Evolution has never been observed

[TonyMcC]

Selective breeding of dogs has shown that the characteristics of a species can be changed. To the extent that a wolf can eventually give rise to animals as different as spaniels and rottweilers. This shows that large changes in an organism's characteristics can take place over time . I feel this is evidence that evolution is probable. I suppose the fact that nobody has changed a dog into a cat by selective breeding is a problem for some people.

[cabinintheforest]

Atoms can be directly observed, but they are mental creations. Not mind independent things. They can not be caught on camera, but they can be observed to the physical eye.

 

we can see evidence for evolution all around us, both in fossils

 

"Last Thursdayism, also Last Tuesdayism and Last Wednesdayism, is the unfalsifiable belief that the whole of the universe was created Last thursday." Fossils could of been created last thursday. Young earth creationists say the earth is 6000 years old and that fossils prove that, old earth creationists say the earth is about 100000 years old and that the fossils support that. Mainstream evolutionists discuss the earth as being millions of years old with specie evolution. Me? Im saying it's trillions if not infinite id say that man has walked on earth for 2.6 billion years or more and that fossils can prove it. It's all subjective viewpoint. We don't have a time machine we can't go back and see. We can only go with personal belief on what we believe is the truth, the current observational evidence, especially dug up evidence is very useful to get to the truth. What you must accept is there are flaws in dating fossils. The scientific community in my opinion has held back and supressed alot of evidence. Evolutionists also resort to hoaxs.

Edited November 3, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[ajb]

It's all subjective viewpoint.

 

And nothing to do with potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium dating methods?

[cabinintheforest]

And nothing to do with potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium dating methods?

 

Both of those dating methods have been used by young earth creationists, old earth creationists and evolutionists. It's subjective. Each group read the data differently and argues a date. It's all personal opinion and estimation.

[Red Hypergiant]

Atoms can be directly observed, but they are mental creations. Not mind independent things. They can not be caught on camera, but they can be observed to the physical eye.

 

 

 

"Last Thursdayism, also Last Tuesdayism and Last Wednesdayism, is the unfalsifiable belief that the whole of the universe was created Last thursday." Fossils could of been created last thursday. Young earth creationists say the earth is 6000 years old and that fossils prove that, old earth creationists say the earth is about 100000 years old and that the fossils support that. Mainstream evolutionists discuss the earth as being millions of years old with specie evolution. Me? Im saying it's trillions if not infinite id say that man has walked on earth for 2.6 billion years or more and that fossils can prove it. It's all subjective viewpoint. We don't have a time machine we can't go back and see. We can only go with personal belief on what we believe is the truth, the current observational evidence, especially dug up evidence is very useful to get to the truth. What you must accept is there are flaws in dating fossils. The scientific community in my opinion has held back and supressed alot of evidence. Evolutionists also resort to hoaxs.

 

First, there is no such thing as evolutionism, just like there is no such things as gravityism.

 

Second, we don't need a time machine. We can radiometrically date rocks and examine the genetic code.

 

Third, scientists do not resort to hoaxes. The hoaxes such as Piltdown man were exposed by scientists as hoaxes. No scientist today supports it as evidence.

 

Both of those dating methods have been used by young earth creationists, old earth creationists and evolutionists. It's subjective. Each group read the data differently and argues a date. It's all personal opinion and estimation.

 

No, it isn't. Radiometric dating works by comparing the ratio of a parent element to its daughter element(s). It's scientific.

[ydoaPs]

Both of those dating methods have been used by young earth creationists, old earth creationists and evolutionists. It's subjective. Each group read the data differently and argues a date. It's all personal opinion and estimation.

We can look at the sky and see that the universe is billions of years old(see the video I embedded earlier). Isn't it odd how all of the dating methods come up with an old universe?

[cabinintheforest]

First, there is no such thing as evolutionism, just like there is no such things as gravityism.

 

Second, we don't need a time machine. We can radiometrically date rocks and examine the genetic code.

 

Third, scientists do not resort to hoaxes. The hoaxes such as Piltdown man were exposed by scientists as hoaxes. No scientist today supports it as evidence.

 

 

 

No, it isn't. Radiometric dating works by comparing the ratio of a parent element to its daughter element(s). It's scientific.

 

Owned B)

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating

 

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems

Have some others:

 

 

http://www.answersincreation.org/radiometricdating.htm

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

 

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

http://creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results_(Talk.Origins)

 

 

 

We can look at the sky and see that the universe is billions of years old(see the video I embedded earlier). Isn't it odd how all of the dating methods come up with an old universe?

 

Good.

[Red Hypergiant]

Owned B)

http://creationwiki....iometric_dating

 

http://creationwiki....dating_problems

 

Have some others:

 

 

http://www.answersin...etricdating.htm

 

http://creation.com/...iometric-dating

 

http://creation.com/...ons-and-answers

 

http://creationwiki....s_(Talk.Origins)

 

 

 

Nice. You gave me a whole list of biased, unscientific sources.

 

The first one immediately comes out and attacks uniformitarianism, the foundation of modern geology, so that's already sending up a signal that it is not reliable.

 

 

Plus, the people who wrote the article are stupid enough to cite a source that completely disagrees with them, but they still say that the equations they pulled off of it are correct. Creationist cherry-picking.

 

The second article doesn't cite any sources at all...

 

 

 

And if the other ones are going to say that a shell of a snail was dated x million years old, it's because of the reservoir effect, and that's why scientists don't use carbon dating on marine life.

 

And if they say that there was a rock that was dated at two different ages, it was because it was a composite rock.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2010 by Red Hypergiant

[ydoaPs]

I almost forgot, Welcome!

[DctrZaius]

Antibiotic resistance is an example of macroevolution in bacteria. I don't think your God plonked populations of bacteria onto the planet that were each resistant to certain drugs that man would eventually invent. Your claim that evolution must be false because you can't see it happening is ridiculous. You've been alive for not even 100 years and evolution occurred/occurs over hundreds of millions of years. It's an incredibly slow process.

 

You know, it's also 'just a theory' that explains how the Earth goes around the sun. Can you show me a video of the Earth moving around the sun? No. A theory in science is the system which explains a process and it is supported by facts and evidence. Evolution is the process, and it is a fact (just as the Earth moving around the sun is a fact), the theory of evolution is the ideas which explain how that fact occurred (namely natural selection etc). A theory, as you seem to think, isn't just an idea that is made up for no reason and isn't supported by facts. Saying it's 'just a theory' is the most pathetic argument ever. The theory of evolution came about because it was obvious that animals evolved. The theory is the explanation for the fact that animals evolved and there is an undeniable body of evidence to support that fact and the theory (natural selection can be observed anywhere). I suggest you go and read some books about it (Such as "The Greatest Show on Earth") instead of trolling on a science website where people are obviously in tune with the scientific consensus that evolution is a fact. We don't come to your creation websites or whatever and tell you that God is a load of bullocks. This forum is for science. If you want to attack science go to your creationist or ID forum. Cheers.

Edited November 3, 2010 by DctrZaius

[cabinintheforest]

You've been alive for not even 100 years and evolution occurred/occurs over hundreds of millions of years. It's an incredibly slow process.

 

 

Im nearly 20 years old it is possible to live to 150 so i will see. Anyway "evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years" you were there to see it were you? All you offered there was a faith statement. Get your talmud or koran out, you can offer some faith statements from those books aswell.

Edited November 3, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[Red Hypergiant]

Im nearly 20 years old it is possible to live to 150 so i will see. Anyway "evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years" you were there to see it were you? All you offered there was a faith statement. Get your talmud or koran out, you can offer some faith statements from those books aswell.

 

How many times do we have to tell you? Direct observation is not necessary. Just look at the fossil record and phylogenetic tree we can create by examining the genetic code of living organisms, it's evidence. It's a fact of life.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Red Hypergiant

[cabinintheforest]

How many times do we have to tell you? Direct observation is not necessary. Just look at the fossil record and phylogenetic tree we can create by examining the genetic code of living organisms, it's evidence. It's a fact of life.

 

 

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena. UFOS? Aliens? Ghosts? Supernatural entities? Deity?

[DctrZaius]

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena. UFOS? Aliens? Ghosts? Supernatural entities? Deity?

 

There's no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any of those things so of course we don't 'believe' in them. If there was any evidence for those things we wouldn't need to 'believe' in it anyway, it would be a fact.

 

I sincerely pity you for being so indoctrinated into your way of thinking. Do you realise that if you happened to be born at a different geographical location then you would understand that evolution is a fact just like the rest of us? Unfortunately you were born into a situation where you've been brainwashed into opposing what the rest of the world accepts.

 

 

[Red Hypergiant]

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena. UFOS? Aliens? Ghosts? Supernatural entities? Deity?

 

 

How is this relevant? No, I don't believe in the above.

 

They have not been observed, period. Evolution has been observed in the fossil record and genetics. Also, we have recorded instances of speciation.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm

[ydoaPs]

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena. UFOS? Aliens? Ghosts? Supernatural entities? Deity?

What happened to you 'embracing specific evidence'? Cap'n's post:

Hmm. I can propose a test. Suppose I have some organisms. I introduce a chemical that kills most of the organisms. Using evolution, I'd predict that after some time, all of the organisms that are vulnerable to the chemical will be dead, and the rest will have gotten more and more immune. After a sufficiently long time, the chemical will not kill the organisms at all.

