Where is the proof that we came from monkeys? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Where is the proof that we came from monkeys?
in Religion

What if science is wrong?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3250 Pts
    edited May 2019
    I am not sure where this popular sentiment that "we came from monkeys" came from, but from what I know, it is not supported by science.

    A more accurate way to put it is this: humans and apes are different evolution strains, with humans possibly have evolved from apes, but with no conclusive evidence. Both humans and apes likely have evolved from rodents, although those particular rodent groups have gone extinct since then.

    Note that monkeys and apes are very, very different species (even though in many languages they are denoted by the same word). Both are primates, just like humans.

    I do not know how humans and monkeys exactly are connected, but humans almost certainly have not evolved from monkeys, and apes have not evolved from monkeys either. Although, again, if you are willing to consider the now-extinct monkeys, then, depending on the exact classification, such a sentiment, indeed, could be said.

    To summarise: as always, it is all complicated, more so than the phrase "Humans evolved from monkeys" or "Humans evolved from apes" would imply.

    ---

    As far as "proof" goes, there are no proofs in natural sciences, but there is plenty of evidence, fossilised and otherwise. By dating the found remains and cross-referencing them with each other and with the studies of presently existing animals, we can build an approximate coherent history of evolution of various species. There are many strains that we cannot connect with anything reliably, but even in those cases we usually can make educated guesses that, likely, are not too far away from the truth.

    If you want to see the specific evidence, you will need to read scientific papers. This is not something that can be answered in a short comment. It is like asking someone to explain how we know that neutron stars exist: one can write an entire book on this topic, and still not cover everything required to exhaust the topic.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42need2knowmoreGnosticChristian
  • @RealestThoughts

    Conversely, how about the question of the myth of Creation is correct? How comical and embarrassing this would present itself!

    The pseudo-christian has to either pick Genesis 1, or Genesis 2 in determining which CONTRADICTING Creation narrative they are to believe.
    Unfortunately, they in turn have to accept that what their brutal serial killer Yahweh/Jesus god said once, he didn't mean for his followers to take
    in many different and contradicting ways.

    Besides, the Christian Hebrew god is a terrible designer of his creation, whereas his designs are embarrassing to say the least, and need repair all the time by subsequent doctors  to his initial design.









    GnosticChristianPlaffelvohfen
  • 21CenturyIconclast, before you say that " his designs are embarrassing to say the least"
    maybe you should see this.
    The "Goldilocks zone."
    "The Goldilocks Zone refers to the habitable zone around a star where the temperature is just right - not too hot and not too cold - for liquid water to exist on an planet. Liquid water is essential for life as we know it."- ABC News.

    The Human brain and eye.

    "The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter."- Every student.

    God made all of this, and the universe.
    Isaiah 45:12 "I have made the earth, and created man upon it:I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.”

    If you believe the Big bang Theory, then I'll put this out.

    "Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

    Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

    Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

    The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter."-Every student. 

    Yahweh is a serial killer?

    Look at humanity and the history books of serial killers.

      Ted Bundy. Andrei Chikatilo. Jeffrey Dahmer. Albert Fish. John Wayne Gacy. Jack the Ripper. Joachim Kroll. Pedro López.

    Those people i listed were the most insane and mad serial killers. And there are a whole lot more serial killers out there.






    Plaffelvohfen
  • @21CenturyIconoclast ; There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is simply a focus on the 6th-Day and the creation of man and woman.

    The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

    Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

    ‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

    https://creation.com/genesis-contradictions



  • SandSand 164 Pts
    "but no single theory provides definitive resolution of how H. sapiens came to be."
    No evidence of evolution.
  • Sand said:
    "but no single theory provides definitive resolution of how H. sapiens came to be."
    No evidence of evolution.

    @Sand really?
    Plaffelvohfen









  • SandSand 164 Pts
    Yes really!

    Because there is no evidence of one species evolving into another species.
    Just saying it takes millions of years is not proof.
    It is just code for "we can not prove it".

    I appreciate people who ask for evidence for God and refuse to accept that he is real until they have inconclusive evidence.
    Nevertheless, these same people need to treat evolution in the same way.
    Evolution is a fictitious idea that could explain human life with an emphasis on the "could".

    That encyclopedia said "no single theory provides definitive resolution" meaning that it doesn't prove evolution.
    What it is evidence of is something lived and something died with a different cranial size.

    Because there is no evidence of one species evolving into another species.

    MayCeasar said something very profound the other day:

    "Infinity implies all the possibilities only in purely probabilistic systems, but the Universe is not purely probabilistic and has hard laws in it places some limitations on what can or cannot happen in it."
    Then he encouraged us to read Stochastic processes and Feynman path, and as brain blowing and mind-boggling that information was to swallow, it is enlightening to see someone explaining exactly what we are trying to convey to evolutionists.
    That every probability although quantifiable it is not plausible due to the density of the event.
    Look at the conclusion of species evolving to another species.
    "We may speak of a probability of something happening only if the occurrence is a possible outcome of some repeatable observation."
    So even though animals can evolve small things, it is impossible to evolve species to another despite the infinite possibilities.
    This will remain the case until someone is able to provide "repeatable observation".
    In other words "you need proof".

  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand


    **** No evidence of evolution

    Evolution is built upon mountains of evidence which only mainly the religious deny , this is how irrational religious belief is as those that claim Evolution is nonsense sooner put their trust in a sacred book written by Bronze Age goat herds , I know where I would put my money. 

    Also you seem like a polite intelligent guy yet you persist with this line of reasoning which is beyond me , can you or any supporters of your position post up one peer reviewed paper to support your views?

    You cannot , can you’s? Your position is a faith based one which is a very poor way to arrive at truth
  • SandSand 164 Pts

    You are most kind Dee.

    But in my discussions with you, MayCeaser, ZeusAres42, Happy_Killbot, Plaffelvohfen, and many others. I found your break downs very intelligent and very reasonable.
    You are right your positions are built on mountains of evidence.
    But it is just like the information Piloteer posted.
    There is skulls with various sizes. Plenty of evidence but no proof.

    I remember the world wide study that went well over 100 years of research to hands down prove evolution.
    At the end of the study, the conclusion was as one evolutionist put it, "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed."
    When you have that conclusion, that Mountain of evidence switches over to religion and supports creation.
    I appreciate religious persons cannot prove God.
    But evolutionists have a delusion that they can prove the evolution of species.

    Unfortunately for some, I believe in the original definition of faith, the one before Pantomath's changed it to belief or trust in something.

    Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
    Defining Faith has substance and evidence. Creation is built on mountains of evidence also, which evolutionists deny.

    Here is some of my support:
    Scientific American, Special Issue 2008 entitled “Majestic Universe,” p. 11.

    Perfect Planet, Clever Species—How Unique Are We? by William C. Burger,  pp. 24, 34.

    Rare Earth—Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee,  p. 224.

    The Sacred Balance—Rediscovering Our Place in Nature, by David Suzuki,  p. 102.

    God and the New Cosmology—The Anthropic Design Argument, by M. A. Corey,  pp. 144-145. Box: Teeming With Life

    Wildlife in a Changing World—An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, edited by Jean-Christophe Vié, Craig Hilton-Taylor, and Simon N. Stuart,  p. 6.

    Journal of Industrial Microbiology, “Total Bacterial Diversity in Soil and Sediment Communities—A Review,” by V. Torsvik, R. Sørheim, and J. Goksøyr, Volume 17,  pp. 170-178.

    Science, “Environmental Genomics Reveals a Single-Species Ecosystem Deep Within Earth,” by Dylan Chivian, et al, Volume 322,   pp. 275-278.

    Scientific American, “Microbe Census Reveals Air Crawling With Bacteria,” by David Biello, Who Designed It First?

    Natural History, “As the Whale Turns,” by Adam Summers, pp. 24-25.

    Science, Random Samples, “Flippered Flight,” p. 1106.

    New Scientist, Technology, “Is It a Bird, Is It a Plane . . . ,”,  p. 21.

    Heat Exchanger Design, Second Edition, by Arthur P. Fraas, p. 2.

    The Economist Technology Quarterly, Report, “Technology That Imitates Nature,”, pp. 18-22.

    The New York Times, “Design for Living,” by Michael J. Behe, p. A21. Evolution—Myths and Facts

    Natural History, “Darwin & Evolution—The Illusion of Design,” by Richard Dawkins, p. 37.

    Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, First Edition, 1859, Sixth Edition, pp. 285-286.

    Charles Darwin—The Origin of Species, Introduction by Sir Julian Huxley, 1958 for Introduction, First Signet Classic Printing, p. 458.

    Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller,  p. 162.

    Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 48-64.

    Science and Creationism—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,”  p. 10, 11, 14.

    Scientific American, “Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches,” by Peter R. Grant,  p. 87;

    Nature, “Oscillating Selection on Darwin’s Finches,” by H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, p. 511;

    Science, “Hybridization of Bird Species,” by Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, pp. 193-197.

    Adaption and Natural Selection, by George C. Williams, p. 54.

    Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, pp. 317-320.

    The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, pp. 49, 85.

    The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, pp. 28-32.

    Scientific American, “Scientists and Religion in America,” by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, p. 91. Does It Matter What You Believe?

    Science, Technology, and Social Progress, edited by Steven L. Goldman, “Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics,” by William B. Provine, pp. 253, 266.



    Please let me know if you need more.
  • @MayCaesar
    Well you see humans and apes share all the same organs but some of them maybe smaller/longer The main difference between humans and apes is that humans had a cognitive tradeoff. We, have lost the ability of super memory and sharp hearing and strong senses of smell. Its is said that because the brain can only grow that big, our hippocampuses,(memory part) had to shrink to let the parts of your brain that are related to language to grow therefore we lost those abilities. This happened as human grew different from other apes therefore we were kicked of the trees and forced to live on the ground and we learned language as we needed to communicate to other to stay away from predators on the ground. To learn more watch this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktkjUjcZid0
    Its from a youtuber called vsauce he posts interesting science and physics vids!
  • Humans did not 'come from monkeys'. We simply share a common ancestor with monkeys, just the same as we do with all other animals.
    pnita
  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand

    *****But in my discussions with you, MayCeaser, ZeusAres42, Happy_Killbot, Plaffelvohfen, and many others. I found your break downs very intelligent and very reasonable.

    You are right your positions are built on mountains of evidence.

    But it is just like the information Piloteer posted.

