RE: Evolution Theory - please show the proofs
August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm
(This post was last modified: August 24, 2010 at 12:54 pm by NoGodaloud ?.)
(August 24, 2010 at 6:44 am)Zen Badger Wrote:(August 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: This will be, just to begin with. After you present conclusive proof that Evolution explains all this without any doubt left, we continue with some more questions.
And if we can't be bothered? what are you planning on doing then?
I was tempted to tell you take your imperious attitude and fuck off but that would be impolite.
So instead I give you whale evolution, the most complete fossil record we currently have.
http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution
And politely suggest that you go and fucking read some real books on the subject.
Instead of the puerile mindless propaganda that Answersingenesis etc constantly churn out like turds from a backed up toilet.
F. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York, 1982), p. 90.
The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.
Evolutionist M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.
". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (1996)
"Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."
(August 24, 2010 at 10:34 am)Tiberius Wrote: When will you realize, there isn't anything even close to "proof" in science! Scientific proof doesn't exist; what does exist is scientific evidence. The ideas and theories (yes, the two are different) that look at the facts of science and try to explain them. If you want to look at the evidence behind the theory of evolution, then all you have to do is click any of the numerous links that my fellow forum-goers have kindly provided for you.
i perfectly agree with you. But i have brought this up as answer and challenge to TheDarkestOfAngels , which asserts, the theory of evolution, aka the assertion of common ancestry, is a proven fact. So he has here the platform to present the proofs, he asserts he has.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And right here we see the basis for your ( and all creationist lunatics) problems:
Quote:No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech
You want "easy answers." As H. L. Mencken said: “For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.”
In your case the wrong answer is the childish assertion: goddidit.
Evolution is not simple. It requires a depth of understanding which you lack. Talking about it with someone like you is akin to trying to explain radar to a dog.
stop attacking me, and present some facts, that contribute in a significant manner to the debate, if you have something.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm)Thor Wrote:(August 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Evolution Theory - please show the proofs.
Please show absolute and conclusive proof , that the Theory of Evolution is true.
It always cracks me up when people like you demand "absolute and conclusive proof" that a scientific principle, method or theory is true. But then you turn around and embrace crap that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Can you show me any "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection is true? A virgin birth? That "Jesus" walked on water? That the Garden of Eden was a real place and Adam and Eve were real people? That the flood of Noah actually happened? I could go on and on...
i opened this thread as a answer to Thedarkestofangels, which stated :
http://atheistforums.org/thread-4459-page-5.html
Quote:
Evidence. Proof. Science has it. Creationism and theism do not.
and give him oportunity to show, his assertion is true.