GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum - Responding to some statements in your registration post...

FollowTheEvidence

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Seek Truth!

Posts: 3

Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm

Quote:

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that if this was true then many billions of one celled creatures must have started at the same time. There is no other plausibility. If the event happened once then it will continue to happen over and over, like earth quakes, lightening, floods, mudslides, and all the other real geological and scientific events. They all repeat over and over. Don't you know this?

ALL NATURAL EVENTS REPEAT OR THEY WOULD NOT BE NATURAL EVENTS.

First off, the current environment is not the same as the primordial environment. The mixture of chemicals, the temperature, etc, are no longer conducive for that initial process.

That being said, how do you know it isn't happening all over, right now? It's entirely possible that "seed" organisms are coming into existence all over... but are being destroyed due to competition with the highly advanced existing organisms.

Additionally, I disagree with the claim that natural events must repeat in order for them to be natural events. Was the formation of Earth's moon not a natural event, because it only happened once? Even then, maybe it's only happened once here on Earth, but there is no guarantee that it hasn't happened other times in other places in the universe. And even then, there is still no basis for you to claim that an event must reoccur for it to be considered natural.

Quote:

The HUGE GAPS in the fossil record...

... are irrelevant. The fossil record is supporting evidence, and every fossil we find fits the theory. Think about it - would it be reasonable to claim that, because your mother's photo album is missing a few pictures of you at certain stages of development, there is no connection between the photos of you as a baby and the man that exists now?

Quote:

Not one Evolutionist (Evodelusionist) can answer my extremely honest and to the point question about this theory of evolution.

Calling those that accept Evolution "Evodelusionists" betrays the non-neutrality of this forum. For the sake of honesty, you should stop claiming that the forum is neutral. It's all well and good to have a forum that invites scientific challenges to the Theory of Evolution, but to claim that it is neutral when it is blatantly anti-evolution is dishonest.

Quote:

The question again is; Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?

Asking for one single piece of evidence that proves evolution is ridiculous. You might as well ask for one piece of evidence that proves smoking causes cancer.

Quote:

These believers, will tell you that you don't need physical evidence, and that you can make it fit evolution "nicely".

But what is evolution "fitting" with? Answer: Every single piece of physical evidence known to exist.

Quote:

The latest thing they are teaching is that "you don't need the fossil record to back this". Can you possibly believe that statement? The reason they are rejecting the fossil record is because we have so many fossils now that show evolution has not happened.

"They" are not rejecting the fossil record. There is simply so much additional evidence now, due to advanced techniques such as genome sequencing, that the fossil record need not be relied upon as the primary evidence for evolution. And yes, I can believe it quite easily, because it is true.

Quote:

In science all the factors must concur (must point to the same thing) in order for you to even start a theory on something.

Yes, and all factors point to evolution, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory today.

Quote:

However, If you believe this idea that you can manipulate evidence and leave out the only physical evidence we have,

What physical evidence is being left out?

Quote:

In every premise they use, there are at least 10 other very plausible answers that do not have the word "evolution" in them.

That's a claim you'll have to back up. For example, explain the giraffe's neck? 10 "very plausible answers" please.

Quote:

There is so much conflicting evidence that anyone who spends a couple of weeks researching this will find it.

I've spent years researching, and I haven't found any conflicting evidence. Maybe you could point some out?

Back to top

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #1 - Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

The first thing that comes to mind for me is that if this was true then many billions of one celled creatures must have started at the same time. There is no other plausibility. If the event happened once then it will continue to happen over and over, like earth quakes, lightening, floods, mudslides, and all the other real geological and scientific events. They all repeat over and over. Don't you know this?

ALL NATURAL EVENTS REPEAT OR THEY WOULD NOT BE NATURAL EVENTS.

First off, the current environment is not the same as the primordial environment. The mixture of chemicals, the temperature, etc, are no longer conducive for that initial process.

That being said, how do you know it isn't happening all over, right now? It's entirely possible that "seed" organisms are coming into existence all over... but are being destroyed due to competition with the highly advanced existing organisms.

Additionally, I disagree with the claim that natural events must repeat in order for them to be natural events. Was the formation of Earth's moon not a natural event, because it only happened once? Even then, maybe it's only happened once here on Earth, but there is no guarantee that it hasn't happened other times in other places in the universe. And even then, there is still no basis for you to claim that an event must reoccur for it to be considered natural.

You arguments are ridiculous, because the world is far more conducive to life now than it has ever been. If that primordial soup was so difficult to occur, it is now much easier, by your own words.

I keep telling people that the conditions of matter from millions of years ago are not the same as now. Thus the radiometric dating system is utterly flawed. You have no clue about any time, date, or conditions that far in the past.

Evodelusionists are always making up fantasy scenarios to back up their religious nonsense.

On the one hand they use random to state that this random is the cause of evolution. Then they state there is no random when confronted with mathematics that disproves evolution as even a plausibility even in trillions of years.

Evodelusionists are confused and stupid.

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

The HUGE GAPS in the fossil record...

... are irrelevant. The fossil record is supporting evidence, and every fossil we find fits the theory. Think about it - would it be reasonable to claim that, because your mother's photo album is missing a few pictures of you at certain stages of development, there is no connection between the photos of you as a baby and the man that exists now?

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. And it is not original. You cannot fill in the gaps with faith and belief and call yourself a scientist.

If there is no evidence in the fossil record to back this moronic belief, then there is no evidence and you can't fill in the blanks with your religious nonsense.

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

Not one Evolutionist (Evodelusionist) can answer my extremely honest and to the point question about this theory of evolution.

Calling those that accept Evolution "Evodelusionists" betrays the non-neutrality of this forum. For the sake of honesty, you should stop claiming that the forum is neutral. It's all well and good to have a forum that invites scientific challenges to the Theory of Evolution, but to claim that it is neutral when it is blatantly anti-evolution is dishonest.

I have given all of you a chance to bring out your evidence, and the facts are in that you have no evidence. You have faith and belief and nothing else.

I have studied this for over 42 years and none of the evidence supports the beliefs. It is just not there.
This is why I keep trying to get you into reality and understand that opinions by believers is not evidence. It is religious slogans and garbage that sounds "reasonable", but like most flim flam artists there is no substance to the belief. [/quote]

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

The question again is; Where is your absolute evidence for evolution?

Asking for one single piece of evidence that proves evolution is ridiculous. You might as well ask for one piece of evidence that proves smoking causes cancer.

"evidence is plural and singular" When all the evidence is in, there is no evidence that show evolution as even a plausibility. That is a true statement. [/quote]

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

These believers, will tell you that you don't need physical evidence, and that you can make it fit evolution "nicely".

But what is evolution "fitting" with? Answer: Every single piece of physical evidence known to exist.

Every single piece of evidence combined only shows this: Creatures come into being, the remain the same for up to 125,000,000 years (the oldest we have found). Most are in the 25 to 70 million years of existence. They go extinct when they can no longer survive as the same creatures or they are still here in nearly the same morphology as the original fossils we have found.
Creatures only can adapt to a point. There is no programming for evolution. There is only programming for the creatures to survive as the same creatures. They adapt in order to survive when there is the ability to do so.

After the environment changes to a point where the foundational genetic structures can no longer survive it dies.

This is what we really know. All the rest is religious nonsense.

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

The latest thing they are teaching is that "you don't need the fossil record to back this". Can you possibly believe that statement? The reason they are rejecting the fossil record is because we have so many fossils now that show evolution has not happened.

"They" are not rejecting the fossil record. There is simply so much additional evidence now, due to advanced techniques such as genome sequencing, that the fossil record need not be relied upon as the primary evidence for evolution. And yes, I can believe it quite easily, because it is true.

What evidence are you talking about, because I have seen all of it and there is no evidence of any creature ever breaking the boundaries of their genetics.

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

In science all the factors must concur (must point to the same thing) in order for you to even start a theory on something.

Yes, and all factors point to evolution, otherwise it wouldn't be a theory today.

Where is your evidence? Where is it? Where is your evidence that proves evolution?

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

However, If you believe this idea that you can manipulate evidence and leave out the only physical evidence we have,

What physical evidence is being left out?

How about all the fossil evidence that is not shown in the classrooms, because it would discourage the belief? Maybe you need to get away from those Evotards and take a look at all the garbage they shoved under the table or used a bunch of belief rhetoric to "make it go away" so they can keep their f**king jobs.. [/quote]

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 7:54pm:

Quote:

In every premise they use, there are at least 10 other very plausible answers that do not have the word "evolution" in them.

That's a claim you'll have to back up. For example, explain the giraffe's neck? 10 "very plausible answers" please.

Quote:

There is so much conflicting evidence that anyone who spends a couple of weeks researching this will find it.

I've spent years researching, and I haven't found any conflicting evidence. Maybe you could point some out?

You have not "seen" any conflicting evidence because you have your head up your ass. In order to see what is right in front of your nose you have to get past your dumb ass beliefs in this religion of Evolutionism.

The giraffe's neck is from adapting to the food. It has never evolved into any other animal. It has the same genetics as the day it arrived. Once it can no longer eat it dies out. It did not come from some other genus.