    There is skulls with various sizes. Plenty of evidence but no proof.


    I’m afraid that is you refuse to accept the proof and I don’t condemn you for this as if you do accept such your whole belief system comes crashing down.


    Even if you proved Evolution was false it still wouldn’t prove there is a god 

    Why do no reputable scientists who work in the field accept Evolution do you think there is some reason they would deny what you would claim?


    If you could present an argument strong enough to prove what you say it would mean you have disproved ever peer reviewed paper that supports it 


    ****I remember the world wide study that went well over 100 years of research to hands down prove evolution.

    At the end of the study, the conclusion was as one evolutionist put it, "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed."


    Really? Who said that and how come Evolution is accepted as fact?


    ****When you have that conclusion, that Mountain of evidence switches over to religion and supports creation.


    Again you need to name the people who concluded this as it’s news to me , and no as I step there is zero evidence to support creation If I’m wrong present the peer reviewed papers that state otherwise?


    ****I appreciate religious persons cannot prove God.


    Yes , you believe in a supernatural entity you cannot hear , feel or touch yet claim exists , using that criteria do all other gods exist if not why not?



    ***gBut evolutionists have a delusion that they can prove the evolution of species.


    Evolution is fact 


    ***Unfortunately for some, I believe in the original definition of faith, the one before Pantomath's changed it to belief or trust in something.


    Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


    Hope is a very poor guide to reason and what is evidence of things not seen?


    ****Defining Faith has substance and evidence. 


    And yet it has neither 


    ****Creation is built on mountains of evidence also, which evolutionists deny. 


    Incorrect , present your best evidence so it may be evaluated as it’s all based on an unproven which you correctly state you cannot prove so how is any evidence then valid as you cannot prove that either?


    Unfortunately none of your links work but I note you had a few from Scientific American which is a good source here they are totally destroying the most used  creationist claims which they call nonsense ......


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

  • @need2knowmore

    Vsauce is an amazing channel, but I personally prefer Vsause2. It tends to be heavier on statistics and probability theory, and sometimes deals with stochastic processes. Slightly off the topic, but I heavily recommend this thought-provoking video that challenges our basic intuition:


  • What if science is wrong?
    Science in itself is the search for truth. Science cannot itself be wrong. Science admits to being wrong, and searches for the right answer. 
    TruthSearcher
  • The proof humans came from monkeys is people when searching can't find ether any, or enough bones of humans who have been eaten over a duration of time other animals dominated regions of land space. After looking at studies there is evidence that might explain an alternative direction of why prime ape and human share D.N.A. the idea we evolved is simply the more obvious direction but avoids the dominate intelligence of humans as a true survival trade which can be inherited through inner species reproduction.  


    Remember basic concept science does not weight things that are missing as evidence unless it is biological.
  • First off, science is not some body of absolute knowledge or truth. It doesn't claim to be and this isn't supposed to be its function. For some reason people get this idea in their head and then the religious nuts come out and complain.

    What science does is much more useful than simply saying: "This is the truth F***er deal with it!" The way religion, politics, and some philosophies do. What science does is say: "I think this is true, lets see if we can't prove it wrong" When you can't prove something wrong after many attempts, then it is safe to assume that it is true. The reason any god belief is not considered to be a valid scientific theory is because it is not falsifiable, that is to say there is no way you can prove it wrong, and because of this it is not useful to assume that any of them are actual truth.

    If we want to assume that we were created, then we have to find something that could disprove creation. With evolution by natural selection we can prove it wrong, and in fact the evolution as Darwin originally envisioned it is considered to be mostly wrong because it has been subsequently replaced with more accurate models, which are still being revised. This creates a system where everything is getting less and less wrong, rather than starting at an assumed "right" and then refusing to move for any amount of evidence.

    Consider these statements:

    Evolution by natural selection can not be true if...
    • Information can not be passed down from parent to offspring
    • information can not change overtime
    • there are distinct types of information transfer between organisms
    • information changes always harm the organism
    • it can not be observed in nature
    • species can be shown to regularly develop from nothing
    • the physical shape of an organism must remain constant
    The list could go on and get more and more specific the more questions and information we gather, but I think this is a good starting point to make things intuitive. Is there any evidence which proves any single one of these statements, then evolution is dead, however all of these if statements are true, and you probably already know the answer to most of them:
    • DNA is the information of organic life, and it is proven through genetic analysis that DNA is inherited from the parents.
    • DNA has been show to occasionally mutate, where something changes the genetic structure.
    • DNA is common to all known organic life.
    • Mutations can sometime harm the organism, but the vast majority of them have no effect and go unnoticed.
    • Natural selection has been observed numerous times in the human lifetime, and is well documented.
    • We have yet to see a single instance of an organism being "created" from nothing, thus it is incredibly rare.
    • If you observe the offspring of any animal you will find subtle differences between it and the parents. Likewise through breeding you can arrive at many different shapes such as is seen in dogs and other domesticated animals.
    Evolution is probably true because it has weathered ever trial it has ever been through. From this understanding we can extrapolate what each organism was like in the past and possibly what it might look like in the future. For humans, it is apparent that we had non-sapient ancestors, and the physical and  genetic similarities between us and other primates suggests that we are closely related. The fossil evidence shows that many hominids which are now extinct walked the earth before humans did, further suggesting a connection between the two, and in theory these hominids evolved into modern man from ancient primates.

