Evolution is false!

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok, Ok, my conclusion was bogus (in the most liberal sense). However, macroevolution does not need to be observed it can be inferred. From the available evidence (i.e. fossils) we can make [flimsy-semi-plausible] inferences about a species development. There is however, no biological reaon why macro-evolution is impossible. This is what I meant by "evolution is true".

Much better to say evolution is a valid scientific Theory.

Of Course evolutions is false!

If were TRUE, we would be evolving into a higher(?) species!

Originally posted by Nosrac
Of Course evolutions is false!

If were TRUE, we would be evolving into a higher(?) species!

No, why do you conclude that? And how do you know we arent anyway? (Can I take your terrible grammer to mean that english is not your mother tongue?)

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
1 so called "macro evolution" is observed in the fossil record.

2 nothing to do with toe

Please enjoy your religion but don't confuse your religion's foundation myths with reality

1 so called "macro evolution" is observed in the fossil record.

The fossil record is interpreted from the premise that macro-evolution did take place. Circular reasoning at best.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, why do you conclude that? And how do you know we arent anyway? (Can I take your terrible grammer to mean that english is not your mother tongue?)

And how do you know we arent anyway?

As you have made the claim that we are evolving , the burden of proof is yours.

Ok, but how old are the fossils?
Now if they are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years old, as Carl Sagan proposes,
that is incorrect.
Macroevolution? I don't know.
Have to read more on it.
What version of the bible do you have?

Originally posted by Nosrac
Ok, but how old are the fossils?
Now if they are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years old, as Carl Sagan proposes,
that is incorrect.
Macroevolution? I don't know.
Have to read more on it.
What version of the bible do you have?

Dude! Just here for the scintillating conversation?

Originally posted by Conrau K
😵

I think it might take a while for the theists to bamboozle their way out of this one.

Please stop wasting your time arguing against theists who are creationists. Anyone who can't accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and prefers to interpret literally what is obviously a mythical Genesis story (however spiritually relevant it might be) is not likely to listen to reason anyway. Notice how easily you use the word theist when I guess you really mean creationist. There are plenty of theists out there who don't have a problem with evolution and don't have to bamboozle their way out of anything.

Originally posted by Conrau K
😵

I think it might take a while for the theists to bamboozle their way out of this one.

Most informed theists have no dispute with evolution.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Please stop wasting your time arguing against theists who are creationists. Anyone who can't accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution and prefers to interpret literally what is obviously a mythical Genesis story (however spiritually relevant it might be) is not likely to listen to reason anyway. Notice how easily you use the word theist when I gu ...[text shortened]... ho don't have a problem with evolution and don't have to bamboozle their way out of anything.

As long as don't somehow think that your theory is a fact and somehow disproves Creation.

It is simply a preferd belief, disguised as Science, which cannot be demonstrated in the lab or reproduced as anything 'Scientific' should be.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Most informed theists have no dispute with evolution.

I would totally agree with you if you would put an 'un' before the 'informed' and a 'macro' before 'evolution'. 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would totally agree with you if you would put an 'un' before the 'informed' and a 'macro' before 'evolution'. 😉

Thank goodness that you disagree. If you agreed with me, it would create self-doubt.

On matters of religion and science, if you've typed a single informed post, I missed it.

BTW, literalists and fundamentalists, as well as members of your cult, are not among those generally recognized by the term "informed."

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Thank goodness that you disagree. If you agreed with me, it would create self-doubt.

On matters of religion and science, if you've typed a single informed post, I missed it.

BTW, literalists and fundamentalists, as well as members of your cult, are not among those generally recognized by the term "informed."

I'm so happy for you that you are among the 'informed'.

Just a pity that you never seem to show the 'uninformed' the right way.

Btw: Were you referring to the Bible cult?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Just a pity that you never seem to show the 'uninformed' the right way.

I've have repeatedly addressed your errors clearly and succinctly. Yet, you persist in them.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I've have repeatedly addressed your errors clearly and succinctly. Yet, you persist in them.

Which errors are you referring to?

My beliefs?