Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Evolutionary Belief Versus Logic

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science". What I want to ask evolutionists is how they expect us to believe in their theory when most people would dismiss it as bull if they saw their stories about one group of animals evolving into another group of animals in a book. Basic biology tells us one animal and another animal can only give rise to things that look like them. So how did all the diverse forms of life come into eistence? Did they pop up out of the aether, perchance?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 5:36:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science".

This is a strawman misrepresentation of evolution. This is neither what science says on the subject, not what any proponent of evolution suggests.

What I want to ask evolutionists is how they expect us to believe in their theory when most people would dismiss it as bull if they saw their stories about one group of animals evolving into another group of animals in a book.

Because there is actually evidence of it having occurred in the past, and is in the process of happening now,

Basic biology tells us one animal and another animal can only give rise to things that look like them.

Yes. Basic biology. However advanced biology tells us that new animals differ from their parents, that these difference accumulate, and over long periods of time, ancestral and descendant species may have significant differences.

I fail to see why you assume that basic biological summaries should be used in favor of advanced biological principles, theories and evidence when explaining something as complex as the explanation of genetic and phylogrnic diversity in all organisms.

So how did all the diverse forms of life come into eistence? Did they pop up out of the aether, perchance?

No. It's a similar process that bred both the great Dane and chihuahua from basal forms in a limited number of generations, with changes in biochemistry, size, shape, form, organs that we have observed accumulating over hundreds and thousands of generations to yield differing organisms over long periods of time.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 8:55:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Did they pop up out of the aether, perchance?

That would be the religious explanation wouldn't it? Just change "pop out" to "God created them" and you have an exact definition of creationism.

Science doesn't have all the answers... but it does have the answer to how the diversity of life arose.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 5:36:22 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science".

This is a strawman misrepresentation of evolution. This is neither what science says on the subject, not what any proponent of evolution suggests.


How does it differ from the [allegedly] scientific explanation? The only problem I can see is that you might not consider the frog a direct ancestor of a human, but I don't see how that changes the essential point. Without a demonstrable means of transformation, both are equally nonsensical.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 4:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 3:33:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:36:22 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science".

This is a strawman misrepresentation of evolution. This is neither what science says on the subject, not what any proponent of evolution suggests.


How does it differ from the [allegedly] scientific explanation? The only problem I can see is that you might not consider the frog a direct ancestor of a human, but I don't see how that changes the essential point. Without a demonstrable means of transformation, both are equally nonsensical.

Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable, offers predicted and both explains and is supported by the overwhelming burden of evidence. It is not allegedly science, it is science in every way shape or form.

The comparrison with the fairy tale, the use of the word prince, turn and the use of frog (as you right say is not a valid evolutionary pathway by any means) is a use of rhetorical language that builds up evolution as a process that simply "turns" something into another. The rhetorical phrasing, and inaccurate comparrison implies evolution is something it very much is not, and rather than deal with the underlying complex set of evidence and theory that it supports, it is simply using this rhetorical, banal analogy in order to paint evolution as ridiculous.

IE: A straw man.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 4:41:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:38:11 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Are you drunk, Ramshutu?

Possibly. Either that or rubbish at typing on an iPad. The effect is much the same.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:17:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:33:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:36:22 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science".

This is a strawman misrepresentation of evolution. This is neither what science says on the subject, not what any proponent of evolution suggests.


How does it differ from the [allegedly] scientific explanation? The only problem I can see is that you might not consider the frog a direct ancestor of a human, but I don't see how that changes the essential point. Without a demonstrable means of transformation, both are equally nonsensical.

Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

offers predicted

It doesn't predict squat. Simple question: What is the next species that's going to appear? Describe it to me.

and both explains and is supported by the overwhelming burden of evidence.

That's just sloganeering. This is not a political campaign, this is, allegedly, science.

It is not allegedly science, it is science in every way shape or form.


Every way except for the scientific method.

The comparrison with the fairy tale, the use of the word prince, turn and the use of frog (as you right say is not a valid evolutionary pathway by any means) is a use of rhetorical language that builds up evolution as a process that simply "turns" something into another.

Which is what it claims. Deal with it. Sometimes a fresh perspective is exactly what is needed.

underlying complex set of evidence

Eh, I'd say this is using language badly. Life is complex, of course, but the theory of evolution is simple: Stuff happens, aka mutation, the stuff accumulates and the entire ecosystem emerges from "one or several original forms".

and theory that it supports, it is simply using this rhetorical, banal analogy in order to paint evolution as ridiculous.


