Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

lol, are you qualified to have an informed opinion about someone else's opinion that you say is informed?

When that person proves that he is not informed, yes.

 

[Tiberius]

Meantime -- nothing proven -

Why should I bother trying to discuss science with someone who has no idea how it works.

First learn how science works.

Then we can discuss the merits and flaws of it.

 

[Tiberius]

nothing at all proves evolution. You can say yes it does, I can say no it doesn't, and it's your word against mine. And your opinion going with someone else's opinion.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand science.

But there is a huge amount of evidence supporting evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

Lol I can examine his statements and see for sure absolutely he has no idea. He may think he's right, as do you, but they don't even know the common denominator in chimps and humans. As if that means evolution.

What do you mean the common denominator. This is not mathematics it is biology. It is called a common ancestor and the human genome project when compared to chimpanzee genetic projects absolutely supports evolution theory. It agrees with what would be predicted when comparing to species that branched off from a common ancestor. So you need to learn some more about genetic before criticizing the amazing extensive evidence this project has given us in support of evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no evidence for mindless evolution.

Just repeating a falsehood will not make it true. There is copious evidence for the theory of evolution (which involves no mind). There are endless summaries of that evidence freely available.

Nobody, but nobody can prove otherwise.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why should I bother trying to discuss science with someone who has no idea how it works.

First learn how science works.

Then we can discuss the merits and flaws of it.

Of course. Don't present anything but your opinion of someone else's opinion. Sounds good.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just repeating a falsehood will not make it true. There is copious evidence for the theory of evolution (which involves no mind). There are endless summaries of that evidence freely available.



Argument from ignorance fallacy.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to substantiate the veracity of the opinion of mindless evolution. Nothing. Zilch. Just opinion of opinion upon opinion based on more opinion. And so it goes here as well.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to substantiate the veracity of the opinion of mindless evolution. Nothing. Zilch. Just opinion of opinion upon opinion based on more opinion. And so it goes here as well.

No matter how often you repeat this, it will remain false. The evidence is easily found by anybody who has any interest. It's fine to take a faith position that it didn't happen or required a mind despite the evidence, but just denying the evidence exists makes people look rather silly.

 

[YoursTrue]

No matter how often you repeat this, it will remain false. The evidence is easily found by anybody who has any interest. It's fine to take a faith position that it didn't happen or required a mind despite the evidence, but just denying the evidence exists makes people look rather silly.

I've discussed and examined this in full. There is no EVIDENCE of evolution. There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of -- evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no EVIDENCE of evolution. There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of -- evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

Looks rather as if you don't even understand the concept of evidence. DNA was unknown when the theory was first proposed and could easily have entirely falsified it if it were incorrect - now we could make the entire case from DNA alone.

Here's a small sample of evidence: Genesis and the Genome [pdf].

 

[Astrophile]

No. Just because DNA is related from animal to another species and then to humans simply does not mean that it is evidence for evolution.

Is there any observable fact that you would accept as evidence for evolution, and, if so, what would it be?

 

[YoursTrue]

Looks rather as if you don't even understand the concept of evidence. DNA was unknown when the theory was first proposed and could easily have entirely falsified it if it were incorrect - now we could make the entire case from DNA alone.

Here's a small sample of evidence: Genesis and the Genome [pdf].

lol, right. As in whatever...

 

[YoursTrue]

Is there any observable fact that you would accept as evidence for evolution, and, if so, what would it be?

Observable fact? As evidence of evolution? ?? In other words, huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observable fact? As evidence of evolution? ?? In other words, huh?

That's right. You do not understand the concept of evidence. Creationists cannot afford to have that knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, right. As in whatever...

See? I am not the only one that has noticed that you do not understand this concept. It is really rather easy:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course. Don't present anything but your opinion of someone else's opinion. Sounds good.

The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Tiberius]

I've discussed and examined this in full. There is no EVIDENCE of evolution. There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of -- evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

And when we compare how that DNA has changed over time, we get evidence for evolution.

Again - you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And when we compare how that DNA has changed over time, we get evidence for evolution.

Again - you have no idea what you are talking about.

Creationists have to keep themselves ignorant as a defense mechanism. She mentioned several sources of evidence, but because she keeps herself from knowing how they are evidence for evolution she can make obviously errant claims without openly lying.

 

[Bear Wild]

Observable fact? As evidence of evolution? ?? In other words, huh?

So unobservable evidence that requires blind faith represents more evidence than physical evidence we can see, measure and compare. In other words non-physical imaginary evidence is much more convincing than physical evidence we can touch, see, measure, compare in your opinion?

You evidence against evolution that is not just opinion is what?
I would love to compare your convincing evidence against evolution to compare it to the evidence supporting evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

lol, right. As in whatever...

Typical creationist reaction to solid examples of real evidence....