Name 20 evidences for evolution and your verifiable evidence that they have been produced fraudulently.
No.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, friend
I chose 20 because I know you can't come up with 20. Even "Lies in the Textbooks" (your primary source it seems) doesn't have that many.
Surely, there have been frauds. The question is: What percentage of the evidence for evolution is fraudulent? If most of the evidence is faked, then surely you could come up with 20 verifiable examples.
I am sure you cannot.
I am well aware that no matter what information I give to you, you will discredit in your own mind if it conflicts with your preexisting emotional bias.
No. I will agree if the evidence is in your favor and discredit it right here on this forum if the evidence is not in your favor.
Because I've already provided you with rock-solid evidences and you've denied their credibility without explanation.
No. I have asked for evidence to support your initial assumptions in most cases. You failed to support your initial assumptions so your conclusions based on those, no matter how rock solid, are worthless. You've said it about evolution, wild assumptions and speculations....therefore bad conclusions. What? You can't follow the same rules you require for your enemies?
I've found the evidence myself (there are many more points of evidence against evolution than 20), but I learned a long time ago that giving knowledge away for free to those who have no intention of following up is a waste of time.
Those who have done their own homework have already discovered the mountains of lies behind the evolution religious movement. The evidence is easy to find.
Those who have done their own homework do so because they want to know the truth; They are motivated.
When you have the motivation to learn the truth, and when you lose the emotionally-based bias you have toward your religion, only then will you find the motivation you need to do your homework. Then, when you do your homework without bias, you will see what I (and so many others) have found.
Blah-blah-blah Same old con-man baloney. "I know the truth and it is important but I'm not gonna support my truth unless you pay me. You have to take my word for it"
You have stated that evolution is social control but produced no evidence that can be verified in support of your statement.
Same application of human bias applies here.
When you're ready to see, you will see. Furthermore, you will discover that the evidences have always been right before your eyes.
"Once you believe me, you will believe me". La-de-dah.
The Bible doesn't state the means by which the major apostasy will occur.
Yes it does: "The lie". (See Romans and Hebrews.)
Romans 1:25? It talks about worshiping the creature or creation rather than the creator. Tell me, how is knowledge about how life on Earth developed considered worshiping the creation any more than knowledge about how gravity works?
Why do you presume it is the promotion of evolution that causes it.
Because I know the evolution faith was created for this very purpose. Furthermore, when you do your homework, it becomes blatantly obvious and very clear that evolution is no different than any of the other current scientific lies, such as mercury in dental fillings, toxins in vaccines, MSG, Fluorides in water, and on and on.
It seems important to you to spread the truth about evolution, yet you don't want to provide support for your statements. Seems rather contradictory to me.
Evolution is an affront to science just as the use of Thimerosal in vaccines is an affront to life.
Again, it's right before your eyes.
God wants and intends for humans to be logical, curious, explorative, intelligent, and informed.
Again, when you lost your bias, you will begin to be able to see these deceptions and their purposes and their benefactors.
Remove my bias with evidence. Nothing truly worthwhile is gained through inaction. Even God's gift of salvation requires you to accept it.
This is different than the statement above. Small harmful mutations do not remain in the population. Small beneficial mutations do.
You're clearly misunderstanding my statement. Hopefully others won't.
Clear up my misunderstanding by providing a clear explanation. Obviously, you have never been a teacher.
But you do believe in magic and miracles so this can't be much of a stretch.
Funny you should say that.
Are you misrepresenting yourself? You said you were a Christian, but how can you make a statement like this and be a Christian?
My statement was about you, not me. What I believe is not on the table here. I also stated after your inquisition that I would no longer write about my faith. I would appreciate it if you would not ask me about it again.
It's interesting that most of the other evolutionists on this forum have been not only intellectually dishonest, but have grossly misrepresented themselves.
What is it with the evolution religion and immorality?
Just can't keep yourself from insulting those with whom you disagree.
Furthermore, miracles are simply observed technology misunderstood. God works within His own system according to His own rules. We just haven't learned all the rules yet.
A fan of Arthur C. Clark are we? Or are you a Scientologist?
How far beyond the bounds of absurdity does it take us? Can you quantify where those bounds of absurdity exist insofar as cellular biology is concerned?
Sure:
Math.
I spelled out the math behind this "absurdity" earlier. You just need to make the connection between that explanation and this statement.
Help me by actually showing the connection, instead of hiding behind the curtain.
I guess most scientists are not intellectually honest by your assessment.
You seem to continue missing this point.
Think "The Emperor's New Clothes". I spelled this out clearly previously as well.
It's also about job security. You see, the evolution clergy will fire you if you disagree with them.
Ah! So they are fools who think they don't see the truth but are unwilling to say anything about it, and only those with no scientific reputation to damage can really see the truth about evolution.
Additionally, they are liars who would do anything to save their jobs because they get paid so much more than James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Rick Warren.
Please point out 1 irreducibly complex system within any creature then show me what makes it irreducibly complex.
OK:
All of them.
Now, your turn...
You point out a single system that is not irreducibly complex. C'mon. Just one. I promise that I'll be impressed.
Sorry, it's not dodge ball that we're playing here, although you seem particularly adept at it.
Let's see: The clotting mechanism for blood is not irreducibly complex. I guess you were wrong.
When you provide an example of a "ridiculous assumption" and a refutation of it, maybe I could accept this statement as something other than a mere assertion.
Even though one rise from the dead you would not be convinced.
You could at least cite the quote. I take it that this response means you don't plan on providing evidence for this assertion either.
I have studied it enough to know that the "theories" and "evidences" provided to support it, don't meet the criteria to even call it a viable hypothesis much less a theory. Michael Behe, himself stated on the witness stand in Dover, PA that the requirements of science would have to be lowered in order for ID to be considered a theory. In fact, he agreed that if the standards were lowered enough for ID to pass the test, then astrology would also meet the criteria for a viable theory.
So, since your attempting to quote Mike.
Do you believe Mike to be honest?
I believe he is honest within his belief system.
If so, do you believe he is qualified to make that statement?
He is one of the founders of ID. He wrote "Darwin's Black Box" in which he coins the phrase "irreducible complexity". He is a molecular biologist. I would say that he is qualified to speak for ID. He was the star witness for the defense.
If so, is he an evolutionist?
He has stated that ID is not incompatible with evolution but he believes that evolution did not occur.
If not, then why are you referring to him at all?
Because even though he is one of the star scientists that support ID, he admits that it is not robust enough be a scientific theory and evolution is robust enough to meet all the criteria for a scientific theory.
(Seems a little contrary to your position, don't you think?)
Please explain how my use of Mike's abysmal performance at the Dover trial is contrary to my position.
read it. I guess you don't believe in a Literal Genesis Creation since you don't think the stars were put in on day 4.
Hmmm. I guess you didn't understand it since I clearly explained that. (Think "Earth Perspective"... Ring a bell?)
What exactly did you miss? I only hope others don't make the same mistake.
I guess I missed the part where you explained that God could make the stars on day 4 yet they could be so far away that the light wouldn't reach Earth for 100,000 years or more but we could see them now.
Genesis 1:14-19 (Bolding mine)
14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,(C)
15And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
16And God made the two great lights--the greater light (the sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night. He also made the stars.
17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good (fitting, pleasant) and He approved it.
19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Have a nice day!
