• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why evolution is rubbish

R

Rambozo

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2025
Messages
444
Reaction score
32
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Evolution is merely based on observing that humans have biological similarities to other animals, and on observing that genetic traits are passed down to offspring.

Naturally, no one has actually observed organisms millions of years ago evolving into modern humans. No one can produce a video recording of this happening. People are simply assuming that humans evolved from animals because of the biological similarities they share with them.

This proves that evolution is rubbish and unempirical. It's simply people speculating about something happening that they haven't seen with their own eyes.
 
phoenix2020 said:
Evolution has been empirically observed and verified in fruit flies.

/thread
Click to expand...
Nope. You haven't seen a single-celled organism evolve into a fruit fly over millions of years.

Just as you haven't empirically observed a fruit fly evolving yourself. You're merely relaying what someone else told you that they observed.
 
Rambozo said:
Evolution is merely based on observing that humans have biological similarities to other animals, and on observing that genetic traits are passed down to offspring.

Naturally, no one has actually observed organisms millions of years ago evolving into modern humans. No one can produce a video recording of this happening. People are simply assuming that humans evolved from animals because of the biological similarities they share with them.

This proves that evolution is rubbish and unempirical. It's simply people speculating about something happening that they haven't seen with their own eyes.
Click to expand...
The only thing your thread proves is that you've never had a science class...
 
Chock Full o Nuts said:
There's all kinds of evidence; one being fossil record of early humans such as skull size/shape and such.

What there isn't evidence of is a god.

Should have just made the thread title 'rubbish'.
Click to expand...
More than enough evidence of a god has been provided.

For example:

www.americamagazine.org

How your DNA points to the existence and intricacy of God

Your DNA is like a blueprint of your soul, which is another sacred thing that is not like anyone else’s in the world.
www.americamagazine.org www.americamagazine.org
 
Rambozo said:
More than enough evidence of a god has been provided.

For example:

www.americamagazine.org

How your DNA points to the existence and intricacy of God

Your DNA is like a blueprint of your soul, which is another sacred thing that is not like anyone else’s in the world.
www.americamagazine.org www.americamagazine.org
Click to expand...
The Jesuit Review...:rolleyes:

I may give it a read here after while when I feel like shaking my head.

"How your DNA points to..."
Sounds like speculation rather than evidence just from the title.

I want Proof. And nothing to date has proven it.

Science has proven plenty.
 
Chock Full o Nuts said:
The Jesuit Review...:rolleyes:

I may give it a read here after while when I feel like shaking my head.

"How your DNA points to..."
Sounds like speculation rather than evidence just from the title.

I want Proof. And nothing to date has proven it.
Click to expand...
There has been more than enough proof, in my book, to conclude that there is a God.

But if people want to deny such proof, they'll always find a way to. Just as how they could claim there is no proof that Julius Caesar existed unless someone can produce a video recording of him.

Chock Full o Nuts said:
Science has proven plenty.
Click to expand...
Science can't, and never will disprove the existence of God.

Science merely relies on gathering information about the material universe. Not things that exist outside of the material universe.
 
Rambozo said:
Nope. You haven't seen a single-celled organism evolve into a fruit fly over millions of years.

Just as you haven't empirically observed a fruit fly evolving yourself. You're merely relaying what someone else told you that they observed.
Click to expand...
Nope, you thought you had a cool gotcha because you didn't bother to even think about fruit fly research that doesn't require millions of years and empirically demonstrates evolution.

Look, don't get me wrong, if you want to be a flat-earther type, that's cool. The world is more interesting with a moderate number of people who believe in wacky conspiracy theories, so we want you to continue believing that evolution is some false claim. This is a win for the rest of us because (a) it weeds you out as potential competition--evolutionary speaking and otherwise and (b) we can sell you t-shirts with wacky anti-evolution conspiratorial slogans and make some money of you. And it's a win for you because you get to rest thinking that you owned the scientists or something, which keeps you docile.

So, by all means, continue.
 
Rambozo said:
There has been more than enough proof, in my book, to conclude that there is a God.
Click to expand...
That's called a belief.
Rambozo said:
But if people want to deny such proof, they'll always find a way to. Just as how they could claim there is no proof that Julius Caesar existed unless someone can produce a video recording of him.
Click to expand...
Historical record and a physical place of burial; not a book of tales open to interpretation and faith.

Jesus died, rose from the dead, and still hasn't come back from grocery shopping. If he rose and was alive again, where did he go?
Should be a body if he was a mortal man. Someone put out a missing persons alert!
Rambozo said:
Science can't, and never will disprove the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Because science is based on observable things. Hard to do studies/testing on something that doesn't exist.
Rambozo said:
Science merely relies on gathering information about the material universe. Not things that exist outside of the material universe.
Click to expand...
And religion relies on people like Ken Ham telling people it's all true, and tries to explain away scientific fact.
I saw him speak many years ago at a friends church for shits and giggles. Still couldn’t convince me man probably got eaten by a T-Rex here and there. All I kept hearing is "the bible tells us...". No it tells you.

But boy, he's built quite the religious tourist attraction not far from me! Just doing gods work....😒
 
Rambozo said:
But if people want to deny such proof, they'll always find a way to. Just as how they could claim there is no proof that Julius Caesar existed unless someone can produce a video recording of him.
Click to expand...
Care to show us a video of jesus. No! Then by your standards there is no proof that jesus existed.
 
It's all about alleles. If you don't know what they are, you have no business discussing evolution.





I do not subscribe to the ridiculous notion that your ignorance is as good as my knowledge.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Isaac Asimov
 
Chock Full o Nuts said:
There's all kinds of evidence; one being fossil record of early humans such as skull size/shape and such.

What there isn't evidence of is a god.

Should have just made the thread title 'rubbish'.
Click to expand...
Rubbish accurately describes arguments against abortion, and by extension, those who pose such arguments.
 
Rambozo said:
Evolution is merely based on observing that humans have biological similarities to other animals, and on observing that genetic traits are passed down to offspring.

Naturally, no one has actually observed organisms millions of years ago evolving into modern humans. No one can produce a video recording of this happening. People are simply assuming that humans evolved from animals because of the biological similarities they share with them.

This proves that evolution is rubbish and unempirical. It's simply people speculating about something happening that they haven't seen with their own eyes.
Click to expand...
By definition, more or less all of the evolution of humans happened before humans existed. So no one has seen it occur.

The statement can be made, then, that the process is just a backstory - a scientific explanation for things that in a sense never happened, in the way that a tree falling unseen in the forest never "happened".

From the scientific point of view, you come up with simple, consistent, straightforward explanations of how things occurred. Hypotheses become theories. They are the best explanation we know. But however good that explanation is, you could be sitting in the college cafeteria discussing a fossil skull on the table, when your friend says "Arch", and all of a sudden you notice he is in a Starfleet uniform walking off the Holodeck leaving you behind. And for one brief moment before the lights go out, you know that all that scientific explanation of that simulated skull was a lie.

But in truth, we usually don't see such things. What we see are genes that work very similarly in men and mice, and by assuming evolution is true, we can look for drugs and treatments in mice that will cure a man. Evolution is part of a successful practice of medicine. Christianity itself tells us, "by their fruits you will know them..." Science here can yield a nutritious fruit.

It is possible for a person to believe, at once, that the continent in Lord of the Rings had thousands of years of history, and yet Tolkien wrote it in a few decades. That the Creator has one time frame and one sequence of events and that the Creation has its own internal logic with a different time frame and a different sequence of events. And that the biography of the Creator is important and meaningful, and that the timeline of the Created World also is important and meaningful. And that one does not abandon the Creator by believing the one, nor by believing the other.

Allow yourself to perceive more than one dimension of time: spiritual time, the Creator's time, and mundane time, physical time. Two objects that appear doomed to crash in two dimensions will pass one another without incident in three.
 
It's not rubbish.
 
bythoughts said:
By definition, more or less all of the evolution of humans happened before humans existed. So no one has seen it occur.

The statement can be made, then, that the process is just a backstory - a scientific explanation for things that in a sense never happened, in the way that a tree falling unseen in the forest never "happened".

From the scientific point of view, you come up with simple, consistent, straightforward explanations of how things occurred. Hypotheses become theories. They are the best explanation we know. But however good that explanation is, you could be sitting in the college cafeteria discussing a fossil skull on the table, when your friend says "Arch", and all of a sudden you notice he is in a Starfleet uniform walking off the Holodeck leaving you behind. And for one brief moment before the lights go out, you know that all that scientific explanation of that simulated skull was a lie.

But in truth, we usually don't see such things. What we see are genes that work very similarly in men and mice, and by assuming evolution is true, we can look for drugs and treatments in mice that will cure a man. Evolution is part of a successful practice of medicine. Christianity itself tells us, "by their fruits you will know them..." Science here can yield a nutritious fruit.

It is possible for a person to believe, at once, that the continent in Lord of the Rings had thousands of years of history, and yet Tolkien wrote it in a few decades. That the Creator has one time frame and one sequence of events and that the Creation has its own internal logic with a different time frame and a different sequence of events. And that the biography of the Creator is important and meaningful, and that the timeline of the Created World also is important and meaningful. And that one does not abandon the Creator by believing the one, nor by believing the other.

Allow yourself to perceive more than one dimension of time: spiritual time, the Creator's time, and mundane time, physical time. Two objects that appear doomed to crash in two dimensions will pass one another without incident in three.
Click to expand...
Familiar with "Buddha Time?"
The Concept of "Buddha Standard Time"

    • Timelessness of the present:
      This idea, popularized by teacher Lama Surya Das, suggests that time is not a linear progression but an "intersected" fourth dimension.
    • Living in the now:
      By learning to live in this dimension of "Buddha Standard Time," one can find greater focus, fulfillment, and wisdom, and experience renewal in each moment.
    • Cyclical vs. Linear:
      This contrasts with a Western conception of time as linear and having a definite beginning and end. Instead, in Buddhism, time is often viewed as cyclical.
    • Interconnectedness:
      "Buddha Standard Time" also involves realizing that all moments are interconnected and that we have "all the time in the world".
 
poppopfox said:
Knowledge is never "stolen."
Click to expand...
If I claimed to have discovered evolution myself, and have been the first person on earth to do so, you wouldn't say that I stole it?
 
Gordy327 said:
Rubbish accurately describes arguments against abortion, and by extension, those who pose such arguments.
Click to expand...
Nope. Science indicates that a fetus has a functioning brain at about 5 weeks into the pregnancy.
 
Loulit01 said:
Click to expand...

I like Professor Dave, but I should quibble with a few things.

Antibiotic resistance doesn't really "evolve" in a petri dish exposed to antibiotics. What happens is that some bacterium somewhere has a plasmid that already defeats the antibiotic, then everybody else borrows it. (Even between species)

Wisdom teeth aren't useless ... mine are pretty good at a few odd tasks like cracking grape seeds.

The role of acquired inheritance - such as by an adaptive methylation of DNA, followed by "misreading" C as T, has yet to be fully explored. The capitalists were always very, very touchy about scientific doctrines that interfered with their Spencerian "survival of the fittest", and politically vilified Michurinism because it interfered with eugenic principles.

Not saying he's wrong - he is surveying good arguments for evolution - but just keep thinking on your own, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom