Evidence For Evolution...

Submitted by: BuckeyeJoe 1 week ago in Science

The basic premise of anti-evolution rhetoric usually takes one of the following forms:

  1. Well, we've never observed a fish turn into an elephant, so there is simply no evidence for evolution!
  2. If humans evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys??
  3. Hurr-durr....REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE....flat-earth/young earth/I'll-pray-for-you-and-vote-Kavanaugh.

Well, none of these are new arguments (I've been getting Kavanaugh'd [shit-faced-drunk] for years). The common rebuttals are the following:

  1. You do not understand evolution. 
  2. You do not understand evolution.
  3. Whoa. OK, bro. God exists and you are right. Just calm down and hand me the gun.

There is a persistent view among evolution-deniers that evolution is somehow a discrete phenomena. For example, they seem to think that there was some mamma and papa wolf that gave birth to a dog. And henceforth hitherto, that dog could not mate with any wolf. 

This is not what any scientist thinks happened at all. What we think happened is that over time, small genetic variations were selected by the environment such that separated groups found that they no longer could successfully mate with members of the other group. This is how we define a species. Speciation then, the separation of organisms from one group into two which cannot interbreed due to these variations, has been created in laboratory conditions.

The anti-evolutionist responses to this evidence:

  1. Well this an example of micro-evolution. Present evidence for macro-evolution.
  2. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

The common rebuttals:

  1. What are micro and macro evolution? These are terms you invented -- please clearly define them (this never happens in a self-consistent fashion).
  2. Why are you covered in glue? Is this, like, a fetish thing? No I don't want to go roller-skating!

Have some links:


  • "Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day." Source: Scientific American

  • "Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask." Source: UCSD News

  • "The extent of mutation, introgression and lineage sorting taking place during interspecific divergence and demographic changes in the three species had varied greatly between the three genomes. The findings highlight the complex evolutionary histories of these three Asian spruce species." Source: US National Library of Medicine
There are 294 comments:
Male 18,088
I think mockwarrior must be the most downvoted user in the history of IAB.
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya I'm quite fine with it, happy/sad votes don't matter to me in the slightest.  But I'll admit it's quite amusing how desperately people want sadface me.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
Draculya That poor guy. 

Being a victim fuels his momentum. He feeds on it. It gives him purpose. Solace. Evidence.

The only question is: where does that momentum find its inevitable crash?

Not even mockfail knows this.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
BuckeyeJoe this test shows he scans his mentions, but doesn't read old threads for new comments. But you do.
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya wrong
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Welcome to the party.

1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe get the help you need
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Hey, thank you bro!

For your compassion!

I will do that: get the help I need.

In the meantime, why don't we discuss the issues?

Unless you and your god are afraid. That's not the case, is it?

A God does not need to hide from a BuckeyeJoe, does he?

"He will reveal himself to all that seek to understand his truth."

Then let your God reveal himself, nipple by nipple, for all to see?

"Oh, but he does, you are just not holy enough to see it."

Nawww, dude, that is no god, that's just your fear projected onto a external personification needed to bring you solace. 

Many of us stop sucking our thumbs when we grow up.

But keep sucking, if you want to.

Thumbs, that is.

Suck.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe seriously, get the help you need.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
Draculya Yeah, it's a bit masturbatory, admittedly. But folks do not reply fast enough to keep me satiated. 

I just have so much more to give, man.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
I bet the mods are happy this thread has slipped down to page 2.
5
Reply
Male 6,076
Draculya stop harassing me
2
Reply
Male 9,454
rumham I'm on it Rumham
0
Reply
Male 6,076
normalfreak2 thank you i've been feeling so unsafe
1
Reply
Male 3
Moderators: please advise if inappropriate. This is addressed to you. After years of following IAB, I finally made a profile simply to post this note regarding the  discriminatory comments on this type of post.

I get that you want to be inclusive. However, dogmatic religious rhetoric is not inclusive, it is abusive. The secular community invites discussion, but there is no discussion here. There is only blatant religious apologetics being practiced on a non-religious discussion, with no intention of learning or creating a useful conversation. The secular community has had to put up with this kind of unwanted attack for as long as it's existed, to the point of real hatred and violence towards its members. It really hurts to see the few dogmatic members being given such leniency to attack the intelligence and integrity of those who click these links to find information, a community, and a constructive conversation.

I know religion can be a sticky subject, but allowing these people to hijack the comments of secular posts is to be in support of their harassment. The discrimination of the secular community is real, and very much overlooked. To relate it to other types of ongoing discrimination, I hope that if a white nationalist posted negative comments on a BLM post, or if chauvinist views were being posted on a #MeToo discussion, I could only hope you would step in to moderate.

I hope you can do better in standing up for our community in the face of gross, obvious harassment. There are plenty of places these people can go to have their opinions supported and agreed with, I am only hoping that we might have the same.
3
Reply
Male 8,986
sharkn8o This was a great comment, Sharkn8o, and I appreciate it. The mods have been discussing it. By design, the moderators are a pretty diverse group; at least one of us is a Christian and at least one of us is an atheist (I couldn't give you an exact breakdown). Response of the team members to your thoughts is, not surprisingly, varied, with at least one team member in full agreement with everything you've stated.

My own feelings are a little more mixed. With the caveat that I'm not speaking for the entire team, I'll do my best to share them. Another moderator may chime in and add his or her thoughts after mine.

One of the things I value most about IAB is its diversity.

When it comes to IAB, it's a little like you're plucking out 10 people from 50 different town hall meetings all across the United States, then throwing in 100 Canadians, 50 Europeans, 20 Asians, and a dozen Aussies and New Zealanders. Some support Trump; some dislike Trump intensely. Some ascribe to Anthropogenic Global Warming theory; some consider it bunk. Some -- most, probably -- are atheist or agnostic or otherwise non-religious; some are religious; and a few are devout.

This mix of individuals makes moderation on IAB difficult. But I think the diversity is worth it. I find IAB to be a much more interesting and intellectually challenging environment when I'm regularly confronted with users who don't think the same way I do.

In terms of MonkWarrior, I want him to be able to fit under the tent here. Some IABers are frustrated with me for that position, I know.

Do I think we're where we should be in terms of addressing the bad behavior of users? No.

Frankly, the behavior of Monk and some of his antagonizers has been a real challenge. I like to regard the experience as a series of tests of our ability to moderate. As a result, some changes are in the works. All I can say at this point is that if you've been encouraged by the changes you've seen over the past six months -- and I hope you have been -- hang in there. In the coming months, you can expect moderation to be more consistent, faster, and more efficient.

I think it is reasonable for you to expect everyone on IAB to be civil, to debate fairly (when they choose to debate), and to treat other IABers with at least a modicum of respect. That goes for conservatives and liberals; atheists and Christians; humans and squirrels.

This may not be quite the answer you were hoping for, at least not from me, but I hope it helps.

Oh, and while I'm at it...

~heads offstage, reappears pulling a squirrel-size wagon~

*squeak* *squeak* *squeak* *squeak* *squeak*

WELCOME TO IAB, SHARKN8O!

That's an awesome username, by the way. One of the other mods was praising it while we were discussing your comment.

I hope you have a good time here at IAB and make a lot of friends. And by all means, keep commenting. You have a lot of great thoughts.

See you in the threads!

0
Reply
Male 3
squrlz4ever thanks to all the mods. I can only speak for myself, but I think it's fair to say we all appreciate the sincerity and thought you guys put behind any comment like this one. It's an especially sensitive subject, and it's an especially open board, which creates a real challenge for you all to regulate. I agree with your conclusion, secular and religious voices should be held equal in the eyes of the mods.

Overall, my objection was never to IABers speaking from a religious point of view or pointing out flaws in scientific secularism (there are plenty). There are a lot of allowances, however, that I think theists can often get away with because secularism isn't treated with the same protections as other minority groups. Call me a snowflake, but ongoing misrepresentation and gas-lighting toward a marginalized class should be taken more seriously. The request, I think, is to please have a more discerning eye towards the prejudicial way in which theists feel they are able to talk about the secular community as a whole.

One example of this (I'm not sure if it's been used in this specific post, but I've seen it many times from some users) is the term "Darwinist." This is a derogatory term used only by theists to label secularists, it doesn't represent our stance even a little bit, and it's really insulting. This pejorative term is a personal attack and a purposeful misrepresentation of our argument. The use of this term should be denounced.


Substituting terms like "assumptions" instead of "theory," and "stories" instead of "claims," is a direct and purposeful misrepresentation of how secularists present our arguments and come to our conclusions. This is no argument, simply pejorative misquotation of our class ideals. It's one thing to say "I think your conclusion is just an assumption, and here's why," but it becomes personally insulting and derogatory when the words are simply put into our mouths.

Most specifically, the assertion of the specific term "faith" as used by theists in defining the secular worldview, despite an ongoing objection from the secular community against the use of that term. I'm sure theists consider it to be faith, but as a community, we've requested over and over again to not be labeled in that one specific way... and I think that should be respected. Call it unsubstantiated, call it unproven, but don't call it faith. We draw a very important line between ourselves and the religious, and often that line is simply ignored.

These are just a small few. Theists can disagree, call us dumb, wrong, misguided, silly and naive, but continuously demeaning our argument through misrepresenting our statements, mislabeling us or our thoughts, or through twisting of words and language, this is the discrimination I talked about.

There is a big difference between the two statements: "There isn't evidence to support the theory of evolution," and, "Darwinists won't admit that 'evolution' is just Faith in a storybook." One is a fair argument, the other is derogatory towards our community. This is my point, that we should draw a line between the two.

__

The discrimination against the secular community is not a political stance, but a civil rights violation. It's not the same as being pro- or anti-trump or a belief in global warming. This isn't about politics, it's about systemic and centuries-old bigotry. Let's not forget, even today, atheists are losing their jobs, families, and even being put to death on a daily basis for their views.

Regardless of any action the mods take in the future, I'm posting all this because it is important to put into light. These are serious issues and an ongoing struggle for the secular community which, yes, is a marginalized minority. All I'm asking for is a greater consideration of respect in the everyday language in which atheists are talked about by the religious community.

Mods, thanks for the warm welcome!
0
Reply
Male 12,840
sharkn8o Quite often, atheists and the secular community do just as you say, demeaning and misrepresenting theist's statements, mislabeling them or their thoughts, or through twisting of words and language.  I have spent many years corresponding with atheists and secularists, and have found that this is a staple with them.  As you say, it's a civil rights violation - systematic bigotry, and i'd like to see how I-A-B handles it because as squrlz4ever said, it's a bit more intellectual here than elsewhere.

Perhaps when you see someone of the atheist or secular community doing this you'll stand up to point out the flaw, and help with the rebuke?  If you remain silent you understand that will be just making the problem worse, right?

Let's not forget, even today, theists are losing their jobs, families, and even being put to death on a daily basis for their views. As anyone can see happening through a quick scan of the Chinese news, where the unyielding Marxist atheists have turned to state atheism again, with the same forceful hand we saw in the 20th century under Mao.
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior theists? More like cultists
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya here's your time to shine sharkn8o
-1
Reply
Male 12,840
sharkn8o FYI this was a post by a 'secularist'  and as you can see it's nothing but secularist rhetoric that is exclusive and abusive.

That you targeted 'comments' rather than the 'post' really shows how much your your bias tilts if you ask me.  Look at the unwanted attack the post presents, look at the unwanted attack richard dawkind's 'books' do.

Yet you sit here defending the very thing you ranted against, while demanding others remain silent is nothing short of hypocritical if you ask me.  I-A-B also has a Community Standard too, one of the standards says  Broadly speaking, hate speech is any speech that attempts to dehumanize and vilify a person or group, especially for reasons of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. If what you believe can't stand up to sound reason or criticisim, you'll be swept away, and your faith is important to you i understand, but if you can't defend it or support it, what use is it?  Look at the bright side, if we're around in 'millions' of years we may be able to begin seeing some evidence for your faith.

Welcome to I-A-B where all people are welcome.  There are plenty of places you can find an echo chamber, and i would suggest http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism.
-5
Reply
Male 1,196
0
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe get the help you need, please.
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
sharkn8o well we could always ban the offender
2
Reply
Male 4,375
sharkn8o Thank you for your comment. As squrlz said, this will take some time to reflect.

I do hope you'll stick around and participate in discussions in the future!
1
Reply
Male 1,196
sharkn8o This is my alt. Please do not be fooled.
2
Reply
Male 8,986
sharkn8o Your comment is totally appropriate; no worries at all there. I'll be re-reading it at least a couple times to give it the consideration and respect it deserves. This will also probably prompt a discussion among the moderators, which is always a good thing.

I'll respond again here later. Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 3,077
squrlz4ever 
Could you please look for my comments below? Thank you.
0
Reply
Male 8,986
jaysingrimm Hey, Jaysin. So I've taken a look at the comments, both on this board and on the last OFF. I'm sympathetic. Twice you were accosted with rude comments by Monk when you weren't addressing him.

That said, Monk's remarks don't quite rise to the level of personal attacks -- at least not to the degree that causes the mods to intervene. Both comments pass The Nightclub Rule, which is my main rule of thumb when it comes to these things. He's being rude, but a bartender or bouncer probably wouldn't call him aside or ask him to leave for remarking, for example, "That explains a lot."

If, however, one IABers continues to accost another IABer like this, out of the blue, and keeps doing it, it would start to rise to the level of harassment. We're not there yet, in my opinion, and hopefully we won't be going there.

Thanks for the call-out. I had missed the earlier comment.
1
Reply
Male 3,077
squrlz4ever 
In hindsight, I think "attack" is a strong word, sorry.

I admit, I was asking him to "stop harassing me" because I found it to be a far better example of harassment, than his own remarks to a third party. I was curious if he would do as he asks of others.

Overall tho, I liken his behaviour to someone wandering around to different tables and being rude to them. I absolutely do remove people from the bar when I see it.

Alas, a website is a different playground. Thank you for addressing my concerns.
2
Reply
Male 12,840
jaysingrimm I liken some things you do to what i see in some of the worst work places i've worked at, where a group of people gathered together to talk, then someone came into the group and started publicly mocking another.  In essence making it known that they don't like the person and are willing to put daily operations at the workplace to risk over the issue. Naturally, they didn't last long as it goes against positive workflow.  Something you might want to consider.  But like you said, it's a website, and you can easily make your own where you can rule with a stiff hand.  I've also known people on the internet from previous places i've modded who did that though, and their efforts went to waste when people realized the censorship/echo chamber it was becoming and left.
-2
Reply
Male 6,076
monkwarrior i don't think you have had any actual interaction with actual people beyond your screen/bible
2
Reply
Male 12,840
rumham I interact with people in the field of science i work in every day.
-4
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior "In the field of science"

In the field of science.

Every day.

This is literally true: since every day you interact with me. And I am in "the field of science."

What do you do, exactly? Every day? What is your job, exactly?

No, don't tell us. Why won't you tell us?

All Trump needs to do to vanquish the rumors about his monetary (un-)worth is to display his tax returns.

But he won't do this simply step which would obviously benefit him...if what he was telling was true...

Ya gonna stop lying, monk? Ever?

Might get laid if ya stop lying all the time.

Eunuch?
2
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe i have no need to lie.  
-2
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Then why do you?
2
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe its your lie but please stop replying if you're just going to clog up threads
-2
Reply
Male 1,196
2
Reply
Male 8,986
jaysingrimm I have a lot of respect for your professional experience in moderating, if you will, in the real world, Jaysin.

The IAB moderators spend a lot of time discussing what is working well and what isn't, and what should be tolerated and what shouldn't. Your comments here will help us with that discussion, so thank you.
0
Reply
Male 3
squrlz4ever thank you, I really appreciate you taking my comments seriously, no matter what your decision may be. Looking forward to your thoughts.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
I cannot believe that we'd have to debate his in either the 21st or 20th centuries 
0
Reply
Male 5,503
0
Reply
Male 1,196
kalron I LOL'd
0
Reply
Male 524
The problem with discussing these things is that some people have a hard time differentiating between measurable, quantifiable or reproductible objective truths and personal, subjective truths. And sometimes, in some areas, these two forms of truths are mutually exclusive. 

Trying to fit the objective truth to correlate with your subjective truth can sometimes result is some rather odd assumptions for example religios belief, thinking the earth is flat or that bacon isn't delicious.

Most of the time subjective truths are harmless and die with the village idiot. It is when people try to "forcefully" and publicly replace objective truths with subjective truths that problems arise.

My opinion is that people are entitled to their subjective truths and to reject/adobt objective truths as they see fit,as long as it dosn't harm anyone else. And noone, ever, should be allowed to change that by other means than openminded discussions and education.

This dosn't mean that it's not allowed to make fun of people that, in your opinion, have a comical set of subjective truths, and that what you find comical is indeed very subjective.
1
Reply
Male 6,076
so here's our weekly evolution post. i know we love goofing on monk but geez its becoming groundhogs day
1
Reply
Male 6,950
rumham I agree, we should focus more on pics of chicks with large buttocks!

3
Reply
Male 1,835
daegog More of this ^ less of that other stuff
0
Reply
Male 524
daegog Is it ok that I find this more sexy?

1
Reply
Male 6,076
wolladude can't we just all get along?
0
Reply
Male 1,835
wolladude More of this too
0
Reply
Male 18,088
wolladude OH FUCK
0
Reply
Male 1,835
rumham I guess its still funny to some people. They'll get bored eventually. I enjoy some of the science that gets brought up because of it occasionally. 
0
Reply
Male 6,076
marsii define funny.. like fox n friends funny or carlin funny or chapelle funny or gilbert gottfried funny?
0
Reply
Male 1,835
rumham Funny like "he thinks he's people" funny. 
1
Reply
Male 6,076
marsii i dunno man that cat looks pretty confident
0
Reply
6,561
marsii i still find him funny 
0
Reply
Male 6,950
  1. You do not understand evolution. 
  2. You do not understand evolution.
  3. Whoa. OK, bro. God exists and you are right. Just calm down and hand me the gun.


That was hilarious lol.
2
Reply
Male 44,870
For those who don't agree with evolution, it's okay, I can't force you to be right.
5
Reply
Male 1,196
Gerry1of1 I see what you did there. Bravo!
2
Reply
Male 4,375
Gerry1of1 I'll add to that:

For those who don't agree with evolution, I wish I could see from your point of view, but I can't shove my head up my ass that far.
4
Reply
Male 12,840
DuckBoy87 i think the same thing about people who agree with it without a single shred of evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 
-4
Reply
Male 44,870
monkwarrior   I love how you always use that phrase "without a single shred of evidence" and yet you believe in supernatural beings guiding your life.

And by the way, there are many, many 'shreds of evidence' for evolution/natural selection.

I'm off to bed, g'nite
1
Reply
Male 12,840
Gerry1of1 There's plenty of testimonial evidence for God.  All i'm looking for is the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior There is plenty of testimonial evidence for evolution!

But that doesn't matter, because scientists hold evidence to a higher standard than that.

Why don't you follow the links in my post. Actually read them. Then, come back and argue against specific ideas in them.

That way, this conversation might go somewhere.

If that even matters to you.

I'm trying to help you bro! I want you to evolve from the laughing stock of this website to an actual thinker who can hold his own.

Help me to help you. 

1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe Thanks for admitting that evolution is a faith to you.  Now you're getting somewhere.  I accept you have faith the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  Yet the evidence isn't there to convince everyone of your faith.
-1
Reply
Male 44,870
monkwarrior   Denying evolution, believing in Flat Earth, Trump. . . these are the reasons the entire world is laughing at the United States.
2
Reply
Male 12,840
Gerry1of1 no, it's because of the love for money has grown to irrational proportions.  
-1
Reply
Male 44,870
monkwarrior  Oh Puh-leez.  If there were money in evolution the churches would be right there pushing the idea.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
Gerry1of1 the true church isn't about money.
-1
Reply
Male 44,870
monkwarrior



I believe you are sincere, but open your eyes
 
2
Reply
Male 12,840
Gerry1of1 My eyes are open, why not open yours?  Christ's church is about love.
-1
Reply
Male 44,870
monkwarrior I'm gay. I have experience the "love" in christ's church. 
You can call it "love" or "vanilla icecream" or anything else you want to call it
.
.
.
but it totally lacks all compassion and therefore is not "love".
2
Reply
Male 12,840
Gerry1of1 Understand the church in this world, the physical churches is merely a shadow of Christ's church.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Now I have to take issue with you about this, in a serious fashion; a pose which I do not usually adopt.

This is just offensive.

The church has been brutal in its treatment towards those of diverse sexual orientations. Shit, you can read the foundations of such brutalization in your very own Bible.

So stop trying to pretend some difference exists between your supposed "physical" church versus reality. 

You have no defense here. Such evil is indefensible. Shame on you.

Now apologize to Gerry.
2
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe Again you have no idea what you're talking about.  But that's really no surprise to me.
-2
Reply
Male 1,196
2
Reply
Male 12,840
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Well, sure. I love cheese. Melted and creamy.

How does the rod taste to you, soldier?

Red, red wine, it's up to you
All I can do, I've done
But memories won't go
No, memories won't go

Down that throat, down it sinks

wine, of course...

Squrlz, am I doing this right?

Oh, monk, do wine some more for us. 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe keep whining
-1
Reply
Male 1,641
monkwarrior "...people who agree with it without a single shred of evidence..."

There is, of course, a plethora of evidence for the underlying causes and the ongoing process of evolution. But all of that evidence is in writing, and it is available only to people who read it. 
3
Reply
Male 12,840
semichisam01 So it should be easy for you to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. Why not do that instead of beat the drum of "it's fact" over and over again without doing the due duty of answering the questions.  It's almost like you can't answer, but just think by repeating it over and over you can make it true.
-1
Reply
Male 9,454
0
Reply
Male 12,840
problem with this right out the gate with an assumptions and fallacies:

The basic premise of anti-evolution rhetoric usually takes one of the following forms:

  1. Well, we've never observed a fish turn into an elephant, so there is simply no evidence for evolution!
  2. If humans evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys??
  3. Hurr-durr....REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE....flat-earth/young earth/I'll-pray-for-you-and-vote-Kavanaugh.

No mention of the argument that "there is no evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true".  And in perfect 'dawkind style' it dives right into a combative stance of 'its a fact! i have no evidence but it's a fact i know it!'

Then the argument begins to build a straw man to attack the opponent.  And lo behold! they are here to save us now from that straw man!

Then it goes on to continue attacking the opponent, but not providing a single shred of evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  Instead it's like someone trying to preach that this is a fact without any evidence, just more people indoctrinated with the same mind set, but still not providing a single shred of evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.

Oh it's a post by BuckeyeJoe, no wonder.

buckeyeJoe:  Still waiting for the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  Chop Chop
-4
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior I just farted. Right now. Stinky-poo.

That has more relevance than your drivel. 

Thrust-it-thrust-it-thrust-it-poor. 
Ejaculate your sadness. 
Right next to me. 
Spluuuuurge. 

Go on.

I bet I can absorb your wholeness. By osmosis.

As you diminish, as you recede, you fade. Your words fade.

Insignificant, like you. U. 

But scream still, it hurts there, but feels familiar. 

Doesn't it?
 
That backwards uncle. Feeling inquisitive reaches. Recognize you are already alive. 

And dying.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
Excellent we have a BuckeyeJoe vs monkwarrior thread. I'll go microwave the popcorn. 
0
Reply
Male 1,196
Draculya I aim to please.

If by "aim" you mean "eat"

and by "to please" you mean "tacos"

I am hungry for some tacos, dude. Got any for me?

Actually, this is all a ruse. Monkwarrior is my alt. I switch accounts and just argue with myself. We are really the same person.

Isn't that crazy? I know, right!

But it's true! You'd never think it so. That's the genius of it :)

IAB is my masturbatory template. Filled with resonant harmonics.

Internet points.

dingdingding.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  Still waiting for the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Still waiting for the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions theists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe You have the evidence of testimony.  As you previously mentioned you have 'faith' in evolution.  The evidence of testimony is in the Holy Bible.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior The evidence of testimony is in the Origin of Species.

But we have much more than that. We don't need more than that, not to neutralize your poor evidence for god, anyway. But we have it.

In essence, we have more than we need to make short work of you :)
2
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe The Origin of Species' author even doubted his theory.

https://darwinsdoubt.com/

If that's the best you have, time to throw the towel in.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Nice google attempt, monkfail.

My towel evolved:



So there. Equal retort equals equal revision. 

Bitch.

Yours remains.

Don't stop. I'm almost there. Feed the demon.   
2
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe
squrlz4ever
What's up with the names again?
-1
Reply
Male 3,077
BuckeyeJoe
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.."

But that's supported by testimony stories from the bible, and more testimony stories from people that believed them.

And evolution is supported only among other things, by stories and assumptions an incredible amount of physical evidence in the form of the fossil record.
2
Reply
Male 12,840
jaysingrimm showing your desperate nature again, hmm?
-1
Reply
Male 3,077
monkwarrior 
I wasn't talking to you. Please stop harassing me.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
jaysingrimm Just pointing out your desperate nature again.
-1
Reply
Male 3,077
monkwarrior 
Please stop harassing me. Don't talk to me.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
jaysingrimm fair enough, enjoy your safe space.
-2
Reply
Male 3,077
fancylad squrlz4ever and mod team

This is the second time this past week he's started out with personal attacks against me. The last time was in last open forum, when I mentioned I'm going to Amsterdam.

I would have shown him the door long ago.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
fancylad squrlz4ever

I'd like to point out that jaysingrimm is replying under a post that i've made with the sole intention of internationally stirring the pot.
-1
Reply
Male 6,076
BuckeyeJoe BOOFEVE
0
Reply
Male 4,375
BuckeyeJoe Hey BuckeyeJoe, your poem, while funny, is really skirting the line with the graphic sexual imagery. Remember that, as per IAB's TOS, 13 year olds may wander on these boards, so please rein the imagery back a few pegs.

Thank you for understanding, and if you could please check your email at your earliest convenience, squrlz4ever is sending something your way. Thank you sir!
0
Reply
Male 1,196
DuckBoy87 Yep. Sorry bout that. No more late night IAB poetry for me. I will check email.
2
Reply
Male 9,454
BuckeyeJoe sa'll good broseph.  I can always enjoy your poems with a good chuckle.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
BuckeyeJoe I am a poet, but do not know it.

Holla!
2
Reply
Male 6,076
BuckeyeJoe no boofefe?!
0
Reply
Male 1,641
monkwarrior "Oh it's a post by BuckeyeJoe, no wonder."
Is it your carefully considered opinion that any thing posted by Buckyeyejoe must be untrue?
0
Reply
Male 12,840
semichisam01 I've been waiting for months/years for buckeye to provide the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. So far it's been a disappointment, to say the least.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior And that evidence will continue to never manifest as long as you continue to never read it. Good luck with that.

3
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe It won't manifest even if it's read.  since no one can provide the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior You'll never know.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe Unfortunately you don't know me nor what i've studied at all.  And i have studied quite a bit about the topic.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Nope. No one does. 

That's the point.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe So you have faith in the stories.  Thanks for clarifying that again.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior as of now:

twelve thousand five hundred and eight.

Comments.

How does that smell to you?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe how does it smell that the majority of yours are trying to attack yours truly?  Can you say desperation?
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior I for one am grateful to BuckeyeJoe
0
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior I applaud your efforts to mirror my meta.

Try to do so with proper grammar next time.

That engrish is salve. 

Look it up. Latin, bitch.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe Why are you continuing to waste time whining?
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Why are you continuing to waste time replying to my whining?

Which is worse? The fool or the fool following him.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe still no evidence?
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Just like your Bible: your words are vapid of meaning.

Am I imitating you satisfactorily? Is it believable?

Do you think they know we are the same person? When should we drop the curtain?

I sincerely doubt at this point they would ever believe monk is buck's alt. 

We are so fucking good. You and I.

What is thou that keeps repeating?

Dingdingdingding.
2
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe I see you're still denying your burden: providing  evidence for the stories and assumptions evolutionists claim as fact about what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 
-1
Reply
Male 6,076
semichisam01 boofeve...
0
Reply
Male 8,878
monkwarrior But you decline to read it when given to you.
3
Reply
Male 12,840
LordJim  So go to that book squrlz posted, and find the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. Get back to me with the page # and i'll examine it.  It should be easy if you're sure. Chop chop!
-3
Reply
Male 8,878
monkwarrior The book is on my shelf.

 Get back to me with the page # and i'll examine it.  

That isn't how books work. One reads them, surely you knew that? 
3
Reply
Male 12,840
LordJim Yeah, but surely if you've read it you can point out where the  evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true, right?  Sure i understand it may be a few page #'s, so go gather them up!  I'm so looking forward to what you can share, i want to learn of that evidence which proves the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  But if you can't, just admit it, ok?

-5
Reply
Male 8,878
monkwarrior No, please allow me to explain. When a very long and detailed book develops its thesis and brings all it's arguments together the only way to understand it, the only way, is by actually reading the book, starting with page 1 and then continuing in numerical order.

I genuinely don't understand how are not grasping this. Have you ever read a book? From start to finish? Yes? OK, do that.
4
Reply
Male 12,840
LordJim Ok, so sum up how you feel it is evidence which proves the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true?
-5
Reply
Male 8,878
monkwarrior No, I won't sum it up. Read the book or don't. I can't make myself any clearer.
3
Reply
Male 12,840
LordJim it's a simple question.  Being someone who is learned in the topic, i had hoped that you could provide a simple answer to show how the evidence which proves the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  If i get around to sifting through that 400 page document, painfully trying to separate dogma and fact from the authors combative and assertive stance on the topic, (which would take quite some time) i'll let you know.  I was only reaching out to you as someone who i had assumed read and understood the book and might be able to answer the question.
-3
Reply
Male 8,878
monkwarrior You are not very good at sarcasm. ( hint; brevity.)

Why on earth should I indulge your laziness by spoon-feeding you? If a 400 page book intimidates you, for whatever reason, that's not my problem.

This is a discussion about a book, if you won't read the book then you have nothing to bring to the table. It really is that simple; read the damn book or drop out of the discussion. If you are capable of either, choose one. And stop wasting my time. 
2
Reply
Male 12,840
LordJim Ah, on the defense now are you?  How many times have i ever not answered your questions in regards to faith?  I figured you could have done at least partially the same with your vast knowledge of your faith in evolution.
-2
Reply
Male 174
LordJim Maybe this will help. Probably not.

0
Reply
Male 1,641
monkwarrior "I was only reaching out to you"
You were mocking him. You know it. Everyone knows it. He knows it, but he is too polite to say so. I'm not. 
If you don't have enough time or interest in the subject to read the scientific literature before you dismiss it, then you don't have enough time or interest to be involved in this discussion.
Study up or bow out!
1
Reply
Male 12,840
semichisam01 Instead of whining pay attention.  Nothing has been dismissed, a question is being asked: can't you provide evidence which proves the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true?
-1
Reply
Male 1,641
monkwarrior "Instead of whining..."
Cut the crap! What I wrote was the opposite of whining; it was the written equivalent of a gauntlet across the face. Man up and respond to it, or find a more suitable place to peddle your wares. 
If you don't have enough time or interest in the subject to read the scientific literature before you dismiss it, then you don't have enough time or interest to be involved in this discussion.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
semichisam01 Why are you getting upset and combative?  It's a simple question:  Where is the evidence which proves the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true ?

