Why Evolution is Wrong and What is Right?

rossum

Well-known member
You’re quite mistaken once again and your appeal to the fallacy of equivocation doesn’t help you. Transitional forms would be a necessary evidence for you. They would help confirm the reality of your current mythological belief (ie your frog to human evolution).
If Seth did not exist, then there would have been no Noah, because Noah was descended from Seth. Absent Seth there would be no human race on your Genesis-based scenario.

The fossil of Seth, and/or Mrs. Seth, are essential transitionals for your side. Your side lacks those transitionals, so you would be wise not to insist on the same from the evolution side. People in glass houses...
 

rossum

Well-known member
Who cares what you think because it is driven by philosophical mandates, not actual science where competing hypos are analyzed. A designer better explains the human body than your alternative of unguided common descent, ultimately brainless causation best explains the human body according to Rossum where ape/human ancestry is assumed (unobserved and identity unknown) via faith and preference and designer is ignored. Not really refuted. An imperfect designer according to subjective, bias and ignorance do not invalidate a designer. You believing you are an ape has not one thing to do with science and everything to do with faith and dogmatics
Opinion: 100%

Science: 0%
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Right facts are dismissed as opinion when the facts do not support your unscientific philosophical mandates. (n) Either that or Rossum cannot distinguish fact from opinion. :confused:
There was not a single fact in the post @rossum referred to. There wasn't even an attempt at a fact. Every sentence is an opinion statement. A disinterested observer, if such could be found, would say the same. It's not that what you were saying was untrue. Nothing you said had a truth value.
 

DaGeo

Active member
Untrue. There is sufficient evidence for evolution to be accepted as fact even if no fossils existed at all. The evidence from genetics, biogeography and direct observation is more than enough. Take ring species for example. You do know what they are, don't you? They prove that genetic variation can lead to new species, and all the transitional forms can be seen alive and well. The speciation takes place over geography rather than time, but this is evolution that anyone can observe. Indeed I see the result of a ring species whenever I visit the coast near my home.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of anything, particularly when the evidence is not absent at all.
Temujin, there ya are‼️‼️ Welcome back‼️‼️
How do wild speculations move your case forward⁉️ MY WORD‼️‼️😉😇
Come now Temujin, my friend—a little anxious about me takin’ your evolution myth off life support are ya⁉️⁉️⁉️
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Who cares what you think because it is driven by philosophical mandates,
I'm pretty sure you don't have sufficient evidence that the above is true.

not actual science where competing hypos are analyzed
Right, and after that analysis, one hypothesis wins out, and in this case the winning hypothesis was evolution.

. A designer better explains the human body than your alternative of unguided common descent,
"Better explains" isn't the criterion. The criterion is whether necessary consequences of the hypothesis are observed (and whether consequences that couldn't happen based on the hypothesis are never observed). Unfortunately, there appears to be no design which could not be attributed to an intelligent designer, which makes it is useless hypothesis.


ultimately brainless causation best explains the human body according to Rossum
according to the evidence we have.

where ape/human ancestry is assumed (unobserved and identity unknown) via faith and preference and designer is ignored.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on the evidence we have.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Temujin, there ya are‼️‼️ Welcome back‼️‼️
How do wild speculations move your case forward⁉️ MY WORD‼️‼️😉😇
Come now Temujin, my friend—a little anxious about me takin’ your evolution myth off life support are ya⁉️⁉️⁉️
I am closer to wondering if you should be going on life support. Your posts are increasingly unhinged. Which considering how unhinged they were to start with, must be a worry for those close to you.
 

DaGeo

Active member
I am closer to wondering if you should be going on life support. Your posts are increasingly unhinged. Which considering how unhinged they were to start with, must be a worry for those close to you.
Hahahaa‼️‼️ Nice‼️‼️ Even I got a good chuckle outa that one‼️‼️ See, even you can lighten up a bit—-well played‼️‼️
 

rossum

Well-known member
Unfortunately, there appears to be no design which could not be attributed to an intelligent designer, which makes it is useless hypothesis.
We know that a pegasus can be designed: humans designed it. We know that a pegasus cannot evolve because it combines elements from the avian and mammalian clades. The absence of pegasi is evidence tending to confirm evolution.

Or alternatively, evidence for design by Loki/Trickster making design look like evolution. :D
 

DaGeo

Active member
We know that a pegasus can be designed: humans designed it. We know that a pegasus cannot evolve because it combines elements from the avian and mammalian clades. The absence of pegasi is evidence tending to confirm evolution.

