Evolution, not a fact??????

I don't know.
How do you?

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wow, i really am confused!!!!!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since they share a common ancestor the similarity is to be expected.
You have pretty well run dry now, haven't you Jan. Answering questions, with questions. An old trick, and rather obvious.
You still haven't replied to my earlier post, by the way. Too substantial for you?

 

[Ophiolite]

I can understand why you cite this as evidence, but it is not scientific evidence.

Not until you give scientific evidence of macro evolution.

Only where apropriate.

Your posts reveal nothing other than a deep leaning toward the general theory of evolution.

So here is my question to you;
What is the scientific evidence that makes mackro evolution a scientific fact?

Jan.

 

Why?

Jan.

 

What is unscientific about it?

 

How do you know there is a common ancestor?

Jan.

 

Answer my question first. That is the normal, polite way of conducting a discussion. I presume you wish to remain polite, yes?

 

I said nothing about it being unscientific, which is why I cut straight to the chase with the question;

So please answer it.

Jan.

 

Well?
(you didn't think I was going away did you?)

Jan.

 

Observe, with interest A Darn Jane's debating style.
Refuse to answer any question directly.
Refuse to study the evidence, whilst implying the evidence has been studied.
Characterise the evidence as opinion.
Deny everything.
Answer questions with another question.

The technique is effective on two levels.
a) It frustrates those presenting a counter argument, as they are unable to penetrate her obfuscation and misdirection. [Not that they need to.]
b) It allows A Darn Jane to comfortably maintain her own delusions. [Although even the casual observer can see, not the holes in her logic, but the entire absence of logic.]

In general though, A Darn Jane's views do provide an interesting illustration of the evolutionary limitations of intelligence.

 

Evolution make sense !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is how started:

Quantum fluctuation
Inflation
Expansion
Strong nuclear interaction
Particle-antiparticle annihilation
Deuterium and helium production
Density perturbations.
Recombination
Blackbody radiation
Local contraction
Cluster formation
Reionization
Violent relaxation
Virialization
Biased galaxy formation
Turbulent fragmentation
Contraction
Ionization
Compression
Opaque hydrogen
Massive star formation
Deuterium ignition
Hydrogen fusion
Hydrogen depletion
Core contraction
Envelope expansion
Helium fusion
Carbon
oxygen and silicon fusion
Iron production
Implosion
Supernova explosion
Metals injection
Star formation
Supernova explosions
Star formation
Condensation
Planetesimal accretion
Planetary differentiation
Crust solidification
Volatile gas expulsion
Water condensation
Water dissociation
Ozone production
Ultraviolet absorption
Photosynthetic unicellular organisms
Oxidation
Mutation
Natural selection and evolution
Respiration
Cell differentiation
Sexual reproduction
Fossilization
Land exploration
Dinosaur extinction
Mammal expansion
Glaciation
Homo sapiens manifestation
Animal domestication
Food surplus production
Civilization
Innovation
Exploration
Leadership
Rules & Religion
Warring nations
Empire creation and destruction
Exploration
Colonization
Taxation without representation
Revolution
Constitution
Election
Expansion
Industrialization
Rebellion
Emancipation Proclamation
Invention
Mass production
Urbanization¸
Immigration
World conflagration
League of Nations
Suffrage extension
Depression
World conflagration
Fission explosions
United Nations
Space exploration
Assassinations
Lunar excursions
Resignation
Computerization
World Trade Organization
Terrorism
Internet expansion
Reunification
Dissolution
World-Wide Web creation
Composition
Extrapolation

 

You don't have an answer to my question, do you?
I know it, and you know it, yet you sincerely believe it to be a scienctific fact. That it contains mountains of scientific evidence. This is nothing more than an elaborate belief system.

Jan.

 

Come on Jan, let's be honest..

When it comes down to it, you actually have no interest in finding out any answers. instead you think it is more pertinent to avoid any questions posed to you, by asking an irrelevant one in return - and many people are getting a bit put off by it, indeed realising that you do not care for an answer, and thus spending their time elsewhere.

On your latest post you even ask a question and then supply your own answer to it for the other person. As that is the case, why bother asking in the first place? You have decided what is and what isn't, so be happy with it. I would however ask that you not bother wasting our time by asking questions that you don't want an answer to, (other than your own), and refusing to answer anyone elses question, (unless you answer it for them - which you've done to several people here, including me).

Amazing to see this thread now on page 13 and you still haven't answered the one question I asked. If that does not point at your blatant refusal to get any answers, then I don't know what does. By page 10 or 11 I had realised you really didn't want to know, and so left you with the facts of the matter:

"Evolutionary Biologists define "microevolution" as evolution below the species level, and "macroevolution" as evolution at or above the species level. This means that according to the scientific definition of macroevolution, speciation events are macroevolution. Since speciation has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory, macroevolution does indeed happen."

Clearly you have no desire to go any further, but the above statement answers your question. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

 

www.google.com

Jan, the answers are there. Nobody is going to dig up research and write paragraphs of text for you to deny it before even reading. From what I have seen in this thread, you are basing what you know on macro evolution from what people are writing in this thread. You have not yet pasted quotes from respectable papers which you question, or shown any proof of reading up on the subject you show such spite for.

 

In essence Jan:
Your debating style is transparent.
Your refusal to engage in fruitful discussion is rude.
Your inability to comprehend the scientific method is attributable to stubborness.
Your self satisfied complaceny is quite unattractive.
I could go on, but as I have noted before, you paint yourself as a thoroughly unattractive person. Snide, smug, self-righteous, devious, dishonest, even nasty: and these are your positive points. Goodbye.

 

Jan Ardena,

Domesticated animals did not exist prior to human "domestication" of the animals. We know this because fossil and bones of animals using carbon dating and geological layering, show that there are no animals matching the traits of modern domesticated animals and all domesticated animals are dated to our time.

Even today we domesticate animals through observeable instances, such as breeding and artificial selection on farms. Through this, we know cats are domesticated from wild cats, perhaps maybe not tigers, but other felines.

I must ask you to research this. But for now, I will give you this link I got from KennyJC's link of Google: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#theorytobetested

There are more websites with this information, try Google and type: "scientific evidence evolution"

I believe he is confused because you constantly ask questions and pulling the debate past prior posts, which were full of interesting debating. Now, we just have you playing the clueless questioner.

Check above posts.

I hope you are satisfied now, Jan Ardena. If not, please, do some research. Use the power of the Google . It's why it's there!


[Renrue]

 

Of course its transparent.
I've nothing to hide.

An example please.

I understand the scientific method, what I don’t understand is why macroevol is a scientific FACT. Why don’t you explain it?

As is your inability to judge character, while at the same time avoiding my enquiries.

The truth of the matter is that you cannot explain why macroevol is a scientific FACT (like microevol), when asked in a straight-foreward manner.





KennyJC,

I have loads of information (more than you probably think) on this subject, including the “Talk origin…. 29 evidences of….”
I have studied many debates, and been in many forums, regarding this subject.
I am not asking you or anyone for any websites, or books to read. I am asking why you think it is a scientific fact. If you wish to cite some of the (so-called) evidences, I will be happy to discuss, otherwise I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that you have no mind of your own.

I am basically asking a simple question “why is macroevol a scientific fact.”
Now can you answer that, or are you going to keep appealing to your authority?

Because I disagree with what I think is an elaborate belief system, you think I have spite for it?
This is the same (type of) attitude you get from fundamentalists when they are backed into a corner.

Why can’t you answer my enquiry, directly?





Renrue,

Rather obvious I would have thought.

Questions?
Clueless questioner?
LOL!! That is very funny.
I think he is confused because like some many gullible people, he took it for granted that the theory of evolution, although a fundamentally absurd idea, is a forgone conclusion. When in fact it is a theory in crisis, and full of holes, but yet is forced on the gullible mind, and sanctioned by the powers that be.

Do you think you can explain why it is a scientific fact, without appealing to your authorities?


Hope you all had a merry CHRIST…mas.
Happy new year.

Jan.

 

Jan Ardena,

Can you ask questions base on your own rationale even if you have not studied a field entirely?

Also, to conclude something is a scientific fact, I must use the scientific method and go through all the observations that has already been established. If I dedicate myself, then I will be able to; however, I do not have the time and rather use someone else's work. The reason they did it was to share.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In conclusion, yes, I can explain why it is a scientific fact if I spend my own resources and time. But, it is not necessary, other people have already labored through it and most of the work is approved by other people.

Back at you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now the real question is: "How can you refute the evidence that has been gathered by oh-so-many other people (You can start by visiting that link

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)?"


[Renrue]