    The evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming, but there will never be 100% definitive "proof" because it is not possible to ever prove anything 100%. For all intents and purposes it is useful to assume that evolution is true, and it probably is.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • First, yes some things are 100% provable a person who has five fingers and this can be 100% proven. It can also be manipulated and the person can be given 4 fingers instead of having five. Science is a religion so are you just saying religion is important?

    Evolution by natural selection can not be true if...
    • Information can not be passed down from parent to offspring
    • information can not change overtime
    • there are distinct types of information transfer between organisms
    • information changes always harm the organism
    • it can not be observed in nature
    • species can be shown to regularly develop from nothing
    • the physical shape of an organism must remain constant

    • Rape is not a animal law.
    • On a evolutionary scale a dog humping a woman's leg is a good day.


  • SandSand 164 Pts


    I’m afraid that is you refuse to accept the proof and I don’t condemn you for this as if you do accept such your whole belief system comes crashing down.


    >>>Even if you proved Evolution was false it still wouldn’t prove there is a god<<<
    Exactly if it was proved.


    >>>Why do no reputable scientists who work in the field accept Evolution do you think there is some reason they would deny what you would claim?<<<
    Just like religion, it is hard to convince people once they believe something.
    People say evolutionists do not believe like they are robots, and they only respond to ones and zeros.
    Evolutionists are human, they make mistakes, they believe, they have hopes, and dreams and these things spill in their work, inadvertently of course.
    They are trying to find ways to prove it, so that is why they accept it because they still believe.


    >>>If you could present an argument strong enough to prove what you say it would mean you have disproved ever peer-reviewed paper that supports it <<<
    Forget the argument, focus on the proof.


    >>>Really? Who said that and how come Evolution is accepted as fact?<<<
    Correns, de Vries, Tschermak-Seysenegg, Bateson, Johannsen and others, and corroborated by further biologists and historians of biology.
    Because the observable and provable part of evolution is a fact, that an animal grows a heavier coat in colder environments, etc.
    But the application to the whole has no proof, the Evolution of one species to another is impossible.
    Notice the quote "concluded ‘that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change’"






    >>>Again you need to name the people who concluded this as it’s news to me , and no as I step there is zero evidence to support creation If I’m wrong, present the peer-reviewed papers that state otherwise?<<<
    Correns, de Vries, Tschermak-Seysenegg, Bateson, Johannsen and others, and corroborated by further biologists and historians of biology.
    I have more scientists that came to similar conclusions.

    Jeffrey H. Schwartz
    Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig
    George Christopher Williams
    Peter and Rosemary Grant
    Rodney Stark

    >>>Yes, you believe in a supernatural entity you cannot hear, feel or touch yet claim exists, using that criteria do all other gods exist if not why not?<<<
    There is only one book with that level of detail, that references one God.
    The other Gods that other countries and nations are the stories from the flood time, or gods of nature.
    No other God story relates to history in such great detail.
    I only take the concept of God from the Bible as a template to what is considered plausible.
    Think more of God in a practical sense.
    An advanced scientist in another dimension.


    >>>Evolution is a fact<<<
    Because the observable and provable part of evolution is a fact, that an animal grows a heavier coat in colder environments, etc.
    But the application to the whole has no proof, the Evolution of one species to another is impossible.
    It is a delusion that one species can evolve to another species.


    >>>Hope is a very poor guide to reason and what is evidence of things not seen?<<<
    Hope drives evolutionists to dig for more evidence to prove evolution of the species.


    >>>Incorrect, present your best evidence so it may be evaluated as it’s all based on an unproven which you correctly state you cannot prove so how is any evidence then valid as you cannot prove that either?<<<

    When a group of evolutionists spends over 100 years to prove evolution and cannot do it, that evidence switches to evidence against evolution and support of creation.


    >>>Unfortunately, none of your links work but I note you had a few from Scientific American which is a good source here they are totally destroying the most used creationist claims which they call nonsense ......<<<
    Nevertheless, they are articles that speak against evolution and support creation.
    You asked for articles, I provided them.
    I provided evidence that supported creation.

    Now here is the point, evolution from one species to another is impossible.

  • SandSand 164 Pts

    I’m afraid that is you refuse to accept the proof and I don’t condemn you for this as if you do accept such your whole belief system comes crashing down.


    >>>Even if you proved Evolution was false it still wouldn’t prove there is a god<<<
    Exactly if it was proved.


    >>>Why do no reputable scientists who work in the field accept Evolution do you think there is some reason they would deny what you would claim?<<<
    Just like religion, it is hard to convince people once they believe something.
    People say evolutionists do not believe like they are robots, and they only respond to ones and zeros.
    Evolutionists are human, they make mistakes, they believe, they have hopes, and dreams and these things spill in their work, inadvertently of course.
    They are trying to find ways to prove it, so that is why they accept it because they still believe.


    >>>If you could present an argument strong enough to prove what you say it would mean you have disproved ever peer-reviewed paper that supports it <<<
    Forget the argument, focus on the proof.


