Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution, is it wrong?

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 8:02:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.


So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

I am Catholic as well, but I see no point in rejecting science as other Christians do. Religion is faith based, and science is not. I am a supporter of theistic evolution, the big bang theory, etc., although I also see how a deity could have caused these events to happen.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 9:10:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 8:02:59 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.


So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

I am Catholic as well, but I see no point in rejecting science as other Christians do. Religion is faith based, and science is not. I am a supporter of theistic evolution, the big bang theory, etc., although I also see how a deity could have caused these events to happen.

I agree, I just wanted to see peoples responses to this, and sadly none are coming.
Well not as many as I thought there would.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 9:32:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 9:10:36 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/4/2011 8:02:59 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.


So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

I am Catholic as well, but I see no point in rejecting science as other Christians do. Religion is faith based, and science is not. I am a supporter of theistic evolution, the big bang theory, etc., although I also see how a deity could have caused these events to happen.

I agree, I just wanted to see peoples responses to this, and sadly none are coming.
Well not as many as I thought there would.

It's a lot more fun to argue about things that aren't considered scientific facts. ;)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 9:56:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 9:32:15 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/4/2011 9:10:36 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/4/2011 8:02:59 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.


So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

I am Catholic as well, but I see no point in rejecting science as other Christians do. Religion is faith based, and science is not. I am a supporter of theistic evolution, the big bang theory, etc., although I also see how a deity could have caused these events to happen.

I agree, I just wanted to see peoples responses to this, and sadly none are coming.
Well not as many as I thought there would.

It's a lot more fun to argue about things that aren't considered scientific facts. ;)

Agreed.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

Right and if you don't know how, then your not in a position to say God did it.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

Maybe God did do it, maybe God didn't do it, this is very insightful :)

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.

Most fit doesn't mean the strongest, smartest, fastest etc. It means the most fit within the context of its environment. A lion will slaughter a penguin, but a penguin can live in an environment where lions can't. Its all about the environment.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

Your not neutral, even if evolution is proven false today, what proof is their that God created humans, lions etc. Do you think its acceptable to just use God as the answer to questions we don't know the answer too ? Eg God of the gaps.

When earthquakes happened and man didn't know what the hell was going on, take a guess what their answer was.............yep God did it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 4:05:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

I looked into this and apparently it's because since marine animals get their carbon from sources such as calcium deposits and CO@ that's dissolved in seawater. This carbon IS that old. Which means that using carbon-14 dating for marine animals is iffy at best.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

That method is also not used to find exact ages of rocks. More accurate methods include various forms of radiometric dating that are similar to Carbon-14 dating but with different elements.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.

I'm not that well versed on Big Bang Theory, but I'm fairly certain that with a little research you can find the scientific explanation for it. Scientists know how it happened.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. I know that much.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Your analysis is a bit flawed. Mutations don't just mix up what's already there, they also take and give. I have stuff in my genetic code that neither of my parents have, and my kids will have things in their that neither I or their mother had.

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.

Well yeah. Evolution doesn't say that only the fittest survive. It says that the fittest tend to survive in higher rates.

Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer.

If you want to look at it that way, then the only thing you can logically conclude is that it's evidence for both and therefore evidence for neither.

"Not A" != B

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

No, what you just posted is not the trademark of a neutral skeptic.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:12:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.

Carbon dating:

Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.

Carbon dating is only one method of dating, and it is only used for things under 50k years old (roughly). Further, if you use the instruments improperly, they will yield improper results.

If you wear a lead shirt and get your chest X-Rayed, you won't get any results. Does this mean that X-Rays don't work? According to your reasoning, it does.

The big bang:

How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing? Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.


What? So you reject dating methods that suggest the earth is old, but you are perfectly fine with the cosmic inflationary expansion of the universe? You realize that if it's correct, then the universe is billion of years old, don't you?

Further, the big bang is about the expansion of space, it is not an ultimate beginning. In otherwords, if you trace it back, you get to a singularity, not 'nothing'.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.


This is not what scientists propose. This doesn't even make sense. The big bang is the expansion of space/time/energy.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true?

What?

Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist. A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.

Again, what? New genetic information can come about through a duplication and a frame shift, as happened in the nylon bug's case.


Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.

You are misinterpreting 'fit'. Fit means biologically fit - so those with a slight advantage in either survival or reproduction are the ones that eventually dominate. Now there are other selective factors at play (sexual selection, genetic drift, etc), so you can't attribute it all to natural selection.

Evidence of structure is not evolution. Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design .Evidence of development came about because Charles Darwin believed in embryonic stages of animals that he had chosen the right theroy and was conviced that all forms of life shared commom ancestors with zero evidence to back it up.