If you are into science, provide the specific documents/page numbers, etc.  that prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.

Take a scientific approach to it, leave emotion behind.

-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Nice projection:

  1. React in a combative, defensive, and upset way to stated evidence
  2. Accuse any reply made as being combative, defensive, and upset (that's the projection part)
  3. Request such action be absent from intelligent discussion
  4. Retreat to a corner, with thumb in mouth, and slowly rock back and forth (just guessing on this one).

If you actually read shit, you would be amazed at how much of your life is not new. 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe Keep projecting, all while ignoring the burden of your claims.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior You can do better.

Try.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe keep ignoring your burden for the sake of whining..
-1
Reply
Male 6,076
monkwarrior 4 simple ingredients folks TOKFEFE
0
Reply
Male 12,840
-1
Reply
Male 1,641
monkwarrior If you don't have enough time or interest in the subject to read the scientific literature before you dismiss it, then you don't have enough time or interest to be involved in this discussion.
3
Reply
Male 12,840
semichisam01 Yet if you are interested, and tell others  There is, of course, a plethora of evidence for the underlying causes and the ongoing process of evolution. Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to answer when people ask for evidence which proves the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.

-1
Reply
Male 1,641
monkwarrior "it shouldn't be difficult for you to answer when people ask for evidence"
You asked for evidence. Lordjim told you where it is. You refused to read it. That should be your last word. It's mine.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
semichisam01 If you don't want to get page #'s and references like any scientist could do, just say "i don't know where it is".  It's really that simple.
-2
Reply
Male 8,986
monkwarrior I'm jumping in here since you've made reference to a prior post of mine. A few points:

  1. Can I ask that everyone--you, BuckeyeJoe, and not least of all, myself--make a serious effort to avoid personal attacks in this thread? I think we can all agree that would be good for everyone. It means we won't waste time or emotional energy here. I understand that things can get heated, and a little heat is fine. But I'm going to do my best to avoid flat-out insults, and I hope others will follow suit.
  2. Keeping with #1 above, let's all agree to simply move on and agree to disagree when and if we hit what looks like a serious impasse.
  3. I'll discuss Dawkins' book and the proofs of evolution with you tonight, if you wish, but it's going to require some lengthy comments and I haven't had dinner yet. So if you're up for it, give me about an hour-and-a half (until around 8 PM EDT).

Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
squrlz4ever I appreciate your position as moderator, and the duties that this entails.

"let's all agree to simply move on and agree to disagree when and if we hit what looks like a serious impasse."

A.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y not! That is the whole problem: We settle.

We cut our loses when the discourse becomes difficult. This is not what thinking agents do!

It is precisely here that we must engage!

Squrlz, don't you see this?

We MUST challenge each other, push beyond the comfortable, extend that reach.

How else is progress made?

Search for it, brother!

Sometimes the status quo must bow to evolution.
1
Reply
Male 8,986
BuckeyeJoe Here's the problem: You cannot force anyone to change his opinion. In fact, what almost always happens is the more you try, the deeper the other person digs in.

The result? A derp vortex: A never-ending spiral of, "Well, you're stupid," "No, you are!", "I know you are, but what am I?", "Same to you but double!"

We've all seen these derp vortices countless times on here. They do nothing but drive users away from the website.

If users are stuck in derp vortices -- that is, non-productive exchanges  that consist of nothing but insults -- the moderators will step in and they may delete multiple comments. Users will make the moderators' jobs a lot easier if they recognize when a debate is no longer productive and move on by themselves.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
squrlz4ever 

"Here's the problem: You cannot force anyone to change his opinion. In fact, what almost always happens is the more you try, the deeper the other person digs in."

Well sure. But that equivocation fallacy assumes this is what I am trying to do. It is not. Monk's rhetoric has already evolved since he began here. The bigger picture is what matters.

"The result? A derp vortex: A never-ending spiral of, "Well, you're stupid," "No, you are!", "I know you are, but what am I?", "Same to you but double!""

There is a lot more going on here than a "derp vortex." Give IAB'ers (and me) a bit of credit.

"If users are stuck in derp vortices -- that is, non-productive exchanges  that consist of nothing but insults -- the moderators will step in and they may delete multiple comments."

Fair enough. It is your right to delete comments. Recognize that what you construe as "non-productive" is necessarily subjective. Many users find my comments funny -- does that bring users here or repel them away? If a tally of users is your metric...what data do you bring to the table, to support this claim? Or is it really the flavor of my jib that rubs you raw? How subjective are such flavors, anyway?

How does your chosen metric enumerate a debate being no longer productive? I disagree that the debate is unproductive. Does Monk? If so, by what right do you have to claim it is (aside from governance of your fiat authority)? Things should matter more than this, yes?

Surely, by power, you have the right to decide. But is that what really counts?

I never promised that this would be easy. Teachers come in a variety of guises.

Let us learn from each other.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
squrlz4ever a thread with everyone beating on MW is exactly what he likes best. He gets attention. If he didn't want that kind of attention he wouldn't go out of his way to find it.  
0
Reply
Male 6,076
squrlz4ever stop posting monk based vortex starters every week over and over and then maybe the endless derp might stop.
2
Reply
Male 8,986
rumham A few points:

(1) I neither submitted nor approved nor processed this submission. Sometimes I am as surprised by what goes up as you are. There are seven individuals who process the submissions and their standards and tastes vary. I figure you probably know this, but I just want to remind everyone that I do not have a paw in all the content that goes up on IAB.

I posted two articles recently about evolution because of a conversation I was having about the topic with another IABer. That individual was not Monk; Monk had nothing to do with it.

(2) I'm happy we have people with different views on IAB. It gives me and others a chance to refine our thinking, re-examine what we believe to be true, and practice explaining important concepts. The only time I dislike these conversations is when they're non-productive. Going in derp vortexes or trading nothing but insults is a waste of everyone's time. When this has been happening, the mods have been stepping in to tell the parties to wrap it up, as they should.

(3) If posts on evolution -- and the debate and discussion that ensue -- are not your thing, don't click on them. Problem solved. I pass on certain political and celebrity posts virtually every day. I suggest you learn to do the same thing with these.
0
Reply
Male 18,088
rumham seconded. There is no right to have posts published if they are shit. If I submit shitposts, I'd expect a mod to have to good sense to reject it.
0
Reply
Male 8,986
Draculya One thing I think we should consider establishing at IAB is several categories of members, viz:

Member. The basic level of participation. Members have commenting and voting privileges.

Submitter. These are members who've been given the ability to submit content. We'd be liberal in awarding submitting privileges; if you're an IABer in good standing and you ask for it, you get it. Submitting privileges would not be given, obviously, to individuals we don't know, which would save us 30 minutes of work every day because we would no longer need to clear out the commercial spam submitted into the queue. Submitter privileges could also be revoked when an individual is banned or on probation.

Editor. These are individuals with editorial chops who approve, edit, and schedule submissions. These would be individuals with some experience in editing and writing and who have a good eye for content. An editor might also be a moderator (but generally would not be; editing and moderating are very different skill sets).

Moderator. These, of course, would be individuals who moderate the comments on the boards. A moderator might also be an editor (but generally would not be; moderating and editing are very different skill sets).

Administrator. Fancylad himself. He makes the final calls on everything policywise and also serves as an editor and a moderator.

I'd like for every user's category or categories to appear beneath his or her username. In the case of mods, I'd display the username in red. In the case of the administrator, I'd display the username in yellow.

Just thinking with the keyboard here.
0
Reply
Male 44,870
squrlz4ever No I shall not agree to disagree. 
I shall continue to disagree with your agreeing
1
Reply
Male 8,986
Gerry1of1 "One must learn to disagree without being disagreeable." I forget who said that. Somebody famous, I think. Your Disraeli, maybe? Too lazy to Google it at the moment.
0
Reply
Male 44,870
squrlz4ever
"If you have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable, then you have discovered the secret of getting along - whether it be business, family relations, or life itself." - Bernard Meltzer
1
Reply
Male 8,986
Gerry1of1 Sank chew! Nice to have the full quote there.
0
Reply
Male 12,840
  1. I have no problem with it, but as you can see the post itself is kind of going to work against your wishes because it's quite heavy on the 'emotional energy'.
  2. I'm ok with that too, I'm just looking for the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  
  3. All I'm looking for is what's in 2. above.  Or as mentioned to LordJim page #'s for 2. above (preferably best pages/passages first)
-1
Reply
Male 8,986
monkwarrior Okay, finally back. My apologies: I had an unexpected, long phone call that delayed dinner and then, squirrel-like, I got distracted. But here I am.

Unfortunately, it looks like this party has already started and I really don't want to jump in midstream. Shall we still do this or are you already too busy with other IABers on this board?
0
Reply
Male 12,840
squrlz4ever I'm just looking for point 2 to be answered.. but i'll have to check back later unfortunately.
0
Reply
Male 8,986
monkwarrior Well, this conversation may be a no-go then if by #2, what you're looking for is a single fact, relatable in one or two sentences, that can prove the reality of evolution to you.

There is no such single fact, something I think even Richard Dawkins would admit.

Instead, there is an enormous body of evidence spanning across multiple scientific disciplines -- paleontology, anatomy, taxonomy, neurology, embryology, virology, and genetics, to name a few -- that together make a case so compelling it surpasses any barriers of reasonable doubt.

Evolution is a complex subject. It cannot be grasped with just a few moments thought or with just a couple sentences of reading. That's why, as LordJim has already been stating, it's hard for someone who has not read a book on the subject to evaluate it.

I will be happy to touch on some of the key fields of science that provide evidence for evolution, if you like, beginning with, say, anatomy.

But before engaging in this discussion, if you want to have it, I really do need to know what you believe. Obviously, you don't appear to accept that all life on Earth has evolved from earlier organisms and common ancestors. But beyond that, I don't know where you stand. Are you a Creationist? And if you are, does that mean that you believe God created every creature we see today exactly as that creature appears today? In other words, do you believe the Earth was devoid of, say, horses until one moment in time God created them, exactly as we see them today?

Do you believe that man never existed in earlier forms as, for example, Homo habilis or Homo heidelbergensis?

Also, how old do you believe the Earth to be? Billions of years old? Millions of years old? Or fewer than 10,000 years old?

I won't mock or attempt to mock any of your answers to these questions.

Since I've put these questions to you as sort of a preface to a discussion on evolution, it's only fair that I answer them myself.

I believe that evolution has shaped, and continues to shape, life on Earth in countless ways. The animals around us -- birds, fish, dogs, cats, bears, whales, and squirrels -- have all evolved over tens of thousands of years, even tens of millions of years. I believe that man, himself, has evolved from earlier forms, such as Homo habilis and Homo heidelbergensis. I also believe the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

As far as my views on evolution's import for religion, I don't think believing in evolution precludes belief in God. Charles Darwin certainly didn't and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the current pope, certainly doesn't.

So: Ball's in your court. If you're willing to answer the questions above as a preface to the discussion, I'll respond with an illustrative example about the California redwoods that I'm hoping will help you understand how I regard evolution. From there, we can proceed to anatomy.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
squrlz4ever 

Ok.  So first of all thanks for not being combative, mocking, rude and all nature of other negative traits which have been coming from a lot of the responders to me in this post.  It is something a lot of people could learn from.  So thank you for that.

-------------------------------

Next i'll answer your questions:

1q: Obviously, you don't appear to accept that all life on Earth has evolved from earlier organisms and common ancestors.
1a:As a monk who has first-hand witnessed the power of God over creation, and of the fortunate few who can say they knows He is real, i have to say that i have no doubt God can create something with His word alone.  I don't have enough information to answer the finer details, but since God has shown me His great power over great and small things, i have to say i agree more with what those who have found Him have reported of His work than those who ignore and mock Him.  I hope someday to see how it all came to be first-hand as well, because with God, time is not a barrier.

2q: Are you a Creationist?
2a:Not in the sense some people think of the term.  I know God created all things. (see 1a).

3q: Does that mean that you believe God created every creature we see today exactly as that creature appears today? In other words, do you believe the Earth was devoid of, say, horses until one moment in time God created them, exactly as we see them today?
3a: I don't know. All i know is that animals can adapt to a degree, and that those who have found God have testified that He has created the base kinds as outlined in Scripture.  I am still awaiting to see.  As for the stories evolutionists tell, i recognize it as their faith in the stories. (see 1a)

4q: Do you believe that man never existed in earlier forms as, for example, Homo habilis or Homo heidelbergensis?
4a: I do not know.  All i can say is that after reading the stories and assumptions of evolutionists, i'm led to believe that there's a high likelihood Homo habilis were apes, and that evolutionists have faith they were human.

5q: Also, how old do you believe the Earth to be? Billions of years old? Millions of years old? Or fewer than 10,000 years old?
5a: I don't know.  I make no claim because i am less than 100 years old.  I feel that it is a wild goose chase to try claim it, as we continue to move further away from the beginning, and every few years new claims arise. I hope someday to find it though (see 1a)

misc:
I don't think believing in evolution precludes belief in God either.


-------------------------------
To the discussion:

All i'm looking for is the evidence for the stories and assumptions evolutionists claim as fact about what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.  I'm skeptical of their claims, and the more i read of it, seeing the dogmatic indoctrination, combative and fallacious stances the more i come to realize they are fighting to make their faith 'true', yet it is still a faith.

I know there is lots of information across paleontology, anatomy, taxonomy, neurology, embryology, virology, and genetics, however i feel the stories being conjured are being made rashly and for pursuit of ego or pride (or worse, to sell books for $) of the claimants.  You are right that evolution is a complex subject, but so too is chemistry.  I feel it did a huge disservice to us 1000 years ago when people were saying fire, water, earth and air were the only elements.  Those stories and assumptions likely held us back because the people dogmatic and indoctrinated into that view were unwilling to change.  In short, if evolution today is looked at in 1000 years as we look at the fire/water/earth/air scenario today, how much more time did those stories and assumptions waste today, not to mention the time with silly arguments here that there is no evidence for, but faith.  Isn't it possible somewhere along the line that a flaw arose in the story that affected the end product, and now today people are basing their claim as 'fact' on that flaw?

As for richard's book that you posted a link to, all i have been asking for is page numbers or passages that will demonstrate that the faith is actually facts.  I'm willing to read, however richard takes the stance a lot of dogmatic and indoctrinated people do: a mocking and scorning combative stance.  Too short on the science for me to waste time tryiing to decipher, especially when no works have done anything but shown me they have faith.  I have no reason to believe richard's book is anything but extension of that faith, but feel free to provide the pages and passages to prove it wrong.


The bottom line is that there is much about our history that we don't know, and i feel it is arrogant and stupid to make claims about what happened long ago based on stories and assumption with no evidence, and then call it science.

So again, all I'm looking for is the evidence for the stories and assumptions evolutionists claim as fact about what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 
0
Reply
Male 12,840
squrlz4ever Ok i'm going to get to this later today i'll squrlz4ever you
0
Reply
Male 1,286
Just say these 20 simple words over and over: "evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true"

Count so far: 7 20 and counting! (ctrl-f the giant quote)
3
Reply
Male 12,840
boredhuman Can you provide evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true?
-4
Reply
Male 1,286
monkwarrior Count so far: 7 8.

Can I prove assumptions?

Def assumption:
2. The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof.

No, wise monk, I cannot prove assumptions. If I could, they wouldn't be assumptions. 
2
Reply
Male 12,840
boredhuman fair enough, thank you.  I also agree, there is no proof for the assumptions.  Also neither can i provide evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.

But i hear people saying it's true, so trying to get to the bottom of it. And i hope others may know.
-3
Reply
Male 2,336
Male 12,840
lockner01 I don't want to have a discussion of the topic with you, because you continue with pointless banter that clogs threads and your link is a blanket that does not provide the evidence being asked for.  So if you don't have specific evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true, please refrain from further replying. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
-4
Reply
Male 2,336
monkwarrior https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution

Evidence for both Micro and Macroevolution. 

