The best evolutionary proof EVER

carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
The best evolutionary proof EVER


OK I’m going to mix a lot of theories so don’t smack me I know that Abiogenists , Evolution big bang and Newtonian physics are different and are not linked to evolution however I’m going to build a argument from the creationist mindset to show howe it brakes down on itself and brings the creationist to one solution creationism is nonsense , evolution exists.




We know a lot of evolution types


Cosmic evolution

Stellar evolution

Planetary evolution

Macro Evolution

Micro Evolution


Now like all creationists you know the counter arguments however I’m going to prove to you most of the planetary evolution and other “hidden” evolutions. I’m going to show it so perfectly that would see evolution like a unifying principal making it intuitive and in reality our universe would be  unable to exist if we don’t accept it.

To make it simple the world wouldn’t work or would work in a completely alien way if evolution happened to be wrong.


Lets tart with a simple experiment :

1)      pick up a book (the bible is a good example since its easy to find in your house)

2)      hold the bible in the air away from your head

3)      stop holding the bible


You can repeat the experiment  before you come to other conclusions.


I’m peaty shore you expected this result in fact you realized this facts , the question would be why is it so ? The answer is simple thanks to stellar evolution we can observed the theory of planetary evolution. You see every atom is according to planetary evolution sounded buy a PEF ( Planetary evolution field ) like a magnetic field around a magnet we can see how the planets evolved similar to spherical magnets that if dropt near eth other will form a sphere. This again proves the theory of planetary evolution , like the theory predicted water drops in a near zero G enticement like a space form a sphere like formation. Again we see evolution proven proven and proven like in the form of the planets. Like I have demonstrated our world wouldn’t exist or would exist completely different if not for the planetary evolution like things wouldn’t fall down , planets wouldn’t be round and so on.


Well my friend I have proven to you evolution I hope you enjoy you new evolutionary knowledge.




O man that was fun since creationists clime something like planetary evolution next time you encounter someone who clams to disbelieve in evolution and is stubborn copy and past him this Sticking out tongue.


I’m waiting for creationist and Darwinist (like my self XD ) responses.

Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-04-14
User is offlineOffline
friendly advice from a pro

OK, your piece isn't very sophisticated. Sorry. In science we don't prove anything true; we do falsify with certainty, but only if testable predictions can be generated. This is not simply a semantic quibble, it deals with the fundamental way the process of science works. When arguments are stated as yours, they are subject to the pasta objection (check out the church of the flying spaghetti monster); that's just they way they were created. And please don't borrow terms from the creationists (macroevolution, microevolution) that aren't used in real science, it gives them undo credibility.

Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
To DrAI (sort of) agreed

To DrA

I (sort of) agreed with you up until this point:


And please don't borrow terms from the creationists (macroevolution, microevolution) that aren't used in real science, it gives them undo credibility.


OK. Formalities out of the way, first. Under technical definitions, I actually am a "pro", as far as evolution is concerned, at least. I study gene regulation and protein folding. For example, one of the things we do is use the concept of a "node" or a specific module that is present in development, to build models of how complex multicellular features adapt at the molecular level.

Now, onto business. Macroevolution and microevolution are real terms. We do use them. They are misunderstood by creationists but were not made up by them. They were first coined by the geneticist Theodius Dobzhansky. They are used to refer to, in a very broad context, "evolution above the species level" and "within the species level". There is some confusion about this among non-scientists. These do not refer to process difference. Macroevolution can largely be regarded as a branch, or arm of evolutionary biology, one which studies general, or large-scale trends and patterns in evolutionary history that are indicated at the level of taxa. Some topics within this arm include the question "Are there any major trends in the history of life"? or "is there are characteristic rate of evolution, and does it in turn peg a limit on variational distribution?" etc.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.


Books about atheism

Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
heheDefine species.


Define species.

stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:heheDefine

Watcher wrote:


Define species.


inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Watcher

stuntgibbon wrote:

Watcher wrote:


Define species.



Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote:Watcher

stuntgibbon wrote:

Watcher wrote:


Define species.



Ah, yes. The only movie I ever rented EXCLUSIVELY to see the booby scene.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.