Yes, it is evidence. Further, a 'common designer' is applicable in *any* case, whether there is similarities or differences, so similarities are not evidence of a designer.

Further there is no scientific theory of design.

Many school books teach that the human embryo's folds behind the ears are gill slits like fish, but evidence proves that those folds turn into bones in the ears and glands and bones in the throat. They have nothing to do with breathing. Therefore they are not like the gills of a fish at all. A German a Embyrologist Earnst Haeckel said the turing point in his thinking was when he read Charles Dawin's Orighin of Species in 1860 , 1869 they still had no evidence for Darwin's therory.

This is hovind bilge and is simply not true. Further, Darwin's origin of the species is all about evidence. So to say there was none is simply false.


So Haeckel decided to help Darwin out and created a chart with human embryos and different animals where Haeckel made every embryo look just alike. In 1874 he was convicted of fraud by his own University and confessed to drawing from memory and not from proof 141 years ago.

This is simply not true, please provide evidence.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!

You aren't neutral, you are getting your material from creationists websites (probably Kent Hovind). Try reading real science books.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:53:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm a hardcore conservative, but I believe in evolution.

I've read "On the Origin of Species" and the evidence is overwhelming.

The Big Bang on the other hand is not fully known about. It is the MOST LIKELY explanation for what happened, but more research is needed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:09:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 9:53:11 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm a hardcore conservative, but I believe in evolution.

I've read "On the Origin of Species" and the evidence is overwhelming.

The Big Bang on the other hand is not fully known about. It is the MOST LIKELY explanation for what happened, but more research is needed.

so do I
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:11:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I said in the beginning that I do believe in evolution, or I said I am open to the idea, but I believe in it. I was just pointing out some flaws.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:22:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:18:25 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
maybe the missing link is an alien. :) there sure is a lot of evidence to support this idea..

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Quoted from source:

"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not."
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:17:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2011 4:57:17 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I as a catholic am fairly open to the idea. The Catholic church now recognizes this theory, partially, but there are some problems with it.
It (RC Church) has for some time recognized the Big Bag as well. I think it's that, so long as you believe "God dunnit," then it's ok to believe in the Big Bang. Same goes for evolution. I too am a Catholic and simply accept that God dunnit...He is therefore a God of the gaps...I have no problems with that.

I Dont know how old the earth is, but although I am fairly neutral I will give you facts to see what people think about it.
You may not realize it (but from reading your post) you most certainly are NOT neutral on the subject.

Carbon dating:
Carbon dating is often times false. It dated live penguins to be 8,000 years old. Also so newly killed seal to be 1,300 years old. So carbon dating is often times false.
Are you serious? Why would you use carbon dating on a live penguin, or a newly killed seal? This would be like using a saw to hammer in a nail...it might work but more likely than not it won't. Do you think that forensic teams that investigate murders use carbon dating to determine the age of corpses?

There are MANY different types of radiometric dating as well as non-radiometric dating methods. It is when these methods are used PROPERLY and independently verified by other methods, that we can say with increasing certainty that these methods for dating are accurate.

ALso rocks dated to 10,000,000 years are not dated by carbon dating or uranium dating, but by their position. That method seems faulty.
There are methods like K-Ar dating that can be used for samples older than 100,000 years. These methods in combination with others (like sediment dating) can help us paint a bigger picture as to the age of the earth and/or objects within it.

So, what seems faulty to you about this? Please make sure to post NEW objections and not repeat those that have been shown to be incorrect (ie the garbage above.)

So in conclusion to that the earth maybe 6000 years old, or it might be 10,000,000 years old, I do not know.
You might not know, but there are those of us that do. The overwhelming evidence produced from such a varied range of credible sources, suggests that the earth is MUCH older than 6000 years old and very likely even over 10 million years old...closer to 4000 million years old!

The big bang:
How did it start? Thats all I need to say really, how did everything come from nothing?
Again, where do you get these false premises? This is NOT what the Big Bang says! This would certainly explain why you are troubled by these issues: you have a false understanding of these subjects.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit: From nothing comes nothing. Why would the Big Bang purport to violate the most important law in physics? This is utterly ridiculous.

Once again, the big bang DID HAPPEN, but we don't know how. Once again, I am neutral now im just being skeptical as usual.
Lol! Neutral! We know there was an "explosion" but we are not sure as to the state before said explosion. Actually, we cannot even meaningfully ask that of physics, because physics begins only AFTER the Big Bang! (Plank time after t=0 to be exact.)