    >>>Really? Who said that and how come Evolution is accepted as fact?<<<
    Correns, de Vries, Tschermak-Seysenegg, Bateson, Johannsen and others, and corroborated by further biologists and historians of biology.
    Because the observable and provable part of evolution is a fact, that an animal grows a heavier coat in colder environments, etc.
    But the application to the whole has no proof, the Evolution of one species to another is impossible.
    Notice the quote "concluded ‘that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change’"


    >>>Again you need to name the people who concluded this as it’s news to me , and no as I step there is zero evidence to support creation If I’m wrong, present the peer-reviewed papers that state otherwise?<<<
    Correns, de Vries, Tschermak-Seysenegg, Bateson, Johannsen and others, and corroborated by further biologists and historians of biology.
    I have more scientists that came to similar conclusions.

    Jeffrey H. Schwartz
    Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig
    George Christopher Williams
    Peter and Rosemary Grant
    Rodney Stark


    >>>Yes, you believe in a supernatural entity you cannot hear, feel or touch yet claim exists, using that criteria do all other gods exist if not why not?<<<
    There is only one book with that level of detail, that references one God.
    The other Gods that other countries and nations are the stories from the flood time, or gods of nature.
    No other God story relates to history in such great detail.
    I only take the concept of God from the Bible as a template to what is considered plausible.
    Think more of God in a practical sense.
    An advanced scientist in another dimension.


    >>>Evolution is a fact<<<
    Because the observable and provable part of evolution is a fact, that an animal grows a heavier coat in colder environments, etc.
    But the application to the whole has no proof, the Evolution of one species to another is impossible.
    It is a delusion that one species can evolve to another species.


    >>>Hope is a very poor guide to reason and what is evidence of things not seen?<<<
    Hope drives evolutionists to dig for more evidence to prove evolution of the species.


    >>>Incorrect, present your best evidence so it may be evaluated as it’s all based on an unproven which you correctly state you cannot prove so how is any evidence then valid as you cannot prove that either?<<<

    When a group of evolutionists spends over 100 years to prove evolution and cannot do it, that evidence switches to evidence against evolution and support of creation.


    >>>Unfortunately, none of your links work but I note you had a few from Scientific American which is a good source here they are totally destroying the most used creationist claims which they call nonsense ......<<<
    Nevertheless, they are articles that speak against evolution and support creation.
    You asked for articles, I provided them.
    I provided evidence that supported creation.

    Now here is the point, evolution from one species to another is impossible.

  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    edited February 2


    What you’re doing is arguing against fact , your list of scientists have not disproved Evolution as it cannot be disproved , the question I’m asking you is if Evolution was false why can those who support your contention not prove the case surely it should be easy enough?

     One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population  ....

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
  • SandSand 164 Pts
    I'm not arguing against fact. Evolution is a fact.
    My argument is not against evolution.
    My argument is against the evolution of one species to another, which is exactly what these evolutionists confirmed as fact.

    So it is a fact that you cannot evolve one species to another.

    The reason why people who support my viewpoint cannot prove this easily is because Evolutionist do not follow their own rules nor do they listen.
    Evolutionists believe that evolution is true on a large scale before it was proven.
    It is hard to convince people who claim to know everything that they are wrong, regardless of the study.
    I can show this report to many people they still will believe the evolution of species is true.
    But at this point, it is an unproven belief.
    So the evolution of the species is an assumption that small always adds up to large.
    This is contrary to what is possible.

    MayCeaser explained it like this:
    "People misunderstand this a lot. The principle according to which all possible states of the system will eventually be achieved assumes that the pathway to those states exists."
    "Think about the analogy. Suppose you have two islands, with impassable waters in between. You start off on one of the islands in a car that can drive on the surface of the island but cannot drive into the water. Now let the time run infinitely. No matter what you do, you will never get to the second island, even though the rules do not in principle prohibit the car from being driven there."

    Just because a species can grow longer hair, change behavior, and or change eye color, doesn't mean that it can change heart valves, skeleton structure, organ function, and gain cognitive ability.

    Just because an animal can evolve, the assumption is a pathway to the state of species will present itself and will eventually through time be achieved.

    That is why that ongoing 100-year study was very important!

    Notice the quotes "concluded ‘that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change’"
    "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed."

    I have quoted this study multiple times.
    But it keeps getting overlooked.
    Then someone else will come and show another article explaining how they found more skulls.

    Look at the article you showed me, It has arguments against disagreements.
    If the whole community of scientists agrees with evolutionists then where are these disagreements coming from?
    You cannot possibly believe that only religious people are coming up with these disagreements.
    Obviously people in 2002 have researched the findings and said "No".
    Now this report I showed you that came out in 2017 says "No".

    Please do not be surprised that a conclusion can be wrong.

    Please do not assume like most evolutionists that time is the only answer.
    2 plus 2 will never equal 5 by just giving it more time.


  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand

     You need to read this again .....Also I’m not sure what @MayCaesar said regarding the matter but I will let May speak for himself .......

     One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population  ....

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-
  • SandSand 164 Pts

    I have read it over and over again.
    I said:
    >>>My argument is not against evolution.
    My argument is against the evolution of one species to another, which is exactly what these evolutionists confirmed as fact.<<< February 2, 2020<<<
    >>>So the evolution of the species is an assumption that small always adds up to large.
    This is contrary to what is possible. <<< February 2, 2020<<<
    >>>Just because a species can grow longer hair, change behavior, and or change eye color, doesn't mean that it can change heart valves, skeleton structure, organ function, and gain cognitive ability.<<< February 2, 2020<<<


    Notice the article:

    >>>>>We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?

    Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

    For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.<<<<<

    (Are they no longer goatsbeard? A new species of flower? Or are they two new species of American goatsbeards?)

    >>>>>How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

    This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

    It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species.

    But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven't interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find.<<<<<

    (Is this his definition of how to find evolution?)
    (Could it be that this was a new discovery?)
    (Or have we already documented every species of plant in the earth?)
    (By some estimates at least 30,000 plants are not discovered yet.)

    >>>>>The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation.

    As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes.

    Orcas (Orcinus orca), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.

    Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years.

    Why did the orcas split? The truth is, we don't know. Perhaps it was a side effect of modifications for hunting different prey sources, or perhaps there was some kind of physical barrier between populations that has since disappeared. All we know is that while we were busy painting cave walls, something caused groups of orcas to split, creating multiple species.<<<<<
    (Are they no longer Orca? A new species of marine life? Or are they two new species of Orca?)
    (Could it be that this was a new discovery?)
    (Or have we already documented every species of marine life in the earth?)
    (By some estimates at least 10 Million marine life are not discovered yet.)
    (https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/one-fish-two-fish-estimating-undiscovered-species)

    >>>>>There are many different reasons why species diverge. The easiest, and most obvious, is some kind of physical barrier - a phenomenon called Allopatric Speciation. If you look at fish species in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California, you'll find there are a lot of similarities between them. Indeed, some of the species look almost identical. Scientists have looked at their genes, and species on either side of that thin land bridge are more closely related to each other than they are to other species, even ones in their area. What happened is that a long time ago, the continents of North and South America were separated, and the oceans were connected. When the two land masses merged, populations of species were isolated on either side. Over time, these fish have diverged enough to be separate species.

    Species can split without such clear boundaries, too. When species diverge like the apple maggot flies - without a complete, physical barrier - it's called Sympatric Speciation. Sympatric speciation can occur for all kinds of reasons. All it takes is something that makes one group have less sex with another.

    For one species of Monarch flycatchers (Monarcha castaneiventris), it was all about looks. These little insectivores live on Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern. Some flycatchers are all black, while others have chestnut colored bellies. Even though the two groups are perfectly capable of producing viable offspring, they don't mix in the wild. Researchers found that the birds already see the other group as a different species. The males, which are fiercely territorial, don't react when a differently colored male enters their turf. Like the apple maggot flies, the flycatchers are no longer interbreeding, and have thus taken the first step towards becoming two different species.

    These might seem like little changes, but remember, as we learned with dogs, little changes can add up. Because they're not interbreeding, these different groups will accumulate even more differences over time. As they do, they will start to look less and less alike. The resultant animals will be like the species we clearly see today. Perhaps some will adapt to a lifestyle entirely different from their sister species - the orcas, for example, may diverge dramatically as small changes allow them to be better suited to their unique prey types. Others may stay fairly similar, even hard to tell apart, like various species of squirrels are today.

    The point is that all kinds of creatures, from the smallest insects to the largest mammals, are undergoing speciation right now. We have watched species split, and we continue to see them diverge. Speciation is occurring all around us. Evolution didn't just happen in the past; it's happening right now, and will continue on long after we stop looking for it. <<<<<

    The scientific method is:
    Observe
    Question
    Research
    Hypothesize
    Experiment
    Test Hypothesis
    Draw Conclusions
    Report

    This allows people to determine if your method was correct for your conclusion.
    Finding new animals and flowers that have differences, without documentation of the differences occurring is not evolution of the species.
    By people writing articles of the discovery and saying it is proof of evolution is not evolution.


    If you notice this writer is talking about little changes and makes the assumption that little changes can add up
    Exactly what MayCeaser explained:
    "People misunderstand this a lot. The principle according to which all possible states of the system will eventually be achieved assumes that the pathway to those states exists."

    This person assumes two things, that a possible state will be achieved eventually and a pathway exists.

    I will requote the actual experiment conclusion: "properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed."
    Just because a species can grow longer hair, change behavior, and or change eye color, doesn't mean that it can change heart valves, skeleton structure, organ function, and gain cognitive ability.

    According to that experiment Evolution of the species is impossible.

  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    edited February 4
    @Sand


    I want to read @MayCaesar own comments on the matter in full contact before I evaluate them maybe he will join in .

    Evolution NEVER claims that one species turns instantly into a different species…the process of change is always very gradual with thousands of intermediate forms happening along the way.

    But the strict biological definition of “Species” says that what differentiates one species from another is that they cannot cross-breed.


    Ornithologists have seen birds that live in the areas of freeways and other dense traffic evolve shorter wings so that they can be more manouverable than the forms that evolved for open countryside flight. It remains to be seen whether this is a new “species” or merely a new “sub-species”.



    Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

    Killer Whales Are Speciating Right in Front of Us

  • SandSand 164 Pts

    You do not have to read MayCeasers comments just read the books and information he suggested.
    Stochastic processes and Feynman's path is the origin of the information.