Or alternatively, evidence for design by Loki/Trickster making design look like evolution. :D
Denial denial denial AND more denial on the highest Denali

What did we discuss about wishful thinking⁉️⁉️😉😂😂🤣😇

But—-then again, thaaaaat’s what dreams are made of
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
There was not a single fact in the post @rossum referred to. There wasn't even an attempt at a fact. Every sentence is an opinion statement. A disinterested observer, if such could be found, would say the same. It's not that what you were saying was untrue. Nothing you said had a truth value.
You think a person with a penis can be a girl so don't go talking to me about biology. Well lets see we can start out with the identity of the ape/human common ancestor is unobserved unknown and theoretical. Three facts. The alleged mystery creature is believed to have existed which is another fact. Philosophical mandates which eliminate a designer from the get-go is another fact. When it is obvious the human body is designed and there are many differences between humans and apes that are ignored more facts. There are nauseating appeals to science to add credence to all this is another fact.
I'm pretty sure you don't have sufficient evidence that the above is true.
You are an atheist
Right, and after that analysis, one hypothesis wins out, and in this case the winning hypothesis was evolution.
Truth wins out in the end, not your mythical beliefs accommodating your atheism.
"Better explains" isn't the criterion.
Actually it is. Murder better explains cause of death in a corpse with multiple stab wounds and bloody footprints leading out of the crime scene than natural causation and design better explains the human body than undesign which is your mandate. Because you are an atheist. This will all bounce off your head.
The criterion is whether necessary consequences of the hypothesis are observed
Well if observation is the standard then the mystery common ancestor is not observed. They deduce plenty of things that are unobserved like murder. They recreate crime scenes, ancient writings, they date pottery and on it goes. They even identify mummies based on what is observed in the present to deduce the past. (Unobserved.)
(and whether consequences that couldn't happen based on the hypothesis are never observed). Unfortunately, there appears to be no design which could not be attributed to an intelligent designer, which makes it is useless hypothesis.
What? It comes across as garbled and opinion based on bias. Your start point is atheism, not objectivity.
according to the evidence we have.
We can look at the human body to deduce design and compare ape bodies and human bodies to denote huge differences which are ignored because of atheistic mandates on your side. Your mind is made up prior to the fact. Not objective.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on the evidence we have.
No it is based on philosophical mandates which rule out designers from the get-go. Double standards on your part.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
You are an atheist

Truth wins out in the end, not your mythical beliefs accommodating your atheism.. . . .
What? It comes across as garbled and opinion based on bias. Your start point is atheism, not objectivity. . . .
Your mind is made up prior to the fact. Not objective.
Whether I am an atheist or not has nothing to do with whether the ideas I present are true or logical or not.

Actually it is. Murder better explains cause of death in a corpse with multiple stab wounds and bloody footprints leading out of the crime scene than natural causation and design better explains the human body than undesign which is your mandate. Because you are an atheist. This will all bounce off your head.
For an explanation to be better than others is a necessary condition but it is not sufficient. Magic-dust-sprinkling pixies explains it, too, but no one should take that hypothesis seriously. As I've noted, there are serious problems with the designer hypothesis, not the least of which is that *anything* can be explained with it.

Well if observation is the standard then the mystery common ancestor is not observed.
The whole point is, observation of what? If you require observation of the phenomenon in question, then no murder detective could ever solve a crime without an eyewitness, but the lack of an observation of the murder itself doesn't stop detectives from figuring it out. Same for science, same for evolution.

They deduce plenty of things that are unobserved like murder. They recreate crime scenes, ancient writings, they date pottery and on it goes. They even identify mummies based on what is observed in the present to deduce the past. (Unobserved.)
I don't think you realize that you are arguing against the lack of observation of (living) common ancestors being a problem.

We can look at the human body to deduce design
You're deducing design without sufficient evidence.

and compare ape bodies and human bodies to denote huge differences which are ignored because of atheistic mandates on your side.
Exactly who is ignoring the differences between, say, gorillas or chimps and humans? Certainly not the biologists who understand that evolution is true. You are just pulling things out of your hat now.
No it is based on philosophical mandates which rule out designers from the get-go.
Again, I strongly suspect that you don't have sufficient evidence for this claim.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Whether I am an atheist or not has nothing to do with whether the ideas I present are true or logical or not.
Has everything to do with it and i explained why.
For an explanation to be better than others is a necessary condition but it is not sufficient. Magic-dust-sprinkling pixies explains it, too, but no one should take that hypothesis seriously. As I've noted, there are serious problems with the designer hypothesis, not the least of which is that *anything* can be explained with it.
You don't like it and it clashes with your delusional atheism. Everything else is excuse-making.
The whole point is, observation of what?
You were the one who brought up observation and exempt your assumptions about the past from the standard you set.
If you require observation of the phenomenon in question
You brought it up.
, then no murder detective could ever solve a crime without an eyewitness, but the lack of an observation of the murder itself doesn't stop detectives from figuring it out. Same for science, same for evolution.
You bought up observation as a standard. It is you who is assuming the human body is not designed intelligently. Even though the human body screams of design. That is because of your atheism as a driver of your interpretations, not objectivity. Tail wags the dog. Your atheism also rules out historical accounts of creation from the get-go as fiction. As if you who is thousands of miles removed know more than the ancients who were much closer to the events in question. You can have your opinion. You can believe boys are girls or humans are apes. They are not science, they are delusion, and science and delusion are incompatible.
I don't think you realize that you are arguing against the lack of observation of (living) common ancestors being a problem.
There are two hypos, humans and apes are biologically related thru a common ancestor mystery creature identity unknown theoretical. Kind of like Dracula is a theoretical creature or munchkins or goblins. That is your position. Ours is humans and apes are biologically unrelated and there was no common ancestor mystery creature. The human body is designed and prima facie evidence of a Designer.
You're deducing design without sufficient evidence.
The human body is evidence of design.
Exactly who is ignoring the differences between, say, gorillas or chimps and humans?
You are.
Certainly not the biologists who understand that evolution is true.
They believe it is true.
You are just pulling things out of your hat now.
Hand wave.
Again, I strongly suspect that you don't have sufficient evidence for this claim.
The burden for the common ancestor mystery creature is on you, not us. Then you can prove humans came from fish and then two sex reproduction from asexual duplication. All that you believe and it is faith and atheistic mandates as your start point.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Has everything to do with it and i explained why.

You don't like it and it clashes with your delusional atheism. Everything else is excuse-making.

You were the one who brought up observation and exempt your assumptions about the past from the standard you set.

You brought it up.

You bought up observation as a standard. It is you who is assuming the human body is not designed intelligently. Even though the human body screams of design. That is because of your atheism as a driver of your interpretations, not objectivity. Tail wags the dog. Your atheism also rules out historical accounts of creation from the get-go as fiction. As if you who is thousnads of miles removed know more than the ancients who were much closeer to the events in question. You can have your opinion. You can believe boys are girls or humans are apes. They are not science, they are delusion and science and delusion are incompatible.

There are two hypos, humans and apes are biologically related thru a common ancestor mystery creature identity unknown theoretical. Kind of like Dracula is a theoretical creature or munchkins or goblins. That is your position. Ours is humans and apes are biologically unrelated and there was no common ancestor mystery creature. The human body is designed and prima facie evidence of a Designer.

The human body is evidence of design.

You are.

They believe it is true.

Hand wave.

The burden for the common ancestor mystery creature is on you, not us. Then you can prove humans came from fish and then two sex reproduction from asexual duplication. All that you believe and it is faith and atheistic mandates as your start point.
If the human body was designed, then the designer was incompetent. The human body screams of having developed from other forms with other methods of locomotion, diet, reproduction and sensory input. What we look like is what we are, a form of ape, distinguishable from other apes only by being slightly more intelligent and slightly less hairy. We are even less different from the now extinct human species that contribute a small percentage of our genome. There is nothing about the human body that suggests that it was designed by an intelligent being. Every thing about the human body is consistent with it evolving from apelike ancestors who themselves evolved. We are, like it or lump it, part of the warp and weft of life on earth, special in our own way, just as all species are.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
If the human body was designed, then the designer was incompetent.
That is a lame argument that has been answered a hundred times. I answered it earlier on this thread.
The human body screams of having developed from other forms with other methods of locomotion, diet, reproduction and sensory input.
No it does not. It screams of design as do other nonhuman bodies. Unintelligent causation is a philosophical mandate which eliminates designer from the get-go. That is not the same as falsification scientifically. You have to falsify a designer scientifically. It can't be done. There is too much positive evidence of design within the human body. It is a no-brainer. The basis for your delusional belief humans are apes and boys with penises are girls is not attached to reality. It is delusion pretending reality. You are entitled to your opinion, you can believe humans are apes, boys are girls and the moon is made of green cheese.
What we look like is what we are, a form of ape,
Assuming facts not in evidence. We are not apes. The evidence is equivocal, not conclusive. The human body is designed and that is why it functions with different parts and systems working in conjunction. When it stops working in conjuction, ie, the heart stops, the human body dies and rots.
distinguishable from other apes only by being slightly more intelligent and slightly less hairy.
Slightly more intelligent than apes? I can't go any further.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Has everything to do with it and i explained why.
I'm pretty sure you didn't, but if you'd like to like to the specific sentences where you did show that whether I'm an atheist could change whether the ideas I present are true or logical or not, I'm happy to stand corrected.

You don't like it and it clashes with your delusional atheism. Everything else is excuse-making.
Once again, whether I like it or not, whether anyone thinks it clashes with atheism, whether it is excuse-making, is completely irrelevant as to whether it is true or logical.

You were the one who brought up observation and exempt your assumptions about the past from the standard you set.

You brought it up.
I brought it up and added more to my original point. So what?

It is you who is assuming the human body is not designed intelligently.
You still have to demonstrate your claim that I'm assuming it, rather than working off of evidence, even if incorrectly, in order for any rational person to consider whether it's true or not.

Even though the human body screams of design.
"Screaming of desig"n ≠ science.

That is because of your atheism as a driver of your interpretations, not objectivity. Tail wags the dog.
Again, doesn't matter for the same reasons I've already stated.

Your atheism also rules out historical accounts of creation from the get-go as fiction.
That's just wrong. Evidence I see drives my atheism, and the same evidence tells me that the biblical account of creation is a myth, not history.

As if you who is thousands of miles removed know more than the ancients who were much closer to the events in question.
That's an illogical criterion, because it would force one to accept *any and all* ancient creation accounts, which are contradictory with each other.

You can have your opinion. You can believe boys are girls or humans are apes. They are not science, they are delusion, and science and delusion are incompatible.
I don't believe boys are girls. Humans are apes, though, as defined by science.

There are two hypos, humans and apes are biologically related thru a common ancestor mystery creature identity unknown theoretical.
The end of your sentence is more poetry than intelligible.

Kind of like Dracula is a theoretical creature or munchkins or goblins. That is your position.
The evidence is there for a common ancestor. Let me know if you'd like to learn about that evidence, I'll be happy to oblige.

Ours is humans and apes are biologically unrelated
*All* life is biologically related in some way, if only by virtue of being alive.

and there was no common ancestor mystery creature. The human body is designed and prima facie evidence of a Designer.

The human body is evidence of design.
More claims without evidence. Please cite or show the actual evidence for this.

Another claim without evidence.

They believe it is true.
We were talking about whether biologists accept that people are apes, and that is true, whether anyone thinks people are actually apes or not. You're going counter to actual professionals who reach their conclusions on the same scientific principles that have produced the technology you use every day.

Hand wave.
Then show that biologists ignore the differences between gorillas, say, and people.

The burden for the common ancestor mystery creature is on you, not us.
That's true, but you made the claim that evolution is based on mere philosophical assumption. That's *your* claim to show evidence for.
 

rossum

Well-known member
The burden for the common ancestor mystery creature is on you, not us.
Indeed it is on you. Where are the fossil bones of Adam?

If an actual fossil is needed to show common descent of humans from earlier apes, then equally an actual fossil is required to show common descent of humans from Adam.

Sauce for the goose...
 
The Theory of Evolution is science.

You were reasonably asked if you had a basic (even layman's) understanding of the thread topic, and responded with bluster (re. no science).

You're out of your depth here, friend.
Yes, Evolution is science but wrong science. Evolution is pseudo-science.
 

DaGeo

Active member
If the human body was designed, then the designer was incompetent. The human body screams of having developed from other forms with other methods of locomotion, diet, reproduction and sensory input. What we look like is what we are, a form of ape, distinguishable from other apes only by being slightly more intelligent and slightly less hairy. We are even less different from the now extinct human species that contribute a small percentage of our genome. There is nothing about the human body that suggests that it was designed by an intelligent being. Every thing about the human body is consistent with it evolving from apelike ancestors who themselves evolved. We are, like it or lump it, part of the warp and weft of life on earth, special in our own way, just as all species are.
A unexpected but strange lull occurred in the conversation—and then—it happened. A sudden screeching sound, like chalk on a blackboard😂😂🤣‼️
 
Top