But anyways, what exactly is it that you are skeptical about? If it is your misunderstanding of the Big Bang, then let me clear it up for you: the Big Bang doese not say that something came from nothing.

Also scientists proposed that before the big bang all there was was hydrogen and a few helium atoms, so how did that explode? Well maybe god did it, maybe there is a scientific reason.
Scientists cannot say with certainty anything "before" the Big Bang (ie before t=0.) Actually, they cannot really even speak to anything before t=Plank time (about 10^-43s!) We can speculate and "phylosiphize" but not much more than that...at least for now.

Evolution claims that mutations are evaluation, but is this true? Mutations are real ,but its taking the same genetic information and scrambling them up into different places, like a two headed trutle. Its not new information or a new creation, its just mixed up information that already exist.
Not unlike the entire universe! The universe is a bunch of information that is constantly being rearranged into a different state! Remember: energy (or information) is neither created nor destroyed but only transformed. The "holy grail" of physics: laws of thermodynamics!

A new combination not a new creation or anything new. Like the word Christmas. Mix up the letters, you can come up with a number of words like,has, mat sam, Christ ram sat or hit.
Lol! It's even LESS complicated than that because English words like Christmas are composed from an alphabet of 26 letters while the base pairs of DNA have only 4! (Adenine Thymine Guanine Cytosine.) And with this "simple" code one can have more combinations of DNA than there are atoms in the universe!

but you won't get the words queen, Xerox or Zebra, Why? Because its not in the information that already exist.
No "new" information exists regardless, as the total information contained in the universe is a constant. Regardless, this is just an equivocation on your part with regards to the concept of "new information."

Natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. Well it is not always the most fit that survives.
More equivocation. Care to elaborate?

Evidence of structure is not evolution.
Not by itself it's not...but in the context of such a large body of evidence supporting evolution, it does.

Just because Humans and whales have a radius and alna bone that look alike is not evidence for a common ancestor, it is evidence for a common designer. Same designer uses similiar design.
All else equal, perhaps one MIGHT reach that conclusion...problem is, all else is NOT equal. There is too much evidence supporting a common ancestor.

So according to this the proof is fraud and fake. And I am still neutral on the subject, so don't argue with me, argue with the points. I'm just being a skeptic, I could easily do the same thing to the holy book of genesis. So I am not ignorant, I am just open to both sides. Thanks Godsconservativegirl for the info!
Lol! "I am still neutral on the subject!" People WILL argue with YOU because YOU are the one that's presenting falsehoods for facts, or at best a "misunderstanding" of facts.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 11:39:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
Quoted from source:

"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not."

This whole chunk of text doesn't really support the first two sentences.

If a scientist makes predictions, in an experiment, based on their knowledge of evolution, and those predictions turn out to be wrong, evolution is falsifiable.... People do that.... I don't understand where the idea that evolution is falsifiable is coming from. I have a sneaking suspicion most scientists would disagree and an idea like this comes from somewhere like conservapedia. I attempted to find information on this from a reliable source and cannot. Can you point me in the right direction?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 1:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 11:39:00 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

This whole chunk of text doesn't really support the first two sentences.

If a scientist makes predictions, in an experiment, based on their knowledge of evolution, and those predictions turn out to be wrong, evolution is falsifiable.... People do that.... I don't understand where the idea that evolution is falsifiable is coming from. I have a sneaking suspicion most scientists would disagree and an idea like this comes from somewhere like conservapedia. I attempted to find information on this from a reliable source and cannot. Can you point me in the right direction?

I think he's saying that it is NOT falsifiable and so it fails. As you have stated, this is incorrect, as there have been many errors in the theory that have been "falsified" and since corrected.

Regardless, if we were to discover for certain tomorrow that aliens caused human development to be different from all other life on earth; that in turn, makes our understanding of human evolution false. If one were to discover tomorrow that God dunnit; that too would prove our understanding of evolution false. How is evolution then not falsifiable?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 4:58:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 1:29:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/12/2011 11:39:00 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

This whole chunk of text doesn't really support the first two sentences.

If a scientist makes predictions, in an experiment, based on their knowledge of evolution, and those predictions turn out to be wrong, evolution is falsifiable.... People do that.... I don't understand where the idea that evolution is falsifiable is coming from. I have a sneaking suspicion most scientists would disagree and an idea like this comes from somewhere like conservapedia. I attempted to find information on this from a reliable source and cannot. Can you point me in the right direction?

I think he's saying that it is NOT falsifiable and so it fails. As you have stated, this is incorrect, as there have been many errors in the theory that have been "falsified" and since corrected.

Regardless, if we were to discover for certain tomorrow that aliens caused human development to be different from all other life on earth; that in turn, makes our understanding of human evolution false. If one were to discover tomorrow that God dunnit; that too would prove our understanding of evolution false. How is evolution then not falsifiable?

This sentence:
"I don't understand where the idea that evolution is falsifiable is coming from"
was supposed to say:
"I don't understand where the idea that evolution is NOT falsifiable is coming from"

oops
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 12:17:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 11:39:00 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
Quoted from source:

"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not."


This whole chunk of text doesn't really support the first two sentences.

If a scientist makes predictions, in an experiment, based on their knowledge of evolution, and those predictions turn out to be wrong, evolution is falsifiable.... People do that.... I don't understand where the idea that evolution is falsifiable is coming from. I have a sneaking suspicion most scientists would disagree and an idea like this comes from somewhere like conservapedia. I attempted to find information on this from a reliable source and cannot. Can you point me in the right direction?

http://physics.ucr.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.experiment-resources.com...

http://www.biologycorner.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 12:17:31 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/12/2011 11:39:00 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
Quoted from source:

"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not."


This whole chunk of text doesn't really support the first two sentences.

If a scientist makes predictions, in an experiment, based on their knowledge of evolution, and those predictions turn out to be wrong, evolution is falsifiable.... People do that.... I don't understand where the idea that evolution is falsifiable is coming from. I have a sneaking suspicion most scientists would disagree and an idea like this comes from somewhere like conservapedia. I attempted to find information on this from a reliable source and cannot. Can you point me in the right direction?

http://physics.ucr.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.experiment-resources.com...

http://www.biologycorner.com...

I am just quoting the "scientific community" I am not giving any form of an opinion. Any comments about falsifiability and the scientific method should be directed to the scientific community and how it defines scientific method Hypothesis or theories.

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 11:33:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:
http://physics.ucr.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.experiment-resources.com...

http://www.biologycorner.com...

I am just quoting the "scientific community" I am not giving any form of an opinion. Any comments about falsifiability and the scientific method should be directed to the scientific community and how it defines scientific method Hypothesis or theories.
You have shown us links to sites explaining the requirement of a Scientific Theory to be falsifiable, this is fine.

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.
The only problem is, you have not shown that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable; ergo, the above does not aply.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.

I disagree. Evolution is very much a scientific theory because it provides a basis in which to make testable predictions. For example, if evolution is true, then there should be some intrinsic mechanism in which to pass on traits to offspring. The discover of DNA satisfied this prediction. In addition, the DNA copying process can be imperfect, which can generate variability that can lead to new traits under different selective environmental pressures.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 12:02:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.

I disagree. Evolution is very much a scientific theory because it provides a basis in which to make testable predictions. For example, if evolution is true, then there should be some intrinsic mechanism in which to pass on traits to offspring. The discover of DNA satisfied this prediction. In addition, the DNA copying process can be imperfect, which can generate variability that can lead to new traits under different selective environmental pressures.

AND, it IS falsifiable.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 12:20:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
Quoted from source:

"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not."

Evolution is falsifiable.

The discovery of a mechanism that prevents mutations from stacking, would falsify evolution.

The discovery of an animal hybrid that cannot be explained, such as a mermaid, would falsify evolution.

The discovery of spontaneous generation of fully-formed life from seemingly nothing, would falsify evolution.

Funny thing is, all the evidence we do have, support evolution, and if the evidence we had today was drastically different, those would also serve to falsify evolution. For example, if we found out that each animal had a completely unique set of DNA, that would also falsify evolution.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 8:00:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.

I disagree. Evolution is very much a scientific theory because it provides a basis in which to make testable predictions. For example, if evolution is true, then there should be some intrinsic mechanism in which to pass on traits to offspring. The discover of DNA satisfied this prediction. In addition, the DNA copying process can be imperfect, which can generate variability that can lead to new traits under different selective environmental pressures.

So you contradict the entire scientific community. You should send your findings to them. I have only quoted what they have said. Arguing with me will get you nowhere. The entire scientific community says otherwise as my response. There is unanimous agreement not a consensus.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 9:53:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 8:00:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.

I disagree. Evolution is very much a scientific theory because it provides a basis in which to make testable predictions. For example, if evolution is true, then there should be some intrinsic mechanism in which to pass on traits to offspring. The discover of DNA satisfied this prediction. In addition, the DNA copying process can be imperfect, which can generate variability that can lead to new traits under different selective environmental pressures.

So you contradict the entire scientific community. You should send your findings to them. I have only quoted what they have said. Arguing with me will get you nowhere. The entire scientific community says otherwise as my response. There is unanimous agreement not a consensus.

What on Earth are you talking about?
Do you mean that there is agreement within the scientific community of the OPPOSITE of what you are saying?
Because that would actually make sense and be true.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 10:29:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 8:00:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.

I disagree. Evolution is very much a scientific theory because it provides a basis in which to make testable predictions. For example, if evolution is true, then there should be some intrinsic mechanism in which to pass on traits to offspring. The discover of DNA satisfied this prediction. In addition, the DNA copying process can be imperfect, which can generate variability that can lead to new traits under different selective environmental pressures.

So you contradict the entire scientific community.
How can you read the above and determine that he has contradicted the scientific community? That's absurd. If anything, he's simply repeating scientific consensus!

I have only quoted what they have said.
That's not true. No credible scientific body claims that the Theory of Evolution is not a theory.

The entire scientific community says otherwise as my response. There is unanimous agreement not a consensus.
YOU are promoting an argument based on a FALSE premise. YOU are claiming that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable, and this is patently false. You have been given examples of how it IS falsifiable and you have not responded to those examples. You have also been asked to SHOW how the Theory of Evolution is NOT falsifiable and you have not.

Arguing with me will get you nowhere.
Yes, I'm beginning to see that.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 5:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 10:29:41 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 12/15/2011 8:00:16 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, Chthonian wrote:
At 12/13/2011 12:24:25 AM, sadolite wrote:

Under the direct guidelines of the scientific community, "Evolution is not a theory". If anyone belives it is, your arguments need to be directed to the scientific community which sets the gold standard for what a therory is.

I disagree. Evolution is very much a scientific theory because it provides a basis in which to make testable predictions. For example, if evolution is true, then there should be some intrinsic mechanism in which to pass on traits to offspring. The discover of DNA satisfied this prediction. In addition, the DNA copying process can be imperfect, which can generate variability that can lead to new traits under different selective environmental pressures.

So you contradict the entire scientific community.
How can you read the above and determine that he has contradicted the scientific community? That's absurd. If anything, he's simply repeating scientific consensus!

I have only quoted what they have said.
That's not true. No credible scientific body claims that the Theory of Evolution is not a theory.

The entire scientific community says otherwise as my response. There is unanimous agreement not a consensus.
YOU are promoting an argument based on a FALSE premise. YOU are claiming that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable, and this is patently false. You have been given examples of how it IS falsifiable and you have not responded to those examples. You have also been asked to SHOW how the Theory of Evolution is NOT falsifiable and you have not.

Arguing with me will get you nowhere.
Yes, I'm beginning to see that.

The scientific community says evolution is "NOT" a theory. Look it up. I didn't believe it when I heard it so I looked it up. It is true, the scientific community does "NOT" consider evolution a theory. Teaching that evolution is a "theory" is false. It has just been repeated so many times as a theory and became accepted as a theory in the academic world. But when it come down to brass tacks as to what qualifies as a "THEORY" it fails. It's the same as man being the cause of climate change. It has been repeated so many times it is accepted as undeniable fact. Or that animals have rights. If you repeat it enough times it becomes the truth.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 5:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 5:42:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
The scientific community says evolution is "NOT" a theory. Look it up. I didn't believe it when I heard it so I looked it up. It is true, the scientific community does "NOT" consider evolution a theory. Teaching that evolution is a "theory" is false. It has just been repeated so many times as a theory and became accepted as a theory in the academic world. But when it come down to brass tacks as to what qualifies as a "THEORY" it fails. It's the same as man being the cause of climate change. It has been repeated so many times it is accepted as undeniable fact. Or that animals have rights. If you repeat it enough times it becomes the truth.

I believe i understand what you are talking about.

There are two aspects to Evolution. The Theory of evolution, which is a theory and an explanation, and evolution itself, which is a fact.

Although your arguments as to why the theory of evolution fails as a theory, has failed, it is not because we have repeated it many times, that it became truth. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the theory.
Pallando
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2011 1:52:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 12:20:40 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 12/11/2011 7:24:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
Quoted from source:

"Evolution it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.

The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.

Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.

Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.

The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not."

Evolution is falsifiable.

The discovery of a mechanism that prevents mutations from stacking, would falsify evolution.

The discovery of an animal hybrid that cannot be explained, such as a mermaid, would falsify evolution.

The discovery of spontaneous generation of fully-formed life from seemingly nothing, would falsify evolution.

Funny thing is, all the evidence we do have, support evolution, and if the evidence we had today was drastically different, those would also serve to falsify evolution. For example, if we found out that each animal had a completely unique set of DNA, that would also falsify evolution.

Haldane's classic example is "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,"