• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proof that Evolution is Garbage [W:408]

So your ego won't allow you to believe what somebody else.... not me, but sources from thousands of years of human history..... tell you.

BTW, the word you're looking for is "critique" not "critic."

So, in other words, you have no links to ANY unbiased, factual proof of the existence of this god of yours.

Just as we both knew you didn't.

Enjoy your leap of faith.


Have a nice day.
 
Over the course of 2 billion years, some microorganisms developed a useless protein structure that got passed along without negatively impacting their fitness? That's crazy talk. Now you expect us to believe that hypothetical protein structure was subjected to further mutation that caused it to form into a flagella? Pure madness.

I don't care about all the accumulated evidence, scientific scrutiny and subsequent technologies based on evolution. Very slow changes over extremely long periods of time is just too unbelievable. That's why I instead believe it was a magic sky person who's never given the slightest bit of evidence for his existence. Centuries of self-aggrandizing clergy editing religions texts based on bronze age oral traditions wouldn't lead us wrong on something like this!
 
Last edited:
My biggest criticism of science is that it's inconsistent.

It's not inconsistent, science evolves and adapts with the facts and evidence of the universe. Rest assured, if any scientifically verifiable evidence of god existed whatsoever, it would come to light and eventually be adapted into the modern scientific model. However, as of now, it doesn't exist.

Your beliefs on the other hand were written by human beings in the bronze age. You consider it a triumph that your mind will never grow and change to accept new ideas and learn new things. You're content in stopping your learning altogether and just keep the knowledge from 2,000 years ago. The ability to change, admit you're wrong, and accept new ideas is the pinnacle of science. You are the antithesis of progress.
 
You do realize that a claim is either correct or incorrect, right? If something has been proved false, it was a load of hot garbage all along.

99% of "science" is hot garbage, because it will be proved false eventually.

That's the track record of science. It's bound to be wrong, most of the time. If you don't believe me, take a hard and honest look at the scientific "facts" assumed to be true in the past 100 years, and take a look at how many have been discarded since.

However, if you've been convinced that believing in something that's 99% likely to be proved to be horse**** in the future is a sign of its "intellectual validity," then good for you. I don't need to be debating lemmings who can't think for themselves.

You are typing on a machine made possible by scientific discovery. Pretty much every thing you own is at least in part made possible or improved by the scientific community. Science is more often WRONG BEFORE, it is right for the time being. Its like weather always changing. Its mostly self righteous blowhards that claim we know everything. I think Socrates' said it best, The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Knowledge is a fickle thing, the more you have, the more you question.
 
Why is everyone engaging the OP? He's just grumpy because his OP turned out to be bull****.
 
Why is everyone engaging the OP? He's just grumpy because his OP turned out to be bull****.

Because he is an easy target and I am in the mood for shooting fish in a barrel.

Plus, his in-your-face attitude makes it just too tempting.
 
:

Three of the world's largest religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam all go back to the same God. If you want to be all new and revolutionary go ahead. There are a lot of people out there who are wrong. One way or the other you are not that special. You join a large groupof the willfully ignorant. That's not my problem. You want emperical evidence in a format you prefer. I'm sure there is someone out there willing to a comidate you. That person is not me. I don't care enough about a stranger on the internet to spend that kind of ti.e on it. I know what I believe and I remember where I was when I got it, that's good enough for me. Your journey is your own and it doesn't sound like you are willing to see it anyway. Good luck with that. Your screaming and arm waving doesn't make you a winner,it makes you look like you are drowning.
 
Why is everyone engaging the OP? .

I don't know about anybody else, but I do so to help him prove evolution can't possibly be true since there are still those unaffected by it.
 
Wow....a man typing on a computer (or phone) that sends digital signals through wireless networks (or fiber optics) to appear to people all over the world is arguing AGAINST science.

You are being proven wrong by the equipment you use to send your message.
 
Mankind is a word, and it's more common than "humankind."

If you don't care how mankind began, why the hell are you here on this thread?

Go play in traffic.

I don't understand what the debate is about. Everybody knows that man was created by this old dude with a white beard who was really bored because he had nothing to do. Then he made women because he figured men needed something to play with. Jeez! Don't you guys read your bible?
 


Not one single person on this board will be able to refute what is in this video. Many will try, and all will fail, I guarantee it.

The simple fact is that evolution does not hold water as a theory. However, people are invested in it... heavily. Therefore, they will defend it to the bitter end.

If we don't have evolution, what is left to fill the void? How do we explain the origin of mankind?

So many people are personally invested in this theory because they are deathly afraid that, should evolution be exposed as flawed, religion will take its place.

That is the truth of the matter.

A YouTube video? GMAFB.

There are dozens of those on the Web about the illuminate and the towers falling faster than gravity and the Bush family being part of a reptile elite--some videos even tie all that together...with "the evolution theory conspiracy". If it isn't written in a peer reviewed journal, it's garbage.
 
Proof that Evolution is Garbage

I would love for somebody to prove to me how it actually "improves" science.

It might actually change my mind.

My biggest criticism of science is that it's inconsistent.

One o the main problems with science is that it really only improves with the grave of the previous scientific prodigy.

Once a person makes a major discovery within a field of science, that new paradigm shift the beliefs of the entire field, then the rest USE THAT gained knowledge to improve the understanding of that generations premise, until there are some "anomalies" to that paradigm... Then finally a new prodigy emerges to push through a new scientific revolution.

So, yes your point that development is inconsistent is true, but just part of the process.
 
Proof that Evolution is Garbage

A YouTube video? GMAFB.

There are dozens of those on the Web about the illuminate and the towers falling faster than gravity and the Bush family being part of a reptile elite--some videos even tie all that together...with "the evolution theory conspiracy". If it isn't written in a peer reviewed journal, it's garbage.

Yes, YouTube contains alot of bs, but there are also a lot of videos that have valid information...

But to say that all information must e drawn from peer-reviewed journals??

What a great way to limit your perspective...
 
Yes, YouTube contains alot of bs, but there are also a lot of videos that have valid information...

But to say that all information must e drawn from peer-reviewed journals??

What a great way to limit your perspective...
Well...if your argument is to overturn a 100-plus-year old theory which has repeatedly been demonstrated to be consistent with observation, you better come to the table with more than just some crackpot YouTube video. No?
 
Yes, YouTube contains alot of bs, but there are also a lot of videos that have valid information...

But to say that all information must e drawn from peer-reviewed journals??

What a great way to limit your perspective...
Well, let's deal with THIS you tube video: I have a few people under my roof with Dr. in front of their name, one of whom is a medical bio-chemist specializing in mitochondrial DNA mutations, and they do not in any way agree with this youtube video.
 
Yeah... The whole "appeal to authority" argument isn't convincing me.

I don't give a damn who has a "dr" in front of their name. I do my own thinking.


Well, let's deal with THIS you tube video: I have a few people under my roof with Dr. in front of their name, one of whom is a medical bio-chemist specializing in mitochondrial DNA mutations, and they do not in any way agree with this youtube video.
 
A YouTube video? GMAFB.

There are dozens of those on the Web about the illuminate and the towers falling faster than gravity and the Bush family being part of a reptile elite--some videos even tie all that together...with "the evolution theory conspiracy". If it isn't written in a peer reviewed journal, it's garbage.

Reviewed by which peers?
 
One o the main problems with science is that it really only improves with the grave of the previous scientific prodigy.

Once a person makes a major discovery within a field of science, that new paradigm shift the beliefs of the entire field, then the rest USE THAT gained knowledge to improve the understanding of that generations premise, until there are some "anomalies" to that paradigm... Then finally a new prodigy emerges to push through a new scientific revolution.

So, yes your point that development is inconsistent is true, but just part of the process.

If one wrong theory is replaced with another wrong theory, can we really say that anything has "improved?"

The way I see it, science is running in circles.
 
So, in other words, you have no links to ANY unbiased, factual proof of the existence of this god of yours.

Just as we both knew you didn't.

Enjoy your leap of faith.


Have a nice day.

If God wanted to prove his existence, he would do so. The fact that he doesn't should tell you something about the nature of God and religion.
 
It's not inconsistent, science evolves and adapts with the facts and evidence of the universe. Rest assured, if any scientifically verifiable evidence of god existed whatsoever, it would come to light and eventually be adapted into the modern scientific model. However, as of now, it doesn't exist.

Your beliefs on the other hand were written by human beings in the bronze age. You consider it a triumph that your mind will never grow and change to accept new ideas and learn new things. You're content in stopping your learning altogether and just keep the knowledge from 2,000 years ago. The ability to change, admit you're wrong, and accept new ideas is the pinnacle of science. You are the antithesis of progress.

Define "progress."

That's the problem with progressives. You think running around in circles equals progress.
 
Wow....a man typing on a computer (or phone) that sends digital signals through wireless networks (or fiber optics) to appear to people all over the world is arguing AGAINST science.

You are being proven wrong by the equipment you use to send your message.

Scientists in lab coats running experiments didn't create the internet. Engineers did.
 
Reviewed by which peers?

Any team of experienced professionals with advanced degrees in biology, anthropology, and archaeology.

Basically, Behe's theories have been rejected across the board.
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.

...Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
 
Define "progress."

That's the problem with progressives. You think running around in circles equals progress.

1) I'm not progressive.

2) Progess would be the massive technological improvements we've made in the past 2,000 years that your magical bronze age writers have done nothing to help. You hate science, and yet it's provided you the very medium that you use to condemn it.

Scientists in lab coats running experiments didn't create the internet. Engineers did.

Engineering is science. That's why my engineering degree says "Bachelor of Science in Engineering".

Engineering is applying scientific principles to build fantastic devices that the world can use.
 
Why, Peter Grimm, do you so need for the OP to be correct?

I think you're doing a bit of projecting there.

It's a Psychology term, look it up.

I will believe in God, regardless of flagellum. I just thought it was interesting video, and I was correct that, thus far, nobody has been able to prove it wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom