Evolution is a valid scientific theory

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.
jumbuli55 is online now Add to jumbuli55's Reputation Report Post Reply With Quote

If you don't know why, how can you distinguish what is plausible in reference to it? You have no reference point.

 

Haven't we heard this mantra 10 million times already

Assertion, assertions and nothing but positive assertions with nothing to back it up.
And you think I am so gullible as to believe any assertion merely because it's repeated endlessly by automated responce mechnically produced by followers of religious theory of Darwin? Heh
I would rather believe Munchausen, and at least it is more fun to read his Tall Tales than those of Darwinists

 

Everything is in transition at all times.

Still waiting for those critiques by the way

 

Do you know what UFO is? Do you have any reference point if I say it's a rocket fueled by horsepoop?

As you can see digressions don't prove anything. Neither do repetitions of meaningless statements.

 

You must have missed my responce on previous page so I have no choice but to copy-paste it below.

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 body asked you to believe in anything. No one said, here, take my word for it. The people you are speaking with are offering corroborating testimony and data. But if you would rather believe then what use have you for proof at all?

 

Anyone still claims that evolutionary theory is scientifically valid theory? Any relevant evidence or plausible argument to back it up ? (automated responce such as "it is proven because it's proven ergo it's proven" obviously doesn't count as a proof of anything).

 

Yes ,I do know what a UFO is, an unidentified flying object and I would not posit that it ran on anything, I would investigate. Meaningless statements don't prove anything but true statements do.

 

It is proven because it is proven ergo it's proven, is it's own proof, and as such it is the perfect instrument. No part of the statement contradicts any other part.

 

"It is proven because it is proven ergo it's proven, is it's own proof, and as such it is the perfect instrument. No part of the statement contradicts any other part ergo I flew on cannonball"

 

It is it's own proof, it is not proof to some thing that is not part of the equation. It does not address ergo, that is your interjection.

 

Jumbuli55 you obviously did not read my post as I included a number of facts and observations to support the concept of the origin of species by means of natural selection. Entire books have been written filled to the brim with evidence for this concept, all you have to do is buy one and read it. I did not simply assert that evolution is true, I provided examples and you ignored them. Your mantra seems to be "there is no evidence" and you repeat it louder every time someone shows you the evidence.

 

Hahahaha

Look above, I posted some factual evidence to show how Munchausen flew on cannonball.

Is this guy kidding me?!

 

It appears in that instance he did. However proof throws out the random sample.

 

Jumbuli I don't think you know what facts are or what evidence means. You are only kidding yourself. Instead of dodging the subject why don't you respond to the evidence cited?

 

You may very well write poems, Sir, but this is not how you prove the claim that theory in question is indeed sceintifically valid one.

Would you care to show that "huge amount of evidence" rather than saying it exists.
I could say there is a huge amount of evidence for apples falling into sky, would my mere saying it serve as an evidence of apples actually falling into the sky?

And what is that "huge amount of evidence" aside from fossil record?
Why don't you show any of it?

See above

Evolutionary theory may be very convenient and easy way to explain, unfortunately there is no evidence nor plausible argument to persuade the reasonable mind that it indeed could happen the way evolutionists imagine it to happen.

Just because explanation is easy or convenient or no other known alternative to explain it exists doesn't mean that it is scientifically valid explanation.

Using same logic I could claim that UFO is a rocketplane that flies on horsepoop (very easy, simple and convenient "explanation" of unknown phenomena and I dare anyone to come up with any other).

You really don't have any clue about biology, do you?
I suspect you really think that if you breed 50 dogs in your backyard in a matter of 10 years it is an indication that you could produce an elephant out of it in just a long enough period of time.

But even evolutionary bilogists concede that real macroevolution (with fundamentally different species produced as outcome, not just certain variation withi, even if they can't breed with each other) has not been possible to observe.
Bilogists themselves admit it to be the weak point of their theory but they say "heck with it, since we can't imagine any other way to explain the macroevolution but the accumulation of series of microevolutions, then so we will declare it to be!"
But just because they can't imagine and find out the mechanism responsible for macroevolution doesn't mean the imaginary "fill in the gaps" can be accepted as scientifically valid explanation of phenomena.