 

What have we here? Antibiotic resistance, observed in numerous strains of bacteria.

 

Hmm. How about another one?

 

Suppose I put some organisms in an environment with several kinds of food. They can only digest one kind of food there, and they eat it and thrive. Using evolution, I'd predict that if one of the organisms develops the ability to eat more than one kind of food, it'll get ahead, because it gets to eat food that no other organism eats -- so there's plenty of food for it. Guess what! It's the Lenski experiment, exactly, and Lenski has the actual bacteria frozen away in petri dishes for you to examine under a microscope.

 

Or another one?

 

Suppose we have an insect that lives in a certain environment. Suppose humans build a new environment -- say, underground tunnels. Some of this insect get into the new environment and adapt. Years later, they've adapted so much they no longer breed with the original insects. What's this? Why, it's the London Underground mosquito, Culex pipiens molestus.

 

In each of these examples, you can get samples of the actual organisms in question. You can perform whatever experiments you want on them. You can look at them under microscopes. (Lenski froze samples of his bacteria from every stage in the process, and analyzed the genome of many samples. You can get some of his samples if you have a lab and a freezer capable of handling them.)

 

But you won't get video of it happening in real-time. The Lenski experiment has been running for 22 years, or 50,000 generations. Try videotaping that.

That gives multiple specific examples, most of which you can get samples of and all of which you've entirely ignored.

[DctrZaius]

Look, cabinintheforest, if you're not going to accept any of the evidence for evolution as evidence then what is your purpose with regard to coming onto this forum? There is plenty of evidence to support what you're opposing and when people provide you with this evidence you just refuse to accept it and prefer to believe your most ridiculously bias and unscientific websites to support your own delusions about the religion you've been brainwashed into. How is it that reproducible scientific data is false in your eyes but the writings in a 2000 year old book that were produced when little science was known are true? It is utterly ridiculous. Are you next going to tell us that you think the geographically impossible event of Noah's flood is a fact?

[Red Hypergiant]

Look, cabinintheforest, if you're not going to accept any of the evidence for evolution as evidence then what is your purpose with regard to coming onto this forum? There is plenty of evidence to support what you're opposing and when people provide you with this evidence you just refuse to accept it and prefer to believe your most ridiculously bias and unscientific websites to support your own delusions about the religion you've been brainwashed into. How is it that reproducible scientific data is false in your eyes but the writings in a 2000 year old book that were produced when little science was known are true? It is utterly ridiculous. Are you next going to tell us that you think the geographically impossible event of Noah's flood is a fact?

 

Quote for truth.

 

 

So far, he has ignored all the evidence against him, but expects us to buy his every word.

[cabinintheforest]

There's no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any of those things so of course we don't 'believe' in them. If there was any evidence for those things we wouldn't need to 'believe' in it anyway, it would be a fact.

 

I sincerely pity you for being so indoctrinated into your way of thinking. Do you realise that if you happened to be born at a different geographical location then you would understand that evolution is a fact just like the rest of us? Unfortunately you were born into a situation where you've been brainwashed into opposing what the rest of the world accepts.

 

 

 

There is real empirical scientific evidence for the existance of all of those things. People happen to of taken photos. I happen to of served 2 years with the SPR (society of psychical research) of course i have questioned the evidence myself alot. I have observed some of this phenenoma myself i know it is real. Of course the conclusions are sometimes different than what some people believe. Most of this stuff is factual it is not a belief. We just have to try and explain the evidence and most skeptics don't buy into the conclusions given.

 

Indoctrinated into your way of thinking? I am not religious. I just question evolution. Obviously you question nothing and take anything you read in a school textbook at face value. Next your be on here saying homosexuality is normal and that rapists have human rights. The idea of Evolution leads to poor morality it has caused racism, disease, and all kinds of immoral acts. Those are my personal opinions anyway, just like you are on here promoting evolution is a fact. This is an open forum to question these things. Are you a communist? Please accept people have different beliefs, ideas, theories and views.

 

Look, cabinintheforest, if you're not going to accept any of the evidence for evolution as evidence then what is your purpose with regard to coming onto this forum? There is plenty of evidence to support what you're opposing and when people provide you with this evidence you just refuse to accept it and prefer to believe your most ridiculously bias and unscientific websites to support your own delusions about the religion you've been brainwashed into.

 

Is this an evolutionist forum? Nope, i asked for evidence for evolution and none has been given. Seems to be an open science forum to me. My purpose of my visit to the forum was to paste in my atheistic intelligent design thread. (which nobody seemed to read all the way through) please read over the thread i started it's actually about atheists supporting intelligent design. Look up john gribbins theories. intelligent design does not have to be religious. In my room i own about 6 books written by agnostics who have questioned evolution. Briainwashed religion? Where did i say i was religious. You are jumping to conclusions.

72% of america are creationists, if you don't like it take it up with them. Evolution is dieing out get over it. evolution is an insult to science.

Edited November 4, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[Moontanman]

I would guess that observing fast reproducing animals in captivity as they change due to the captive environment isn't evolution?

[Red Hypergiant]

Indoctrinated into your way of thinking? I am not religious. I just question evolution.

Oh really? That would explain why you always cite creationist websites...

 

Obviously you question nothing and take anything you read in a school textbook at face value.

It's OK to question, just expect to get an answer.

Next your be on here saying homosexuality is normal

 

Well, it might not be 'normal', but homosexuals still are human beings and deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

and that rapists have human rights. The idea of Evolution leads to poor morality it has caused racism, disease, and all kinds of immoral acts.

 

No, it doesn't. It's a scientific theory. It says nothing about any race being superior, it cannot cause disease (really? you think that a theory can cause disease?), and doesn't say anything about immoral acts. Just how species change over time.

 

Those are my personal opinions anyway, just like you are on here promoting evolution is a fact.

Because it is. We have observed speciation (see my post with the links) and we see it in the fossil reord and genetics.

 

This is an open forum to question these things. Are you a communist?

 

I'm not sure how a political/economic system with no castes relates to this...

 

Please accept people have different beliefs, ideas, theories and views.

 

You're the one who came here challenging us, and we're answering your challenge.

 

 

 

Is this an evolutionist forum?

 

There's no such thing as evolutionism, just like there's no such thing as gravityism.

 

Nope, i asked for evidence for evolution and none has been given.

 

We have given you plenty. See the links I provided and the Lenski experiment. Oh, and the fossil record and genetics.

intelligent design does not have to be religious.

That's nice, but it's still not science.

 

In my room i own about 6 books written by agnostics who have questioned evolution. Briainwashed religion? Where did i say i was religious. You are jumping to conclusions.

No, you referenced several creationist sites.

 

72% of america are creationists, if you don't like it take it up with them.

 

Oh, well if a country largely ignorant of science believes it, it must be true!

 

Evolution is dieing out get over it.

 

No, it isn't. It's as strong as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of Relativity.

evolution is an insult to science.

No, it is science, as we have shown you.

 

 

[cabinintheforest]

Oh really? That would explain why you always cite creationist websites...

 

 

Yes i have quoted some ID and creationist websites. Becuase they are honest about what is going on. For example on creation website they review agnostic books. They are open to emails.

 

If you read over my post, atheistic intelligent design. You would see all the great scientists and philosophers who have doubted evolution who have been atheists.

 

David hume, mach, reich, kant, hegel for example. Richard milton with his book "shattering the myths of darwinism" and micheal denton with his book "evolution a theory in crisis". Even a book called an atheist defends intelligent design has been published. John gribbin a hardline atheist who supports intelligent design.. now all of these men have been scientists and great philosophers they have questioned evolution. No need to take everything at face value.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

David hume, mach, reich, kant, hegel for example. Richard milton with his book "shattering the myths of darwinism" and micheal denton with his book "evolution a theory in crisis". Even a book called an atheist defends intelligent design has been published. John gribbin a hardline atheist who supports intelligent design.. now all of these men have been scientists and great philosophers they have questioned evolution. No need to take everything at face value.

 

Hume, Kant, and Hegel were all dead before the theory of evolution ever existed (i.e. before Darwin wrote Origin of the Species). Stop making stuff up.

[Red Hypergiant]

Yes i have quoted some ID and creationist websites. Becuase they are honest about what is going on. For example on creation website they review agnostic books. They are open to emails.

 

If you read over my post, atheistic intelligent design. You would see all the great scientists and philosophers who have doubted evolution who have been atheists.

 

David hume, mach, reich, kant, hegel for example. Richard milton with his book "shattering the myths of darwinism" and micheal denton with his book "evolution a theory in crisis". Even a book called an atheist defends intelligent design has been published. John gribbin a hardline atheist who supports intelligent design.. now all of these men have been scientists and great philosophers they have questioned evolution. No need to take everything at face value.

 

 

ID has been disproven numerous times, and it never will be considered science. Why? Because the conclusions don't match the evidence.

[cabinintheforest]

Hume, Kant, and Hegel were all dead before the theory of evolution ever existed (i.e. before Darwin wrote Origin of the Species). Stop making stuff up.

 

Yes exactly, they didn't use the word evolution but they expressed in different words how the beliefs of evolution which darwin believed in were impossible. They were the true skeptics unlike others on this forum embracing evolution at face value when they themselves have never observed it with their own 5 senses. Evolution is an embarrassment to empiricism.

Edited November 4, 2010 by cabinintheforest