Evolution is Bunked!

[acehighinfinity]

No real scientific evidence or whatsoever.

Maybe that's why your thoughts come from an ape-type?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

'Well, maybe you are come from an ape, and maybe I am come from an ape, but General Lee, he didn't come from no ape... �

The Killer Angels

I have no trouble having my ancestors descended from apes. In fact, I see it more in some than others. The visceral emotional rejection of this plain truth demonstrates plainly to me, some of us have evolved better, more mature frontal lobes than others.

Those who observe the natural world as the logical best source for truth, vice those who ascribe to a book written with no context shows this pretty plainly as well.

Tons of evidence, one book with no pedigree or references. A mature mind, an emotional one needing a loving Father figure.

What are you going to believe?

[Goat]

No real scientific evidence or whatsoever.

Maybe that's why your thoughts come from an ape-type?

Can you provide your source that shows there is 'no real scientifi evidence what soever?? ' How come there are so many scientific papers that describe evolutionary mechanism?

Perhaps lets start at a more simple level. Can you define what scientist means when the use the term 'evolution' (assuming you mean biological evolution)

First.. let's see if you know enough that you can explain the scientific definition of biological evolution.

[PghPanther]

No real scientific evidence or whatsoever.

Maybe that's why your thoughts come from an ape-type?

There are 10,000 labs worldwide and 3 million biologists.......on average there are about 100 papers a week on experimental results that end up confirming what we know about evolution through natural selection even though it is not the purpose of their research, those results still end up confirming it.

This has been going on for decades and not one of them.......not one has ever yielded results that have put in question the process of common ancestry through the process of natural selection. If this happened just once it could challenge the whole idea and result in those biologist who found such an anomaly up for a Nobel prize and lifetime tenure and job security...........even the temptation to fake or manipulate their results having a false reading of evolution is so strong yet it has never occurred because biologists know better that the truth would expose their manipulations.......

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

I have a hard time believing there is ZERO evidence; I have zero difficulty believing the evidence is far less substantial than boisterous proponents like Dawkins would like to lead us to believe. But zero evidence...?


However, the more I look into it, the less I understand it to be a science, placed beside physics. The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory. Evolution exists primarily as a theory attempting to explain not even phenomenon, but artifacts. In fact, evolution seems more a like a soft-science, very comparable to history. Historians look at data, and try to reconstruct a history based on that data. What distinguishes them from evolutionists?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Willum]

I have no trouble having my ancestors descended from apes. In fact, I see it more in some than others. The visceral emotional rejection of this plain truth demonstrates plainly to me, some of us have evolved better, more mature frontal lobes than others.

I don't see how your subjective comfort with an idea supports the fact of an idea. And to argue that only those who accept it are "more advanced" obviously assumes it. Indeed, if your belief in evolution is stronger than the evidence, this would only show that you are less advanced, and that skeptics are more.

Those who observe the natural world as the logical best source for truth, vice those who ascribe to a book written with no context shows this pretty plainly as well.

A book written with "no context"? Perhaps we have different meanings for "context". The contents of the any religious book (like any written thing) is written in space and time and therefore has a context. N.T. has 1st c. Roman Empire as its context.

Tons of evidence, one book with no pedigree or references. A mature mind, an emotional one needing a loving Father figure.

History of religion does not demonstrate that religious convictions began with a "need" for a loving father. Open up your O.T.

There are numerous Christians who came to belief not because they were lonely but because the historical evidence, aided by philosophical support, was very good. Some Christians did not even want there to be a god--Lewis hated the idea.

What are you going to believe?

For now I am going to believe that this post of yours is not an argument, but mud-slinging.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by liamconnor]

I can understand how you would feel that way, it is a perfectly normal defensive response when people are confronted with truth they are uncomfortable with.

However, don't blame the messenger, I may have been abrupt in response to the derisive OP, but what I've been saying is true.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 6 by liamconnor]


"There are numerous Christians who came to belief not because they were lonely but because the historical evidence, aided by philosophical support, was very good. Some Christians did not even want there to be a god--Lewis hated the idea. "

Howard Storm, Ebon Alexander, just a sample of atheists who according to
all sciences not only did not believe, they were highly intolerant of religion.

When ignorance gave way to actual experience of the reality itself
they quickly changed from ignorance to knowing.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

I have a hard time believing there is ZERO evidence; I have zero difficulty believing the evidence is far less substantial than boisterous proponents like Dawkins would like to lead us to believe. But zero evidence...?

There's no other way to take that comment than to realize you think there is some kind of conspiracy afoot. As someone who is just now getting around to taking a look at evolution, your beliefs on the matter aren't very informed or accurate, so your comments on its validity are dubious. Boisterous or not, Dawkins isn't telling you anything that you can't go and verify yourself. Universities and colleges, museums and libraries, did sites and creek beds. The information is out there for someone who's goal is to learn. I don't see that as being your goal however...

However, the more I look into it, the less I understand it to be a science, placed beside physics. The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory. Evolution exists primarily as a theory attempting to explain not even phenomenon, but artifacts. In fact, evolution seems more a like a soft-science, very comparable to history. Historians look at data, and try to reconstruct a history based on that data. What distinguishes them from evolutionists?

Evolution has happened in a lab. Evolution has been shown in the examination of genomes. Evolution has been shown in a study of the fossil record. The theory of evolution exists because it does explain the phenomena of the changes in life forms on earth.

History and science can often be similar. Both fields rely on data and empirical evidence. Science has to have it, sometimes history proceeds without it. But both historyists and evolutionists have one thing in common - the overwhelming majority don't consider supernatural myths as plausible explanations for anything...

[PghPanther]

No real scientific evidence or whatsoever.

Maybe that's why your thoughts come from an ape-type?

Well you comment deserves this one.........

The next time you go to take a dump look at all the hair on your body.......we are apes...........