Evolution IS ridiculous, that's the point. And you can't argue that it's invalid to claim evolution is ridiculous, you must show that it is not ridiculous.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:20:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:17:00 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:33:38 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/18/2013 5:36:22 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science".

This is a strawman misrepresentation of evolution. This is neither what science says on the subject, not what any proponent of evolution suggests.


How does it differ from the [allegedly] scientific explanation? The only problem I can see is that you might not consider the frog a direct ancestor of a human, but I don't see how that changes the essential point. Without a demonstrable means of transformation, both are equally nonsensical.

Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

This statement is simply a lie.

It IS testable using molecular genetics and analysis of genetics and genetic markers to demonstrate principles of shared genetic heredity, using investigority experimentation to demonstrate the principles, operations and changes that are required for long term evolution and the discovery of how specific genetic differences that cause significant deviations between species can be explained by point mutations. It is testable in terms of discovery of fossiles in the correct geographic and chronological strata, and is testable in terms of phylogenics and the predictions of the type of species that will be found and those that won't. It's pretty clear, it's pretty unambiguous, that Evolution IS testable, it HAS been and continues to be tested by the thousands of experiments, studies and investigations that are carried out every year.

So no. Your statement is flat out false.

offers predicted

It doesn't predict squat. Simple question: What is the next species that's going to appear? Describe it to me.

It predicted the existance of intermediate transitional forms. A prediction that has turned out to be true for almost all of the major taxonomic groups, with limited intermediates between the vastly numerous lower transient clades.

It predicted the existance of patterns in genetics, such as Endogenous retrovirus markers, commonality in DNA, chromosomal marker differences between chimpanzee's and humans, commonality and pattersn in ubiquotous proteins that implicitly and comprehensively match the requirements of common descent. The depositing of upwards of 30,000 new genetic sequences in the gene bank per day all of which match this prediction is pretty staggering.

It predicted the existance of transitional forms (remember the first form, Archaeoptoryx was discovered after the Origin of Species was published, and validated by the further discovery of upwards of 175 transitional forms between major branches of the tree, and the 250,000 fossile species that match the predicted pattern required by common descent.

It predicted the existance of information with species: Yes, it predicted the existance DNA. Predicted that this information would correlated with the tree, and that geography would correlated with the three and that time would correlated with the tree. They all do.

It predicted genetic vestigiality; with innumerable genes that would form part of the genome that would be "turned off" that would match genes that perform some function in other species. We have consistent, innumerable examples of such vestigial genes, our sense of smell has genes present in dogs that is turned off in humans. Jaw development genes and teeth genes that are present in Chimpanzees are turned OFF in some humans, but still remain. There are innumerable other cases.

So no. Again your statement is flat out false.

and both explains and is supported by the overwhelming burden of evidence.

That's just sloganeering. This is not a political campaign, this is, allegedly, science.

It's not sloganeering, it is demonstratably true. Common descent explains why life appears the way it does, why vestigiality exists (the features that appear as if remnenants of past function exist, regardless of current one), why attavisms exist (why humans have tails). It explains why the genetic code is the way it is with vestigial DNA exists. It explains why Dolphins and Sharks have the same form, but different internal structures. It explains why whale flippers appear to be skeletally similar to tetropod skeletons.

In fact, in almost every way, the biodiversity of life is fully explainable, and in fact can be fairly well demonstrated down to the genetic level within the context of evolution. With the ONLY explanation currently matching all of this similar evidence that makes predictions and is testable being Evolution.

It is not allegedly science, it is science in every way shape or form.


Every way except for the scientific method.

Considering that you are demonstratably and factually wrong in the three key areas of prediction, testability and explanation. This again is simply a fraudulently incorrect statement.

I am incredulous at the ability of some creationists to simply cling to "Saying something is true", but providing no demonstratable, or factually accurate justification for such statements as you do here.

The comparrison with the fairy tale, the use of the word prince, turn and the use of frog (as you right say is not a valid evolutionary pathway by any means) is a use of rhetorical language that builds up evolution as a process that simply "turns" something into another.

Which is what it claims. Deal with it. Sometimes a fresh perspective is exactly what is needed.

Evolution no more claims the above than Creation claims that all life was farted into existance by a bearded sky wizard who invented marajuana, blazed up a joint the size of wisconsin, gathered humans around and said "listen up, B!tchws, I have got some crazy s*** to go tell you".

No. It's a straw man. Plane and simple. The fact that you think the above is an accurate, relevant description of evolution simply demonstrates you are living on another planet where you have no desire, will or ability to accurately portray the theory you are opposing.

underlying complex set of evidence

Eh, I'd say this is using language badly. Life is complex, of course, but the theory of evolution is simple: Stuff happens, aka mutation, the stuff accumulates and the entire ecosystem emerges from "one or several original forms".

The process is simple, the application is significantly not. Obviously, if you said the ABOVE it would not be as much of a straw man. But this deviates significantly by the nature and intent of the original quote. Facts that you, like at so many points throughout the rest of this post, ignore.

and theory that it supports, it is simply using this rhetorical, banal analogy in order to paint evolution as ridiculous.


Evolution IS ridiculous, that's the point. And you can't argue that it's invalid to claim evolution is ridiculous, you must show that it is not ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is that you flat out lie about 3 fundamental aspects of evolution; providing no evidence, no justification, no demonstration and no logical underpinning. Simply bald faced assertions of fact that you cannot even begin to justify in any way shape or form.

Lets be clear, making assertions is easy, demonstrating them is hard. Unless you do the latter, your opinions can be treated for what they are: Baseless and undemonstrated assertions that your opinion is fact.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable. The first tests of general relativity was using its predictions to explain the perihelion precession of Mercury. Subsequent tests involved measuring light bending during an eclipse. Both of these are valid tests because you have a theory that makes a prediction about how nature acts and then you make observations to see if these predictions are true. The processes of comparing predictions to observation is what make a test (regardless if those observations are of natural phenomenon or created in a lab).

offers predicted

It doesn't predict squat. Simple question: What is the next species that's going to appear? Describe it to me.

Sure it does. Among many others:

Evolution predicted the genetic similarities between species before we were ever able to decode genomes.

Evolution predicted the presence of "junk" DNA.

Evolution predicted drug resistant bacteria.

Evolution predicts why we find specific species in different areas.

And so on...

To ask "What is the next species that's going to appear? " is akin to claiming gravity is not true and asking its proponents to "name the next thing that is going to get pulled by gravity".

The rest of your comments are pretty much just blathering so I don't think they merit a response.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply said evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only said that because it hasn't. Not even close.


Sure it does [predict]. Among many others:

Evolution predicted the genetic similarities between species before we were ever able to decode genomes.

Well, duh. Evolution is based on the observed similarities between species.


Evolution predicted the presence of "junk" DNA.


And that turned out to be a junk idea. Classic case of how evolution is bad science - a creationist would never have made this mistake. Really, I don't see how ANYBODY could have made this mistake, considering how much information is packed into the DNA.

Evolution predicted drug resistant bacteria.


I don't know that this is true at all, I think the explanation was retroactive. But genetics, i.e. latent abilities, is really the better explanation here.

Evolution predicts why we find specific species in different areas.


Two things wrong here: First, evolution is said to be based upon the location of species, both existing and fossilized. So this is circular reasoning.

Secondly, the theory is constantly being tweaked based on new finds. It's a wonderfully robust idea, it seems to be able to evolve to adapt to any data thrown at it.


To ask "What is the next species that's going to appear? " is akin to claiming gravity is not true and asking its proponents to "name the next thing that is going to get pulled by gravity".


Not, it's like asking "If I let go of this ball, where will it go?". That's exactly what 'real' scientific theories do, they tell you want a given cause will do.


The rest of your comments are pretty much just blathering so I don't think they merit a response.

I'll take that as a white flag, lol.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:03:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply lied that evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only lied about that because it has. :

*fixed*

Sure it does [predict]. Among many others:

Evolution predicted the genetic similarities between species before we were ever able to decode genomes.

Well, duh. Evolution is based on the observed similarities between species.

So it has predicted something?



Evolution predicted the presence of "junk" DNA.


And that turned out to be a junk idea. Classic case of how evolution is bad science - a creationist would never have made this mistake. Really, I don't see how ANYBODY could have made this mistake, considering how much information is packed into the DNA.

This, again, a LIE. A Flat out blantant lie that simply google searches show to be a demonstratable falsehood.

The proponent of this "not actually junk", determined that some of the DNA coded proteins.

