Evolution is a valid scientific theory

We already have. The overall picture of the fossil record begins with simple life forms moving toward more complex ones. This evidence backs the theory of evolution. Now YOU are obliged to discredit this. So far all I've heard from you is that it "appears" to be a tall tale. This isn't evidence. You lose. NannyNannyNanny.

 

Hey, wait a minute

First, fossil record is too scarce to support any claim of evolution definitively and even evolutionists admit it!

Second, I understand ,from what was found so far, that the older fossils are the more primitive organisms found.
If it be the case (since we don't have a human fossil dating 4 million BC) I won't argue otherwise.

What is not clear though is HOW did the most primitive single cell advance to become a homo sapience.
It is the MECHANISM of Evolution we dispute here , not the fossils found so far.

 

That's not evidence.

We agree on something!

I'm still not seeing any evidence to discredit evolution or its mechanisms.

Being unclear is not evidence.

 

I could spend a little time and probably would dig out a true mountain of evidence to discredit evolutionary theory , but I am not obliged to do so.

You see, here we have one group that makes Positive Assertion.
And there is another group (to which I belong) that Doubts such Assertion.

When it comes to rules of argument, it is one who makes Positive Assertion who also is obliged to prove it.

I am not obliged to prove non-existence.
You are obliged to prove existence.

Unless you prove YOUR claim you have none to begin with.
I need not do anything other than state my Doubt.

Simple as that

 

Your unable to so.

 

You know, in terms of intelelctual capacity I could be able to do many things, much beyond what you can ever imagine, simply because I am a Great Genius.
You are a mere average Rudenoodle

But it's irrelevant here. Not to be discussed under this thread. So, I won't go there.

What matters here is:

1) Positive Assetrion is made (Evolution is a valid scientific theory)
2) I Doubt such assertion.
3) No evidence and plausible argument was presented so far to overcome a reasonable Doubt.

Simple as that.

 

lol.

 

You have been presented the juried evidence of your peers in print and are found to be wanting.

Simple as that.

 

I lack belief in it.
You assert it is valid theory.
Ergo YOU has obligation to prove it is valid.
I am not obliged to prove it isn't.



"You are making a statement that something is true.

To make that assertrion logically valid, you have to support it with valid premises and conclusions.

Example: I assert Muchausen farted.

Premise: All human beings fart - excrete gaseously.

Premise: Munchausen was a human.

Conclusion: Munchausen farted.

Status - valid positive assertion.


Lack of belief is not a negative assertion

Example: Baron Munchausen flew to the Moon on cannonball.

Response: Prove that to me please.

The respondent is NOT saying Munchausen didn't fly to Moon on cannonball, merely not willing to accept he did.

The burden of proof then is on the one claiming he did fly to Moon on cannonball, as that is making a (positive) assertion."

 

That's all you had to say, unfortunately what you believe or choose to disbelieve matters not an iota to the average person.

When you go on to add that you have no good reason to not believe said theory it just begs the question, what is is you really have against the theory of evolution?

 

Do you have anything in particular against Munchausen's claim that he flew to Moon on cannonball?

If Munchausen was here today and told you he flew on cannonball and if 99/100 of mankind decided to believe him would you go to great trouble teaching such gullible people principles of physics and why you didn't belive Munchausen could perform such a feat?

Just because overwhelming majority of people are gullible , naive and foolish doesn't mean what they believe to be a scientifically valid theory is indeed so.
And I am not obliged to educate them.

But if you claim that theory is scientifically valid, you are still obliged to prove it.

 

And just because you are found wanting dose not make your position tenable either.

 

This statement is ridiculously meaningless and irrelevant to subject matter here. It serves as a typical example of digressionary tactics employed by followers of religious theory of Darwin anytime anyone challenges them to prove it indeed has anything to do with Science.

 

I suppose one could observe his attempt and base there opinions on whether how successful he was in his endeavor.

Again what is it about evolution that you find so distasteful, what part of the the theory do you find as implausible, and how is it you are able to judge on wheter or not it is implausible if you are unable to offer distinct critiques on the theory?

 

Ok, did you observe an ape to become a homo sapience so far be means of random chance and natural selection?
Nay, do you have at least ANY evidence of real macroevolutionary process (not talking about microevolutionary adjustements and variations of fundamentally same species)?

How is it possible that YOU are able to judge on whether it is plausible while you are unable to offer anything other than repetitive mantra such as "it is proven because it is proven ergo it is proven"

You are the one making Positive Assertion, ultimately you are the one obliged to back it up.

 

Vestigial Organs and an accurate fossil record that shows the remains of creatures in transition, Viruses that become immune to inoculation from season to season flightless birds with wings, species of animals who lose there eyesight after generations of living in the dark.

Now can you offer reasons why it would be imposable for creatures to slowly develop new traits or to shed off unneeded ones over time?

 

You introduced it into the discussion not me.

 

Per evolutionists own admission:

1) There is no possibility to find truly transitory fossil since fossils are scare to find in the first place.
So, if fossils of three similar species are found then assumption is made that they evolved out of each other or had evolved from same root by means of random chance and natural selection.
But the gaps are in fact filled by imagination of evolutionary biologists only.

They have not shown any evidence of macroevolutionary process in practice , which would make it possible to assume that in the longer range of time even greater macroevolutionary events would take place.

Not only that but they in effect go on to assert that you must believe product of their imagination merely because there is no proof to back it up!
[they don't say it exactly like that though, they present it as if you must believe it since there is no other way to explaine it but to rely on the imaginary process that is proven to exist nowhere but in the heads of evolutionary bilogists].

2) At the same time bio-evolutionists claim that ANY fossil is transitory by default.
Duh, any point between A and B must be transitory , even if there are 300 million lightyears in between. But who said that there was any direct line connecting A and B at all? Or that both were springing from C?
Where does that assumption come from?

I have adderssed all these before:

1) Virus is still virus. It doesn't become a dog. What it does is utilization of certain resisting capacity which could have well preexisted as a potential before it utilized it in responce to outer stimuli (and those who lack such potential or don't utilize it surely die).
But in NO way it is an evidence of macroevolution

2) Flightless birds and animals who lack eyesight are just that - flightless birds and sightless animals. Nowhere there exists any relevant evidence how they became the way they are other than in bio-evolutionists fantastic imagination and assumptions.

I have no idea why. If I knew I would come up with new theory, grab 50 Nobel Prizes in the way and be 20 times as famous as Einstein.

But I admit that I do not know why.

It is you who has to offer reasons why should I believe it would be possible for creatures to slowly develop new traits, as Bio-Evolutionists claim, while you lack any plausible argument and evidence to support such claim.

 

No observations have ever been made that support the immutability of species. Also museums are filled to the brim with transitional fossils, which is incredible given the tiny fraction of the earth that has been searched for fossils, and given that conditions conducive to the formation of fossils are often not met. Fortunately evolution by means of natural selection is supported by such a huge amount of evidence that we do not need a complete fossil record to support it, and each fossil we find is like a bonus. If species are immutable, and hence aboriginal creations, then flightless birds or cave dwelling animals with eyes are very hard to explain, but evolutionary theory provides a perfect explanation. Furthermore macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution over time, so demonstrating that micro-evolution occurs pretty much proves that macro-evolution is possible. To say that offspring can vary from generation to generation but that they can never vary in such a way as to become distinct species is just silly. Once enough variation has occurred that the individuals can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring they have reached the point of being distinct species. Also, the fact that all the various breeds of dog have been created in such a short time from wolves essentially proves that macro-evolution is possible. With all of the variability that has arisen in the short time that people have been breeding dogs imagine the variability that would be possible over millions of years of selective breeding. One last piece of fantastic evidence in support of the origin of species by means of natural selection: Researches took pairs of Podarcis sicula lizards from one island and transported them to another island where they never lived before. A mere 30 odd years later researchers returned to see if any changes had occurred in this isolated group. They found many anatomical differences between this transplanted group and the original population but most striking is the fact that caecal valves began evolving in the gut of the isolated group. After only 30 years this group is well on the way to becoming a distinct species. If they remain isolated from the original population for a long enough period of time I see no reason why they cannot change so much as to no longer be able to breed with individuals from the original population.