Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[Gabfly1]

Quote from seneca_roman:

Their argument is that there is a lack of transitional fossils; standard fare for creationists.

The reality is science has based its study of evolution on genetics NOT FOSSILS for the past 50 years or so. Therefore, if there were no fossils, the theory of evolution would still conclude common descent based on genes not old rocks.

Seneca

Going further, paleontologists often argue about whether a fossil belongs to either one ordinal category or another on the evolutionary scale. I cannot think of better examples of transitionals or intermediates. In any event, Dawkins speaks of intermediates at length. Here is a small sampling:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o92x6AvxCFg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o92x6AvxCFg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

Evolution is a scientifically demonstrated fact, as much as any empirically observed phenomenon can be. Just read up any basic book on the subject, the evidence from the fossil record is virtually incontrovertible - species that we used to know nothing about, were predicted by the basic tenets of the theory of evolution, and over the next 100+ years, countless archeological finds confirmed pretty much exactly what evolutionary theory would predict. Just as Newtons laws predict the trajectory of a ball thrown up in the air, so evolution predicted various types of animal development, which were later confirmed time and again by the fossil record.

You are going to have to think a little deeper next time. Lets use your "ball" analogy to totally destroy your argument. First, I'm going to play along with you and pretend that what you just said is the truth, so we at least have a basis to start with even though I dont believe evolutionists predicted anything or that evolution is a scientifically demostrated fact (since nobody has been around for 100 million years to observe it) But lets get started....

So lets say I throw a ball. You use some quick trigonometry(we will make you as smart as rainman for that quick calculation) and you tell me exactly where the ball will land, how many times it will bounce and where it will stop. Pretty impressive. But you assume the beginning of the calcuation was when I actually let go of the ball. You can never calculate which direction I will throw it before I throw it. You dont even know which color ball I will throw before I throw it. You can only calculate the trajectory.

See thats the mistake evolutionists do. They do all these calculations but never follow through to the end (or the beginning) Don't feel bad though...smarter people than you have been mistaken as well.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

It's more than obvious by now, especially perhaps from that post, how incapable you are of understanding the most basic facts whenever you think they clash with your preconceived religious belief.

You think scientists are going to suggest that the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen to make water is chance? It's a chemical reaction which results in an inevitable chemical substance forming called water .
Nothing to do with chance.

So why would scientists say that when fundamental chemical processes interact between and within inorganic matter as they can, will, and do, resulting in the production of the building blocks of life, it could be anything to do with chance, any more than water is to do with chance?

And just wtf has Frankenstein got to do with any of this you crack pot?. Honestly that's so completely off the page it would be hilarious if you weren't so pathetic.

Is your argument now to be - the building blocks of life are not what makes things alive?
Don't you really understand how vacuous a remark that is?

How do you think making desperately absurd statements like that in any way supports your ideas of a God exactly?

its clear how incapable you are of admitting you are wrong.

when you produce proof of abiogensis... or admit you can not - perhaps you will be worth a substantive response.

Remember, I have no problems if evolution is true, even all the way back to the primordial goo.

I am just pointing out current scientific understanding differs from your zealous arguments.

 

[Gabfly1]

Nietzsche: The most fundamental form of human stupidity is forgetting what we were trying to do in the first place.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

its clear how incapable you are of admitting you are wrong.

when you produce proof of abiogensis... or admit you can not - perhaps you will be worth a substantive response.

Remember, I have no problems if evolution is true, even all the way back to the primordial goo.

I am just pointing out current scientific understanding differs from your zealous arguments.

I don't need to provide proof of abiogenesis, so why do you keep demanding it?

The science which shows how the critical molecules for life can and do occur from inorganic material is proven.

You can skirt dodge and deny all you want, but it won't change the fact.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

I don't need to provide proof of abiogenesis, so why do you keep demanding it?

The science which shows how the critical molecules for life can and do occur from inorganic material is proven.

You can skirt dodge and deny all you want, but it won't change the fact.

I have not engaged you on your silly parse the definition and change the subject ploy.

do you have proof of abiogensis? yes or no.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I have not engaged you on your silly parse the definition and change the subject ploy.

do you have proof of abiogensis? yes or no.

You haven't engaged because you can't. Your religon keeps getting in the way of the science.

Is it understood and proven the critical components for biological life can and are formed from inorganic material? Yes.

Is every step of the process understood and proven? no.

What you're trying too hard to do is make the answer to the first, the same as the answer to the second. But you can't succeed.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

They're a creationist's organization.

Where does it say that? I didn't notice it.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You haven't engaged because you can't. Your religon keeps getting in the way of the science.

Is it understood and proven the critical components for biological life can and are formed from inorganic material? Yes.

Is every step of the process understood and proven? no.

What you're trying too hard to do is make the answer to the first, the same as the answer to the second. But you can't succeed.

My religion does not get in the way of the science... your zealous atheism does.

I do not see evolution as being inconsistent with the bible. I told you before time is relative and probably an illusion.

so once again to be clear... do you now deny you have proof of abiogenesis?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

My religion does not get in the way of the science... your zealous atheism does.

I do no see evolution as being inconsistent with the bible. I told you before time is relative and probably an illusion.

so once again to be clear... do you now deny you have proof of abiogenesis?

You have your answer. Why don't you stop trolling around.