You are really confused and have been manipulated into religious beliefs that are not based on any reason or sanity.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

FollowTheEvidence

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Seek Truth!

Posts: 3

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #2 - Mar 6^th, 2010 at 11:00am

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

You arguments are ridiculous, because the world is far more conducive to life now than it has ever been. If that primordial soup was so difficult to occur, it is now much easier, by your own words.

You misunderstand. There is a huge difference between the formation of organic life from non-life and the propagation of existing life. The formation of life from non-living chemicals requires a specific environment that is not present on earth today. Once that life did form, it modified the environment (by releasing oxygen), which enabled the propagation of more modern forms of life, while simultaneously destroying the environment that made its initial formation possible.

In other words, the world is far more conducive to modern forms of life, and far less conducive to the formation of primitive life from non-living chemicals.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

I keep telling people that the conditions of matter from millions of years ago are not the same as now. Thus the radiometric dating system is utterly flawed. You have no clue about any time, date, or conditions that far in the past.

Sorry, no. Scientists understand that they cannot know the exact conditions from millions or billions of years ago, which is why all radiometric dates include an error factor, calculated based on what we do know about that time range. For example, in C14 dating, we can use tree rings to reconstruct the carbon content of the atmosphere, and then use that carbon content to calibrate the dating calculation and provide a specific error factor or plus or minus a few hundred or thousand years.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. And it is not original. You cannot fill in the gaps with faith and belief and call yourself a scientist.

If there is no evidence in the fossil record to back this moronic belief, then there is no evidence and you can't fill in the blanks with your religious nonsense.

There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record. Demanding that we obtain a fossil for every single generation of every single branch of development that occurred between one ancient species and one modern species is ridiculous.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

I have given all of you a chance to bring out your evidence, and the facts are in that you have no evidence. You have faith and belief and nothing else.

No, the facts are that you dismiss all evidence out of hand because it disagrees with your preconceived notions. I forget which poster linked you to the Boraas and Boxhorn research with Chlorella vulgaris, but I do remember your outright dismissal that made claims that were directly contradicted by the very article you were attempting to dismiss.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

there is no evidence of any creature ever breaking the boundaries of their genetics.

First off, "breaking the boundaries of their genetics" is a very arbitrary statement. What exactly do you mean by it?

Organisms are defined by their genetic code. They cannot be something that their genetic code is not. But when one generation has genetic code that is slightly different than the parent generation, that's one generation of evolution in action. If that difference causes the animal to survive longer than its peers, or to be more likely to find a mate, then that difference will get passed on to its descendants - and that's two generations of evolution in action.

If the genetic code becomes significantly different after hundreds or thousands of generations of small differences that accumulate, then it is possible for speciation to occur - for the descendants with the deviated code to become sufficiently different than descendants with the original code that interbreeding with fertile offspring is no longer possible - and that's evolution in action.

Nowhere in that process did any creature break any boundaries of their genetics. Such an occurrence is not a prediction of the Theory of Evolution.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

How about all the fossil evidence that is not shown in the classrooms, because it would discourage the belief?

You claim there is such a fossil, or such fossil evidence. Show it to me.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

The giraffe's neck is from adapting to the food. It has never evolved into any other animal. It has the same genetics as the day it arrived. Once it can no longer eat it dies out. It did not come from some other genus.

That's one explanation, which sounds suspiciously like Lamarckian evolution, which we know is not correct. You still need to provide at least 9 more plausible explanations.

And yes, sorry, giraffes did evolve from a different genus. Climacoceras evolved into Palaeotragus and Samotherium, which evolved further into the genus Giraffa.

Back to top

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #3 - Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:00pm

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 11:00am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

You arguments are ridiculous, because the world is far more conducive to life now than it has ever been. If that primordial soup was so difficult to occur, it is now much easier, by your own words.

You misunderstand. There is a huge difference between the formation of organic life from non-life and the propagation of existing life. The formation of life from non-living chemicals requires a specific environment that is not present on earth today. Once that life did form, it modified the environment (by releasing oxygen), which enabled the propagation of more modern forms of life, while simultaneously destroying the environment that made its initial formation possible.

In other words, the world is far more conducive to modern forms of life, and far less conducive to the formation of primitive life from non-living chemicals.

This is nothing but religious beliefs. I do feel sorry for you that you allow this sort of magical nonsense into your life.

The Earth, right now and for the last 10,000 yerars, is far more conducive to life than it has ever been.

The reality is you don't have a clue how life got here or how it has propagated on this earth. Not a clue.

All you have is religious nonsense beliefs with nothing to base beliefs on. I pity you.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #4 - Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:08pm

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 11:00am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

I keep telling people that the conditions of matter from millions of years ago are not the same as now. Thus the radiometric dating system is utterly flawed. You have no clue about any time, date, or conditions that far in the past.

Sorry, no. Scientists understand that they cannot know the exact conditions from millions or billions of years ago, which is why all radiometric dates include an error factor, calculated based on what we do know about that time range. For example, in C14 dating, we can use tree rings to reconstruct the carbon content of the atmosphere, and then use that carbon content to calibrate the dating calculation and provide a specific error factor or plus or minus a few hundred or thousand years.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1257524945

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

FollowTheEvidence

YaBB Newbies

Offline

Seek Truth!

Posts: 3

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #5 - Mar 6^th, 2010 at 3:14pm

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

The Earth, right now and for the last 10,000 yerars, is far more conducive to life than it has ever been.

Yes, conducive to modern life, but not conducive to primordial life. The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is a requirement of modern land animals, but reduces the chances of amino acids and other proteins to survive long enough to form new life.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

The reality is you don't have a clue how life got here or how it has propagated on this earth. Not a clue.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that, too. Science may not have the complete answer, but we do have a great many clues. For example, the presence of organic molecules and amino acids in space, and the change from a non-oxygen-rich environment to an oxygen-rich environment, as well as various experiments that have allowed us to create RNA molecules and other building blocks of life are many clues to the origin of life and its progression here on earth.

Back to top

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #6 - Mar 7^th, 2010 at 1:06pm

FollowTheEvidence wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 3:14pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

The Earth, right now and for the last 10,000 yerars, is far more conducive to life than it has ever been.

Yes, conducive to modern life, but not conducive to primordial life. The presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is a requirement of modern land animals, but reduces the chances of amino acids and other proteins to survive long enough to form new life.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Mar 6^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

The reality is you don't have a clue how life got here or how it has propagated on this earth. Not a clue.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that, too. Science may not have the complete answer, but we do have a great many clues. For example, the presence of organic molecules and amino acids in space, and the change from a non-oxygen-rich environment to an oxygen-rich environment, as well as various experiments that have allowed us to create RNA molecules and other building blocks of life are many clues to the origin of life and its progression here on earth.

Fairy Tales from brainwashed belief is not evidence.

You do not understand that the source of your information is from delusional believers in this crap.

You HAVCE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE BY TRUSTING THEM.

Delusional morons are in all types of positions in society and they get paid to keep this religious nonsense going.

You are gullible and weak to allow this to happen to you.

This is not science. There is no evidence for evolution and you have not provided any.

This is all some crap religious belief.

The necessary components for life is far more prevalent now than it ever has been. Evotards are weak and allow this crap to control their thinking. It is a religious fantasy!

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou

YaBB Administrator

Offline

The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male

Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post...
Reply #7 - Mar 7^th, 2010 at 1:19pm

First of all there is no evidence that life can come from no life.
It does not exist on this planet. Many "scientists" have tried to create life and have always failed.

When idiots speculate about the past based on dumb ass assumptions they make fools out of themselves.

Most people think that Evotards are mentally ill. Really!

You are so wrapped up in this nonsense that you don't have the ability to think any more. All you do is parrot other idiots, like a robot.

This concept of religious nonsense in schools is not new. It is and has been used for political control of the masses for a long time. You are just too brainwashed to be able to see this.

There is absolutely nothing of value in this religious, Evodelusional, nonsense.

You have no idea what reality is or what real evidence is.

Everything you have brought up is just dumb ass opinions with no evidence to back it. You are so confused that you cannot tell the difference.

Clues are not evidence. If you have a pre-belief that is what controls your thinking.

Back to top

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."

IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou YaBB Administrator Offline The obvious isn't obvious until it is obvious Posts: 1361 United States Gender:	Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post... Reply #8 - Mar 29^th, 2010 at 2:06am Follow the evidence is what I do, and because there is absolutely no evidence for evolution, I regard it as a sick disgusting religion.
Back to top	"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?" "Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination." IP Logged

rota YaBB Newbies Offline I hate blood pressure Posts: 1	Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post... Reply #9 - Aug 3^rd, 2010 at 4:32pm the vedio is not work ?
Back to top	IP Logged

GoodScienceForYou YaBB Administrator Offline The obvious isn't obvious until it is obvious Posts: 1361 United States Gender:	Re: Responding to some statements in your registration post... Reply #10 - Aug 6^th, 2010 at 12:38am Apparently the video has been removed by the owner of the video.
Back to top	"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?" "Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination." IP Logged

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login
	We've upgraded to YaBB 2!