Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40
Nimble Duck:- "I know there are plenty of evolutionists here, and I know how they behave towards those who will not accept their nonsense. They are rude and forceful, just like the rest of the evolutionary society who rams their ideas down the throats of society and steamroll over anyone who objects."
I don't see the problem. Religion has behaved forcefully and brutally for thousands of years. It's only fair that evolutionists have their turn.
Interesting how theists don't like it when the boot is on the other foot. At least evolutionists won't kill you for disagreeing with their "nonsense".
Have you actually read the statement that these scientists are agreeing with? Anyone with an ounce of scientific understanding (I know you are not one of those...) can see that this statement is something every scientist would agree with, even those that accept evolution as fact!
All scientists are sceptical, it comes with the lab coat, and no one thinks that we have all the answers to evolution yet. That statement was designed to deceive and to be abuse. It's just the Discovery Institute doing what they do: Lying for Jesus...
If nothing else, it succinctly demonstrates the deceitfulness of creationists that they twist that statement to mean that these scientists are rejecting evolutionary theory.
Seriously Perry, get an education.
..true science..." - Nimble Duck
Whatever that means! I guess it means what most JWs would assert, and that is something that they happen to agree with whilst everything they don't like is pseudoscience...
"What the evolutionary "thinkers" believe is that if you find common traits between two things, one of those things came from the other spontaneously." - Nimble duck
Even Captain Picard laughs at you...
So, whatshall, ...you think that pasting a pic of Pat Stewart in his role as star fleet dude is science that proves you correct?
I smell a troll and he's rather dumb
What the evolutionary "thinkers" believe is that if you find common traits between two things, one of those things came from the other spontaneously. That about sums up all the "links" above. - Nimble Duck
It is very clear that you have read none of the posts I have written or in fact anything at all on the topic of evolution. "Common traits" is not a feature of any of the 40 threads in this series.
The evidence for the common ancestry of all living things is overwhelming. That is why the series of threads is called "Evolution is a Fact".
I challenge you to actually read the OPs of the 40 threads and refute them in your own words.
Evolutionists offer no proof that spontaneous and beneficial mutations have ever taken place. They just have "faith" that it does.
Of course that is factually incorrect. I have even described specific examples down to the level of individual letters of DNA in this series. Typically creationists just keep repeating these sort of lies to each other.
I know there are plenty of evolutionists here, and I know how they behave towards those who will not accept their nonsense. They are rude and forceful, just like the rest of the evolutionary society who rams their ideas down the throats of society and steamroll over anyone who objects.
Actually I only ever respond to objections calmly with facts, reason and evidence. On the other hand I have received countless insults, threats of damnation and personal attacks from Christians during this series of threads. Far from "steamrolling" over those who attempt to refute anything I have written I have taken many hours to respond to every single objection without exception.
They adopt and angry, in your face denial of true science, in favor of pseudoscientific garble.
Please tell me more about this "true science" of which you speak. Evolutionary biology is accepted as a fact by practically every scientist working in all relevant fields of research. Why do you call it pseudoscience?
Please tell me which books that present the scientific evidence for biological evolution you have studied?
I predict the answer is none and that you will evade this question - So far this prediction has a 100% success rate.
Tenacious - I watched the start of your first video. Within the first minute he misrepresents the meaning of the word "theory". This is a very ignorant mistake and destroys the credibility of the author. He also waffles about evolution not being a "law". Of course the theory of evolution is not a "law". That is just bizarre.
Then he makes the bald assertion that "natural selection is not an evolutionary process". What do you imagine he means by that?
Next comes the facile argument that you can't get a cat by selectively breeding dogs - The "crockoduck objection". Only somebody who knows literally nothing about evolution could attempt to make such a foolish argument.
Then we are treated to - "if evolution was true eskimos would have fur to keep them warm". Surely you didn't actually listen to this foolishness before you posted it! If you didn't then shame on you. If you did, then even more so.
Thanks cofty. I have found your series very helpful, enlightening, and an inspiring starting point for further research.
Lots of steamroller comments...
- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;
- Me thinks "theory" is the right word and it was applied correctly