Completely, utterly ignores the fact that a significant number of the resulting proteins have NO ROLE OR BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION!

But hey, why tell the truth when you can lie and make it sound false.

Evolution predicted drug resistant bacteria.


I don't know that this is true at all, I think the explanation was retroactive. But genetics, i.e. latent abilities, is really the better explanation here.

Latent abilities? So Bacteria contained code in them to survive chemicals that had not yet been invented?

Moreover, you have to really be reaching to think that Nylon eating bacteria, a fully synthetic man made material; is somehow a "latent ability".

Evolution predicts why we find specific species in different areas.


Two things wrong here: First, evolution is said to be based upon the location of species, both existing and fossilized. So this is circular reasoning.

Again, if your case is so strong, why do you have to continually lie?

Evolution is based off morphology, the nested heirarchy, and observed processes. Evolution is very much NOT based on location. Chronology simply validates the broad, vast branches of the tree, the same with geography.

What you are confused about, is at some point, given that the broad tree is validated by chronology and geography; that sometimes where there is an ambiguous join and it is not certain whether A->B+C or B->C+A or A->C+B, geography and chronology can help resolve such issues in the face of other overwhelming evidence in support.

Obviously, you do not make a distinction between using such things to resolve such clade ambiguity, and hanging the entire phylogenic tree of geography.

Secondly, the theory is constantly being tweaked based on new finds. It's a wonderfully robust idea, it seems to be able to evolve to adapt to any data thrown at it.

That is how science works.

It is not Creationism or Religion, where if you have a dumbass idea, you have to cling to it irrational despite the overwhelming burden of reality.


To ask "What is the next species that's going to appear? " is akin to claiming gravity is not true and asking its proponents to "name the next thing that is going to get pulled by gravity".


Not, it's like asking "If I let go of this ball, where will it go?". That's exactly what 'real' scientific theories do, they tell you want a given cause will do.

Erm no. Evolution makes use of random processes, generalities, overviews and specific, well managed tests can be predicted, but not specifics.

You confuse one with the other; incorrectly.

The rest of your comments are pretty much just blathering so I don't think they merit a response.

I'll take that as a white flag, lol.

Considering you are simply saying a bunch of stuff is true; and providing no justification. I find this hillarious.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 12:03:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply lied that evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only lied about that because it has. :

*fixed*


I'm not going to tolerate you calling me a liar and even altering my quotes. Adios.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:31:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 12:25:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:03:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply lied that evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only lied about that because it has. :

*fixed*


I'm not going to tolerate you calling me a liar and even altering my quotes. Adios.

If you don't want to be called a liar. Don't lie.

I am pretty sure you are intelligent enough and able enough to actually google what you are talking about.

The fact you are consistently saying that Evolution is not testable, and makes no prediction is absolutely, comprehensively, definitively and demonstratably wrong in every single way it is possible to be wrong and can be outlined by even the briefest of google searches on the subject.

No one is that ignorant, one can only conclude that you have looked at or are generally aware of the testability for evolution, looked at or are generally aware of the predictions made for evolution and have simply come here and said that they don't exist.

That is a lie. The fact that I have pointed out the different demonstratable predictions made by evolution, and the tests that you can perform on evolution and you STILL claim it is neither testable nor makes predictions simply reinforces that.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:42:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 12:31:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:25:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:03:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply lied that evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only lied about that because it has. :

*fixed*


I'm not going to tolerate you calling me a liar and even altering my quotes. Adios.

If you don't want to be called a liar. Don't lie.

I am pretty sure you are intelligent enough and able enough to actually google what you are talking about.

Yeah, I can google, and if that's all you've got to offer - I already know the echo chamber scientific consensus. So if you just want to stick with the status quo, protect yourself from me.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 12:42:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:31:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:25:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:03:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply lied that evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only lied about that because it has. :

*fixed*


I'm not going to tolerate you calling me a liar and even altering my quotes. Adios.

If you don't want to be called a liar. Don't lie.

I am pretty sure you are intelligent enough and able enough to actually google what you are talking about.

Yeah, I can google, and if that's all you've got to offer - I already know the echo chamber scientific consensus. So if you just want to stick with the status quo, protect yourself from me.

Again, an assertion of your opinion. Neither supported by evidence logic or an argument. You are not challenging the details of anything I am saying, you are not challenging whether it is or isn't testable, you are just saying it isn't.

You are simply saying a bunch of stuff is true, and offering no justification. Given that the bunch of stuff you are saying is demonstrably untrue, and given the level of understanding you indicate it is reasonable to conclude that you KNOW it's untrue and repeat it anyway.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:53:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 12:42:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:31:17 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:25:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 12:03:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/19/2013 11:09:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/19/2013 9:37:15 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/19/2013 8:51:00 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Like it or not, is an explanatory framework that is testable,

It is NOT testable. We've been through this. Evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is strictly a forensic sort of endeavor.

1.) It is testable (see Lenski experiment).

2.) A theory need not be demonstrated in a lab to be testable.

Didn't say it did have to be in the lab. I simply lied that evolution has not be tested, has not be demonstrated. And I only lied about that because it has. :

*fixed*


I'm not going to tolerate you calling me a liar and even altering my quotes. Adios.

If you don't want to be called a liar. Don't lie.

I am pretty sure you are intelligent enough and able enough to actually google what you are talking about.

Yeah, I can google, and if that's all you've got to offer - I already know the echo chamber scientific consensus. So if you just want to stick with the status quo, protect yourself from me.

Oh let me guess, you think there's some giant conspiracy theory right? Lol, you really know nothing about science and how it works.

If you want to assert that the scientists supporting evolution are part of some super-secret cult existing to keep the status quo and suppress any evidence against evolution, then provide the actual evidence or shut the fvck up. The fact of the matter is that evidence of that nature cannot be covered up. Because to be valid it would have to be out there, in nature, and reproducible, such that anyone who looks for it, will find it. Even if some scientists tried to cover it up, they would fail. Even if ALL scientists tried to cover it up, they would fail, because it doesn"t take a scientist to do science. Anyone can. Everyone can.

Conspiracies of that nature simply not possible in science. If even a single person with a vested interest in revealing that evidence existed (and there is just no one out there with a vested interest in wanting to see evolutionary theory fail, right?), it would come out.

In fact, it might be interesting to consider just how big such a scam/coverup would have to be. Take it seriously and see where it takes you. E.g. it can"t simply be a matter of hiding some evidence. The evidence we have is sufficient to make it all but certain that some kind of evolution must be occurring. If some evidence had been suppressed, at most it could result in a revision of evolutionary theory.

So, we would have to assume that false evidence had been disseminated. This is no small undertaking, though, since research is so spread out and easily verifiable by labs in various countries. E.g. simple phylogenetic analyses alone provide strong support for common ancestry, so the conspiracy would have to control which sequences were available in databanks and prevent people from doing independent sequencing. This itself is problematic because a single individual who could be bothered to save up for it could buy the necessary machinery, gather the samples and sequence the genes, to verify the facts.

So, in order for evolution to be faked, we"d have to postulate a world-wide conspiracy, controlling universities, publications, facilities and even private access to machinery. It would have to be truly staggering in size, having operatives in every country and every institution. After all, it would only take one unsupervised undergrad to sabotage the entire project.

It"s simply out of the question that something of this size could be kept secret. In the real world, the secrecy of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to its size. As the saying goes: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

There are a million or so scientific papers that back the Theory of Evolution, both directly and indirectly. If the ToE was falsified, there would be a Nobel prize, accolades, etc, waiting for the scientist showing that conclusive evidence. Actually, the odds of that happening are far less than the godbots showing the equivalent of an eternally burning bush for their imaginary deity. If it isn"t there, why are they covering it up?
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 8:35:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:19:26 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So evolutionists maintain that things evolved over millions of years from frogs to Princes. Now when you hear the story of a frog turning into a Prince, you know it's a fairy-tale, but when you hear it took place over millions of years, that's "science". What I want to ask evolutionists is how they expect us to believe in their theory when most people would dismiss it as bull if they saw their stories about one group of animals evolving into another group of animals in a book. Basic biology tells us one animal and another animal can only give rise to things that look like them. So how did all the diverse forms of life come into eistence? Did they pop up out of the aether, perchance?

Hello, I agree wit you

How can lif com from randim mutation? Ther is noting that naturally make negativ mutation less likly to surviv and mak ofspring, or make postive mutation more likly to suirviva,l and make ofspring. Natural slection is not exist. Saying that I strawman evilution/misrepresent it is fail because people who support evilution is shills creted by satan.

Evilution is evil lie trying to destroy Amurica. It is maded up by satanist communist nazi athiest muslim terroris babby-eating libral Charles Darwin. Evilution is false becus it just a theory! Evilution is lie and evolutionst argument are fail because all of the supposed "observed speciation events", "transitional fossils" and "evidence" are made up by evil scientists who like to eat babies.

Here's the prof:

P1. Darwin said "hi" to others when he meeting someone else.
P2. Adolf Hitler did the same.
P3. Hitler was an evil person.
C. Darwin was evil and evilution is a lie.

All 1000000000 of those transitional fossils are lie! My sources are: The NY Times, MSNBC, FOX News, ETC ETC! So reliable, I didn't even put the exact link to the articles! Wy? Becuz crediblity, virifybility, evidens, reason, and logick are evil concept maded up by evil liberil athiest gay straiht satanist shill disinform agent athiest.

Have you ever seen seeds in bananas? That is because bananas are intelligently designed to be easily eaten! Some people say wild bananas have big seeds and they were cultivated and breeded so that domesticated bananas have no seeds, but they are shills who are working for the NSA, FBI, CIA, NBA, NHL, KFC, and so on! They are evil liberal baby eaters who want to ban guns and kill fetuses!

Evilution says that whales came out of the sea and turned into cows! It is actually what evilution said because VenomFangX is totally a reliable source.

If evilution is true, when why are there still apes arond? Evilution does not sayanything aboutcommon ancestry, so it must say that all apes turned into people magically!

Y DONT LIFE COMM OUT OF PENUT BUTER?

Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.!!!!!!1!!

Satan has many forms, one of which is to turn into a bearded racist nazi communist muslim athiest Charles Darwin and spread lies to destroy America and promote secularism. Evilution is a evil lie that is just a theory. It impossible that somehow rock can turn into a planet, and then life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, then bacteria suddenly evilving into people, and cats giving birth to catfishes after eating fish. It evil lie that spred by evil scientist and biolog techer! The mountain of evidence for evilution does not exist, because I don't bother to read th 10000 study report that say evilution true because there too long. Some people sau dat evilution is not what I say it is and that I use strawman, which is clearly lie becus anyone beliv evilution is a evil satan worshipper. Darwin himseelf has said that evilution is absurd to the highest degree, which is totally not quote mined adn put into creationist books. There are different types of evilution:

Micor-evilution:Da theery dat cat give birt to cafish!
Macor-eviltion:Da theery dat le bakteria com frumm le dirt in le ocean.
Stellar evilution:Da theery dat stars can form out of nebula, all 1000000000 of the so-called stellar evilution caught by telescope are evil lie by satan worship scientists that worship scientism.
Matter evilution: so-called heavier matter that form from hydrogen, which is bull because stars like the sun don't have nuclear fusion in core turning hydrogen to helum, instead it runs from power of cow feces!

All the above are lie made by evil liberal athiest scientist that hate the truth of cretion!!!!!!!1!!!

THEsE Are All evidence evilution should not be taught in school

This is perfect proof that evilution evil lie: It is trying to make children evil.

Look at this: Evilution was legalize in school recenly, righ? Well, teaching evilution made people commit more crime every time! Look, the crim rates steadily raising!

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

Als, teching evilution mak natural disaster mor comon! Evilution is cause iof Katrina, Irene, Sandy, etc. because I say so and corelation alway equal causation when I say it.

Evilution not true becuz it violatez the lawz of fysicz! Entropy of closed system only increase. Earth is closed system becuz sun no shine any energy to earth, nothing can enter earth becuz there a invisible wall, and nothing can leav eath!!!!!!11! Entropy of earth can only increse, even tho it is open system, and decrasing entopy in earth by incrasing entropy out of earth is impossible even tho non of physic say it is impossible.

Banana are evidence dat evilution false evil lie. If banana evolved, it will hav seed. (Even tho wild banana hav seed, domesticated banana don't despite people cultivating it, domesticated banana not having seed is evidnce for evilution lie.

Evilution is supported by Obama, who is liberal that want destruction of America. Obama is satan because well I pulld it out of my A**. Obama want America become socialism. ObamaCar will kill everone! My frend Bob frm Canda, which ahs socilist medcare, sas that in Canad, the hospitl have 5 horu wait, and peple install death panal to chose wether or not grama dies. it is totally also not pulled out of my A**, and bob is claely real person I did not made up. If america socialst medcar, then ob,ama anticris hitler evil comunits
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande