The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[Valjean]

We did not evolve from apes in order to die. When you see that, you see that man was initially meant to live forever. And will be again.

Well, that's the story, and I'm sure it's comforting to some. But there's no actual evidenc supporting this. It's all folklore.

Do you not see a problem with this line of reasoning?

The problem is: it's not 'reasoning'.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, but rather, mutations brought on by environmental conditions. If there is a cause then there is nothing random about them

chuckle. But what about animals left out in the cold? How come they haven't invented clothing for themselves yet? On the other hand, some animals instinctively hibernate. In fact, they MUST do these things to stay alive. Hu

Well, that's the story, and I'm sure it's comforting to some. But there's no actual evidenc supporting this. It's all folklore.
The problem is: it's not 'reasoning'.

It is said we evolved from apes. I no longer accept that as true. And so far no one can prove to me that we evolved from apes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

chuckle. But what about animals left out in the cold? How come they haven't invented clothing for themselves yet? On the other hand, some animals instinctively hibernate. In fact, they MUST do these things to stay alive. Hu

It is said we evolved from apes. I no longer accept that as true. And so far no one can prove to me that we evolved from apes.

I would be glad to go over the evidence, but first we need to discuss what is and what is not evidence. I already linked this in one thread, but Scientific Evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Does that sound reasonable to you? It is designed to keep people from denying evidence when it is obvious that it supports a theory.

 

[Jumi]

Those religions accept many things that are unscriptural.

The traditional and common types of Christianity are indeed not sola scriptura. It is a quite small minority that say they try to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, that's the story, and I'm sure it's comforting to some. But there's no actual evidenc supporting this. It's all folklore.
The problem is: it's not 'reasoning'.

What's not reasoning?

 

[YoursTrue]

I would be glad to go over the evidence, but first we need to discuss what is and what is not evidence. I already linked this in one thread, but Scientific Evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Does that sound reasonable to you? It is designed to keep people from denying evidence when it is obvious that it supports a theory.

Yes, it sounds like a proper description. I would not venture to say reasonable, because that would indicate some sort of agreement. Proper or accurate description of the situation is better. However -- the evidence is not such that proves evolution. It proves that there are fossils of sorts, and it proves that some skulls unearthed look different or similar to those found in humans today. It does not in any way prove microevolution. It could prove that some types with skulls different than ours were wiped out, died from disease or other circumstances. It does not prove evolution. DNA also does not prove evolution. It can prove that similar elements in the form of minerals and dna are in different forms of animal and human beings. It can prove that God used similar elements to make various kinds as a hypothesis, which by this point is more likely as far as I am concerned, than evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

The traditional and common types of Christianity are indeed not sola scriptura. It is a quite small minority that say they try to be.

Sola scriptura has its own differing folds among those who claim sola scriptura. Again does not prove scripture wrong. But requires prayer and an honest heart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it sounds like a proper description. I would not venture to say reasonable, because that would indicate some sort of agreement. Proper or accurate description of the situation is better. However -- the evidence is not such that proves evolution. It proves that there are fossils of sorts, and it proves that some skulls unearthed look different or similar to those found in humans today. It does not in any way prove microevolution. It could prove that some types with skulls different than ours were wiped out, died from disease or other circumstances. It does not prove evolution. DNA also does not prove evolution. It can prove that similar elements in the form of minerals and dna are in different forms of animal and human beings. It can prove that God used similar elements to make various kinds as a hypothesis, which by this point is more likely as far as I am concerned, than evolution.

Nothing is "proven" in the sciences. Either an idea is well supported or it is not. For example if you accept gravity then by the same standards you definitely should accept evolution. And one extremely important point, while there are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution there is no evidence at all (at least scientific evidence) for creationism. That is why evolution is taught in schools and creationism is not. One idea is supported by evidence one idea is not.

EDIT: And just to show that I did not make up this definition and to give a better version of it:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

What you are (perhaps unwittingly) doing is proving the theory of evolution a big con, and not a good one.

The delusion is strong in you my young padawan

I have provided several examples of observed evolution from Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus to loxodonta. And what have you done??? Stomp your foot

 

[ChristineM]

Nope it ain't. And it ain't true either.

Still stomping your foot.

 

[ChristineM]

As I said, there is a quantum leap (not microsteps) between the brains and thinking ability of ape-apes and those you call human apes. With literally (and I mean literally) NOTHING in between proving or showing or even indicating that their brains evolved to the point of realizing they need clothes, possibly eyeglasses if their vision isn't too good, to cope with the "environment."

Since ChristineM clearly likes to play word games, it's not easy to know in advance where the deflection will go.

Why do you repeatedly insist that i call humans human apes? This is a lie meant to discredited and fails. I call humans humans. That humans are apes is given by fact, only those with woolly godbot thinking seem to think this is derogatory.

Yes the step in intelligence is small between non-tool use and tool use.
Do you actually know the meaning of quantum?

And since you obviously have no idea what words mean i suggest that if you want to gripe about me that you are big enough to confront me and not weasel others.

 

[ChristineM]

chuckle. But what about animals left out in the cold? How come they haven't invented clothing for themselves yet? On the other hand, some animals instinctively hibernate. In fact, they MUST do these things to stay alive. Hu

It is said we evolved from apes. I no longer accept that as true. And so far no one can prove to me that we evolved from apes.

Ever seen the fur coat on a polar bear?

And humans in tropical/sub tropical climes, i.e. where they evolved, do not need clothes. So is your gripe really that humans migrated?

Proof?

Transitional fossils,(oh i know you say they dont exist, see my avatar for what you say doesnt exist) that's just denial of evidence.

Human behaviour.

The Coccyx, look it up

And of course the biggie, the one that cannot be denied by anyone, genetics

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ever seen the fur coat on a polar bear?

And humans in tropical/sub tropical climes, i.e. where they evolved, do not need clothes. So is your gripe really that humans migrated?

Proof?

Transitional fossils,(oh i know you say they dont exist, see my avatar for what you say doesnt exist) that's just denial of evidence.

Human behaviour.

The Coccyx, look it up

And of course the biggie, the one that cannot be denied by anyone, genetics

Genetics is the easiest evidence for the uneducated to deny since they have no understanding of it at all. In reality as you pointed out it is the strongest evidence for evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

Genetics is the easiest evidence for the uneducated to deny since they have no understanding of it at all. In reality as you pointed out it is the strongest evidence for evolution.

And unlike anti evolutionists, it does not and cannot lie

 

[Valjean]

chuckle. But what about animals left out in the cold? How come they haven't invented clothing for themselves yet? On the other hand, some animals instinctively hibernate. In fact, they MUST do these things to stay alive.

I don't understand how you interpret our particular constellation of evolved traits as evidence for some transcendental purpose or divine plan. They're evolved traits like any other evolved traits.

Different apes evolved in different directions and developed different traits, just as different cats or finches did. We traded short term memory and tree climbing abilities for fine motor co-ordination and abstract communication.

Cold? Many animals thrive in cold climes. They adapted naturally and don't need clothing.
Humans had to use their fine-motor skills to fashion sartorial crutches to cope with cold, and many, who stayed in or migrated to tropical regions, never did adopt clothing.

It is said we evolved from apes. I no longer accept that as true. And so far no one can prove to me that we evolved from apes.

Why did you originally believe it? Why did you change your mind?
I suspect you never did understand the evidence and reasoning that led those who really understand the ToE to regard humans as just another primate. I suspect you're still unaware of the evidence and mechanisms involved.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is said we evolved from apes. I no longer accept that as true. And so far no one can prove to me that we evolved from apes.

Humans are apes.

Here's a shedload of (genetic) evidence for common ancestry and our relationship with other apes: Genesis and the Genome (pdf).

 

[Valjean]

Yes, it sounds like a proper description. I would not venture to say reasonable, because that would indicate some sort of agreement. Proper or accurate description of the situation is better. However -- the evidence is not such that proves evolution. It proves that there are fossils of sorts, and it proves that some skulls unearthed look different or similar to those found in humans today. It does not in any way prove microevolution. It could prove that some types with skulls different than ours were wiped out, died from disease or other circumstances. It does not prove evolution. DNA also does not prove evolution. It can prove that similar elements in the form of minerals and dna are in different forms of animal and human beings. It can prove that God used similar elements to make various kinds as a hypothesis, which by this point is more likely as far as I am concerned, than evolution.

Sharikind, you don't know how to think. You don't understand science, evidence or critical analysis. Until you can master these skills I'm afraid you'll never be able to understand our reasoning.

Muffled said: ↑
I believe I don't know that evolution is proven beyond doubt. I don't even have a clue how one could think that could happen.

You say you'll never be able to understand what you should have been taught in high school. Why is that? Is it that complicated, or do you just not want to understand what clashes with your familiar world-view?

You admit you're completely ignorant of even the essentials of the subject, yet you hold a strong opinion about it. Bizarre.

How about the germ theory of disease, the proposition that Earth is round or that it revolves around the Sun? These are not proven either.
If you believe them, why? Are you aware of, and do you actually understand the supporting evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

So you are saying that based upon how you are reasoning this, all the scientists of the world are wrong, because this particular thought of yours is true? It doesn't make sense to you in how you reason things, so therefore science is not credible. Correct?

Do you not see a problem with this line of reasoning?


We do live forever. No one says it has to be in this physical body. Not even the Apostle Paul believed that and so did Jesus. "A grain of wheat does not sprout unless it falls to the ground and dies".

So... I guess you can accept the science now that you see your error? Or do you need more convincing before you can believe science? But once you're convinced, than the science can be accepted, and they were right after all, and it was just you not willing to believe them, since science is really nothing more than a matter of faith. Correct?

And exactly how do we all live forever, as you say it?
Science, in the analytical actual sense of seeing what is there, is not a matter of faith. Unless you think it's a matter of faith to see something through a microscope that might not be seen with the naked eye. If a scientist says there are so many chromosomes in a structure, I accept that he is right without my seeing it myself. I hardly call that faith, because I believe he has seen it and I don't have to see it myself. But if he says that we are gorillas because we have a chromosomal structure quite like gorillas, then I don't accept that as a matter of faith in his assumption.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sharikind, you don't know how to think. You don't understand science, evidence or critical analysis. Until you can master these skills I'm afraid you'll never be able to understand our reasoning.
You say you'll never be able to understand what you should have been taught in high school. Why is that? Is it that complicated, or do you just not want to understand what clashes with your familiar world-view?

You admit you're completely ignorant of even the essentials of the subject, yet you hold a strong opinion about it. Bizarre.

How about the germ theory of disease, the proposition that Earth is round or that it revolves around the Sun? These are not proven either.
If you believe them, why? Are you aware of, and do you actually understand the supporting evidence?

LOL, ok. I'm not going to investigate these things in a larger sense to prove you wrong, it frankly isn't worth my time. And all you are doing is spouting words -- no "proof" with explanation and logical analysis. Some things make more sense than others, without being seen. Such as: what you call the "germ theory." Earth being round (although seen from outer space), and revolving around the sun -- but it's an interesting thought you bring up. Maybe you question whether the earth turns around also. Maybe someone just pulls down a shade at a certain point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And exactly how do we all live forever, as you say it?
Science, in the analytical actual sense of seeing what is there, is not a matter of faith. Unless you think it's a matter of faith to see something through a microscope that might not be seen with the naked eye. If a scientist says there are so many chromosomes in a structure, I accept that he is right without my seeing it myself. I hardly call that faith, because I believe he has seen it and I don't have to see it myself. But if he says that we are gorillas because we have a chromosomal structure quite like gorillas, then I don't accept that as a matter of faith in his assumption.

A scientist would never say that we are gorillas. They are a different species of ape than we are. And scientists are not allowed to make assumptions in the manner that you just accused them of..

Tell me, what assumptions do scientists make and what is your evidence for that accusation?