See above.
If you don't know subject why bother to argue?
You make it worse and harder for other evolutionists to defend the point when it is discredited to such degree by so many baseless assertions that also betray total ignorance of subject discussed.

And why is it silly to say that just because you can breed 50 dogs in your backyard with some variation of characteristics in few years doesn't mean you can make an elephant out of it in millions of years?

I addressed this before.
Variations themselves in those observations where it is claimed that new species were produced are temporary, and you can "regress" and bring back the species to pre-existing condition once the outer condition changes back to previous. And their offs[ring can breed with original "ancestral" species once again.

That is NOT an evidence of macroevolution (even evolutionists insist you can't make an ape out of man per evolutionary theory, you can't regress specie back if it's a new specie) , but it is an evidence of MICROevolution.
Some variation within a specie (that variation could go as far as make it impossible for it to breed with it's own species, but that is in responce to outer stimuli and that variation can and is eliminated in next generations once condition causing it is reversed , as I noted above).

You are kidding me.
I start to think you are actually posting this to support anti-evolutionists point of view, creating a "straw man" argument so to say.
If so, it's not good faith argument. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Hey, man, the other folks arguing here were much better than you. At least they had a clue that some changes to theory and advances in research were
done in the past couple of hundred years. You seem to be jumped right out of the Darwin's book on origin of species.

See above. I already addressed this. It's not macroevolution, but micro.

I responded to your post so you would stop pretending as if I was ignoring some "hard core evidence" in support of mythical theory of evolution.

Even Okiefreak knows his stuff better than you.

:cheers2:

 

If the rest of you think its worthwhile to continue this game, have fun. I've grown tired of it, because it was never serious. Jumbuli knows that if he puts the burden of proof on us, he has the upper hand. What he won't do (because he knows that if he does, he loses) is to acknowledge that all of those books and articles in peer reviewed sources exist, and that their existence constitutes a prima facie case in favor of the New Synthesis--obviously because, again, if he does, he knows he loses. What he does instead, like his counterpart wiseasses on the various Flat Earth websites, is to lead us a merry chase by insisting that we enter all of that massive evidence into the record, while himself offering nothing but babble about Munchausen--and you know that if we do he still wont be satisfied. FYI: This "debate" began in the Mindfuck Forum.

 

This is called handwaving technique, classic responce when proponent of evolution is seriously asked to back up their assertion that it's a valid theory.

All I know is that YOU made Positive Assertion, I didn't.
I Doubt your positive assertion.
By rules of logic you are obliged to back up your positive assertion or else it is not valid.

It has nothing to do with the person of Jumbuli. .

That's Inverse Ad Hominem argument and you know it.
As I said earlier it doesn't do anything to validate your opinion.

Now this is Ad Hominem

If you notice you are the one doing it.
You are the one insisting this silly theory is Scientifically Valid , just as Flat Earthers or Munchausen would do likewise.
And then you try to shift the burden on me to disprove it.

"Munchausen flew to the Moon on cannonball! Disprove it now or else you are a wiseass!"...

I don't offer babble or anything. You are the one who claimed it's scientifically valid theory, now you are helpless, can't back up your own assertion (I suspect by now you regret to ever typing word "Darwin" on this forum) , so with this you see no other recourse but wave your hand, call me a wiseass and call it quits.

Well, the topic of the thread you started (yes, you started it, ironically! ) is "Evolution is a valid scientific theory".

It is clear that you hereby conceded that it is not.

:cheers2:

 

jumbuli, we prove things in three ways. First, with our eyes. Does it appear consistent with all of the other things we observe on the same issue. The second with our mouths, does the story fit the observation. The third with our stomach, is it nourishing. If it is not then we through up. It is this third step that you have swung on and missed. If you miss on the third strike you are out. Do you need a leg up?