovery of fraudulent supporting evidence.

All in all, I don't particularly subscribe to either model, Atheism or Creationism...but there is absolutely no denying the empirical fact that when stood next to each other (Tree of Science and Tree of Creationism) the Tree of Science is riddled with deliberate fraud, lies, deceit and vile intentions designed to undermine creationism...the Tree of Creationism has no such issues despite it's persistent lack of evidence.

whiteflame · July 2018

@Vaulk

I think we've already hit a lot of the points that you're bringing up here, but I'll revisit them.

First, just a general response. You're essentially stating that, since there have been hoaxes exposed in the purported evidence behind evolution that it calls the whole theory into question. I beg to differ. A piece of evidence, or even a handful of pieces of evidence, do not make a theory, and the theory of evolution is not contingent on examples like the Piltdown Man or the Archaeoraptor. If they had been accurate, they may have better supported the theory, but the fact that they aren't doesn't mean the theory is dramatically weakened. The existence of paleontologists who present fabricated data doesn't tell us anything about the theory as a whole. Unless you can prove that this issue of presenting false evidence pervades the community, or that modern scientific literature on evolution is still largely based on hoaxes, you're essentially just pointing to examples of bad scientists rather than anything resembling a take-down of evolutionary theory as a whole.

Second, I'll repeat this from earlier, but while we would certainly expect to find organisms that fill in the gap in physiology between primates and humans, the idea that they accumulated slowly over time is actually a separate theory within the scope of evolutionary theory. Phyletic gradualism falls along the lines of what you're saying, where we should see organisms slowly picking up traits over time, and as such we should be able to find fossils to represent each of those different changes. Punctuational evolution, on the other hand, functions under the idea that changes accumulate in groups and become stable, meaning that we have very defined instances of change in the fossil record that persist over longer periods of time. In that case, there may not be "thousands of these links" because all of those changes could be presented in a smaller number of links between us and our ancestral species.

Third, I'll ask you the same question I asked @Royalty: what is a "Change of kinds"? What taxonomic level of change is required to meet the threshold of a change of kinds? How could fossil evidence possibly reveal such a change, given that each fossil is a distinct organism? I honestly don't get what kind of proof you're looking for, or how that threshold for proof could feasibly be met. I would say there is evidence of the radiation of species, and I would argue that a lot of the evidence regarding how species radiated in the past is based in evidence we have today. For example, much as you don't like the single-cell organism evidence, there is very clear evidence that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic ones. Chloroplasts and mitochondria have their own DNA, suggesting that they were once separate cells that became dependent on a larger cell over time. And the fossil record does reveal a shared history between living organisms, if only in their ancestors' shared traits. Despite issues with the Archaeoraptor, many dinosaurs did have feathers. There is a clear evolutionary chain leading up to humans that looks more like apes the further back in time you go. These are not absolute proof, and there are certainly missing pieces of evidence that could simply not exist, suggesting that the theory should be changed, but evolutionary theory is the only theory I've heard that actually engages with all of this evidence and takes it into account.

Vaulk · July 2018

@whiteflame

I do in fact maintain and conclude that:

1. If the core evidence that supports a theory or conclusion is discovered to be a deception, a hoax/fraud/lie:
a. The entirety of the theory is subsequently called into question with just reason.
b. It is within reasonable justification to suspend the theory without limitation until the fraudulent evidence is fully investigated.
c. Upon any conclusion that the evidence discovered to be false was fundamental to the theory in question, the theory becomes subject to expulsion or reclassification from Scientific theory to just "Theory".

I'd generally consider myself to be a reasonable and prudent person however, it's probably unfair to use my personal preference/attitude in this manner. So then let's use logic.

Brittany is in court to testify that she witnessed Bob murder his wife. Brittany's witness account was only discovered after the police suspected that Bob might have killed his wife however, with her testimony...they arrested Bob with full intent to convince everyone that he's guilty. Now when Brittany takes the stand...not only does her witness account not stand up to scrutiny...but eventually Brittany admits to outright falsifying the story...she never saw anything. Question: Does the status quo return to "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't" or does the existence of the fraudulent testimony cast further doubt onto Bob's guilt and substantially reduce the probability of Bob's guilt in the mind of the Jury?

Later during the trial the prosecutor claims to have found the murder weapon however, upon close examination the alleged murder weapon is actually not a weapon at all and couldn't have possibly been used to kill anyone...ever. Question: In determining whether Bob is guilty at this point, with the appearance of multiple entities trying to MAKE him guilty rather than discover any legitimate guilt...does the status quo return to "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't" or is the credibility of the prosecution damaged sufficiently to call into question the legitimacy of not only the case but all parties involved with the exception of Bob?

You see what I'm getting at here? I'm honestly a little surprised that we're not on this same page but I'm somewhat enjoying making analogies...which aren't ever perfect but similar enough for accurate comparison...the major difference here being that the Scientific Theory in this case swept the nation and actually changed an entire Generation's method of study regarding Science and Criminal Justice is usually isolated to a few victims. This particular Scientific Theory has a much larger and wider spread impact than any particular Criminal Justice Case.

If they had been accurate, they may have better supported the theory, but the fact that they aren't doesn't mean the theory is dramatically weakened.

So you're saying that if something like the Piltdown Man, a discovery that served as irrefutable proof for 41 years of the Missing Link in Human Evolution is suddenly debunked as an intentional deception...the substantial leaps and bounds in the teaching of Human Evolution shouldn't in any substantial way be weakened? I'm going to ask for some logical reasoning on that one. You're assuming that the Piltdown Man had no major impact on the Scientific Community, the false presupposition that the Missing Link had been secured and would remain uncontested indefinitely lead to incredible changes in the Scientific Community.

Despite muted criticism from a minority of paleontologists, the majority of the scientific community hailed the so-called Piltdown Man as the missing evolutionary link between ape and man. The remains were estimated to be up to a million years old. For the next decade, scientists heralded the finding of Eoanthropus dawsoni, or “Dawson’s Dawn-man” in Latin, as confirmation of Darwin’s

still-controversial theory

of human evolution.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/piltdown-man-discovered

Here is my evidence in full that the Scientific Community, prior to the piltdown man discovery, regarded Darwin's Theory of Human Evolution as highly controversial and without the necessary evidence to support it. After the discovery however, the "Majority" of the scientific community embraced the Missing Link and subsequently accepted Darwin's Theory of Human Evolution.

NOW, can you honestly say that with a critical swing in acceptance throughout the majority of the Scientific Community that the discovery of total fraud and intentional deceit wouldn't substantially damage the status quo of Human Evolution Theory? If you don't think in any way that the theory shouldn't suffer a major blow and set back then we'll simply have to agree to disagree on what constitutes justification.

Secondly, I acknowledge your reference of the different types of theories regarding the gaps in the fossil record. I think we both agree that the Fossil record is incomplete but there's not much point in arguing over Scientific Theory. No one knows for sure which way it would have/could have happened.

Lastly, excellent question and to which I will completely concede that "Change of kinds" is not a great term and what I mean when I say this is actually a term called "Speciation". We are talking about the Evolution of new species. I don't doubt that adaptation can occur, sharper teeth, larger claws, faster digestion, more stamina, better vision...these are adaptations and don't necessitate a separation in Species...survival of the fittest would deem that more useful adaptations will result in survival, breeding and passage of gene lines resulting in a perpetuation in positive adaptations.

What I'm talking about is targeting the idea that we all originated from a soup or even a single organism. One species came from another species that turned into 4 different species...this is where the target reticle lays. So I'll begin answering your questions.

What taxonomic level of change is required to meet the threshold of a change of kinds?
So let's start broad. Let's go with a Mammal. Let's say speciation at a taxonomic level of genetically different but undeniable physically similar with established transitional species having been identified. Transitional species having been identified is actually a Darwin standard so let's go with his own rule on this one. Darwin admitted that in order to substantiate the Theory of Evolution, innumerable transitional fossils would need to exist in the record and when the scientific community was presented with just one...Darwin's theory was accepted. That one was a hoax so let's go right back to Darwin's rule.

How could fossil evidence possibly reveal such a change, given that each fossil is a distinct organism?
Answer: By serving as evidence of innumerable species within the same order that resemble each other and can be identified as transitional species. Despite the different theories on speciation...none of them negate the fact that there would be innumerable transitional fossils...it wouldn't be hard to find them...they wouldn't be hiding from us...we would have so many they couldn't be legitimately counted. Yet this isn't case...at all...in any way.

I honestly don't get what kind of proof you're looking for, or how that threshold for proof could feasibly be met.
I will accept Darwin's standard for evidence in this case...I don't think that's unreasonable do you? As a matter of fact, I'll accept the Scientific Communities standard for evidence, they accepted the Piltdown Man as rationale for adopting Darwin's Theory of Evolution so I'll accept an equally evident specimen but I'd prefer mine not to be a fake.

Evolutionary theory is based on the idea that we all came from nothing. A big bang of...things that came from...nothing that originated from...nowhere...for no reason. It's such an amazing stretch of the imagination to try to follow the logic of Evolution. Look I'm not over here saying that we should all just accept that a big magical dude snapped his fingers and we were all willed into existence but at the same time...it's crystal clear that if we really did come from primates (Which I'm not opposed to considering) then there would be sooooooo many fossils of Humans in transitional phases that we'd be up to our neck in them...but we're not. We have a few fossils here and there of some guys and gals with odd shaped skulls that hardly serve as evidence of speciation of Human Beings and we have a community of Scientists that have built their acceptance level of Darwin Evolution on the pillars of deceit and fraud without consideration as to what that did to the theory overall. There's no denying that we wouldn't hold Darwin Evolution in the regard that we hold it in today had we appropriately scaled back the theory after discovering that it was largely accepted by the scientific community because of a hoax.

Take care in assigning credibility...

Erfisflat · July 2018

Vaulk said:

@whiteflame

I do in fact maintain and conclude that:

1. If the core evidence that supports a theory or conclusion is discovered to be a deception, a hoax/fraud/lie:
a. The entirety of the theory is subsequently called into question with just reason.
b. It is within reasonable justification to suspend the theory without limitation until the fraudulent evidence is fully investigated.
c. Upon any conclusion that the evidence discovered to be false was fundamental to the theory in question, the theory becomes subject to expulsion or reclassification from Scientific theory to just "Theory".

I'd generally consider myself to be a reasonable and prudent person however, it's probably unfair to use my personal preference/attitude in this manner. So then let's use logic.

Brittany is in court to testify that she witnessed Bob murder his wife. Brittany's witness account was only discovered after the police suspected that Bob might have killed his wife however, with her testimony...they arrested Bob with full intent to convince everyone that he's guilty. Now when Brittany takes the stand...not only does her witness account not stand up to scrutiny...but eventually Brittany admits to outright falsifying the story...she never saw anything. Question: Does the status quo return to "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't" or does the existence of the fraudulent testimony cast further doubt onto Bob's guilt and substantially reduce the probability of Bob's guilt in the mind of the Jury?

Later during the trial the prosecutor claims to have found the murder weapon however, upon close examination the alleged murder weapon is actually not a weapon at all and couldn't have possibly been used to kill anyone...ever. Question: In determining whether Bob is guilty at this point, with the appearance of multiple entities trying to MAKE him guilty rather than discover any legitimate guilt...does the status quo return to "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't" or is the credibility of the prosecution damaged sufficiently to call into question the legitimacy of not only the case but all parties involved with the exception of Bob?

You see what I'm getting at here? I'm honestly a little surprised that we're not on this same page but I'm somewhat enjoying making analogies...which aren't ever perfect but similar enough for accurate comparison...the major difference here being that the Scientific Theory in this case swept the nation and actually changed an entire Generation's method of study regarding Science and Criminal Justice is usually isolated to a few victims. This particular Scientific Theory has a much larger and wider spread impact than any particular Criminal Justice Case.

If they had been accurate, they may have better supported the theory, but the fact that they aren't doesn't mean the theory is dramatically weakened.

So you're saying that if something like the Piltdown Man, a discovery that served as irrefutable proof for 41 years of the Missing Link in Human Evolution is suddenly debunked as an intentional deception...the substantial leaps and bounds in the teaching of Human Evolution shouldn't in any substantial way be weakened? I'm going to ask for some logical reasoning on that one. You're assuming that the Piltdown Man had no major impact on the Scientific Community, the false presupposition that the Missing Link had been secured and would remain uncontested indefinitely lead to incredible changes in the Scientific Community.

Despite muted criticism from a minority of paleontologists, the majority of the scientific community hailed the so-called Piltdown Man as the missing evolutionary link between ape and man. The remains were estimated to be up to a million years old. For the next decade, scientists heralded the finding of Eoanthropus dawsoni, or “Dawson’s Dawn-man” in Latin, as confirmation of Darwin’s still-controversial theory of human evolution.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/piltdown-man-discovered

Here is my evidence in full that the Scientific Community, prior to the piltdown man discovery, regarded Darwin's Theory of Human Evolution as highly controversial and without the necessary evidence to support it. After the discovery however, the "Majority" of the scientific community embraced the Missing Link and subsequently accepted Darwin's Theory of Human Evolution.

NOW, can you honestly say that with a critical swing in acceptance throughout the majority of the Scientific Community that the discovery of total fraud and intentional deceit wouldn't substantially damage the status quo of Human Evolution Theory? If you don't think in any way that the theory shouldn't suffer a major blow and set back then we'll simply have to agree to disagree on what constitutes justification.

Secondly, I acknowledge your reference of the different types of theories regarding the gaps in the fossil record. I think we both agree that the Fossil record is incomplete but there's not much point in arguing over Scientific Theory. No one knows for sure which way it would have/could have happened.

Lastly, excellent question and to which I will completely concede that "Change of kinds" is not a great term and what I mean when I say this is actually a term called "Speciation". We are talking about the Evolution of new species. I don't doubt that adaptation can occur, sharper teeth, larger claws, faster digestion, more stamina, better vision...these are adaptations and don't necessitate a separation in Species...survival of the fittest would deem that more useful adaptations will result in survival, breeding and passage of gene lines resulting in a perpetuation in positive adaptations.

What I'm talking about is targeting the idea that we all originated from a soup or even a single organism. One species came from another species that turned into 4 different species...this is where the target reticle lays. So I'll begin answering your questions.

What taxonomic level of change is required to meet the threshold of a change of kinds?
So let's start broad. Let's go with a Mammal. Let's say speciation at a taxonomic level of genetically different but undeniable physically similar with established transitional species having been identified. Transitional species having been identified is actually a Darwin standard so let's go with his own rule on this one. Darwin admitted that in order to substantiate the Theory of Evolution, innumerable transitional fossils would need to exist in the record and when the scientific community was presented with just one...Darwin's theory was accepted. That one was a hoax so let's go right back to Darwin's rule.

How could fossil evidence possibly reveal such a change, given that each fossil is a distinct organism?
Answer: By serving as evidence of innumerable species within the same order that resemble each other and can be identified as transitional species. Despite the different theories on speciation...none of them negate the fact that there would be innumerable transitional fossils...it wouldn't be hard to find them...they wouldn't be hiding from us...we would have so many they couldn't be legitimately counted. Yet this isn't case...at all...in any way.

I honestly don't get what kind of proof you're looking for, or how that threshold for proof could feasibly be met.
I will accept Darwin's standard for evidence in this case...I don't think that's unreasonable do you? As a matter of fact, I'll accept the Scientific Communities standard for evidence, they accepted the Piltdown Man as rationale for adopting Darwin's Theory of Evolution so I'll accept an equally evident specimen but I'd prefer mine not to be a fake.

Evolutionary theory is based on the idea that we all came from nothing. A big bang of...things that came from...nothing that originated from...nowhere...for no reason. It's such an amazing stretch of the imagination to try to follow the logic of Evolution. Look I'm not over here saying that we should all just accept that a big magical dude snapped his fingers and we were all willed into existence but at the same time...it's crystal clear that if we really did come from primates (Which I'm not opposed to considering) then there would be sooooooo many fossils of Humans in transitional phases that we'd be up to our neck in them...but we're not. We have a few fossils here and there of some guys and gals with odd shaped skulls that hardly serve as evidence of speciation of Human Beings and we have a community of Scientists that have built their acceptance level of Darwin Evolution on the pillars of deceit and fraud without consideration as to what that did to the theory overall. There's no denying that we wouldn't hold Darwin Evolution in the regard that we hold it in today had we appropriately scaled back the theory after discovering that it was largely accepted by the scientific community because of a hoax.

Take care in assigning credibility...

Im not much for arguing against the absurdity of evolution as the theory is unfalsifiable, due to history, or more specifically, millions of years being a he said she said aspect, but this is well put.

whiteflame · July 2018

@Vaulk

I take several issues with your characterization of both evolutionary theory and the evidence behind it.

To start, I think it’s problematic to say that the Piltdown Man, or for that matter any individual fossil, is core evidence. Core evidence isn’t just finding something that fits incredibly neatly into a theory, it’s also repeating those findings and, as a result, having those findings verified. Maybe you would disagree, but I don’t believe that either of the hoaxes you’ve mentioned are integral or fundamental to the theory. If you want to go through the other evidence, particularly evidence that has come to light since these were revealed as hoaxes, then we can have that discussion. But your argument functions based on the mentality that evolutionary scientists effectively lost an essential part of the theory that it can basically not function without. I don’t see any support for that argument.

I also take issue with the idea that taking any piece, even a significant one, out of a theory fundamentally calls the theory into question. Note the way I'm phrasing this: the loss of a piece may re-introduce questions that existed before the evidence was presented, but it should not introduce new questions. Evolutionary theory predated the Piltdown Man (and the source does not indicate that evolutionary theory was widely disparaged within the scientific community before the Piltdown Man, nor that the Piltdown Man was solely responsible for winning people over to evolutionary theory – the line “still-controversial theory” could be in reference to the way it’s perceived today, and even if it doesn’t, it’s not clear that the “embrace” of this evidence was by new adherents), so why exactly does its removal as a piece of evidence make the theory that already existed faulty? The evidence stands on its own merits, and has been built upon substantially since the 1950’s. At worst, you could say that those 41 years when evolutionary scientists believed they had irrefutable proof were a delusion, but if anything, I would say that acknowledging that that proof doesn’t exist and proceeding with the actual existing proof is a step forward for scientific perception of the theory. The evidence was investigated. The evidence was found to be faulty. The evidence was debased, and the theory proceeded on without it. If you have reason to believe that current evidence being used for evolutionary theory is similarly faulty, then it’s time we address that evidence, but I don’t see how evidence from decades ago that was clearly found to be a hoax requires any more time or investigation.

The comparison to a court case seems… strange to me. In a court case where literally your only piece of evidence is eye-witness testimony (which wouldn’t be sufficient for a conviction by itself anyway, but I digress), if that testimony is shown to be flawed, then the case is thrown out. But, again, that’s the only piece of evidence. The same holds true for the murder weapon – it’s a single piece of evidence in the absence of any other available evidence to reveal that he did it (and, again, would not be sufficient to convict even if it was not falsified). But all of this is besides the point. If we’re talking about a court case, then we’re talking about a legal system that is built on the notion that falsifying evidence can lead to a case being thrown out entirely, regardless of whatever other evidence is available. That’s because what is being favored in a court case is not establishing the truth, but rather ensuring that justice is served. If a person has had fundamental rights violated during or shortly before a trial, justice outweighs the truth and that person can be set free.

Scientific theories aren’t about justice. They are about the truth – namely, trying to determine how the world works based on the available evidence. In this way, it’s more like a puzzle than a courtroom. We gather a large number of pieces and stick them in the correct orientations to see a bit of the larger picture. Based on what we can already see, we can make some assumptions about how the whole puzzle will look when put together. Now, if a piece of the puzzle is put in the wrong place or is just a drawing someone approximated to fit where they felt it should, that piece should be removed, but regardless of where that piece resides in the puzzle and how much information it provides, the rest of the puzzle is still there. You can argue that it no longer meets a threshold of proof necessary to meet the standard of scientific theory, though that depends where you set the threshold.

So yes, we aren’t on the same page about this. It seems a tad absurd to me that you would attribute so much power to so few scientists – they present fraudulent data, so now all the data collected before and after them is called into question, effectively rendering the theory as a whole fraudulent until everything has been shored up. Removing a piece from the puzzle doesn’t, at least to me, diminish the contribution of the other pieces to the overall image. I won’t pretend that the Piltdown Man wasn’t a major blow to the perception of evolutionary theory, both within the scientific community and without, but it’s your argument that the effects of that revelation affect the validity of other evidence, and thus function as a challenge to the theory as a whole. I just don’t see that.

Regarding the different types of theories regarding those gaps, I think you’re not understanding my point, because you bring up the transitional species again as a missing feature to the theory. Missing transitional species is a big problem when it comes to gradualist theory (which Darwin believed), but it is not such a clear problem with punctuational evolution (which Darwin did not conceive of). Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but there’s a difference between missing an absolutely massive number and missing an indeterminate number that is dramatically fewer. One of the main arguments you’re making, and one that’s rather common among people who have problems with evolutionary theory, is that we should be finding fossils everywhere if there are so many. I’m trying to explain why there may not have been as many as you assume. So, while no one knows for sure and there are certainly gaps that need to be filled, the absence of that evidence is not evidence of absence.

Finally, let’s talk about “Change of kinds” because you’re doing the same kind of thing that’s been frustrating me over the last several posts. You say that we can just switch in the term “speciation,” and I’m absolutely fine with that. It’s the formation of new species, which results from geographic, physiological, anatomical or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with one another. Adaptations can be part of the process that results in distinct species so long as they cannot interbreed, though I agree that the adaptations alone are not speciation events. I’ve presented several examples of these previously. Anole lizards represent a pretty solid example of recent species radiation.[https://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/anole-lizards-example-speciation] There are examples in owls, where just being isolated by inhabiting different locations appears to have caused a speciation event. Labs have also demonstrated in fruit flies (because they have rapid generation times) that isolation of populations leads to reproductive isolation, which is an important step towards generating new species.[https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45] We could talk about the Galapagos Islands, or various fish populations as examples as well.[http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML] These are all observable radiations of species.

The problem I have with the way you’re characterizing this is that you almost immediately eschew the definition of speciation. You talk about the concept of originating from a primordial soup and the long process by which species diversified over time from the purported beginnings of life. That’s well beyond speciation. You’re now talking about essentially showing how all of life formed, which means moving much further up the taxonomic scale. At that stage, you’re talking about kingdoms (e.g. plants, animals, bacteria, fungi) and how they diversified. Considering the theory posits that this process took billions of years, I think it’s asking far too much to expect that any scientist could reproduce this. Similarly, when you say you want to “start broad” with mammals, you’re talking about a whole phylum of life, still 6 steps above species level. You’re setting a threshold that essentially requires proof well beyond speciation, and you’re also setting that threshold as “prove gradual evolution” rather than “prove evolution as a theory.” I should also note that, even if such transitional fossils existed, they wouldn’t be evidence that one came from the other, which was what you initially set as your threshold.

Evolutionary theory is not based on the idea that we all came from nothing. It is not contingent on the Big Bang theory being correct. It’s not even contingent on abiogenesis – evolutionary theory doesn’t posit how life began. Evolutionary theory is entirely built on the idea that life has evolved in complexity over time, with each lifeform coming from another lifeform. If your problem is that we don’t have enough fossils to absolutely prove the theory, then we’re basically stuck. I could provide you with reasons why the number of skeletons and fossils are somewhat limited, but the best that would show is that the absence of this evidence doesn’t indicate that these organisms never existed. It doesn’t prove anything to explain why evidence is limited. I’d say that genetics and phenotypic similarities are far more available and extremely clear in this regard, but that hardly matters if the lack of paleontological evidence is what is pushing you away from the theory. I’d say there’s a lot of credibility to the theory, particularly with far more recent evidence than the hoaxes you’ve been talking about, though it seems like even that data would be damaged by the frauds that came before it.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

Evidence said:
@whiteflame
But you assume that I'm an ape, an animal, when even our infants can tell the difference between the 8 million animals we have on earth, from human without opening up our scull and checking brain sizes!?

Now why didn't evolutionists claim Ravens, or Crows as our common ancestors?

.. oh yeah; "brain sizes", wouldn't fit the prearranges evolution model.

I'm not talking about "fossil evidence" of the 8 million species, we don't need to see fossil records of species we can see live today, right? What we want to see is just the four "common ancestors" as seen in Dawkins Evolution tree?
Now as I shown in the videos: "Evolutions dirty little secrets", we know why this Evolution story was invented, not just to take God out of the picture, but to degrade His image too.

So can you show us pictures, or at least some idea as to what species these four "common ancestors" were, and any idea how they were able to give rise (birth or transformation) to two distinct new species?

Believe it or not, you're an animal. We don't get to elevate ourselves outside of basic taxonomy simply because we don't want to be lumped in with large populations of non-humans.

I'm not assuming you're an ape. This isn't an assumption: you, like all human beings, bear a great deal of similarity to apes of today, with regards to physical and genetic characteristics. Taxonomy is the process of breaking down relationships between living organisms, and an important part of that process is grouping similar living things on the basis that they almost certainly bear that likeness based on the fact that they came from a common ancestor. You pose the question: why aren't ravens or crows our ancestors based on their intellect and capacity to use tools? There are a bunch of reasons, but I'll scale it down to a few.

Explaining how humans could have evolved from birds (we couldn't have evolved from ravens or crows, I'll come back to why) requires a lot more assumptions and a lot more evolutionary events. We're talking about the process of switching from feathers to hair, hollow bones to dense ones, wings to arms and hands, talons to feet and toes, beaks to mouths... the list goes on. Each of those is a node on an evolutionary chain, and the more nodes there are, the more evolutionary events would have to have occurred. There are far fewer nodes between a putative common ancestor for humans and, say, gorillas. There are also far fewer genetic differences between humans and other apes than there are between humans and any living bird. The more genetic differences there are, the more mutations have to have occurred in order to explain it, and lifeforms do a pretty good job ensuring that their DNA sequences don't mutate much.

That being said, humans have many important differentiating factors that separate us from animals. My pointing out that we have larger brains and are more proficient with tools is not an exhaustive list, and our capacity to distinguish ourselves from other animals isn't diminished by accepting that we are distantly related to them.

As for the rest of your post, I think you're misunderstanding something. Very few organisms that currently exist on this planet have been here for more than a million years. Conditions change, reducing access to necessary nutrients, increasing predation, dangerous weather conditions, or any number of other factors affect lifeforms across the planet. Plants and animals regularly go extinct within our lifetimes; we see evidence of this happening. So when you're asking for living ancestors to species that are alive today, it's kind of like demanding that you see my great, great, great, great grandfather in the flesh to confirm that I'm related to my eighth cousin twice removed. What you want simply isn't available, and that's not terribly surprising given how long it's been and the turnover of life over millions of years. Those common ancestors don't exist today because they've died out. As for how they gave rise to new species, I can only tell you how life today has given rise to new species and provide you evidence to show what pressures resulted in those changes. I can't tell you what specific selection pressures led to a single new species, much less two separate species, millions of years ago, but that doesn't mean that there's not ample evidence to support such events.

As for your claim about "Evolutions dirty little secrets", whatever you think was the impetus behind evolution as a theory, the evidence stands for itself. If the goal is to degrade God, as you say, evolutionary theory has done a pretty piss-poor job. If anything, I would say that a creator who set all of this in motion is more impressive than one who simply created life in its current form, but hey, maybe that's just me.

@whiteflame - Believe it or not, you're an animal. We don't get to elevate ourselves outside of basic taxonomy simply because we don't want to be lumped in with large populations of non-humans.

Yes, .. it is very rude and as I've shown you, even discriminating to call humans animals, especially dumb apes. Dumb, because they can't speak English or any other human-only language. OK, let's do some Taxonomy;

Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis), meaning 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia), meaning 'method') is the science of defining and naming groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics.

So lets start From The Beginning, from scientific observation of the world around us in the here and now. Then using 'supporting evidence' from other approved sources, for instance us Creationists will use the words of our "Creator God", and then compare that, to the words of your creators who invented the "Big-Banged Universe and Biological Evolution" stories, and see which has both philosophical and scientific bases to explain who we are and what the animals are for?

Creationists
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

OK, here, let's do some scientific observation

Image result for pic of human dust after cremation

human remains after cremation

handful of dirt

I say we're off to a good start, from a scientific POV observing the hand holding the dirt it looks like we were meticulously created from the dirt/dust of the earth.
Now for us Creationists, about our 'animal-companions', which for Evolutionists, it's your 'cousins'!

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

And then Adam did some heavy duty Taxonomy after checking out each individual creature - 19 .. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

OK, before we go on, let's see the Big-Banged Evolution version up to this point:

George Lemaitre, a very Religious Jesuit Catholic priest who prayed to stone, wood and paintings of the mighty Goddess Mother Mary the Mother of God, observing the stars in heaven had a vision of the universe once a singularity, and along with Hubble the estimate of this singularity was 13.75 billion years ago, (NOT 9, or 15 billion years ago, but exactly 13.75 billion years ago, which is very obvious once you observe and measure the CMB Relic-radiation of the Big-bang.)

Image result for pic of big bang singularity

.. where for absolutely no reason or will of anyone, except maybe the mighty Goddess Mother Mary, or NASA's snake, or 666CERN's Lord Shiva .. a quantum speck supposedly popped out of nothing, and into nothing with a Big-Bang.
This created, nope, .. it umm, .. it randomned, .. nope that's not a word, .. it happened, yes 'happened' Spacetime-Fabric in invisible and undetectable gas form first, when eventually a vacuum appeared which gave rise to gravity that expanded the Spacetime fabric Vacuum to infinite size. Now Infinite not being large enough, it continues expanding this vacuum to Infinity and Beyond!!

And by chaotic events that had no will or plan, the stardust happened globes, millions, billions and trillions of different fruit shaped globes called planets, which eventually happened the planet Earth that we can see on NASA's CGI-cartoons and artist rendered pictures as perfectly round, .. but is pear-shaped when described by TV Science-actors like Degrassee Tyson. Now because earth happened, it obviously evolved life;
Amoeba

Image result for pic of evolution human girl with chimp drawing

These are Evolution-cousins. To the right is Darwin's grandson Caesar-Green Eyes studying the female ape on his right.

because, .. well because evolution happens. And if you understand chaos-theory where universes pop in and out of nothing with Big-Bangs, then you'd understand that; evolution cannot 'not happen'.

And now a word from the Creators of this un-created universe, and of all life on the perfectly round pear shaped Planet Earth:

George Gaylord Simpson - "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.
Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but is his own master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny."

So as we can see, evolution ended with man, and now man becomes his own Master, where he manages his own destiny, and NOT evolution or even the mighty Goddess Mother Mary the mother of all gods! This is why we cannot find even ONE "common ancestor" because where man started managing his own destiny, evolution ended.

Now United Nations Agenda 21, and 2030 explains how man can, and must decide and manage his own destiny as prophesied by Mr./Miss/she/he/it George Gaylord Simpson

whiteflame · July 2018

Evidence said:
@whiteflame - Believe it or not, you're an animal. We don't get to elevate ourselves outside of basic taxonomy simply because we don't want to be lumped in with large populations of non-humans.

Yes, .. it is very rude and as I've shown you, even discriminating to call humans animals, especially dumb apes. Dumb, because they can't speak English or any other human-only language. OK, let's do some Taxonomy;

Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis), meaning 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia), meaning 'method') is the science of defining and naming groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics.

So lets start From The Beginning, from scientific observation of the world around us in the here and now. Then using 'supporting evidence' from other approved sources, for instance us Creationists will use the words of our "Creator God", and then compare that, to the words of your creators who invented the "Big-Banged Universe and Biological Evolution" stories, and see which has both philosophical and scientific bases to explain who we are and what the animals are for?

Creationists
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

OK, here, let's do some scientific observation

human remains after cremation

handful of dirt

I say we're off to a good start, from a scientific POV observing the hand holding the dirt it looks like we were meticulously created from the dirt/dust of the earth.
Now for us Creationists, about our 'animal-companions', which for Evolutionists, it's your 'cousins'!

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

And then Adam did some heavy duty Taxonomy after checking out each individual creature - 19 .. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

OK, before we go on, let's see the Big-Banged Evolution version up to this point:

George Lemaitre, a very Religious Jesuit Catholic priest who prayed to stone, wood and paintings of the mighty Goddess Mother Mary the Mother of God, observing the stars in heaven had a vision of the universe once a singularity, and along with Hubble the estimate of this singularity was 13.75 billion years ago, (NOT 9, or 15 billion years ago, but exactly 13.75 billion years ago, which is very obvious once you observe and measure the CMB Relic-radiation of the Big-bang.)

.. where for absolutely no reason or will of anyone, except maybe the mighty Goddess Mother Mary, or NASA's snake, or 666CERN's Lord Shiva .. a quantum speck supposedly popped out of nothing, and into nothing with a Big-Bang.
This created, nope, .. it umm, .. it randomned, .. nope that's not a word, .. it happened, yes 'happened' Spacetime-Fabric in invisible and undetectable gas form first, when eventually a vacuum appeared which gave rise to gravity that expanded the Spacetime fabric Vacuum to infinite size. Now Infinite not being large enough, it continues expanding this vacuum to Infinity and Beyond!!

And by chaotic events that had no will or plan, the stardust happened globes, millions, billions and trillions of different fruit shaped globes called planets, which eventually happened the planet Earth that we can see on NASA's CGI-cartoons and artist rendered pictures as perfectly round, .. but is pear-shaped when described by TV Science-actors like Degrassee Tyson. Now because earth happened, it obviously evolved life;
Amoeba

These are Evolution-cousins. To the right is Darwin's grandson Caesar-Green Eyes studying the female ape on his right.

because, .. well because evolution happens. And if you understand chaos-theory where universes pop in and out of nothing with Big-Bangs, then you'd understand that; evolution cannot 'not happen'.

And now a word from the Creators of this un-created universe, and of all life on the perfectly round pear shaped Planet Earth:

George Gaylord Simpson - "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.
Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but is his own master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny."

So as we can see, evolution ended with man, and now man becomes his own Master, where he manages his own destiny, and NOT evolution or even the mighty Goddess Mother Mary the mother of all gods! This is why we cannot find even ONE "common ancestor" because where man started managing his own destiny, evolution ended.

Now United Nations Agenda 21, and 2030 explains how man can, and must decide and manage his own destiny as prophesied by Mr./Miss/she/he/it George Gaylord Simpson

I don't recall calling any humans "dumb apes," and I don't particularly see how referring to humans and apes as related while stating that we're all animals is in any way rude. If you personally feel that it's insulting, then I can't help that. You defined taxonomy, yet you're treating your scientifically-defined taxonomic designation as rude? I don't really know how to address that.

Before I get into the comparison between theories that you're providing, I'd just like to be clear about a few things. First, we are not debating the Big Bang theory. The theory of evolution is not contingent on any of the scientific theories behind how the universe began or even how our planet was formed. Second, we are not debating abiogenesis theory. The theory of evolution is similarly not contingent on scientific theories behind how life began on this planet. Evolution describes how life diversifies over the course of time, and while that may bear some distant similarities to how life began, each theory is distinct. A beginning of life is not an evolution of life, despite how you use the term. So, while you've spent a great deal of this last post attacking these two theories, I'm going to ignore those points, despite the fact that I feel you're dramatically misrepresenting both.

You talk about providing evidence for a "Creator God" leading to each organism as they exist today. You provide a bunch of Bible quotes, which, last I checked, are not verifiable evidence. Neither do any of those quotes explain genetic similarities between organisms, or for that matter provide any means of taxonomic comparison. The way they lay it out is that their naming was essentially random (Adam just picked names for them, not sure where he got them), but that doesn't provide any means for classification. It just tells us what they're called, not how they interrelate. Unless your argument is that no living organism interrelates to any degree, this simply doesn't use clear and available evidence. It just dismisses taxonomies altogether.

You point to the comparison between dirt and human remains after cremation, and then state that the similarities between the two indicate that we came from the dirt. A few problems. One, showing where we end up (i.e. what our bodies look like after we die) doesn't tell us where we came from. If that was the case, why don't humans rise up out of the dirt... ever? Why did God only do that once? For some reason, all humans today come from other humans, and yet for some reason, your argument is that we came from the dirt because we kind of look like dirt if we're cremated. That's not evidence of where we came from, only evidence of where we go. Second, why do we only look like dirt after we're cremated? Why doesn't the human body just fall to dirt when we die, if that's what we fundamentally are? Instead, for some reason, our corpses are usually eaten by a variety of other life forms. If we can be food for other lifeforms, then we are fundamentally lifeforms ourselves, and not merely dirt taking human shape. Third, science has also assessed the composition of dirt, and it's clearly different from the composition of ashes generated from a human body. If we are essentially just returning to dirt, why is our only similarity to dirt visual? Why aren't we chemically or biologically similar?

The rest of your post (at least those portions that actually apply to evolution) is just assertion. You show derision towards the classifications provided, though you don't provide any evidence or reasoning to contradict it. You attack the concept of evolution as though it uses circular reasoning, yet you don't even address any of the actual theory in your attempts to distort it. No one has argued that evolution exists because it "cannot 'not happen'" - believe it or not, we do base the theory in actual evidence and not in assertion. No one has argued that evolution has ended with humanity, and in fact, we have seen many creatures evolve in our time on this planet. You're not engaging with my point about common ancestors, so much as you keep stating that there's something fundamentally wrong with not having one alive today, I refer you back to my points that clearly address that. If you don't care to respond to them, then we're done on that line of discussion.

Vaulk · July 2018

@whiteflame

I think at this point I can safely say that this is somewhat of a difference in opinion. The piltdown man wasn't "A" missing link, he was "THE" missing link. When you claim to discover "The" missing link to a theory and then decades later it's discovered that the missing link was a total hoax...we'll just have to agree to disagree that this damages the theory overall and that something listed as "THE" missing link was core evidence.

We'll have to agree to disagree that, in regards to scientific theory, the term "The missing link" is substantially critical to the theory overall. You believe that it's not, I think that it is...agree to disagree I suppose.

To clarify though, I'm not calling into question evidence or data collected prior to the Piltdown Man hoax, I'm calling into question the CURRENT state of Human Evolution Theory. At the time of discovery, Darwin Evolution was not accepted largely by the Scientific Community and was still controversial. The Piltdown Man (Dubbed the missing link) bridged the gap finally and created a necessary justification for the theory of evolution. Again, I've said this before and cited sources with credible data to show that Science as a whole was hugely impacted by the Missing Link. I'm not saying that the theory should be set back completely, but scaling it back to the point it was at before the discovery of the Piltdown Man would be reasonable would it not? If I push a theory that's largely unsupported by the scientific community and then suddenly a radical discovery is made to support my theory and serves as hard evidence in support of it...but then turns out to be a hoax...should my theory return it it's original state of being unsupported and disbelieved or should it retain some of it's support and publication that was a direct result of evidence that was discovered to be a hoax?

This is the main issue I'm concluding here, Evolution as a theory has severely and substantially benefited from a discovery that was a hoax and suffered almost zero setback at the discovery of the fraud. How does that happen?! I don't think I have to explain how this is wrong in every sense of the word. I don't completely dismiss evolution as a theory, I think there's a great deal of research and theory that's on the right track...however I can't ignore that the theory as a whole has taken a lead by using false information and after that information was discovered to be false...the theory remained just as solidified as the day it was reinforced by the alleged missing link.

Follow with me here on the patch of Human Evolution Theory:

Heidelberg Man: Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

Nebraska Man: Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig

Piltdown Man: The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape

Peking Man: 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.

Neanderthal Man: At the Int'l. of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

New Guinea Man: Dates away back to 1970 . . . The species has been found in the region just north of Australia.

Cro-Magnon Man: One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man, so what's the difference?

Modern Man: This genus thinks we came from a monkey.

The Piltdown Man is hardly the sole piece of evidence serving against the theory of Human Evolution but certainly serves as reason to bring the theory's progress back to where it was prior to the missing link discovery. You don't get to use fraudulent information to push a theory to the forefront of education and create a widespread acceptance of Human Evolution and then get discovered as a fraud and still get to keep your theory alongside other legitimate theories as if it's just as valid after the fraud discovery as it was before it.

Erfisflat · July 2018

Vaulk said:

@whiteflame

I think at this point I can safely say that this is somewhat of a difference in opinion. The piltdown man wasn't "A" missing link, he was "THE" missing link. When you claim to discover "The" missing link to a theory and then decades later it's discovered that the missing link was a total hoax...we'll just have to agree to disagree that this damages the theory overall and that something listed as "THE" missing link was core evidence.

We'll have to agree to disagree that, in regards to scientific theory, the term "The missing link" is substantially critical to the theory overall. You believe that it's not, I think that it is...agree to disagree I suppose.

To clarify though, I'm not calling into question evidence or data collected prior to the Piltdown Man hoax, I'm calling into question the CURRENT state of Human Evolution Theory. At the time of discovery, Darwin Evolution was not accepted largely by the Scientific Community and was still controversial. The Piltdown Man (Dubbed the missing link) bridged the gap finally and created a necessary justification for the theory of evolution. Again, I've said this before and cited sources with credible data to show that Science as a whole was hugely impacted by the Missing Link. I'm not saying that the theory should be set back completely, but scaling it back to the point it was at before the discovery of the Piltdown Man would be reasonable would it not? If I push a theory that's largely unsupported by the scientific community and then suddenly a radical discovery is made to support my theory and serves as hard evidence in support of it...but then turns out to be a hoax...should my theory return it it's original state of being unsupported and disbelieved or should it retain some of it's support and publication that was a direct result of evidence that was discovered to be a hoax?

This is the main issue I'm concluding here, Evolution as a theory has severely and substantially benefited from a discovery that was a hoax and suffered almost zero setback at the discovery of the fraud. How does that happen?! I don't think I have to explain how this is wrong in every sense of the word. I don't completely dismiss evolution as a theory, I think there's a great deal of research and theory that's on the right track...however I can't ignore that the theory as a whole has taken a lead by using false information and after that information was discovered to be false...the theory remained just as solidified as the day it was reinforced by the alleged missing link.

Follow with me here on the patch of Human Evolution Theory:
Heidelberg Man: Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.
Nebraska Man: Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig
Piltdown Man: The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape
Peking Man: 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.
Neanderthal Man: At the Int'l. of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.
New Guinea Man: Dates away back to 1970 . . . The species has been found in the region just north of Australia.
Cro-Magnon Man: One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man, so what's the difference?
Modern Man: This genus thinks we came from a monkey.

The Piltdown Man is hardly the sole piece of evidence serving against the theory of Human Evolution but certainly serves as reason to bring the theory's progress back to where it was prior to the missing link discovery. You don't get to use fraudulent information to push a theory to the forefront of education and create a widespread acceptance of Human Evolution and then get discovered as a fraud and still get to keep your theory alongside other legitimate theories as if it's just as valid after the fraud discovery as it was before it.

Agreed. This should also call into question every stick of evidence that props up what's left of the theory as well.

whiteflame · July 2018

@Vaulk

Yep, it does appear we have a disagreement, though I think the assertion that I find most problematic is the idea that the Piltdown Man, even if it was real, functioned as such a crucial link in the evolutionary chain that it could practically stand alone as evidence of evolution in action. At best, it would have functioned as a link between a set of living species, making it a single node in the evolutionary tree. It may be perceived as an important, perhaps even an essential node, but my issue is with the idea that that particular node mattered most of all. The term “missing link” refers to a chain, and I find it problematic to believe that a single link in that chain is the most important link, but hey, maybe that’s just me. I don’t disagree that having those links in the chain is a substantial part of the support for the theory, and that lacking them leaves a similarly substantial hole in the theory, but my disagreement is with the idea that there is one particular link that is all important, and none of the others matter much at all.

I’m also not disagreeing that, at the time that evolutionary theory was broached, there was a lot of pushback. That happens with practically every newly posed theory (though I should note that evolutionary theory predated Darwin – he just popularized it). What I take issue with (and the citation you provided for this did not clarify) is the idea that the Piltdown Man functioned as a catalyst for bringing people over to the view that evolutionary theory had merit. In the source, I see that statement about it being controversial, but no clarity regarding the shift in number of scientists supporting the theory. If I’m missing something in the link (I’m re-reading it now, and I still don’t see it), please let me know – maybe this is just an issue of the two of us reading different things into the words provided on that page, though even if it does say what you’re claiming, I’d like to see some actual evidence of the shift they are claiming.

I think we’re actually closer to being on the same page with regards to perception of the theory than I supposed previously. I don’t believe the theory should have been scaled back 41 years because the Piltdown Man turned out to be a fake (no doubt many other discoveries were made in that time and were not fakes), but I do believe that adherence to the theory based on that supposed discovery should have been reversed. I’m simply not sure that there was a massive push in the scientific community to sweep this under the rug and chug along as though nothing had happened. I don’t see evolutionary theory as “largely unsupported” even up to the point that the Piltdown Man was “discovered,” though I suppose that, too, is just a difference of opinion.

I think I already said this, but I’ll be blunt: perception of the theory should become more cautious after a major piece is found to fictitious, and those who supported the theory based solely or largely on the fictitious aspects should become more skeptical. I’m just not at all clear that scientists didn’t respond in this fashion. If you have evidence that evolutionary scientists (not a small subset, quite a few of them) were trying to hid this or any other hoax, or if you have evidence that they were still relying on the Piltdown Man as evidence post-reveal, then I might see your point. But I would argue that the evidence gathered before and during the time that the Piltdown Man was thought to be real was the reason that scientists continued to support the theory post-reveal. I don’t see why the loss of a piece of evidence should have led to a mass shunning of the theory. It should have led scientists to scrutinize the other available evidence more carefully, and it seems to me that it did, since examples of fraud like the Archaeoraptor were discovered within a much shorter period of time. There are certainly other forgeries and misattributions, and you’ve pointed out a few (I’ll address a few that I think you’re being flippant on, including Heielberg, Peking, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and modern humans), but I find these revelations to be positive. The fact that they have been revealed by scientists within the field shows that there is a great deal of scrutiny, and it shows a willingness to not just accept any piece of evidence that might fit the theory on face value. If the rejection of invalid evidence is not a sign that evolutionary scientists are doing their best to parse through evidence they receive, then I don’t know what is.

So, let’s get into your examples.

Homo heidelbergensis – I’m not sure what your source for this claim is. The mandible was found to be “heavily built and lacks a chin”, which distinguishes it from Homo sapiens.[http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis] But it’s hardly the only aspect of this species that differentiate it from humans. The Steinheim skull shows slightly flattened characteristics with a smaller cranial capacity than is found in humans, along with moderately heavy brow ridges.[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Steinheim-skull] There are multiple other bones thought to belong to this species, though admittedly there is uncertainty.

Homo erectus pekinensis – You’re partially right – a lot of the available evidence did vanish in 1941. That does not mean that all of the available evidence is gone. Skull fragments and teeth are still available, as are some well-made casts and descriptions of the fossils.[http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150320082920613, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Peking-man] The lack of directly available fossils certainly reduces available evidence for this species, but there is sufficient evidence to indicate that this organism did exist and was distinct from other species.

Homo neanderthalensis – I’ve spent about a half an hour searching for that source from Dr. A. J. E. Cave, and I can’t seem to find it. I’ve found about 20 different copies of the exact same reference, but I can’t find the original statement from Dr. Cave. However, I have found other statements made by Dr. Cave. He’s said quite a bit on this particular species, including the following: “No competent morphologist could confuse the frontal bossing of the congenitally syphilitic cranium with the distinctive configuration of the Neandertal skull. Neandertal was a morphologically distinct type of rational human being, which appeared and disappeared when and why, we know not.”[https://ncse.com/cej/6/3/creationists-neandertal] So, even assuming for the moment that he said this about this particular specimen, Dr. Cave is well aware of the plethora of other fossils that don’t encounter the same problem. It doesn’t help your case that we actually have DNA samples of Neanderthals, which show that they are distinct.[http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/neanderthal-mitochondrial-and-nuclear-dna]

Cro-Magnon Man – They actually had a somewhat larger brain capacity than humans, and there are various facial, build and genetic characteristics that separate them from humans, but I’ll give you that the differences between humans and Cro-Magnons aren’t super clear. At most, they are a subspecies of humans.

Homo sapiens – I’ve now had to say this to @Royalty so many times that I fear it may have lost all meaning, but no scientist has ever claimed that we came from a monkey. Monkeys likely didn’t exist at the time our evolutionary ancestors did, and though monkeys likely share a common ancestor with us going back pretty far, that does not mean that our common ancestor is a monkey.

All of these examples are emblematic of the problems I'm having with your argument as a whole: you're using some dearths in the readily available evidence and instances of misidentification as a means to invalidate the discovery of entire species. Why bother caring about skull structure and the lack of a chin when the jaw bone looks kind of like a Homo sapiens? Since so much of the fossil evidence disappeared in WWII, why should we care there are there available casts, descriptions, and remnants of the Homo erectus pekinesis available? Despite having a massive number of available fossils, why should we believe any of them if a single one has been invalidated by a scientist who also clearly acknowledges the existence of Neanderthals? Why believe evolutionary theory has any merit when we can just straw man the entire argument to make it sound ridiculous?

Last I checked, a piece of evidence that has proven to be fabricated doesn’t serve as evidence against the theory. It’s fabricated. It doesn’t serve as evidence for anything except the willingness of some people to do whatever it takes to make a name for themselves. I agree that they should have been (and they were) shamed for the hoax. I agree that the continued usage of that fraudulent information after it was revealed to be fraudulent would be a big problem, though I have yet to see evidence of that. Textbooks and academic papers of the time had more support for the theory of evolution than just that single purported fossil, and much as you've tried to tackle them here, it looks like you're just parroting lines from creationist websites that provide no support for their points. If you want to argue that the entirety of evolutionary theory should have been removed from textbooks of the time, then you have to challenge the evidence that remained (with actual evidence of your own) and not just claim that the loss of this evidence makes the whole theory illegitimate.

Even if I accepted your view that the Piltdown Man wasn’t just important, but absolutely crucial to evolutionary theory at that time, all that signals to me is that the rest of the evidence should have been more thoroughly evaluated, and a determination should have been made (presumably by some body of science, though I have no clue what that would be) as to whether that evidence was sufficient to uphold evolution as a scientific theory. Even if they were to have invalidated it, though, the question remains as to whether any data acquired since then would have elevated it back to the status of scientific theory. I think the genetic evidence has significantly added support to the theory, and thus would have lent it credence once again.

with_all_humility · July 2018

Many want to cling to the remains of "Lucy" as being a missing link, however, having been discovered over 40 years ago many have called into question if Lucy was hominin or not. Many researchers say the key to defining a hominin from an ape is the hands and feet. Guess what could not be found of Lucy's skeleton? The hands and feet. However, baboon bones have been recovered and found in amongst the so-called "Lucy" skeleton calling into question the validity of discovery.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3034395/Why-baboon-bone-Lucy-s-skeleton-Scientists-make-bizarre-discovery-3-2-million-year-old-fossil-early-human.html

Many evolutionists have been quick to make assumptions just to be proven wrong later after further research. Then a few of them seeking fame, not science have created hoaxes or outright ignored the evidence before them. How many transitional fossils have you seen? Yet there are supposedly over 500 living fossils (plants/animals/insects that have been fossilized, but yet the species is alive and living today). Hmmm...imagine that.

whiteflame · July 2018

@with_all_humility

I'm not sure where you're getting that the most important feature defining a hominin from related species is the hands and feet. "Some characteristics that have distinguished hominins from other primates, living and extinct, are their erect posture, bipedal locomotion, larger brains, and behavioral characteristics such as specialized tool use and, in some cases, communication through language."[https://www.britannica.com/topic/hominin] Based on the hip bones, the reconstructed skull and some other features of the bones, it's pretty clear that the skeleton ticks at least three of these boxes. Sure, it sucks that pieces of the skeleton are missing, but the way you're phrasing it makes it sound like they're pulling their conclusions about the skeleton pieces they do have out of thin air. Similarly, the fact that one of the vertebra fragments apparently came from a baboon does not invalidate the rest of the skeleton.

Jumping to conclusions is not specific to those who support the theory of evolution, and the fact that those assumptions are regularly challenged is an indicator that there are controlling elements to prevent those assumptions from becoming accepted by the scientific community. People seek fame in practically every field, but scientific fields tend to come with a rather large standard of proof and a great deal of review. Do some assumptions get through that and remain popularized for a while before being exposed as hoaxes? Yes, but those are in the extreme minority.

I've already addressed the transitional fossils issue multiple times. I'm not returning to that. I don't see how living fossils do anything to disprove evolution or support a separate theory. Some organisms have a very long history on this planet, and thus have more fossils readily available for us to find.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame
Evidence

@whiteflame said; I don't recall calling any humans "dumb apes," and I don't particularly see how referring to humans and apes as related while stating that we're all animals is in any way rude. If you personally feel that it's insulting, then I can't help that. You defined taxonomy, yet you're treating your scientifically-defined taxonomic designation as rude? I don't really know how to address that.

Let's say you convince me that I am an animal, an ape. You and I could walk up to a grocery with a clear sign on the door stating: "Absolutely no animals allowed in store", according to what I have observed of Evolutionists, you guys just ignore the sign, and walk right on in This would leave me the ape standing outside all stupefied. You know well you never considered yourself an animal, especially a member of the ape family when it comes right down to it like I just explained to you above! So how can you say this would not be insulting to me, who just learned that my scientific biological Taxonomy labels me an animal with a Family-tree of a long line of dumb apes who even today can't read or write, cannot build planes, trains nor automobiles, and here I am standing outside the door waiting for you Evolutionist, who just convinced me of my proper taxonomy to get done with your shopping, .. huh? How would you feel if I convinced you of this same taxonomy placing you in the monkey group, then show you over and over again that this taxonomy did not apply to me?
Here is what I'm getting at, please watch time 19:02 and on:

I'm sure the white gentleman had plenty of years of observing his workers and using Taxonomy put hem in the category that he did. The same with famous scientists, I'm sure they would get offended if after evaluating their laboratory would call them "a pig", their work habits equaling to a "dumb ape", and their workplace a "pigsty". I doubt any German would tolerate being referred to, or treated like an animal.

Funny, if you watched that video (which I'm sure you wouldn't) you would have noticed that the animals were treated far, far more humanely then the actual humans for which this Evolutionary-Taxonomy was created for.

whiteflame - Before I get into the comparison between theories that you're providing, I'd just like to be clear about a few things. First, we are not debating the Big Bang theory. The theory of evolution is not contingent on any of the scientific theories behind how the universe began or even how our planet was formed.

So what you're saying is that your Biological Taxonomy was derived from observing humans, white skinned, darker skinned and even black, right here on Gods Flat Earth as we have known it to be for the past 6,000 years, correct?

whiteflame - Second, we are not debating abiogenesis theory. The theory of evolution is similarly not contingent on scientific theories behind how life began on this planet. Evolution describes how life diversifies over the course of time, and while that may bear some distant similarities to how life began, each theory is distinct. A beginning of life is not an evolution of life, despite how you use the term. So, while you've spent a great deal of this last post attacking these two theories, I'm going to ignore those points, despite the fact that I feel you're dramatically misrepresenting both.

Got it, so like I said, this Evolutionary taxonomy originated by observing living creatures here on Gods Flat Earth, correct? So obviously Darwin must have observed all the humans first, then went from there to observing monkeys and other apes when he came up with the idea that Blacks could not be part of the White human race, but belong to the ape family. Yes, this is what I'm debating against, labeling humans as animals, apes.

whiteflame - You talk about providing evidence for a "Creator God" leading to each organism as they exist today. You provide a bunch of Bible quotes, which, last I checked, are not verifiable evidence. Neither do any of those quotes explain genetic similarities between organisms, or for that matter provide any means of taxonomic comparison. The way they lay it out is that their naming was essentially random (Adam just picked names for them, not sure where he got them), but that doesn't provide any means for classification. It just tells us what they're called, not how they interrelate. Unless your argument is that no living organism interrelates to any degree, this simply doesn't use clear and available evidence. It just dismisses taxonomies altogether.

There you go again, labeling Adam as if he was some hairy-ignorant Neanderthal running around naked playing tag with the animals, and as he tagged one, he grunted out a name for each, .. lol. No, the way I understand it is that Adam was far, far wiser than any scientist since him, and he carefully examined each creatures bone structure, muscle and skin and head, and their individual characteristics as they grazed, what they ate, how they socialize with each other and so on before he named them. Even God stood back and allowed him to do his work, and found it "good", so whatever name Adam gave the animals, that stayed to even today. And it doesn't say he confused any animal with himself, OK? It clearly says that; Adam did not find any of the animals comparable to him.

Genesis 2:20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

Unlike Darwin and Dawkins and all the Evolutionary so called scientists of today, who started out by looking at Black African-humans and confused them with animals. Like I said; even our infants can tell the difference between the 8 million animals species, from humans. Yes, even infants, and you want to compare these guys with Adam?? Now that's funny.
Then on top of that, .. now this really doesn't make sense, .. but then they turn to graves, yes graves of all places, and start digging up skull and bones, and claim that "this skull & bone here evolved over millions and billions of years from that skull & bone there". I mean come on, only demented or possessed people who have a fetish with the dead and rob graves could call that science, which is supposed to be; "observing the natural world around us". How on Gods Flat Earth could they claim that skull and bones, or that one fossilized animal could evolve/speciate into another fossilized animal??

whiteflame - You point to the comparison between dirt and human remains after cremation, and then state that the similarities between the two indicate that we came from the dirt. A few problems. One, showing where we end up (i.e. what our bodies look like after we die) doesn't tell us where we came from.

Oh, but I guess robbing graves and stealing skull and bones and making claims that these came from certain unidentifiable creature you call "Common Ancestor" millions and billions of years ago tells you where it came from? yet you say this is not about abiogenesis!?

whiteflame - If that was the case, why don't humans rise up out of the dirt... ever? Why did God only do that once? For some reason, all humans today come from other humans, and yet for some reason, your argument is that we came from the dirt because we kind of look like dirt if we're cremated. That's not evidence of where we came from, only evidence of where we go. Second, why do we only look like dirt after we're cremated? Why doesn't the human body just fall to dirt when we die, if that's what we fundamentally are? Instead, for some reason, our corpses are usually eaten by a variety of other life forms. If we can be food for other lifeforms, then we are fundamentally lifeforms ourselves, and not merely dirt taking human shape. Third, science has also assessed the composition of dirt, and it's clearly different from the composition of ashes generated from a human body. If we are essentially just returning to dirt, why is our only similarity to dirt visual? Why aren't we chemically or biologically similar?

Next time you, or an Evolutionary-scientist is robbing a grave, why don't you ask them to pick up some dust the skull and bones are laying in? So yes, we were obviously created out of dust, one quantum dust-particle at a time. This is why we mimic our Creator by creating the much, much, much simpler robots, from the dirt, and then we imitate intelligent/life by observing our own reactions, and recording it, and we call this AI.
First we mine all the necessary metals, and then we carefully, and meticulously machine and put them together, and make a robot

It's that "Like Father, like son thing". So if the scientists, engineers and programmers at Honda don't just sit around for millions and billions of years waiting for dust to create their robots, why do Evolutionist claim that such a thing could eventually happen? Has ANY scientist in the past million years ever recorded any evolution from a rock? Not alone the mind boggling complexity of a human, .. how could they get ideas like that the dust of the earth could make anything that we find on earth, if we just wait long enough LOL!?!?
"Yep, .. just sit back and wait, .. evolution happens, .. well not now, not anymore anyways because all the Common Ancestors vanished without a trace! But just because we can't find any common ancestor of any of the 8 million species we have today doesn't mean it didn't happen millions and billions of years ago, because it DID! Honest it did, .. look, here is proof, .. look at these skulls we got from the Aborigines after we killed them and boiled down their skulls, what more proof does anyone need for evolution from a rock, or dirt??

whiteflame - The rest of your post (at least those portions that actually apply to evolution) is just assertion. You show derision towards the classifications provided, though you don't provide any evidence or reasoning to contradict it.

I have shown you word to word how our Creator, .. yes Creator, like I shown you above how we create by copying our Creators creation. Why don't you have to provide evidence for evolution, huh? I asked you guys a hundred times now: We have 8 million living species, every one of them should have at least 2 "common ancestors". Like for human evolution, I have shown you Dawkins family tree, and the four "common ancestors" he has there labeled as lines and T'-ing off into two different species.
Tell me, after evolving for millions and even billions of years, and finally the effects of its environment and the food it ate brought it to its brink of speciation.
Here it is, used to be a gorilla, but it changed, until one day it:

1. it gave birth to two distinct species. one another 'common-ancestor' and the other a chimp.
Or
2. it mutated/changed into two completely different species overnight?

OK, now instead of keep telling me how I don't understand evolution/speciation, I took you to a point in time between 2.5 billion years where you already have a gorilla, now all you need to do is explain to me "how did this 'common-ancestor' produce the two distinct yet different species?" I gave two possible answers, you may add a third, or even a hundred, but please explain to me how ANY common ancestor gave rise to two or more distinct species?

So far, I have debated this for over 15 years some really intelligent debaters, some claimed to be Biologists, some with other associated science degrees, teachers and retired scientists and whatnot, yet no one could answer this simple question. They, just like you went all around in circles telling me I don't know evolution and that I should go to CIA school for some MK-Ultra sessions, or how stupid I was to even ask such a question, .. but never an answer. Oh yeah, .. the best answer they all gave (including you my debating Evolutionist fiends here) was: "It takes millions of years, no specific species just changes overnight! That's NOT how it happens!"

So I ask: "But they do change/speciate into another species eventually, do they not?"

And here is where I get the evolution of languages, or the 'millions of color gradients'

asking me: "can I tell where the purple changes into blue, or the yellow into green?"

My next question regarding that is: "Is each color a distinct species, ..

or is the gradient from purple to green a single species, like a dog for instance ..

Image result for pic of evolution of dog breeds

where the purple could be a Great Dane, and the blue a teacup poodle, and the gradient is all the changes that happens between the two!?"

The answer?
Never an answer, not from the ones claiming to have degrees in either science, or evolutionary-biology!

Or, .. it's like the circular reasoning you use next here: "You attack the concept of evolution as though it uses circular reasoning, yet you don't even address any of the actual theory in your attempts to distort it."
How am I not addressing the actual theory of evolution when I ask about the common ancestor of any of the 8 million species we have today, .. how? Why is questioning the most critical part of evolution/speciation so taboo? Can you answer the above?

whiteflame - You attack the concept of evolution as though it uses circular reasoning, yet you don't even address any of the actual theory in your attempts to distort it. No one has argued that evolution exists because it "cannot 'not happen'" - believe it or not, we do base the theory in actual evidence and not in assertion. No one has argued that evolution has ended with humanity, and in fact, we have seen many creatures evolve in our time on this planet. You're not engaging with my point about common ancestors, so much as you keep stating that there's something fundamentally wrong with not having one alive today, I refer you back to my points that clearly address that. If you don't care to respond to them, then we're done on that line of discussion.

If evolution/speciation (meaning one distinct species evolving/speciating into a completely different species) never happens while the animal/creature is alive, then it must happen in the grave, where one skull, over the millions of years evolves into the skull of a different species!? This is why the only evidence Evolutionists use to prove speciation are fossils and skull & bones!

The Evolution of the Human Skull

Notice it says: "Evolution 'to' the Human Skull" So from amoeba to the human skull, and what happens in the grave, remains in the grave. We just use the finished product; skull and bones

whiteflame · July 2018

@Evidence

I had a response typed out, but honestly, I'm not up for doing this with you any more. You seem more interested in being derisive and generally ignoring evidence, contrary to your screen name. It's pretty clear that you have no interest in actually debating this subject, but rather just laughing at those concepts you claim to understand by straw-manning both the conclusions and the scientific support behind them. If you want to deride me some more as well (not that you haven't already done that), you're welcome to do so. I'll gladly continue the discussion with Vaulk and leave you to your... interesting views on the subject.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I had a response typed out, but honestly, I'm not up for doing this with you any more. You seem more interested in being derisive and generally ignoring evidence, contrary to your screen name. It's pretty clear that you have no interest in actually debating this subject, but rather just laughing at those concepts you claim to understand by straw-manning both the conclusions and the scientific support behind them. If you want to deride me some more as well (not that you haven't already done that), you're welcome to do so. I'll gladly continue the discussion with Vaulk and leave you to your... interesting views on the subject.

@whiteflame Yes, I'm sure you had a response typed out, but realized that none of the common evolutionary diversions work on me, because, .. as my screen name, demands Evidence.

OK my friend, like the old silent movie director saying goes: "let's cut the bull and cut to the chase". I have one question: Yep, you guessed it, it's the never before seen, or heard "Common Ancestor" that gives rise to two completely different species. I'm sure you heard of these mysterious creatures, so can you show me ONE (the one the arrow is pointing to), preferably that gave rise to the human woman in the Richard Dawkins video, .. and another "common ancestor" that is shown by only a T, that shows it gave rise to, or birth to, .. or morphed into two more creatures, one the chimp, and a bonobo?

Thank you.

Remember, let's cut to the chase, none of that "I don't watch videos" because the author of the video is both famous and is right in the video, and even if you don't watch it, you can see what I'm talking about in the freezeframe above!

whiteflame · July 2018

@Evidence

I responded to that question the first time you posed it. You either didn't like the response or ignored it, but I have nothing new to add.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

I responded to that question the first time you posed it. You either didn't like the response or ignored it, but I have nothing new to add.

@whiteflame ;
Evidence
I don't recall calling any humans "dumb apes," and I don't particularly see how referring to humans and apes as related while stating that we're all animals is in any way rude. If you personally feel that it's insulting, then I can't help that. You defined taxonomy, yet you're treating your scientifically-defined taxonomic designation as rude? I don't really know how to address that.

Before I get into the comparison between theories that you're providing, I'd just like to be clear about a few things. First, we are not debating the Big Bang theory. The theory of evolution is not contingent on any of the scientific theories behind how the universe began or even how our planet was formed. Second, we are not debating abiogenesis theory. The theory of evolution is similarly not contingent on scientific theories behind how life began on this planet. Evolution describes how life diversifies over the course of time, and while that may bear some distant similarities to how life began, each theory is distinct. A beginning of life is not an evolution of life, despite how you use the term. So, while you've spent a great deal of this last post attacking these two theories, I'm going to ignore those points, despite the fact that I feel you're dramatically misrepresenting both.

You talk about providing evidence for a "Creator God" leading to each organism as they exist today. You provide a bunch of Bible quotes, which, last I checked, are not verifiable evidence. Neither do any of those quotes explain genetic similarities between organisms, or for that matter provide any means of taxonomic comparison. The way they lay it out is that their naming was essentially random (Adam just picked names for them, not sure where he got them), but that doesn't provide any means for classification. It just tells us what they're called, not how they interrelate. Unless your argument is that no living organism interrelates to any degree, this simply doesn't use clear and available evidence. It just dismisses taxonomies altogether.

You point to the comparison between dirt and human remains after cremation, and then state that the similarities between the two indicate that we came from the dirt. A few problems. One, showing where we end up (i.e. what our bodies look like after we die) doesn't tell us where we came from. If that was the case, why don't humans rise up out of the dirt... ever? Why did God only do that once? For some reason, all humans today come from other humans, and yet for some reason, your argument is that we came from the dirt because we kind of look like dirt if we're cremated. That's not evidence of where we came from, only evidence of where we go. Second, why do we only look like dirt after we're cremated? Why doesn't the human body just fall to dirt when we die, if that's what we fundamentally are? Instead, for some reason, our corpses are usually eaten by a variety of other life forms. If we can be food for other lifeforms, then we are fundamentally lifeforms ourselves, and not merely dirt taking human shape. Third, science has also assessed the composition of dirt, and it's clearly different from the composition of ashes generated from a human body. If we are essentially just returning to dirt, why is our only similarity to dirt visual? Why aren't we chemically or biologically similar?

The rest of your post (at least those portions that actually apply to evolution) is just assertion. You show derision towards the classifications provided, though you don't provide any evidence or reasoning to contradict it. You attack the concept of evolution as though it uses circular reasoning, yet you don't even address any of the actual theory in your attempts to distort it. No one has argued that evolution exists because it "cannot 'not happen'" - believe it or not, we do base the theory in actual evidence and not in assertion. No one has argued that evolution has ended with humanity, and in fact, we have seen many creatures evolve in our time on this planet. You're not engaging with my point about common ancestors, so much as you keep stating that there's something fundamentally wrong with not having one alive today, I refer you back to my points that clearly address that. If you don't care to respond to them, then we're done on that line of discussion.

Show me where you answered ANY of my questions on the "Common Ancestor"?

whiteflame · July 2018

@Evidence

Two separate posts, actually.

Part of the first:

If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?

Part of the second:

Very few organisms that currently exist on this planet have been here for more than a million years. Conditions change, reducing access to necessary nutrients, increasing predation, dangerous weather conditions, or any number of other factors affect lifeforms across the planet. Plants and animals regularly go extinct within our lifetimes; we see evidence of this happening. So when you're asking for living ancestors to species that are alive today, it's kind of like demanding that you see my great, great, great, great grandfather in the flesh to confirm that I'm related to my eighth cousin twice removed. What you want simply isn't available, and that's not terribly surprising given how long it's been and the turnover of life over millions of years. Those common ancestors don't exist today because they've died out.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

@Evidence

Two separate posts, actually.

Part of the first:
If your only argument is that we don't have fossil evidence of every specific common ancestor that split off into other species that eventually led to each of the primates that exist today, then I agree with you. We have specific points along that evolutionary timeline, but we do not have evidence for every single point in that chain. Even if we did, it would be nigh impossible to prove that one specific organism from tens of millions of years ago begat another specific organism. But that doesn't mean we cannot establish clear relationships between organisms alive today based on common traits and common genetics, nor does it mean that we cannot at least begin to trace back along the evolutionary lineage of those same organisms to see how those traits developed. This is not a faith-based process - we're taking evidence and compiling it into a theory that can best describe what we're seeing. I've posed this question to @Royalty, so I'll pose it to you as well: what other theory for the beginnings of life best takes these pieces of evidence into account?
Part of the second:
Very few organisms that currently exist on this planet have been here for more than a million years. Conditions change, reducing access to necessary nutrients, increasing predation, dangerous weather conditions, or any number of other factors affect lifeforms across the planet. Plants and animals regularly go extinct within our lifetimes; we see evidence of this happening. So when you're asking for living ancestors to species that are alive today, it's kind of like demanding that you see my great, great, great, great grandfather in the flesh to confirm that I'm related to my eighth cousin twice removed. What you want simply isn't available, and that's not terribly surprising given how long it's been and the turnover of life over millions of years. Those common ancestors don't exist today because they've died out.

@whiteflame
Hellooo, .. I am NOT asking for every single point in the chain, which would be at least 16 million missing species just for todays living animals. I just want you to tell me the names, and/or the species of the four in the chart, .. you do understand what "species" means right; like a gorilla, or a chimpanzee or a lion like that. So here again (unless you find that this video by Richard Dawkins does NOT represent Evolution?), then maybe you can tell me what species the four "Common Ancestors", .. or "Missing Links" were?

If it's a complete mystery, can you guess what species they were?
If you can't guess, make a species up, like you could use "Lucy". Make that arrow that says:

"The Common Ancestor that humans share with chimpanzees and bonobos lived about five to six million years ago"

So tell us what species was this common ancestor,
A. was it a human?
B. was it a gorilla?
C. was it an orangutan that changed/mutated into a gorilla which gave birth to a human, a chimp and a bonobo?

For Pete sakes, it had to be a living, breathing species that lived, ate, mated and lived six million years ago, .. it couldn't of been a rock could it? Pick one, .. name one, make one up, as long as you give me the type of species that it was? Use skulls, bones, rocks, or a fossilized tree trunk, .. I don't care, just give me the name of that species???

But You Can't, can you? And you won't, because if you did, then we would ask: "How did that (donkey, gorilla, chimp, human fill in the blank) __________ give rise to two distinct species other than itself?

Let's say it was a chimp looking-human like 'Adrack' (I made that species up) so how did Adrack change/mutate/give birth to the two new species?

whiteflame · July 2018

Evidence said:
@whiteflame
Hellooo, .. I am NOT asking for every single point in the chain, which would be at least 16 million missing species just for todays living animals. I just want you to tell me the names, and/or the species of the four in the chart, .. you do understand what "species" means right; like a gorilla, or a chimpanzee or a lion like that. So here again (unless you find that this video by Richard Dawkins does NOT represent Evolution?), then maybe you can tell me what species the four "Common Ancestors", .. or "Missing Links" were?

If it's a complete mystery, can you guess what species they were?
If you can't guess, make a species up, like you could use "Lucy". Make that arrow that says:

"The Common Ancestor that humans share with chimpanzees and bonobos lived about five to six million years ago"

So tell us what species was this common ancestor,
A. was it a human?
B. was it a gorilla?
C. was it an orangutan that changed/mutated into a gorilla which gave birth to a human, a chimp and a bonobo?

For Pete sakes, it had to be a living, breathing species that lived, ate, mated and lived six million years ago, .. it couldn't of been a rock could it? Pick one, .. name one, make one up, as long as you give me the type of species that it was? Use skulls, bones, rocks, or a fossilized tree trunk, .. I don't care, just give me the name of that species???

But You Can't, can you? And you won't, because if you did, then we would ask: "How did that (donkey, gorilla, chimp, human fill in the blank) __________ give rise to two distinct species other than itself?

Let's say it was a chimp looking-human like 'Adrack' (I made that species up) so how did Adrack change/mutate/give birth to the two new species?

You're talking about a set of common ancestors (for the nodes you see in that video) that likely went extinct tens of millions of years ago. So determining precisely which organism represents a node depends largely on inference based on a set of traits perceived from fossil evidence. But fine, let's just focus on the hypothetical, if that's what you want. Presumably, this ancestor shared traits with its descendant species. If you want a spitball of one such organism, you could look to Orrorin tugenensis, which is thought to be at least near the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

But since you're already jumping the gun and presenting the next question you would have asked, how about I respond to that as well? There are examples of speciation that occurs over short periods of time because of a variety of reasons, but one factor is geographic isolation. Populations move and split, and in one part of the world, a given population is subjected to specific stresses that another is not. Those stresses increase the probability that certain physical changes are favored for that population. So, when that population has offspring that are slightly different in a way that favors them in their new environment, they can get a distinct species. The old environment places different stresses on the organism, and thus may result in different traits being favored. And this may not happen at the same time. The ancestral species might be around for millions of years and result in a few new species over that entire span of time. So, assuming that Orrorin tugenensis is the ancestral species in this case, it could be that the ancestral species for chimpanzees split off 100,000 years after that species became a reality, and the ancestral species for humans took another 900,000 years.

Evidence · July 2018

whiteflame said:

Evidence said:
@whiteflame
Hellooo, .. I am NOT asking for every single point in the chain, which would be at least 16 million missing species just for todays living animals. I just want you to tell me the names, and/or the species of the four in the chart, .. you do understand what "species" means right; like a gorilla, or a chimpanzee or a lion like that. So here again (unless you find that this video by Richard Dawkins does NOT represent Evolution?), then maybe you can tell me what species the four "Common Ancestors", .. or "Missing Links" were?

If it's a complete mystery, can you guess what species they were?
If you can't guess, make a species up, like you could use "Lucy". Make that arrow that says:

"The Common Ancestor that humans share with chimpanzees and bonobos lived about five to six million years ago"

So tell us what species was this common ancestor,
A. was it a human?
B. was it a gorilla?
C. was it an orangutan that changed/mutated into a gorilla which gave birth to a human, a chimp and a bonobo?

For Pete sakes, it had to be a living, breathing species that lived, ate, mated and lived six million years ago, .. it couldn't of been a rock could it? Pick one, .. name one, make one up, as long as you give me the type of species that it was? Use skulls, bones, rocks, or a fossilized tree trunk, .. I don't care, just give me the name of that species???

But You Can't, can you? And you won't, because if you did, then we would ask: "How did that (donkey, gorilla, chimp, human fill in the blank) __________ give rise to two distinct species other than itself?

Let's say it was a chimp looking-human like 'Adrack' (I made that species up) so how did Adrack change/mutate/give birth to the two new species?

You're talking about a set of common ancestors (for the nodes you see in that video) that likely went extinct tens of millions of years ago. So determining precisely which organism represents a node depends largely on inference based on a set of traits perceived from fossil evidence. But fine, let's just focus on the hypothetical, if that's what you want. Presumably, this ancestor shared traits with its descendant species. If you want a spitball of one such organism, you could look to Orrorin tugenensis, which is thought to be at least near the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

But since you're already jumping the gun and presenting the next question you would have asked, how about I respond to that as well? There are examples of speciation that occurs over short periods of time because of a variety of reasons, but one factor is geographic isolation. Populations move and split, and in one part of the world, a given population is subjected to specific stresses that another is not. Those stresses increase the probability that certain physical changes are favored for that population. So, when that population has offspring that are slightly different in a way that favors them in their new environment, they can get a distinct species. The old environment places different stresses on the organism, and thus may result in different traits being favored. And this may not happen at the same time. The ancestral species might be around for millions of years and result in a few new species over that entire span of time. So, assuming that Orrorin tugenensis is the ancestral species in this case, it could be that the ancestral species for chimpanzees split off 100,000 years after that species became a reality, and the ancestral species for humans took another 900,000 years.

@whiteflame

No, let's NOT "jump the gun" or focus on the hypothetical, .. instead, lets see who, what this common ancestor that supposedly changed into, morphed, or gave birth to humans, .. a male and a female, because if this creature you call Orrorin tugenensis gave birth to humans, it/he/she had to either change into, or give birth to both male and female for us humans to have survived, and thrived for all your millions of years. That's what we're looking for, a specific species that was not human, but evolved/speciated into human, and you presented Orrorin tugenensis. So let's see what species this creature was? We want a common ancestor that speciated into a human, not a human because a human would not need to do anything to change into human, it is already one!

Orrorin tugenensis
Because of its novel combination of ape and human traits, the researchers gave a new genus and species name to these fossils, Orrorin tugenensis, which in the local language means “original man in the Tugen region.” So far, Orrorin tugenensis is the only species in the genus Orrorin.
Orrorin tugenensis is a postulated early species of Hominidae, estimated at 6.1 to 5.7 million years and discovered in 2000. It is not confirmed how Orrorin is related to modern humans?

Hmm, .. so this Common Ancestor creature had ape and human traits, so how are we to understand this since Dawkins specifically told us human-animals that we ARE apes, so what kind of taxonomy is this, done as early as the year 2,000?

Now I do see the one-eye illumination!

Ok, let's move on, because you really need this so we could justify evolution as being labeled "science", and so far, none/nix/ditto/nein it has not a shred of scientific evidence to even consider it as a scientific hypothesis, let alone give any funds to investigate it as a scientific theory, or science anything?! Don't scientists have more important things to investigate, or look into? You know, like going into space and do back flips and play with water droplets, which, after ten years in space, and a trillion dollar later it is still the number ONE requested "experiment" by the human animals, or human-ape population, especially kindergartners.

Orrorin tugenensis is a postulated early species of Hominidae, estimated at 6.1 to 5.7 million years and discovered in 2000. It is not confirmed how Orrorin is related to modern humans? - Wikipedia

What, .. not confirmed how Orrorin is related to modern humans? Well looking at the picture of this creature, it's no wonder!? How could this mess of broken bones be considered the father of humanity, .. honestly, .. how?? But fine, let's say this Orrorin creature (see arrow pointing to this broken skull) may have died morphing into the third creature besides the chimp/bonobo and human, .. so this skull could be the result of Orrorin attempting to do the impossible, morph into not just the two distinct species like in this photo;

the common ancestor and the human lady, but maybe died trying to morph into a German Illuminati?
Why didn't Dawkins include any pictures of the 4 "common ancestors", why leave them blank?
Oh yes, because: Orrorin tugenensis is a postulated early species of Hominidae, and it is not confirmed how Orrorin is related to modern humans?

You sure you want to continue defending such fantastic, baseless assumption as Evolution?

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@Royalty

It is a fact that that evolutionary theory, as well as the study of abiogenesis, do not use the scientific method. So how can anyone call it science?

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@whiteflame

Another thing to consider. The driving force of evolution is random mutations. It has been conclusively demonstrated that mutations DESTROY information. In order for evolution to occur, new information must be added to a genome. All scientific knowledge we possess tells us that such a thing is impossible. Nature can only work with what is available. It cannot create new genetic information. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

sear · July 2018

" Atheists can you prove that science is correct? "

There is no such thing as burden of disproof.

Science has tenacious, unrelenting peer review. Religion does not.

We express our confidence in science every time we allow ourselves to careen down the highway at 60+ MPH in a metal box that could get us killed.

We express our faith in Newton.

We express our faith in metallurgists.

We express our faith in engineering.

"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan

Mr_Bombastic · July 2018

@sear

Then perhaps you can explain how the scientific method is used in evolution and abiogenesis. What scientific experiments were used?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Trump calls Columbia protest raid "beautiful thing to watch"

In this Debate

Atheists can you prove that science is correct?
in Religion

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Trump calls Columbia protest raid "beautiful thing to watch"

In this Debate

Atheists can you prove that science is correct?in Religion

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Atheists can you prove that science is correct?
in Religion