Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 7:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 7:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....

I was watching a Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron video that said that scientist say that humans and apes are the same species, there are no transitional forms, and evolution is a lie invented to bring god out of the picture. *Facepalm*
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 7:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 7:45:48 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....


I was watching a Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron video that said that scientist say that humans and apes are the same species, there are no transitional forms, and evolution is a lie invented to bring god out of the picture. *Facepalm*

Transitional forms have been discovered..and to those who want to point out that we do not know if they are truly the "bridges" of their respective evolutionary lines, one can always point out the conglomerate features of the two connected species.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 8:01:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 7:51:32 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 5/19/2012 7:45:48 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....


I was watching a Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron video that said that scientist say that humans and apes are the same species, there are no transitional forms, and evolution is a lie invented to bring god out of the picture. *Facepalm*

Transitional forms have been discovered..and to those who want to point out that we do not know if they are truly the "bridges" of their respective evolutionary lines, one can always point out the conglomerate features of the two connected species.

Exactly.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:30:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Keep believing brother. He was so confident. Had me going for a sec., for a sec.
You people think these simliarities mean something? That it supports evolution? It supports creationism as well by word! It also can come about by mixing species.

Jubilees-All flesh corrupted its way. Humans, herd animals, wild animals, birds, and everything that walks on the earth – they all were corrupted from their natural order.

Jasher-In those days, the children of humans selected herd animals from the land, and wild animals from the outback, and birds of the air, and they practiced mixing different species of animals with each other…[

Bible-The earth was full of violence. God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth, so God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh is coming."

Enoch-These are the watchers, 200 leaders of whom fell away and went down to the land of Hermon. They took a vow on Mount Hermon, seeing how gorgeous human women were, and they took them as wives. The land was raped, the women acted like scoundrels, and the whole era was marked by criminal behavior and cross-breeding. Their children were giants and monsters
TheAsylum
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:45:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Debate GenesisCreation.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 3:38:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I stopped watching the video because the maker of the video does one critical thing. He uses evolution as the premise and says "evolution exists because these things are caused by evolution."

That's just silly.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 3:49:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....

The idea of evolution is a very sound idea based on science. Evolution is not a true scientific theory. It is based on logic. Probability itself cannot be scientific evidence.

We've never recorded a dinosaur. We've never tested a dinosaur's blood, never tested its tissue. We don't have any complete DNA sequence. We know little about their diets. We don't know its habits, how far it traveled. So, when scientists say "evidence." I say "what direct evidence?"

Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

So, to sum it up, evolution is based on a mountain of indirect evidence that presents sound logic that things evolved. There is no scientific theory of evolution if you look at the literal interpretation of the scientific method.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 6:09:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 3:38:16 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
I stopped watching the video because the maker of the video does one critical thing. He uses evolution as the premise and says "evolution exists because these things are caused by evolution."

That's just silly.

You obviously didn't watch it. Nowhere did he say such a thing.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 6:23:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You obviously didn't watch it. Nowhere did he say such a thing.

Starting at about 2:20.

Instead of saying how things are explained by evolution, he says these things can only be explained by evolution, and uses similarity with the common ancestor as proof of evolution. Now, in order for a common ancestor to exist, evolution must exist (he assumes it is a common ancestor, rather than a similar looking yet unrelated animal). Again, using the conclusion of "evolution exists" as the argument for "evolution exists."
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 8:50:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not every scientist accept evolution. To give just some examples of people who don't believe/accept the theory of evolution: Michael Behe, Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, Duane Gish, Dr. Michael egnor, and Dr. Caroline Crocker. Its true that most scientists accept evolution, but to say that all scientists accept evolution, is completely wrong and exaggerated.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:41:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 3:49:15 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....

The idea of evolution is a very sound idea based on science. Evolution is not a true scientific theory. It is based on logic. Probability itself cannot be scientific evidence.

We've never recorded a dinosaur. We've never tested a dinosaur's blood, never tested its tissue. We don't have any complete DNA sequence. We know little about their diets. We don't know its habits, how far it traveled. So, when scientists say "evidence." I say "what direct evidence?"

Wrong.

We dont need to test a dinosaurs blood or tissue. We dont need a DNA sequence. The fossils themselves tell us more than we need.