    No one is questioning Evolution on instantly turning, Evolution is making time an excuse for not following the Scientific Method.
    Therefore Evolution of the species is not Scientific.
    Happy_Killbot feels that Science needs to be Atheistic.
    Some people feel that people who believe in Creation cannot be true scientists because they would be biased in their determinations.
    All due respect, but the truth is Atheism has much to do with belief as Religious people.
    Because when the Science disagrees with Evolution, then Atheists continue to believe Evolution of the Species is true, despite the evidence.

    This 100yr experiment went completely south when the evolutionists ran into impassible boundaries.

    >>>Evolution NEVER claims that one species turns instantly into a different species…the process of change is always very gradual with thousands of intermediate forms happening along the way.<<<

    This statement is an assumption:
    Small changes + Time = Large changes

    Good point about the biological definition of species.
    Nevertheless, these people are assuming that this newly discovered orca evolved.
    If they followed the proper Scientific method then they could really know.
    But instead, their Scientific method is:

    Observe
    Draw Conclusions
    Report

    Which makes that article a discovery, not evolution.

    >>>Ornithologists have seen birds that live in the areas of freeways and other dense traffic evolve shorter wings so that they can be more maneuverable than the forms that evolved for open countryside flight. It remains to be seen whether this is a new “species” or merely a new “sub-species”.<<<

    Once again, the only thing they need to do is tag those birds take a sample of the DNA and document their offspring.
    Tag the offspring and take a sample of their DNA until it changes.

    This is exactly what has been done for 100s of years.
    With no changes DNA changes found. Then someone finds a new animal with the claim that it evolved.
    No experiment, no scientific method, no research.
    Some Evolutionists are admitting these conclusions.

    Look at some of these quotes by Evolutionists:
    "So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper’s standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution, p. 149.

    "Throughout the past century, there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 327.




  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand



    It’s most unfortunate the two authors you use in an attempt to make your point as their claims have been rubbished many times by the scientific community.


    I’ve done all this too death with others in the past and the thing is never is one credible person or counter put forward 


    *****”So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper’s standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution, p. 149.


    Patterson is another in a long list of authors who has been debunked a long time ago 


    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html



    "Throughout the past century, there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 327.



    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html



    The scientific community has rejected Denton's claims, yet he has had many positive reviews from creationists and intelligent design advocates.


  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand

    It’s most unfortunate the two authors you use in an attempt to make your point as their claims have been rubbished many times by the scientific community.


    I’ve done all this too death with others in the past and the thing is never is one credible person or counter put forward 





    The scientific community has rejected Denton's claims, yet he has had many positive reviews from creationists and intelligent design advocates.



    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html



    "Throughout the past century, there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 32





    ***”So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper’s standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution, p. 149.


    Again you’re not telling the full story regards what Patterson had to say on the matter at hand .....



    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html




  • SandSand 164 Pts

    People do not trust Michael Denton.
    All of Colin Patterson's words are misquoted.

    Ok, well I won't quote them anymore.
  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand

    Have you anything further to add? If not thank you for the conversation 
  • SandSand 164 Pts

    Naw just like talking with you.

  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @Sand

    Thanks,  the feeling is mutual 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1366 Pts
    edited February 5
    @Sand You're right. There is no proof we came from monkeys. Nor is evolution is proven. There is however plenty of evidence to so supporting the different theories of evolution with the theory of natural selection being the most famous and strongest one we have so far. Furthermore, there is no theory about us coming from monkeys, or one species evolving into another species like something out of some Transformers movie. Scientists claming that our ancestors were apes is not the same thing as saying we evolved from monkeys or some monkeys one day turned into human beings.

    Also, what you appear not to realize yet like several other people in the thread including the ones that disagree with you is that evidence is not the same thing as proof.

    Proof vs. Evidence

    Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof". What "proof" means in everyday speech:
    In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea. Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics. What should scientists say instead of "proof"?
    Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses. While this may seem like a subtle difference, the words we use can subconsciously color our thinking. "Proof" suggests that a matter is completely settled, that we have had the last word on something.

    https://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html




    Sand









  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Thats fair enough but remember Evolution is accepted as fact and for most that’s enough 
    Sand
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 1366 Pts
    edited February 6
    @Dee In everyday usage when people talk about evolution as either a fact or a theory they're often using a thing known as loaded language. When someone says "Evolution is just a theory" they're equivocating the everyday usage of the term versus the actual scientific usage of the word "theory that is based on a drawn conclusion rested on lots of factual evidence among other things."

    On the other hand, those that use the statement "Evolution is a fact" are equivocating the word "fact" as if were some kind of gospel truth. This is not the correct scientific vocabulary to be using.

    Equivocation

    Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term that occurs twice during the reasoning; it is the use of one word taken in two ways. The fallacy is a kind of Fallacy of Ambiguity. Example: Brad is a nobody, but since nobody is perfect, Brad must be perfect, too.

    The term "nobody" changes its meaning without warning in the passage. Equivocation can sometimes be very difficult to detect, as in this argument from Walter Burleigh:

    If I call you a swine, then I call you an animal.
    If I call you an animal, then I’m speaking the truth.
    Therefore, if I call you a swine, then I’m speaking the truth.

    https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Equivocation



    An apt definition of evolution is thus: The basic theory of evolution is a scientific theory rested on a numerous amount of objective and empirical evidence accumulated over several decades. And due to the high degree of evidential support for the scientific theory of evolution, it's hard for one to say that it's wrong.












  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Yes I know theory has a different meaning in science than how lay people use it , I didn’t say a fact was some “gospel truth “ but most are near enough what else is needed?

    Stephen Jay Gould writes, "...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

    pnita
  • Dee said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Yes I know theory has a different meaning in science than how lay people use it , I didn’t say a fact was some “gospel truth “ but most are near enough what else is needed?

    I didn't mean you personally @Dee

    I was generalizing.

    Stephen Jay Gould writes, "...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

    A lot of what Stephen Jay Gould writes here also confirms what I stated previously.










  • DeeDee 1951 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    I was addressing this Z ..... On the other hand, those that use the statement "Evolution is a fact" are equivocating the word "fact" as if were some kind of gospel truth. This is not the correct scientific vocabulary to be using. 

    I use the statement fact regards Evolution , Gould himself pointed out that’s it’s fact  in so much as to deny it would be perverse .

    Anyway I think we are in the same page more or less 
  • @RealestThoughts

    First you must realize what science is to understand that science is no longer a means for empirical knowledge.
    Evolution is false for the following reasons.

    1. Initial invariablity and an initial lack of genetic diversity or initial lack of biological activity.

    Initial invariability, is the evaluation of a primary regress problem of asserted ambiogentic synthetic or chemical synthetic change occuring  as a result of a non-biological process, defined as a natural physical cause responsible, as related to the Earth's enviroment for the origin of life from NON-living matter. It's bullcrap

    1.Evolution falsely asserts abiotic conditions in a non-biological enviroment as part of a non-biological process, that is a cause for biological development. That is to say biological development occurs in rocks that lack biological activity or any initial degree of activity. Non-sense,as non-living matter is not ambiogentic.

    Considering, prebiotic  exanimate matter is devoid of life it is devoid of any processes or activity that
    could cause or be a cause of genetic increase.

    The Regress problem identifies that before physical existence, a
    lack of any physical intrinsic activity determines evolution is the Hallmark of fallacy

    As

    3. The type of initial energy of a time before,subatomic activity,  or before physical existence is devoid of activity, a condition nescesarry for development.

    The assertion always begins with the existence of a source or without the existence of a source of initial activity.its a dumbasses idea.

    There is no such thing as genetic
    Increase as a cause for genetic
    diversity as initial change would require a heriditary cause.
    There is no such thing as genetic diversity in a species group. Methyl tags appropriate pre-existing conditions in a gene pool. What that means simply is species are a by-product of pre-existing genetic Charecteristics, not evolution. God created man and animals and his name is Jesus Christ.

    It should be obvious a
    regulation of physiological processes in an abiotic enviroment is fallacy as all abiotic matter lacks intrinsic activity. Think inanimate object.

    Genetic increase without a source or in the instance there is a lack of initial activity is dumb 
    As Any physiological process that Lacks biological activity lacks any intrinsic activity.


    inherticance of physical Charecteristics is a lie as that did not exist prior to what evolution falsely asserts as an evolutionary cause.

    This is to say non-living matter has no biological or physical Charecteristics, processes of intrinsic activity and any
    assertion of a spontaneous Genetic increase from a non-biological source or sources is fallacy.

    As
    % increase = Increase ÷ Original Number × 100. Divide initial invariability by 0 and you have 0 successive changes 

    1. The initial lack of genetic ancestry between an original species is also why evolution is false 

    2. Genetic escalation ,cumulation,devolopment does not occur in a single cell.

    Regress logic
    2. Genetic escalation ,cumulation,devolopment can not occur as a source of it's own genetic increase or taxonomy.

    Cumulative problems
    1. present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest form of non-living substances dictate a complete lack of an ability to change as no changes exist within a pre-existing enviroment 

    Biogenesis is a fallacy.


    As anything that
    Lacks a Biological capacity
    Lacks biological potential
    as an origin for biological life.

    Read Romans 10:9 Jesus Christs Ressurection is public record, I already posted the library of Congress control number for it. Don't go to hell.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @RealestThoughts

    It should be obvious the antithesis of biology is not the cause of biological life therefore evolution is false and Jesus is Lord and God.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • CrystalValuesCrystalValues 17 Pts
    edited February 7
    @RealestThoughts
    The "popular sentiment" is merely a misnomer. When people say "humans evolved from monkeys," they really mean that humans evolved from primates. The average Joe doesn't distinguish these two sentences in their head in the same way that they don't distinguish contemporary (and not so contemporary) large reptilian species such as Ichthyosaurus, Pteranodon and Dimetrodon from the group Dinosauria. Nobody as far as I know actually believes that we evolved from monkeys as opposed to apes, it's just a force of habit to say monkey.
  • SandSand 164 Pts
    Evolution of the Species is a far fetched fairytale.
  • pnitapnita 9 Pts
    @Sand

    Because there is no evidence of one species evolving into another species.
    - this is because that is NOT what happens. One species does not evolve into another species. Evolution is not a ladder. A population of individuals can become geographically or genetically isolated, and over time diverge from each other and become different enough that they are no longer able to interbreed - it is at this point that they are considered two different species.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch