Fallacies of Evolution

No scientist makes this claim.

 

Your opposition to 'science you don't like' confirmation bias is obvious and the points that you have made that make any kind of sense in English have been trawled from the standard politicised religion play books. Do you guys have nothing new?

 

Shall I save him the trouble?

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

https://ncse.com/project-steve

I am playing bingo with his Gish Gallop!

 

What "happened" was that evolution provided us with an adaption to communicate beyond just grunting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129083762

 

Science has done studies on our ability to reach a "spiritual" state. Basically it is meditative mental state that anyone can achieve with a little practice since it is easy enough to achieve and it has been measured using EEG's on "spiritualists" who place themselves in that mental state.

So yes, it is real!

That same mental also exists in other mammals because scientists measured their EEG's too!

There is no evidence whatsoever that being in that spiritual mental state connects us to any imaginary spirits or deities.

Religion has co-opted our ability to reach this mental state and inserted their own theist dogma as an "explanation" for the "existence" of their deity. However there is no actual scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim.'

Yes, we can achieve that mental state and yes, it is good for our mental wellbeing but we are not unique in our ability to do so.

 

Hibernation is an evolutionary survival adaption over time. No one just dropped a bunch of squirrels in Alaska and overnight they figured out how to survive in freezing temperatures. Instead the squirrel population would have adapted to colder temperatures over a long period of time in order to achieve that level of hibernation.

Polar bears evolved to survive in colder temperatures by adapting their fur so that it became hollow and filled with air.

Learning new science is hard work!

Only creationists deny evolution.

 

You don't understand science in the least.
Since you have utterly failed to post anything informative or useful, I must add you to my Ignore List.
Life is too short to waste time reading counterproductive wordplay.

 

Strange thing to say, considering I have to correct you regarding what science is, and does.

Lol, I accept your concession.

 

PLEASE ADD ME AS WELL!

It's only fair.

 

Wouldn't that be "cruel and unusual punishment" because it would deny him anyone to complain about?

 

Yet I would not care or know as he has been on Ignore for quite some time.

 

Bottom line , science is testable

religious kookery is not

 

But science denial can be (de-)testable!

 

Quoting the OP...

It's interesting that, this far into this thread, that you would repost the OP.

USFAN gave up defending it. Perhaps you can do better. USFAN asserted...

He then listed ten points. Let's take just one of them...

Since you quoted the OP, please show even just one instance where "Correlation proves Causation" is commonly taught in schools.

 

Ok, lets explore your idea

I presume you agree that the earth has been around for about 4 billion years
And that primative life has been here for maybe 3 billion years
And that primates have only been around for maybe a few 100 million years
And that modern human have been around for less than 1 million years
And that somehow... over the course of billions of years... increasingly complex forms of life have emerged... new species have emerged, other species have become extinct

Presumably there is further agreement that micro evolution happens.... for instance how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics

the remaining point of our current dispute would be wheather the mechanism of evolution could produce the agreed fossil record of increasing complexity and speciation, or wheather there is some other mechanism.... another unspecified mechanism (unless you are proposing a theory of how this all happened)

So, in summary.. if I understand... We agree about the long fossil and geological record... we are not proposing a young earth (6000 years old) .. and your fundamental contention is that some other mechanism beyond evolution must be active to produce complex speciation

Have I understood the basic nature of this discussion?

 

That's wrong, and obviously you're implying god.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
[.....]
3. "...Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly 5 million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.".."

The Short version of the graphic:

`

 

They "appear" to be leg bones. That's a far cry from "being" leg bones.

You're welcome.

 

This explains the theory of evolution better than anything.

Thanks.

 

Being pro-science my goal isn't to prove anything. You do know that science doesn't prove
things, right?

I'm simply showing the errors of evolution and how they are fabricated to suit an
agenda and that the theory is so full of holes it can't support itself without them (fabrications).

 

Simple. The gradual transitioning of species into another species.

There's nothing infinite about it. If evolution exists there will be the evidence of gradually
transitioning species. There is nothing.

The video wasn't anything but a fossil with a boat load of speculation.

And why shouldn't there be living examples of species transitioning into another species. Or has
evolution ended?

 

I accept your concession and am glad that I burst the balloon of evolution you've
been diligently taught (indoctrinated).

 

This means nothing to me, nor do the other parts of this post.

And what's with all the Creationist data? I've been very clear that I'm not a Creationist in
case you didn't know.

1. I know there is no evidence because none has been provided.
2. Yes, I've honestly looked around. Including years of college science.
3. Scientists (who really aren't scienctists because they force data) force date by creating
something that doesn't exist. There's no a single fossil showing the gradual transition of species.

One doesn't need training to see that nothing is there. You're apparently under the impression
that professional don't lie or use creative manipulation of facts to make their point. Good
grief, climate scientists do this on a daily basis.

But that's what's taught in schools and colleges.

No I don't.

Correction, you misunderstand evolution. Evolution is totally devoted to species turning into
other species. They simply can't support it.

There are no evidence of species gradually transitioning into another species. There is no
evidence of evolution that makes sense to educated and thinking individuals who take the time to
investigate what they've been told.

 

Yes, I do. From reading this post you have no idea as to what it is.

If you'll take the time to read what you just put up you'll nothing that there are
no new species in those examples.

Where is the examples of gradually transitioning species from monkey to man?
From bird to frog? From anything to anything? You have nothing.

You need to stop denying science and pay attention.

 

Yes it is. None of your posts show the gradually transitioning of species.

But then again, you deny science.

 

Yet there is no evidence of this. Where is the gradually transitioning fossil record of this
happening?

This isn't evolution. But evolutionists try to do the same thing and call it natural.