A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[lostwanderingsoul]

Scientists say "could have" and "possibly" when they are not certain of something. Science has learned that more research often changes knowledge.

Science once said that planets revolve around the sun in circular orbits. Technically, that was wrong. Technically they should have said: "planets revolve around the sun in what we currently believe to be circular orbits".

The only people who have problems with "could have" are people who, because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs, have to try to denigrate science whenever and however they can.




Where does science use "could have" in the way you assert?

Whether the orbits are circles or ellipses does not detract from the fact of heliocentricity. You do accept heliocentricy , don't you?





All I see is that your attempt at positing an analogy is nonsensical. It bears no resemblance to how science uses the term.

And you continue to miss my point. Science does NOT say evolution "could have" occured the way they describe it. Science says it is a FACT. How about you? Do you say evolution is a FACT? Or do you say it "could have" occured a certain way? It is a THEORT and MAY be true but it is not an exact fact. As new evidence is found, the theory may change. But facts do not change. If that is too hard to see then maybe it is time for more Sesame Street.

 

[ecco]

Obviously you did not understand the question or are not able to answer. I do not have to IDENTIFY the first kangaroo or the first word or the first red color. I am saying that in order for there to be a second or thied, there had to be a first. If that is too complex for you maybe I can find a book on "Logic for Dummies" for you.

I didn't ask you to identify the first German word or to identify the first red wavelength on the color spectrum because I wanted you to figure out what it was. I was trying to get you to see the absurdity of believing there was any such thing as a "first" word or color in the hopes that you would see the absurdity of you referring to a "first" kangaroo.

You repeatedly going back to the concept of a "first" clearly shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the basics of evolution. You can learn a little or you can continue to remain willfully, woefully, ignorant of the subject. It's your choice.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

From your writing, quoted above, it is clear that you don't get your science knowledge from anywhere. If you did, you would know what a Scientific Theory is and you wouldn't have to preface it with "I think".




Who? Most posters that I see will tell you facts and proofs are limited to mathematics. Perhaps you are referring to comments like "The Theory of Evolution is supported by facts". That is true. It is supported by facts drawn from many different areas of science.

I realize it is necessary for you to denigrate science in any way you can in order to continue your fundamentalist beliefs.

I absolutely do NOT denigrate science. I have taken many science classes and have people in my family who work in science. And you know nothing about my beliefs. I simply stand by one statement. Theories may be based on facts but they are not facts themselves. Some people on here say that theories are facts. I disagree with them. There is nothing personal between you and me.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I didn't ask you to identify the first German word or to identify the first red wavelength on the color spectrum because I wanted you to figure out what it was. I was trying to get you to see the absurdity of believing there was any such thing as a "first" word or color in the hopes that you would see the absurdity of you referring to a "first" kangaroo.

You repeatedly going back to the concept of a "first" clearly shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the basics of evolution. You can learn a little or you can continue to remain willfully, woefully, ignorant of the subject. It's your choice.

Yes I may learn a little about science but I am not sure you can learn about logic. It is logically impossible for there to be a second or third of something if there was no first. If you insist that there was no first kangaroo then logic says there are no kangaroos today. They must all still be transitional species on the way to becoming kangaroos. Take a break from science and read a book on logic.

 

[ecco]

And you continue to miss my point. Science does NOT say evolution "could have" occured the way they describe it. Science says it is a FACT.

Evolution is accepted as a fact by the scientific community.

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia

• Richard Lewontin wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is fact, not theory."[36]
• Douglas J. Futuyma writes in Evolutionary Biology (1998), "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."[6]
• Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."[37]
• Neil Campbell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook, "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."[38]

It is critical to understand the last sentence: it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."

Your "could haves" refer to some of the finer details, not to the overarching subject.

How about you? Do you say evolution is a FACT? Or do you say it "could have" occured a certain way?

Two different questions, two answers. Evolution is a fact. Some of the finer details of the hows could have come about one way or could have come about another way.

It is a THEORT and MAY be true but it is not an exact fact. As new evidence is found, the theory may change.

All of the "new evidence" that has been found since Darwin just provides more support for Evolution. That has not changed and will to change unless God comes down and says "Hah, I fooled you all by burying phony bones in phony rock sediments".

But facts do not change. If that is too hard to see then maybe it is time for more Sesame Street.

More children learned more facts about nature from Sesame street than they ever learned from the myths taught in Sunday school.

 

[ecco]

I have taken many science classes and have people in my family who work in science.

That is a pointless comment. You believe in those aspects of science that do not disagree with your religious views. Those that do compete with your religious views cause you to find any straws to grasp on to.

And you know nothing about my beliefs.

From your comments I would come to a conclusion that you have a fundamentalist belief in Genesis. Am I wrong?

Theories may be based on facts but they are not facts themselves. Some people on here say that theories are facts. I disagree with them.

You disagree with them only insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned. I have not seen you make similar arguments for other scientific conjectures.

 

[ecco]

Yes I may learn a little about science but I am not sure you can learn about logic. It is logically impossible for there to be a second or third of something if there was no first. If you insist that there was no first kangaroo then logic says there are no kangaroos today. They must all still be transitional species on the way to becoming kangaroos. Take a break from science and read a book on logic.

You really do not realize how ridiculous you sound. You really do not understand how nonsensical your comments about first and second kangaroos are. Concepts like First Kangaroo and Second Kangaroo are not supported by evolution. You are asking me to make logical sense out of your nonsensical understanding of evolution.

Your understanding of evolution is completely wrong and completely irrational. It is impossible to apply logic to irrational concepts.

 

[McBell]

You disagree with them only insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned. I have not seen you make similar arguments for other scientific conjectures.

"I don't like the theory of gravity, I feel personally insulted that engineers design structures only considering physical mass. What about our souls? I propose that science classes also teach the theory of 'Intelligent Grappling'. There's no way a weak force such as gravity can possibly hold everything onto the planet. It must be God, using our souls, to hold everything together."
​

Jeff Stubbs ~ June 2002​

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You really do not realize how ridiculous you sound. You really do not understand how nonsensical your comments about first and second kangaroos are. Concepts like First Kangaroo and Second Kangaroo are not supported by evolution. You are asking me to make logical sense out of your nonsensical understanding of evolution.

Your understanding of evolution is completely wrong and completely irrational. It is impossible to apply logic to irrational concepts.

Since you do not see the point I will have to end by saying that you cannot have a second wife if you did bot have a first. Your wife cannot have a second baby if she did not have a first. At some point in history there was no animal called a kangaroo. The next day there was such an animal. Science may not be able to show exactly when or where or how this happened. But if it did not happen then there are no kangaroos today. I do NOT say evolution has never happened. But I say you have to have deviding lines somewhere. Every species cannot be a transitional species. There has to be a line somewhere. Whether you believe it or not, somewhere back millions of years ago there was a baby animal that could be called a kangaroo. And it was the first one. And since most fundamentalist religions believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, I would not describe my beliefs as fundamentalist. Maybe we will meet again on another topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you do not see the point I will have to end by saying that you cannot have a second wife if you did bot have a first. Your wife cannot have a second baby if she did not have a first. At some point in history there was no animal called a kangaroo. The next day there was such an animal. Science may not be able to show exactly when or where or how this happened. But if it did not happen then there are no kangaroos today. I do NOT say evolution has never happened. But I say you have to have deviding lines somewhere. Every species cannot be a transitional species. There has to be a line somewhere. Whether you believe it or not, somewhere back millions of years ago there was a baby animal that could be called a kangaroo. And it was the first one. And since most fundamentalist religions believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, I would not describe my beliefs as fundamentalist. Maybe we will meet again on another topic.

You are making a common creationist mistake. It looks like you are assuming that the kangaroo was a goal. It is not it is just a result. Kangaroo is our label for the current group. If you go back in time it will be the same group but it may not be what a modern person calls a "kangaroo". Then as you go back even more you will come to the point where what are two very different groups today split. I do not know enough of kangaroo evolution to say what current genera are their closest relatives, but what would you call the common ancestor of a wombat and a kangaroo? Clearly not either present name would apply to that species. Now move forward again. The group that became kangaroos would become more and more similar to today's kangaroo. There is no hard line. What one scientist calls a kangaroo will not be the same as what another one does.

One cannot think in terms of present day species, one can only think in terms of populations.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You are making a common creationist mistake. It looks like you are assuming that the kangaroo was a goal. It is not it is just a result. Kangaroo is our label for the current group. If you go back in time it will be the same group but it may not be what a modern person calls a "kangaroo". Then as you go back even more you will come to the point where what are two very different groups today split. I do not know enough of kangaroo evolution to say what current genera are their closest relatives, but what would you call the common ancestor of a wombat and a kangaroo? Clearly not either present name would apply to that species. Now move forward again. The group that became kangaroos would become more and more similar to today's kangaroo. There is no hard line. What one scientist calls a kangaroo will not be the same as what another one does.

One cannot think in terms of present day species, one can only think in terms of populations.

I find it very interesting that you say what one scientisr might call a kangaroo might not be called that by another scientist. To me this is saying that scientists do not know everything. Most of them seem to think they have all the answers. And it still must be true that somewhere sometime somehow there was an animal born that some scientist would call a kangaroo. And it would have been the first one. No one may be able to say exactly when or where it was but it had to have happened. Yes it may have been part of some "population" but it was still an indivual animal

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You know what's the most amazing thing about atheists..
Is how Atheists beat themselves up and argue over a God they don't believe in..
Atheists will say that they don't believe in God.
But yet Atheists will argue, will come up with all sorts of things trying to disprove a God they don't believe in.

I've already answered this post (which was ignored), but I have more to say.

It might surprise you to learn that atheists, and other so-called "free thinkers" and skeptics, are actually interested in truth. We don't like being lied to, and we don't like being told that we should believe anything at all without some reason provided for why we should -- except the usual reasons given of supernatural reward and punishment, neither of which is evidenced, either.

We are not afraid to go into churches and mosques and temples. We aren't afraid to listen to sermons, or hear hymns sung, or what people praying.

One of the reasons that we are here is quite simple really: we are very open minded, and we are really interested in truth, so if there is a truth we're not aware of, we're quite ready to listen to the arguments and change our thinking based on how well those arguments support the supposed truth. And if any Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jain or other theist could offer a convincing argument for the truth of their religion, we would be all ears. And if it proved true -- we would be forced, by our own love of truth, to change our views.

And we are not afraid of that, either.

Go ahead -- ask that question of any other atheist on the Forum, and see what they say! Start a thread of your own, if you'd like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it very interesting that you say what one scientisr might call a kangaroo might not be called that by another scientist. To me this is saying that scientists do not know everything. Most of them seem to think they have all the answers. And it still must be true that somewhere sometime somehow there was an animal born that some scientist would call a kangaroo. And it would have been the first one. No one may be able to say exactly when or where it was but it had to have happened. Yes it may have been part of some "population" but it was still an indivual animal

It only seems that way to you since you probably have none of the answers. Why wouldn't you expect professionals that have studied a concept far more than you have, far more intensely than you have and far more thoroughly than you have to understand it better than you have?

And individual animals do not evolve. Populations do. There is no "first kangaroo". Scientists could never agree on that. There was no single mutation that made that population "kangaroos". It was the accumulation of new traits over millennia. The changes in one individual do not amount to a hill of beans in the overall story.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And individual animals do not evolve. Populations do. There is no "first kangaroo".

^^^^^^^^^
This

Everybody --- read that sentence again 5 times, and really try to understand it! It says all you need to know to escape the nonsense so often tossed around on the subject of evolution.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

^^^^^^^^^
This

Everybody --- read that sentence again 5 times, and really try to understand it! It says all you need to know to escape the nonsense so often tossed around on the subject of evolution.

I have read it 10 times and that still does not make it true. Somewhere in history there was an animal that could be called a kangaroo and it was the first one that could be called that. It does not matter how many times you deny it. I am not saying science can point a finger at it or give it a name or say exactly when it happened. Some animal somewhere some time was the first that could be called a kangaroo. If science cannot see that then nothing anyone can say will change their minds or the facts. I am NOT denying science and I am NOT denying evolution. Animals do change and evolve. But there had to be a first. Look at another example. The automobile has evolved over the past hundred s or so years. There were horse drawn wagons. There were wagons with motors. There were vehicles with no doors or no windows. But at some point there was one that could be called an automobile. Using your logic you would say there was no first automobile because it was evolving and changing. But there was a first vehicle that could be called an automobile and there was a first animal that could bee called a kangaroo. You may not be able to name it or say when it was built but do you really think there was no first automobile? The same logic applies to animals.And yes there was a first human and I am not saying it was Adam. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read it 10 times and that still does not make it true. Somewhere in history there was an animal that could be called a kangaroo and it was the first one that could be called that. It does not matter how many times you deny it. I am not saying science can point a finger at it or give it a name or say exactly when it happened. Some animal somewhere some time was the first that could be called a kangaroo. If science cannot see that then nothing anyone can say will change their minds or the facts. I am NOT denying science and I am NOT denying evolution. Animals do change and evolve. But there had to be a first. Look at another example. The automobile has evolved over the past hundred s or so years. There were horse drawn wagons. There were wagons with motors. There were vehicles with no doors or no windows. But at some point there was one that could be called an automobile. Using your logic you would say there was no first automobile because it was evolving and changing. But there was a first vehicle that could be called an automobile and there was a first animal that could bee called a kangaroo. You may not be able to name it or say when it was built but do you really think there was no first automobile? The same logic applies to animals.And yes there was a first human and I am not saying it was Adam. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Again, no. The differences would be small. There can be no agreed on metric exactly when an animal is called a "kangaroo".

Now an unreasonable scientist may develop his own metric but that would at best mean that there was a first "kangaroo" for him. And since no one could ever point out that critter it for all practical purposes did not exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have read it 10 times and that still does not make it true. Somewhere in history there was an animal that could be called a kangaroo and it was the first one that could be called that. It does not matter how many times you deny it. I am not saying science can point a finger at it or give it a name or say exactly when it happened. Some animal somewhere some time was the first that could be called a kangaroo. If science cannot see that then nothing anyone can say will change their minds or the facts. I am NOT denying science and I am NOT denying evolution. Animals do change and evolve. But there had to be a first. Look at another example. The automobile has evolved over the past hundred s or so years. There were horse drawn wagons. There were wagons with motors. There were vehicles with no doors or no windows. But at some point there was one that could be called an automobile. Using your logic you would say there was no first automobile because it was evolving and changing. But there was a first vehicle that could be called an automobile and there was a first animal that could bee called a kangaroo. You may not be able to name it or say when it was built but do you really think there was no first automobile? The same logic applies to animals.And yes there was a first human and I am not saying it was Adam. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Okay. Every single pixel on the attached diagram is a slightly different colour. Please point out which one is the very first -- and the only first -- red one.

 

[Heyo]

We needn't disprove God. The writings in the Bible are enough to disprove God.

Nope.

Example: Your God flooded the entire world, covering the highest mountains. According to your Bible, this happened about 4000 years ago. That is demonstrably wrong.

Yep. Which makes the Bible wrong. Which makes the Bible worthless for proving or disproving god.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I've already answered this post (which was ignored), but I have more to say.

It might surprise you to learn that atheists, and other so-called "free thinkers" and skeptics, are actually interested in truth. We don't like being lied to, and we don't like being told that we should believe anything at all without some reason provided for why we should -- except the usual reasons given of supernatural reward and punishment, neither of which is evidenced, either.

We are not afraid to go into churches and mosques and temples. We aren't afraid to listen to sermons, or hear hymns sung, or what people praying.

One of the reasons that we are here is quite simple really: we are very open minded, and we are really interested in truth, so if there is a truth we're not aware of, we're quite ready to listen to the arguments and change our thinking based on how well those arguments support the supposed truth. And if any Christian, Muslim, Jew, Jain or other theist could offer a convincing argument for the truth of their religion, we would be all ears. And if it proved true -- we would be forced, by our own love of truth, to change our views.

And we are not afraid of that, either.

Go ahead -- ask that question of any other atheist on the Forum, and see what they say! Start a thread of your own, if you'd like.

It might surprise you...
That there are two kinds of Christians in the world..
As there are two kinds of Jews in the world..
Now the question is?
Have you any clue or idea which is which..
Most likely you have no clue or idea..

As for my source of information and truth as a Christian comes from the bible.
And not what some pastor,preacher will say..as there are many false pastors and preachers in the world...
That will take God's word and twist into what they want to say...

As for those men that wrote the bible scriptures.
Those men were specially chosen by God way before this world ever came into existence.

Those men were chosen by God back in the first earth age...way before this earth age came into existence.
Of course you wouldn't know that..like those Christians listen to man's teachings and doctrines in the churches.
Not realizing that their being deceived.
By these false teaching of man's teachings and doctrines in the churches..
And then what you have is these people who set there listing to these false teaching of man's teachings and doctrines in the churches goes out deceiving other people all the while being deceived themselves by these false teaching of man's teachings and doctrines in the churches..

So when you say that go into a church and listen to the sermons..I can only guess that you have no clue or idea that you can not tell the truth from the lies that these so called pastors, preachers speak.
Therefore your being deceived and don't even know it.
Look even Jesus Christ said himself in Matthew 24:5--" For many shall come in my name saying I am Christ and shall deceive many"
Who else besides Christians professes to come in the name of Christ????
.so what you have is many false Christians professing to come in the name of Christ and shall deceive many people by their false teachings.
Christ = Christian.
Christian = Christ.

This one those reason why Jesus Christ condemns man's teachings and doctrines in the churches in
Matthew 15:7-9,
7--"You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"

There you have Jesus Christ himself condemning man's teachings and doctrines in the churches.

Is it any wonder why God's judgement will come against those churches who teach falsehoods and fables.
As written in
1 John 4:17--"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

There you have the judgement of God's coming against his own house all because of people being deceived by man's teachings and doctrines in the churches.

 

[kiwimac]

Let me ask a question. Has "science" ever seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal? Or a non-dog dog style animal? Oh, second question. This very first real kangaroo was the only one of its kind so how did it reproduce to make more kangaroos? A dog cannot mate with a cat and a horse cannot mate with a cow so it would seem that a kangaroo could not mate with a non-kangaroo.

The kangaroo, a beloved national symbol of Australia, may in fact be an ancient interloper. A study published Tuesday in the online journal PLoS Biology suggests that Australian marsupials — kangaroos, wallabies, Tasmanian devils and more — evolved from a common South American marsupial ancestor millions of years ago.

Source