We know that an animal is a carnivor if its teeth are sharp and small, because this is what it requires in order to tear the flesh off of other animals. If its teeth are flat, we know that it eats vegetables because it needs to grind them.

We know how far an animal traveled, based on where we find fossils.

We know whether an animal is related closely or distantly to another, based on its bone structure.

Its not a coincidence that all mammals share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all apes share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all reptilians share certain structural features.

Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Uh, wtf. Why is radiometric dating not consistently reliable below 100000 years?

Furthermore, no, when we use different radiometric dating methods on the same object, we get the same result. This is how we know it is reliable.

Also, yes, we do know the things that could affect decay rate. We also know, for example, that an increase in decay rate causes an increase in release of energy, and therefore the isotopes to which we know what the decay rates are, i.e. Uranium, could not decay to the point where the earth is less than 200,000 years old, otherwise the energy released would boil the planet. Literally.

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

Ive asked you before, cite the study on this claim you make about computer simulations. You dont provide any specifics regarding the simulation.

So, to sum it up, evolution is based on a mountain of indirect evidence that presents sound logic that things evolved. There is no scientific theory of evolution if you look at the literal interpretation of the scientific method.

What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 6:23:09 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
You obviously didn't watch it. Nowhere did he say such a thing.

Starting at about 2:20.

Instead of saying how things are explained by evolution, he says these things can only be explained by evolution, and uses similarity with the common ancestor as proof of evolution. Now, in order for a common ancestor to exist, evolution must exist (he assumes it is a common ancestor, rather than a similar looking yet unrelated animal). Again, using the conclusion of "evolution exists" as the argument for "evolution exists."

Again, no. We know that evolution exists. You have different genes than your parents. Thats evolution.

Common ancestry, only requires this "Type" of evolution to be true. What we need for common ancestry to be true, is :
a). Changes
b). Changes to stack

Both of these are and have been observable. We know that traits change from parent to child, and we know these traits stack.

So in essence, we are using one type of evolution to prove the other type of evolution to be true. This isnt circular reasoning, because even you have admitted that the first type of evolution(Short term) is distinctly different to the second type of evolution(long term).
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:51:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 8:50:29 AM, Clash wrote:
Not every scientist accept evolution. To give just some examples of people who don't believe/accept the theory of evolution: Michael Behe, Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, Duane Gish, Dr. Michael egnor, and Dr. Caroline Crocker. Its true that most scientists accept evolution, but to say that all scientists accept evolution, is completely wrong and exaggerated.

Actually, Michael Behe accepts evolution. The only problem he has is with specific instances where he sees structures as too complex to have arisen on their own. In other words, he believes in Guided evolution.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 1:34:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science can't arrive at non-secular conclusions, even if its princples are based in religion. Most of them accepted Einsteins theory of relativity, even though it has been demonstrated to be wrong in the LHC. (Poor analogy, but I'm pointing out there were some people who thought 'God dun moove da light', and they might not have been too far off until another secular explanation was provided)

I didn't watch the video.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:13:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 8:50:29 AM, Clash wrote:
Not every scientist accept evolution. To give just some examples of people who don't believe/accept the theory of evolution: Michael Behe, Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, Duane Gish, Dr. Michael egnor, and Dr. Caroline Crocker. Its true that most scientists accept evolution, but to say that all scientists accept evolution, is completely wrong and exaggerated.

Correction: Every sane scientist.
Sapere Aude!
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 3:18:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:41:54 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2012 3:49:15 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/19/2012 7:43:48 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
I laugh at the nonsense that evolution is not a scientific nor even a testable claim, to be honest.

It would take a fairly distorted understanding of the scientific process to conclude that....

The idea of evolution is a very sound idea based on science. Evolution is not a true scientific theory. It is based on logic. Probability itself cannot be scientific evidence.

We've never recorded a dinosaur. We've never tested a dinosaur's blood, never tested its tissue. We don't have any complete DNA sequence. We know little about their diets. We don't know its habits, how far it traveled. So, when scientists say "evidence." I say "what direct evidence?"

Wrong.

We dont need to test a dinosaurs blood or tissue. We dont need a DNA sequence. The fossils themselves tell us more than we need.

We know that an animal is a carnivor if its teeth are sharp and small, because this is what it requires in order to tear the flesh off of other animals. If its teeth are flat, we know that it eats vegetables because it needs to grind them.

We know how far an animal traveled, based on where we find fossils.

We know whether an animal is related closely or distantly to another, based on its bone structure.

Its not a coincidence that all mammals share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all apes share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all reptilians share certain structural features.

Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Uh, wtf. Why is radiometric dating not consistently reliable below 100000 years?

Furthermore, no, when we use different radiometric dating methods on the same object, we get the same result. This is how we know it is reliable.

Also, yes, we do know the things that could affect decay rate. We also know, for example, that an increase in decay rate causes an increase in release of energy, and therefore the isotopes to which we know what the decay rates are, i.e. Uranium, could not decay to the point where the earth is less than 200,000 years old, otherwise the energy released would boil the planet. Literally.

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

Ive asked you before, cite the study on this claim you make about computer simulations. You dont provide any specifics regarding the simulation.

So, to sum it up, evolution is based on a mountain of indirect evidence that presents sound logic that things evolved. There is no scientific theory of evolution if you look at the literal interpretation of the scientific method.

What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?

Wrong. Why?

We dont need to test a dinosaurs blood or tissue. We dont need a DNA sequence. The fossils themselves tell us more than we need.
Really you do not need dna and blood. How do you know that dinosaurs had lizard skin and not fur?

We know that an animal is a carnivor if its teeth are sharp and small, because this is what it requires in order to tear the flesh off of other animals. If its teeth are flat, we know that it eats vegetables because it needs to grind them. How do you know if it was intelligent or not?

We know how far an animal traveled, based on where we find fossils.
Well how do you know that? You found fossils tracking thousands of miles?

We know whether an animal is related closely or distantly to another, based on its bone structure.
Well isnt most species have smiliarities or not? Why couldnt a gorilla and man mate and create different species of monkey and ape and man?

Its not a coincidence that all mammals share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all apes share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all reptilians share certain structural features.
Again why couldn't different animals have mated?

Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Uh, wtf. Why is radiometric dating not consistently reliable below 100000 years?
Since no man has ever watched something age 100,000 years how do we know it is accurate if the person giving the test already knew he could date something that old?

Furthermore, no, when we use different radiometric dating methods on the same object, we get the same result. This is how we know it is reliable.
How you know the first one is reliable? How do you know any of them are reliable? Being able to correctly date a object in a time frame that is observable is what you say emperical, much different than estimating treading patterns, and calculating past weather, And basically anything that deals with something you can not directly observe and therefore is it impossible to be certain.

Also, yes, we do know the things that could affect decay rate. We also know, for example, that an increase in decay rate causes an increase in release of energy, and therefore the isotopes to which we know what the decay rates are, i.e. Uranium, could not decay to the point where the earth is less than 200,000 years old, otherwise the energy released would boil the planet. Literally.
Again how do you know this?

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

Ive asked you before, cite the study on this claim you make about computer simulations. You dont provide any specifics regarding the simulation.

You do not need a computer to see that things age and things die. Over time all things decay. That means species and life decay. You can not form strength and diversity with decay when it causes decline and less magnitude.

So, to sum it up, evolution is based on a mountain of indirect evidence that presents sound logic that things evolved. There is no scientific theory of evolution if you look at the literal interpretation of the scientific method.

Evolution is not the scientific method. It uses the name of science and its method to proclaim itself Fact. When it is the opposite of Fact. It gathers tons upon tons of verifiable truth. Takes all this truth and portrays it in theory. Then the say because you can not make my theory worng it is Fact. And then march on parade that we have the Truth and religion and faith are false. When you have not proved nothing by take true advancement in science and cloak your theory with it.

What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?
Science requires visual evidence and physical proof. Meaning no one has seen billions of years pass. No one has seen what really things look like after thousands of years much less billions. And you do not have any visual proof for any physical proof claim.
TheAsylum
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:10:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:30:11 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Keep believing brother. He was so confident. Had me going for a sec., for a sec.
You people think these simliarities mean something? That it supports evolution? It supports creationism as well by word! It also can come about by mixing species.

Jubilees-All flesh corrupted its way. Humans, herd animals, wild animals, birds, and everything that walks on the earth – they all were corrupted from their natural order.

Jasher-In those days, the children of humans selected herd animals from the land, and wild animals from the outback, and birds of the air, and they practiced mixing different species of animals with each other…[

Bible-The earth was full of violence. God looked upon the earth and saw that it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth, so God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh is coming."

Enoch-These are the watchers, 200 leaders of whom fell away and went down to the land of Hermon. They took a vow on Mount Hermon, seeing how gorgeous human women were, and they took them as wives. The land was raped, the women acted like scoundrels, and the whole era was marked by criminal behavior and cross-breeding. Their children were giants and monsters

I'm sorry, but this isn't a scientific response. Species cannot be permanently "mixed". The few that can produce infertile offspring.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 6:03:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 3:18:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:41:54 AM, tkubok wrote:
What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?

Wrong. Why?

We dont need to test a dinosaurs blood or tissue. We dont need a DNA sequence. The fossils themselves tell us more than we need.
Really you do not need dna and blood. How do you know that dinosaurs had lizard skin and not fur?

Dinosaurs have been found with fossilized skin, and not only that, their fossils are very similar to reptiles, but very different from mammals.
We know whether an animal is related closely or distantly to another, based on its bone structure.
Well isnt most species have smiliarities or not? Why couldnt a gorilla and man mate and create different species of monkey and ape and man?

Gorillas and humans are similar, but not that similar. They have different kinds and amounts of genes, chromosomes, proteins, etc.
Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Uh, wtf. Why is radiometric dating not consistently reliable below 100000 years?
Since no man has ever watched something age 100,000 years how do we know it is accurate if the person giving the test already knew he could date something that old?

If it takes 1 year for something to go through 1% of its half life, so in 100 years it would go through one half life. Furthermore, see the video.

Furthermore, no, when we use different radiometric dating methods on the same object, we get the same result. This is how we know it is reliable.
How you know the first one is reliable? How do you know any of them are reliable? Being able to correctly date a object in a time frame that is observable is what you say emperical, much different than estimating treading patterns, and calculating past weather, And basically anything that deals with something you can not directly observe and therefore is it impossible to be certain.

Also, yes, we do know the things that could affect decay rate. We also know, for example, that an increase in decay rate causes an increase in release of energy, and therefore the isotopes to which we know what the decay rates are, i.e. Uranium, could not decay to the point where the earth is less than 200,000 years old, otherwise the energy released would boil the planet. Literally.
Again how do you know this?

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

Ive asked you before, cite the study on this claim you make about computer simulations. You dont provide any specifics regarding the simulation.

You do not need a computer to see that things age and things die. Over time all things decay. That means species and life decay. You can not form strength and diversity with decay when it causes decline and less magnitude.

What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?
Science requires visual evidence and physical proof. Meaning no one has seen billions of years pass. No one has seen what really things look like after thousands of years much less billions. And you do not have any
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 6:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 8:50:29 AM, Clash wrote:
Not every scientist accept evolution. To give just some examples of people who don't believe/accept the theory of evolution: Michael Behe, Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, Duane Gish, Dr. Michael egnor, and Dr. Caroline Crocker. Its true that most scientists accept evolution, but to say that all scientists accept evolution, is completely wrong and exaggerated.

Behe accepts common descent, FYI. I'm not sure that the rest of those scientists have relevant degrees.

But so what? There are probably more physicists who disagree with relativity than biologists who disagree with common descent. Further, there's a journal devoted to "alternative" theories in physics.

There are still flat earthers and geocentrics out there. Religion is a powerful motivator for denial of science. Granted there are probably one or two atheists who disagree (I knew an atheist who rejected common descent and thought he was a vampire of some sort) with modern science so religion is not the only factor.
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2012 5:31:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its true that Behe believe in evolution, but only that it cannot have happened by pure chance. My fault. However, my point was only that not all scientists accept evolution, which is true.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 2:43:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 3:18:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:41:54 AM, tkubok wrote:
What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?

Wrong. Why?

That question makes no sense, and doesnt answer or reply to mine. What do you mean by "Wrong", and what are you asking about with regards to "Why"?


We dont need to test a dinosaurs blood or tissue. We dont need a DNA sequence. The fossils themselves tell us more than we need.
Really you do not need dna and blood. How do you know that dinosaurs had lizard skin and not fur?

We know that an animal is a carnivor if its teeth are sharp and small, because this is what it requires in order to tear the flesh off of other animals. If its teeth are flat, we know that it eats vegetables because it needs to grind them. How do you know if it was intelligent or not?

We know how far an animal traveled, based on where we find fossils.
Well how do you know that? You found fossils tracking thousands of miles?

We know whether an animal is related closely or distantly to another, based on its bone structure.
Well isnt most species have smiliarities or not? Why couldnt a gorilla and man mate and create different species of monkey and ape and man?

a). Because no one has been morally bankrupt enough to try.

b). Gorillas and men may be too different now, to reproduce. Its why Domestic cats and Lions cannot reproduce, despite the massive similarities.

Its not a coincidence that all mammals share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all apes share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all reptilians share certain structural features.
Again why couldn't different animals have mated?

Because for all the similarities, there are also differences.

Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Uh, wtf. Why is radiometric dating not consistently reliable below 100000 years?
Since no man has ever watched something age 100,000 years how do we know it is accurate if the person giving the test already knew he could date something that old?

No man has ever watched something age 500 years, either. The maximum human lifespan is only 100 years, give or take.

But what do you mean by "already knew he could date something that old"? Radiometric dating uses several samples, meaning that if the sample is too old to date, all the sample results would be erratic.

Furthermore, no, when we use different radiometric dating methods on the same object, we get the same result. This is how we know it is reliable.
How you know the first one is reliable? How do you know any of them are reliable?
Because they cross-confirm each other.

Take a coffee cup, as an example. How do you know that the cup exists? Because your senses, confirm that they exist. You can touch it, you can see it, you can smell the coffee inside, you can taste the coffee inside, etc. Each of your senses confirm that it exists.

Being able to correctly date a object in a time frame that is observable is what you say emperical, much different than estimating treading patterns, and calculating past weather, And basically anything that deals with something you can not directly observe and therefore is it impossible to be certain.

is there a single human being alive that has observed a seed grow to a 5000 year old tree?

No.

Is there a single human being alive that has observed Pluto complete a full 250 year orbit around the sun?

No.

Yet science accepts both of those. You do not need direct observation, to be certain, for it to be accepted as science.

Also, yes, we do know the things that could affect decay rate. We also know, for example, that an increase in decay rate causes an increase in release of energy, and therefore the isotopes to which we know what the decay rates are, i.e. Uranium, could not decay to the point where the earth is less than 200,000 years old, otherwise the energy released would boil the planet. Literally.
Again how do you know this?

Because of the properties of Uranium and our knowledge of decay.

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

Ive asked you before, cite the study on this claim you make about computer simulations. You dont provide any specifics regarding the simulation.

You do not need a computer to see that things age and things die. Over time all things decay. That means species and life decay. You can not form strength and diversity with decay when it causes decline and less magnitude.

Again, cite the study. You keep avoiding bringing up the study.

So, to sum it up, evolution is based on a mountain of indirect evidence that presents sound logic that things evolved. There is no scientific theory of evolution if you look at the literal interpretation of the scientific method.

Evolution is not the scientific method. It uses the name of science and its method to proclaim itself Fact. When it is the opposite of Fact. It gathers tons upon tons of verifiable truth. Takes all this truth and portrays it in theory. Then the say because you can not make my theory worng it is Fact. And then march on parade that we have the Truth and religion and faith are false. When you have not proved nothing by take true advancement in science and cloak your theory with it.

What does religion and faith have to do with accepting Evolution?

There are catholics who accept Evolution. There are Muslims who accept evolution. There are hindus who accept evolution.

None of them would say that Religion and faith are false. All of them accept evolution.

What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?
Science requires visual evidence and physical proof. Meaning no one has seen billions of years pass. No one has seen what really things look like after thousands of years much less billions. And you do not have any visual proof for any physical proof claim.

Again, no.

is there a single human being alive that has observed a seed grow to a 5000 year old tree?

No.

Is there a single human being alive that has observed Pluto complete a full 250 year orbit around the sun?

No.

Yet science accepts both of those. You do not need direct observation, to be certain, for it to be accepted as science.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 3:13:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 2:43:47 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2012 3:18:27 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:41:54 AM, tkubok wrote:
What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?

Wrong. Why?

That question makes no sense, and doesnt answer or reply to mine. What do you mean by "Wrong", and what are you asking about with regards to "Why"?


We dont need to test a dinosaurs blood or tissue. We dont need a DNA sequence. The fossils themselves tell us more than we need.
Really you do not need dna and blood. How do you know that dinosaurs had lizard skin and not fur?

We know that an animal is a carnivor if its teeth are sharp and small, because this is what it requires in order to tear the flesh off of other animals. If its teeth are flat, we know that it eats vegetables because it needs to grind them. How do you know if it was intelligent or not?

We know how far an animal traveled, based on where we find fossils.
Well how do you know that? You found fossils tracking thousands of miles?

We know whether an animal is related closely or distantly to another, based on its bone structure.
Well isnt most species have smiliarities or not? Why couldnt a gorilla and man mate and create different species of monkey and ape and man?

a). Because no one has been morally bankrupt enough to try.

b). Gorillas and men may be too different now, to reproduce. Its why Domestic cats and Lions cannot reproduce, despite the massive similarities.

Its not a coincidence that all mammals share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all apes share certain structural features. Its not a coincidence that all reptilians share certain structural features.
Again why couldn't different animals have mated?

Because for all the similarities, there are also differences.

Radiometric dating doesn't work for objects less than 100000 years old, which is what is used for all dinosaur findings. Obviously, we have not tested the actual accuracy of this method. Instead, we rely on isotope pairs. Since we don't know all of the things that could affect decay rate, radiometric dating is an untested method because we've never tested it against known exact dates.

Uh, wtf. Why is radiometric dating not consistently reliable below 100000 years?
Since no man has ever watched something age 100,000 years how do we know it is accurate if the person giving the test already knew he could date something that old?

No man has ever watched something age 500 years, either. The maximum human lifespan is only 100 years, give or take.

But what do you mean by "already knew he could date something that old"? Radiometric dating uses several samples, meaning that if the sample is too old to date, all the sample results would be erratic.

Furthermore, no, when we use different radiometric dating methods on the same object, we get the same result. This is how we know it is reliable.
How you know the first one is reliable? How do you know any of them are reliable?
Because they cross-confirm each other.

Take a coffee cup, as an example. How do you know that the cup exists? Because your senses, confirm that they exist. You can touch it, you can see it, you can smell the coffee inside, you can taste the coffee inside, etc. Each of your senses confirm that it exists.

Being able to correctly date a object in a time frame that is observable is what you say emperical, much different than estimating treading patterns, and calculating past weather, And basically anything that deals with something you can not directly observe and therefore is it impossible to be certain.

is there a single human being alive that has observed a seed grow to a 5000 year old tree?

No.

Is there a single human being alive that has observed Pluto complete a full 250 year orbit around the sun?

No.

Yet science accepts both of those. You do not need direct observation, to be certain, for it to be accepted as science.

Also, yes, we do know the things that could affect decay rate. We also know, for example, that an increase in decay rate causes an increase in release of energy, and therefore the isotopes to which we know what the decay rates are, i.e. Uranium, could not decay to the point where the earth is less than 200,000 years old, otherwise the energy released would boil the planet. Literally.
Again how do you know this?

Because of the properties of Uranium and our knowledge of decay.

Evolution based on genetic mutation is an untested and untestable theory. Computer simulations also show huge problems with this because genetic diversity goes up with respect to time, when, according to simulation, the OPPOSITE happens!

Ive asked you before, cite the study on this claim you make about computer simulations. You dont provide any specifics regarding the simulation.

You do not need a computer to see that things age and things die. Over time all things decay. That means species and life decay. You can not form strength and diversity with decay when it causes decline and less magnitude.

Again, cite the study. You keep avoiding bringing up the study.

So, to sum it up, evolution is based on a mountain of indirect evidence that presents sound logic that things evolved. There is no scientific theory of evolution if you look at the literal interpretation of the scientific method.

Evolution is not the scientific method. It uses the name of science and its method to proclaim itself Fact. When it is the opposite of Fact. It gathers tons upon tons of verifiable truth. Takes all this truth and portrays it in theory. Then the say because you can not make my theory worng it is Fact. And then march on parade that we have the Truth and religion and faith are false. When you have not proved nothing by take true advancement in science and cloak your theory with it.

What does religion and faith have to do with accepting Evolution?

There are catholics who accept Evolution. There are Muslims who accept evolution. There are hindus who accept evolution.

None of them would say that Religion and faith are false. All of them accept evolution.

What do you mean by "Literal interpretation of the scientific method"?
Science requires visual evidence and physical proof. Meaning no one has seen billions of years pass. No one has seen what really things look like after thousands of years much less billions. And you do not have any visual proof for any physical proof claim.

Again, no.


is there a single human being alive that has observed a seed grow to a 5000 year old tree?

No.

Is there a single human being alive that has observed Pluto complete a full 250 year orbit around the sun?

No.

Yet science accepts both of those. You do not need direct observation, to be certain, for it to be accepted as science.

Again you assert that something non-observable can be a fact. When this defies what science does. Which is observe. You can observe pluto and calculate that it orbits the sun every 250 years. All the calculations show thats its orbit. But you'll be long gone to actually see this. And it could not be its orbit. You say its accepted as if that somehow results in fact. What is accepted by science does not mean that it is true. You assume that.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:16:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:13:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Again you assert that something non-observable can be a fact. When this defies what science does. Which is observe. You can observe pluto and calculate that it orbits the sun every 250 years. All the calculations show thats its orbit. But you'll be long gone to actually see this. And it could not be its orbit. You say its accepted as if that somehow results in fact. What is accepted by science does not mean that it is true. You assume that.

I never said that something non-observable is a fact. I never said that when science accepts something, it is necessarily true.

What i said was that Science doesnt require direct observation in order to be accepted as science. What i said is that even though we havent observed billions of years of evolution, it is still accepted by science because of evidence. What i said is that evidence is what science is, not observation.

Evolution is scientifically accepted. The earth being billions of years old, is scientifically accepted. And thats all i care about.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 6:23:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:16:43 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/24/2012 3:13:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Again you assert that something non-observable can be a fact. When this defies what science does. Which is observe. You can observe pluto and calculate that it orbits the sun every 250 years. All the calculations show thats its orbit. But you'll be long gone to actually see this. And it could not be its orbit. You say its accepted as if that somehow results in fact. What is accepted by science does not mean that it is true. You assume that.

I never said that something non-observable is a fact. I never said that when science accepts something, it is necessarily true.

What i said was that Science doesnt require direct observation in order to be accepted as science. What i said is that even though we havent observed billions of years of evolution, it is still accepted by science because of evidence. What i said is that evidence is what science is, not observation.

Evolution is scientifically accepted. The earth being billions of years old, is scientifically accepted. And thats all i care about.

I don't think Scotty realizes how much science you'd have to discard if direct observation was made a requirement.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:36:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/23/2012 5:31:21 AM, Clash wrote:
Its true that Behe believe in evolution, but only that it cannot have happened by pure chance. My fault. However, my point was only that not all scientists accept evolution, which is true.

You do realize that the naturalistic theory of evolution is not 'pure chance', don't you?

As to 'all' scientists, no, they 'all' don't. There are a handful that do not - probably the same amount of historians who deny the holocaust or who support afrocentricism.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:38:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 3:13:57 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

Again you assert that something non-observable can be a fact. When this defies what science does. Which is observe. You can observe pluto and calculate that it orbits the sun every 250 years. All the calculations show thats its orbit. But you'll be long gone to actually see this. And it could not be its orbit. You say its accepted as if that somehow results in fact. What is accepted by science does not mean that it is true. You assume that.

Um, you might want to rethink this course - can you observe God? How about the resurrection of Jesus, was that observed? No on both accounts. Now, you might argue that Jesus's resurrection was indirectly observed, but according to your reasoning, indirect observations cannot be considered fact.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:39:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 6:23:45 AM, drafterman wrote:

I don't think Scotty realizes how much science you'd have to discard if direct observation was made a requirement.

No, it's obvious he doesn't realize the consequences of his assertions. He doesn't directly observe *us* typing away at our keyboards, instead he infers from the observation that there are responses to this thread that there are people who caused those responses - but this is an inference, not a direct observation.