I provided the first link because it had videos. Since you didn't read the original links I thought you would prefer videos.
4
Reply
Male 12,840
lockner01 I see you're beginning to clog the thread again with irrelevant responses.  Again, in bold  I don't want to have a discussion of the topic with you, because you continue with pointless banter that clogs threads. So if you don't have specific evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true, please refrain from further replying. Thank you again for your understanding, please don't delve further into provocation or bedevilment to cause the mods undue stress.
-5
Reply
Male 2,336
monkwarrior Quote:"So if you don't have specific evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true, please refrain from further replying."

Ok here you go:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

It's short so you may actually read it.
3
Reply
Male 12,840
lockner01 "Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today."

So you linked to something that had assumptions.  It is clear you can't answer the question.  So from this point forward I don't want to have a discussion of the topic with you, because you continue with pointless banter that clogs threads.
-5
Reply
Male 2,336
monkwarrior I'm ending our discussion. The next time you want to end a conversation, leave it at "I don't want to have a conversation". Don't say something like "I don't want to have a conversation so end it here. Unless you can provide me with evidence to prove your point".

When you do that you are asking me to reply to your comment. You've done this a number of times in this thread alone, with almost identical posts.

You've asked for evidence and you've been provided with evidence.  When you've been asked for evidence of the existence of your god, you're answer is most commonly "Oh there's plenty of evidence, the evidence of testimony is abundant."

However you don't produce any evidence.  It's pretty much a Donald Trump answer.  Yes you've made a few posts on the subject and all of them have been debunked.

Anyway enjoy your night. 
4
Reply
Male 12,840
lockner01 Thank you for ending the discussion as i asked.  Also for the evidence of testimony you have the Holy Bible:  https://www.BibleGateway.com
-4
Reply
Male 1,286
monkwarrior, I see you continue to clog the thread again with your nonsense quote: "evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true"
  Assumptions are by definition without proof. The moment an assumption is proven, it stops being an assumption. 
  I called you out about clogging the thread when your nonsense quote was 7 times in this thread... Now this nonsense quote is here 14 times, 11 of which were posted by you. Please stop clogging the thread with your nonsense quote. 
  Thank you again for your understanding, please don't delve further into provocation or bedevilment to cause the mods undue stress.
2
Reply
Male 12,840
boredhuman I'm simply trying to clarify the question for people, so they don't get sidetracked (as many have and do, due to indoctrination) with the assumption and story, but rather what i'm asking about: the evidence that proves the assumptions and stories true. You and i both have agreed above, but some still want to claim the assumptions and stories are fact.  I would like the evidence that makes them fact as those making that claim insist.
-3
Reply
Male 1,286
monkwarrior I see you continue to clog the thread again with your nonsense quote. Now this nonsense quote is here 15 times, 12 of which were posted by you. Please stop clogging the thread with your nonsense quote. Thank you for editing your reply. 
  Assumptions are by definition without proof. The moment an assumption is proven, it stops being an assumption.
  You will not get evidence on IAB that will turn assumptions evolutionists make into facts. The best IAB can do, is provide evidence that the evolutionists have so far. And that is what lockner01 does. 
2
Reply
Male 2,336
boredhuman And yet when he's asked for evidence of the proof of his god he provides https://www.biblegateway.com/ .  The same type of link he said " your link is a blanket that does not provide the evidence being asked for"
1
Reply
Male 1,286
lockner01 Yeah, the link shows testimony, and Monk considers religious testimony to be evidence... So, yeah, monk provided you with evidence of God. The fact that neither you nor I would ever accept subjective testimony as evidence, is another question. 
Anyway, I hope you now realize that you fell for monk's trap when he challenged you to prove assumptions. 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
monkwarrior Thank you for clarifying that the  evidence of testimony was provided to lockner
-1
Reply
Male 12,840
BoredHuman So again, you and i are in agreement that there is no evidence for the clams that the stories assumptions are a fact.  Lets leave it there.
-2
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior so to summarize this thread, you expressed contrition and admit the bible is full of make believe and the real truth can only be shown by the scientific method.
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya Wrong, try again.
-1
Reply
Male 1,286
monkwarrior No, we're not in agreement here. There is evidence and support for stories/assumptions, and that is what lockner and others try to provide. They cannot give you proof, which you ask.

Strictly speaking, evolution cannot be proven.
There! Are you happy, monk?

Read more here: Can Darwin's theory of evolution ever be proven?
The problem is in that word “proven”. Strictly speaking, neither form of logic — induction or deduction — can ever “prove”.
...
Evolution is the same way. It has been tested so many times in attempts to show it wrong, and those attempts have all failed to show evolution wrong, and evolution explains so much, that we consider it “proved”.
...
1
Reply
Male 12,840
boredhuman So there is no evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true.
-1
Reply
Male 6,076
monkwarrior there is no evidence "you" said that.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
rumham if you say so
-1
Reply
Male 1,286
monkwarrior I see you continue to clog the thread again with your nonsense quote. Now this nonsense quote is here 16 times, 13 of which were posted by you. Please stop clogging the thread with your nonsense quote. 
  Thank you again for your understanding, please don't delve further into provocation or bedevilment to cause the mods undue stress.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
boredhuman It's not a nonsense quote, but a sincere question i've been trying to get an answer to for a long time:   Where is the evidence to prove the stories and assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 

However since you have noted about 'assumption' let me change the question for you:

Where is the evidence to prove the stories evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true?
-1
Reply
Male 1,286
monkwarrior Thanks to the change, your question is no longer nonsense. Now your question just shows utter misunderstanding of how science works. Scientists don't deal with proofs - as a man of science you should know that! 

The problem is in the word "prove". Did you read Can Darwin's theory of evolution ever be proven?

Change the question to:
"Where is the evidence to support the stories/assumptions evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true" 

I hope I sufficiently explained why you haven't gotten an answer to your question. It's a bad/misguided question. 
For now I'm eagerly awaiting your reply to squirlz. We're all cheering for you to become more educated, wise monk. 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
boredhuman i already know that, but there is still no  evidence to prove the stories evolutionists make of what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior You do realize how much I have you wrapped around my little.....finger...

(phew, dodged a bullet there Squrlz)

Don't you?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe It's the other way around sonny
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior "sonny"?

???

What did you mean to say, again?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe use your PhD to figure it out.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior

Playa hatin Degree?

Dayyymmm! That's cold, son!

You cold, you cold AS ICE!

While my DJ revolves it.

teach me how to be cool like you?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe step 1: stop whining so much.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior step 2?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe make sure step 1 is completed.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior step 2: make sure step 1 is completed.

Step 3?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe stop replying like this forever.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Are you attempting poetry?

I am so proud of you.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior I'd wash your finger before you go to bed or you might wake up with your breath smelling of intestinally processed tacos 
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya So you lick your fingers at night?
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior no, but I have testimony that you do.
1
Reply
Male 1,196
Draculya How fucking funny was that comment!

You win all the internets.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya sure you do.
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior I'm glad we agree then. 
0
Reply
Male 44,870
1
Reply
Male 1,196
Gerry1of1 Lemme tell you, man...

I am genetically more closely related to monkfish than I am to a platypus.

What the fuck
1
Reply
Male 18,088
BuckeyeJoe I'd be wanting a refund from 23andme
0
Reply
Male 8,878
BuckeyeJoe You don't want to be closely related to a platypus. They're idiots. The lay eggs and produce milk but still haven't worked out how to make custard.
3
Reply
Male 1,196
LordJim Well then. I have found a lordly friend, then. 

How-do-you-do? 

<tips of the hat, and so-forth>

And I gladly forego the recipe to custard for the abeyance of fucktard that monkfish surveillance.

I rhyme this shit because I'm a fucking idiot. 

Right up the ass, pal! That's where I'll be!

But I'd rather be equivocal to an ass-hat than A Monkfail.

So....grab a beer?
1
Reply
Male 9,975
LordJim And you, sir, win one Internet.
1
Reply
Male 9,454
Uh oh facts and evidence, two things Religious zealots hate
3
Reply
Male 174
normalfreak2 Interesting that you continue to clog testimony of evidence of your assumptions by humankind's writings of lack of proof.

show me the evidence
0
Reply
Male 12,840
normalfreak2 Personally i've found it's truth and sound reasoning that the anti-religious zealots hate.
-5
Reply
Male 9,975
monkwarrior That's because most religious zealots believe in their 'Truth' without any supporting evidence, and will under no circumstances question their 'Truth' if it means any kind of logical thinking. 
4
Reply
Male 12,840
megrendel Oh there's plenty of evidence, the evidence of testimony is abundant.  How can you claim to know what logical thinking is if you're already doing illogical thinking by ignoring the evidence of testimony, or using logical fallacies such as personal incredulity, appeal to ignorance, or moving the goalposts on the evidence in order to to dismiss it??

-4
Reply
Male 9,975
monkwarrior the evidence of testimony is abundant.

The evidence of testimony is not evidence. There are four types of evidence: real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial.  There's a reason testimony falls last.  Unless testimony is supported by real, demonstrative or documentary evidence, it's pretty much useless.

Evidence of testimony  exists for pretty much any claim that has ever been devised — alien abductions, demon possessions, miracle medical cures and the like.  Hell, you even testify that you're intelligent.  Doesn't make any of it true.

And yes, I realize that any logic that does not support your bias you will deem 'illogical' or 'fallacy'.  We know it, we expect it, it does not support your case in any fashion. 
3
Reply
Male 12,840
megrendel Oh it's abundant, it's like you just don't like it and need to minimize it.
-1
Reply
Male 9,975
monkwarrior Oh it's abundant

Then presenting it should be easy.  We've requested it repeatedly, yet you continue to fail to do so.

We're waiting.

2
Reply
Male 12,840
megrendel Has already been presented to you:  https://www.BibleGateway.com
-1
Reply
Male 9,975
monkwarrior Sorry, the Bible is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and has no supporting evidence.

Don't get me wrong. I read the Bible on a regular basis, but it cannot be used as a citation in any logic-based debate.  
1
Reply
Male 12,840
megrendel The lessons of the Holy Bible has been tried and tested and found to be true in every generation since its inception.  It has been corroborated by billions as testimony shows. 

Since peer-reviewd scientific journals have only been around for less than a few centuries, of course the Holy Bible wasn't written as a scientific journal.  That makes as much sense as someone mocking the bible because it classified bats as birds, a few thousand years before the classification of species came into being.

The Holy Bible teaches faith in God, and His righteousness and love.  The logic in that respect is sound.
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
monkwarrior so what you mean is the bible offers no proof. 
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya it contains the evidence of testimony.
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
@ r circular "testimony" 
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya it's actually your appeal to ignorance or personal incredulity, or worse moving the goalposts on evidence.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior No...not really. The interpretation of the Bible has undergone severe modification as science continues to inform and update. 

That's the thing: Christians revise their interpretation whenever science shows their views do not accord with reality.

This has happened many times.

Of course, you will never admit this...you will simply plug your ears with other appendages and rock back-and-forth, slowly, in the corner of your delusions. 

But history is recorded, and can be referenced. And all those who seek truth can investigate the history and see it there. Plain as day.

That is really your true burden, monk-brother: the fact that you must directly oppose referenced information. And somehow convince yourself that it does not exist. When it is right there, staring you in the face. 

Fuck. That must be hell in slow motion.

While you rock back-and-forth. Sucking your thumb.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe again i'm still waiting for you to present the evidence for the stories and assumptions evolutionists claim as fact about what happened long before humankind's earliest writings are true. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe more like: 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Wong, wong, wong. You wong. You wong. You woooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.

I have testimony. And testicles.

You have neither.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior 

Peppermint, miniskirts, chocolate candy
Champion sax and a girl named Sandy
There's only four ways to get unraveled
One is to sleep and the other is travel, da da
One is a bandit up in the hills
One is to love your neighbor 'till

His wife gets home

Do you have a wife? Or do you just cry green?
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for.  Thank you in advance for understanding.
-1
Reply
Male 9,975
monkwarrior The lessons of the Holy Bible has been tried and tested and found to be true in every generation since its inception.

Then the proof should be easy to present, yet you continue to refuse to do so. 

monkwarrior The Holy Bible teaches faith in God

That's the FIRST thing you've gotten right.  Faith.  Not fact
1
Reply
Male 12,840
megrendel It is easy to present, you can see the positive changes that the church has brought society, such as hospitals, universities, and government houses.

Also the faith that the evidence of testimony teaches can lead people to witness the empirical evidence.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior If positive outcomes from religious institutions throughout history is somehow empirical evidence for god, then surely all the evil deeds done by religion is evidence against.

Or are we still cherry-picking? 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe no it's just your poor reading comprehension.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior I'm pretty confident that is not the problem.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
BuckeyeJoe I love how you two keep this going. Keep it up.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
1
Reply
Male 18,088
BuckeyeJoe I am indeed entertained
0
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog threads with pointless desperate replies.  Thank you in advance for understanding and choosing not to reply, and for kindly understanding that by replying it may cause users and mods undue stress.  
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior A cowardly and transparent attempt to incite disciplinary action from mods when none is deserved.

If you want to end this discussion, then simply do not reply.

Like any adult would do.

It is your choice to abstain, and is a decision resulting in your responsibility to act (or not, in this case).

I am not responsible for your choice to end the conversation. So do not presume to shift that responsibility onto me. Your choice invites your response -- it does not invite a limit to my freedom to act.

Typical theists.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Thank you in advance for recognizing the responsibility of thinking, mature agents.

You continue to have a discussion with me through your replies, and it is a pleasure :), for as long as you wish to engage.

All you have to do to stop the conversation is to let it go, and not reply: stating in the most direct way possible that you are no longer participating.

But you can't. You cannot let someone else have the final say, the final post. You won't ever. So you will continue to reply, and by community standards at IAB, I am allowed to reply to any comment sent to me. 

You are stuck. You are writhing. You do not know what to do. 

I bet God does.
1
Reply
Male 18,088
BuckeyeJoe FWIW, I think you've been proven right and Monkwarrior really hasn't come up with any convincing logic at all.

Note I'm replying to you directly, not monk, who should please stay out of our private conversation.
0
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  Again, I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  I know it's difficult for you, but again thank you in advance for understanding, and not replying again to clog this thread.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior Again, thank you in advance for recognizing the responsibility of thinking, mature agents.

You continue to have a discussion with me through your replies, and it is a pleasure :), for as long as you wish to engage.

I appreciate you acknowledging that you have no evidence, and furthermore noting how much evidence I have provided. That is noble of you. 

Do let me know if you wish to end our conversation -- by not replying.

By community standards at IAB, I am allowed to reply to any comment sent to me. 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  Again, I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  I know it's difficult for you, but again thank you in advance for understanding, and not replying again to clog this thread. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior So you say, but you continue having it.

Wool over the sheep's eyes appears invisible to the sheep. To everyone else, it is obvious.

Your turn.

And thank you for your conversation :) 
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe  I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior My replies are no more pointless than yours. Plus, I bring evidence, for whatever, that you do not.

So thank you in advance for being Draino.

No logging your nogging.

Victorino.
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding. 
-1
Reply
Male 18,088
@ r  I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical bible bashers do.  Thank you in advance for understanding. 
0
Reply
Male 12,840
Draculya no one was talking to you, you just butted in.
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
monkwarrior I was talking to him. YOU butted in.

Now stop it.

Stawwwhp!





1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
1
Reply
Male 1,196
1
Reply
Male 12,840
buckeyejoe I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,196
1
Reply
Male 12,840
BuckeyeJoe I don't want to have a discussion with you because you continue to clog this thread with pointless replies while providing no evidence asked for like typical atheists do.  Thank you in advance for understanding.