Oicurmtoyoy wrote on Nov 15^th, 2010 at 11:32am:


I have allowed people to post and I answer them.  I do not allow people to dodge direct questions.

I talk about real science and the real foundation of science and all that makes science good.

This garbage is not science, so don't compare it to real science.

You don't know garbage about real science.  On here we only discuss what is real. 
That is the difference.

If you are a troll with your dumb "goose stepping Nazi" nonsense, you can leave now.  If you want to find the truth about this nonsense "Theory of Evolution" then you can find that here.

If you are too stupid to learn, then you are too stupid to learn and I can't help you.

You need to read all you can find here until you start to wake the F up.

Actually, you constantly dodge the issue. One example is when you repeatedly asked about "synthetic carbon". He never claimed that the carbon it's self was synthetic, so why would you ask about it? Can you not read?

And yes, you constantly talk about real science, but you clearly don't care about it. All you do is ignore real evidence. You go out of your way to repeatedly say "there is no evidence", but you completely ignore it when it is presented. If you don't do that, then you just dismiss the claim without even explaining a single flaw in the evidence or reasoning. All you say is that it's not real science. If it truly isn't, then the least you could do is explain why.

If something really isn't science, then you should e able explain the distinction between it an science.

I've read. I've read enough to know that you only pretend to know about real science.

In answer to your question:
Real science is that which is feasible based on what we know, and in some way observable and/or testable.

Evolution is science. Simply claiming that it isn't dosen't qualify as an explanation. Sadly, that's all you've done. That, and you also spew insults. Insults don't explain anything, they only serve to show your immaturity.

And don't pretend that there is no evidence for evolution. You can claim that there is an alternate explanation for ALL of the evidence, but it's not helping. Present the explanation, and explain why it makes more sense than the current one. If you can't then you've got nothing.

Like I said, you merely deny evidence. I've given you the evidence many times, but you deny it's existence every time. When I make it abundantly clear, you say "that's an opinion". Instead of explaining how this is true, you simply elongate your statement.

You only claim that there is no evidence, but you have not demonstrated how the evidence we have presented can't be used. And mixing opinion up with reasoning isn't an explanation, it's just pure nonsense.

From what I've seen, you've taken arguments against religion and flipped them, around, using them where they aren't applicable. Maybe it's a coincidence, or maybe you have some other motive, a religious one perhaps. The point is;

Denying the existence of evidence is NOT a refutation

I've presented plenty of evidence, you've just sidestepped it by calling it an opinion. The same goes for everyone else on the forum. All of the evidence points towards evolution as the most likely cause. There are other possible explanations, but that goes for everything. Gravity, fire, even reality it's self. Do you know why we all accept the same explanation for these things? Because they fit Occam's razor.

You can't disprove that a god is magically holding everything together. You can't disprove magical pixies being attracted to heat. You can't disprove the universe being a dream. The thing is, the current explanations for these things are much more plausible than all other alternatives.

The same goes for evolutions. It hasn't been disproved, and it has more positive proof than any other explanation. This makes it fit Occam's razor best, and this is why people believe in it.

If I already have a belief you say? Not really. You have yet to point out one fault in my evidence. Saying something is an opinion dosen't count, because I have demonstrated clear reasoning. That's the part you're not getting.

Show me where my reasoning is flawed.
Where is it opinion and not evidence?

You keep calling people brainwashed and emotionally driven, but neither are true. You already asked me about the former, and it was completely false. I don't see how the latter is even applicable.

There is evidence, you just refuse to accept it. I'll say it again.

Show me where my reasoning is flawed.
Where is it opinion and not evidence?

You've also claimed the evidence is sketchy, how so? It has ample detail, much more than any reasonable person could want.

I've given you your evidence, now all I ask for is a refutation, instead of a big fat:

Are you telling me you need proof of natural selection? It obviously happens, you can see it anywhere. The fittest animals survive, obviously, and then they get to mate. Animals are also seen to select mates with certain qualities, even humans do it. You don't have to be a genius to figure it out. Pretending that things don't exist isn't the same as disproving them.

1/ Creatures come into being: they start to exist.

2/ They reproduce and pass down traits in genetic lineages that have foundational genetics that makes them the creatures they are. Mutations may occur, which change this foundation. The HAVE been observed.

3/ They remain the same genetic lineage creature for as long as they are here, with minor variations that include developing stronger immune systems, digestive abilities, tolerance to heat, cold, larger or smaller bodies, etc. These can accumulate, creating more noticeable changes.They never change into a whole new foundationally different genetic lineage, because lineages aren't changeable. Rather, a lineage diverges at parts, taking different paths, the more successful of which survive.

4/ They either go extinct or are still here in the same genetic lineage with varying morphology's depending on how successful their original shape was. This is shown by the fossilized evidence we have found for all living creatures, some of which have changed, some of which have remained the same, due to their success.

5/ There are trails of transition into any new creatures on this planet that vary off the foundational genetic structures at the start of a particular genetic lineage. They are shown in the fossil record, the data being gathered from the fossils' morphology.

These are based on logical deduction, not speculation, as you claim.
2x+5=11
If I were to say X is 3, would that be based on my opinion, or based on reasoning?

The fossil record shows plenty of trails leading from one species to another, you just deny it.

I don't recall anyone saying the our ancestors from 10 generations ago were of a different species. They are human, because they can reproduce with other humans.
The Camel and Lama can produce a viable offspring, because they have the same number of chromosomes. They are in the same genus. they are both "Camelus". The fact that they are different species, but interbreed-able is an oddity, and technically, they should be classified as different sub-species, but it dosen't disprove evolution. Evolution form one species to another dosen't necessarily happen every 2 million years, all that is stated is that it can happen.
Furthermore, there are plenty of species, like the horse and donkey, that can't produce viable offspring.

The word species has been settled upon, the debate is only about certain organisms, which may or may not fit within the bracket. I've never heard of the word "species" meaning anything other than what it means now.

The facts do fit, you have yet to name one fact that dosen't fit. If the facts really don't fit, then you should probably show me at least one or two facts that don't fit, explain it too. I don't see how an upright man found at that point dosen't fit, so you'll have to explain it. Primitive humans should be found in the past, there isn't really any kind of contradiction there.

The video is also flawed.

Fossils aren't rare, but fossilization is. The fact that they are numerous dosen't disprove this, because fossilization has happened many times. The possibility of getting a 12 on a pair of dice is 1 in 36, but if you roll the dice millions of times, you're bound to get plenty of twelves. Similarly, trillions upon trillions of organisms have died since the dawn of life, so of course there would be many fossils.

Also, the materials they are dating would have started "aging", for lack of a better word, when the fossilization process first started. In other words, they are measuring the rock that replaced the bone, but they're measuring how long it's been since said rock replaced the bone.