Evolution is a well founded theory, yet many people resist the idea. (Page 4)
Geoff: You don't have a sound position. You have your racism-based religious twaddle that even your fellow believers don't buy anymore.
You're a godbothering nutjob. You're a fossil. You're using the same arguments that inspired Jim Crow laws. You refuse to accept the evidence. The cognitive dissonance is spewing out with your every statement.
Quite frankly, I have neither the time nor the patience to try to help people like you. I am just grateful you'll all die sooner or later. I am just slightly sad that I don't believe that you'll find out the truth afterwards.
zeffur: God? I never mentioned God at all.
If you've got no proof, no credible evidence to defend your beliefs, & nothing else--why can't you just admit you've got nothing?? Is your pride & dishonesty really that advanced? Or, do you simply think typing nothing important ad nauseam will distract others from the FACT that you've got nothing??
p.s.: My position is perfectly sound. The fact that it sent you spiraling out of control to the point of attacking me is evidence of its soundness. Your pretending it isn't a sound position doesn't make it so--any more than your pretending that evolution is a scientific fact is so--which it definitely is not.
arnym: I do understand that the defining attribute of a species is the ability to interbreed. But I have difficulty imagining how, in that case, a new species comes to exist. It seems to require the simultaneous occurrence of at least one male & one female mutation, able to mate only with each other?
And there's this : "Anything can happen, but it usually doesn’t."
arnym: @zeffur; "My position is perfectly sound"
In the kind of language you might understand (quoting you back at yourself)
"shyte on your beloved position for being total caca"
zeffur: Arnym, is that supposed to mean you disagree with my statement 'They have NO, ZERO, ZILCH credible evidence or proof that ANY mutation has led to ANY speciation."?
Corwin: @ Zeffur - Where is your credible evidence of some kind of supernatural-being influencing the course of how life goes about its business on this planet?
I would like to see this evidence.
zeffur: Hello Corwin. Nice to see you.
When did I ever make that assertion? My non-scientific belief is in an alien God that brought life to earth--because I see no credible evidence that non life can 'evolve' into life via natural substances & forces and because it is very clear that 'evolution' is rubbish as a theory.
There is certainly lots of evidence that shows aliens have visited earth--not that you'd accept any of it. But, in my mind that's much more plausible than the caca that evolution promotes as 'fact'--which it apparently isn't.
Is God supernatural? Some people think so--I don't know--but, I suppose it is possible that God may be inter-dimensional & not affected by our space-time conditions.
arnym: To clarify re. the occurrence of new species. The fact that I have difficulty visualising how a thing could happen, does not mean I declare it impossible. But it strengthens any doubt I already experience.
zeffur: Science is about showing the truth--not about speculating & assuming & claiming things are true that aren't known to be true. Credible evidence & sound conclusions need to exist before we 'scientifically' state/claim B evolved from A.
Evolutionists claim it, but NEVER have a sound basis for their claims. Their claims are not testable & not verifiable & therefore not scientific--they are pseudo-scientific--that isn't science--it's intellectual fraud.
garrylawson3073: probably because they are scared to believe it and are to scared to use their brain , its easy to stay ignorant.
You keep working at it sunshine. Try the following:
and then once you master that, try here:
And, if you're feeling helpful, you might help out garrylawson3073, too!
Then hopefully you will actually comprehend what I've written earlier.
arnym: zeffur (sunshine) , there's a gap between 1) your ability to look up "scientific method" in wikipedia and 2) your use of the words "science" and "scientific" in appropriate context.
Look, sunshine, Haha that's a laugh; I know the meanings of the words you use (although you can't spell shite**) but understanding what logical meaning you think your statements convey? Only you can know that.
**Shyte, see: http://lnnk.in/e4t
zeffur: re: "arnym: ..there's a gap between 1) your ability to look up "scientific method" in wikipedia and 2) your use of the words "science" and "scientific" in appropriate context."
The only gap is between your ears. My usage is perfect.
arnym: "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone." (Thoreau)
I'd forgotten that for a bit.
zeffur: Aliens bringing life to earth doesn't mean that that life evolved at all on earth. Perhaps you assumed it did and that is the source of your confusion.
Evolution is rejected because it is total rubbish with no credible evidence and it is based on unfounded, biased naturalism dogma. Do a bit of research on the Piltdown man con that misled mankind for ~40 years. What you will find is that there are people who will do anything possible to try to con people that 'evolution' is true. Modern evolution con artists use comparative techniques that are totally subjective--not objective & testable as they should be when the scientific method is applied properly.
Today's evolution con is essentially the same tactics. They intentionally misread & misrepresent the available evidence to suit their belief system (naturalism & atheism). Conclusions are based on purported 'common ancestors' that they have ZERO credible evidence exist or even for those species that do offer fossils of, they have ZERO credible evidence that definitively shows such creatures are progenitors of modern man (as one example). They also make false DNA assertions to try to defend their false claims--which is ridiculous because many creatures have similar chromosomes & genes. Finding matching chromosomes & genes cannot prove descendancy as all life has similar dna components. DNA cannot be used to prove ancient fossils are the progenitors of modern mankind.
In addition, life brought to earth & created on earth by aliens (God/s) is consistent with the bible. There is also plenty of other evidence throughout human civilization that supports ETs have been to earth & have influenced humanity. Ignoring/Dismissing it doesn't mean it hasn't happen & that it doesn't continue to happen infrequently.
Read up on where Nicola Tesla got his ideas. There is plenty of information about alien influence that has been dismissed by people because they choose not to believe it. Their willful ignorance doesn't mean it isn't true. I believe it is far more plausible than the rubbish offered by 'evolution'. ymmv
Darth: No, I’m getting confused in what you’re saying because you’re not making any sense. You’re claiming that scientific evidence is not real yet provide no evidence to the contrary. Let me explain how a theoretical debate works. If you make an argument that is not widely accepted, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to disprove the facts. This is called research.
zeffur: No, you apparently confused yourself because you seemed to have lost focus on the point of this forum "Evolution is a well founded theory, yet many people resist the idea"
Evolution isn't a 'well founded theory'--that's just propaganda.
Evolution claims are also not 'facts' --they are subjective opinions/claims based on bad/false assumptions & misrepresented evidence.
I reject the ToE & 'evolution' because I consider it to be a completely unconvincing rubbish theory that is pseudo-scientific & a con job on humanity. The more people realize just how subjective & non-scientific evolution claims are, the more they realize just how unconvincing & worthless evolution is.
You further confuse yourself by thinking "You’re claiming that scientific evidence is not real yet provide no evidence to the contrary." I don't think the "evidence" "is not real' I think the subjective claims/conclusions that are offered by evolutionists are unconvincing subjective opinions & a misrepresentation of the evidence. Furthermore, I think there is NO credible evidence that natural procreation & mutations have EVER caused any speciation-level events to have ever occurred (there certainly aren't any convincing transitional fossils to substantiate such an assumption & claim). I further think there is no credible evidence that 'common ancestors' is a valid concept and their misuse of DNA matching is intellectual fraud that is designed to use the complexity of DNA as a way to deceive & distract people from their lack of credible evidence. The reason most people don't understand these things is because they never dig deep enough to understand how they've been hoodwinked by such con artist.
Don't think for a second that I have any obligation to defend my belief in aliens as a more plausible belief for the existence of life on earth--I don't have such an obligation. My rejection of the ToE & 'evolution' in general is clearly obvious to any honest rational person who considers 'all' the evidence, assumptions, & claims. People who aren't blind believers in naturalism & atheism don't have an allegiance to the unfounded claims/conclusions of 'evolution'.
You are free to believe whatever you wish.