There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: turbonium1

In that case the creator was a crappy architect. With all the problems that life has.

originally posted by: chr0naut
in reply to: Barcs

What about your repeated redefinition, over multiple threads, of words such as 'hypothesis' and 'theory' and how the semantic pedantry there is usually entirely irrelevant to the point of the thread topic?

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand?* Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”​—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

Source: Your Cells—Living Libraries! Awake!—2015

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific. ​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

And that doesn't just count for the behaviour of paleontologists who take a supposed line of fossils and claim that they represent an evolutionary heriditary lineage, as is done in all instances where evolutionary philosophies are promoted in the published articles about paleontology in the magazine Henry Gee is senior editor of (Nature magazine, Henry Gee being the main guy who gives his stamp of approval that is often wrongly viewed as "peer review"; or assigns that responsibility to people he approves of). Talk about hypocrisy for still publishing those articles under the banner of (peer reviewed) "science" while acknowledging the above (or while being aware of it; one might wanna consider a disclaimer similar to the ones on sigaret packages or bank investment products on the articles promoting fancy evolutionary bedtime stories as "science" and "fact").

Evolutionary philosophies such as so-called "macroevolution" still don't qualify as proper hypotheses in my opinion from investigating and evaluating the supposed evidence that is used to support it. The same counts for the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life". That things change over time, or even if you want to be more specific and refer to so-called "allele frequencies" changing over time, is no big news and can hardly be referred to as a theory if one refuses to make accurate predictions on how it's going to change over time. Especially if your vague agnostically styled* predictions and postdictions contradict what has been observed from a century of mutation research:

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely* new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place? [*: whereislogic: entirely new, not just conveniently calling it a new species such as Darwin did with his multiple species of finches that are all still finches, by being nice and vague about the word "species" and playing around with the definition, even inventing new terminologies to obscure the subject about these "boundaries" between the different kinds of creatures that Lönnig is talking about for example; and then accusing the other side of being vague about it and the term "kind" not being "scientific" or well enough defined for ye. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the evidence does demonstrate that there are specific kinds defined by these boundaries and that one doesn't have to exactly pinpoint these boundaries to acknowledge their existence as observed from 100 years of mutation research and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular]

22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts

*: styled according to the general agnosticism version of this way of thinking:

Akin to Pontius Pilate's demonstration of that way of thinking when he cynically asked Jesus, "what is truth?" As if you can't figure it out with 100% certainty anyway so why bother. The cop-out of those who prefer their own spin on matters or even to promote that form of propaganda to the public.

a reply to: whereislogic

You're citing jw.org?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Looks that way That poster has in the past.

a reply to: Noinden

It’s their entire MO... every source comes from a JW publication whether it be WatchTower, Awake or JW.org. The confirmation bias is strong with this one it would seem.

What's the difference between a natural interpretation of evolution and intelligent design?

It's just like MWI and Copenhagen. They're both interpretations of QM.

Intelligent Design is a superior interpretation. There's more holes than Swiss cheese in a naturalistic interpretation of evolution.

Here's a couple of videos that destroy a natural interpretation.





Again, the sad thing is atheist and materialist throw around evolution like it's their Bible or Torah. Evolution doesn't support their belief and intelligent design fits the evidence.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
No, in thread after thread after thread you have refused to acknowledge any evidence whatsoever that challenges your statements that scorn the existence of evolution, a spherical Earth and now gravity. In other words you refuse to admit that basic physics can possibly be correct. And all you do is parrot the same spurious nonsense. In, as I said, thread after thread after thread. You have a reputation.

It's simple to prove who is making it up, and who discusses the issues here....

Just say 'basic physics'... all done!


The challenges I've faced on these issues have been few and far between, and I've addressed them, afaik.

Why don't you mention any point I've failed to address?

Any idea?...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

In that case the creator was a crappy architect. With all the problems that life has.

So you think life-forms should be perfect, flawless, eternal, and so on?

And if not, creation was crappy?

What if we had no loss, no worries?

We'd be machines, not human, not really living at all.

What would life mean if we never lost, nobody died?

To feel love most, is when someone you love has gone.

a reply to: turbonium1

Why don't you mention any point I've failed to address?

Most people will not validate a point that is nonsense

Evolution is not valid, that's why I'm explaining the reasons why it is not valid.


It lacks a shred of valid evidence, for one thing.

Says the flat earther...

Who knows it's true, when all of the instruments on planes have measured it, first.


You can't admit the truth, so it seems.


You prefer to fear the truth.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Evolution is not valid, that's why I'm explaining the reasons why it is not valid.


It lacks a shred of valid evidence, for one thing.

Please explain what your definition of 'valid' is. Because I'm betting that it's different from most people.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Who knows it's true, when all of the instruments on planes have measured it, first.


You can't admit the truth, so it seems.


You prefer to fear the truth.

Who also clearly BLATANTLY lies when he doesn't actually know what he's talking about

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
Evolution is not valid, that's why I'm explaining the reasons why it is not valid.


It lacks a shred of valid evidence, for one thing.

Please explain what your definition of 'valid' is. Because I'm betting that it's different from most people.

'Valid' has one definition. I'm betting you can look it up, like most people.


Evolution of ape-men to human is a myth, and has not one shred of 'valid' evidence.

After you look up 'valid', you'll understand what I mean.

Anything else?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: turbonium1
Evolution is not valid, that's why I'm explaining the reasons why it is not valid.


It lacks a shred of valid evidence, for one thing.

Please explain what your definition of 'valid' is. Because I'm betting that it's different from most people.

'Valid' has one definition. I'm betting you can look it up, like most people.


Evolution of ape-men to human is a myth, and has not one shred of 'valid' evidence.

After you look up 'valid', you'll understand what I mean.

Anything else?

Still merrily trolling away I see. No. I'm not going to play your game. Evidence of evolution has been posted up in answer to your questions again and again and again on other threads. There is a mountain of it, as opposed to... whatever the hell it is that you are pushing for. I am not going to trot it out yet again here, it's on those other threads. Just because you refuse to believe doesn't make any of it less real. And no, you can't play your little game of pretending that those threads don't exist - those threads where you were made to look like a complete fool. You have been defeated so many times now that I have lost count. This thread seems to be another attempt by you to pretend that those threads don't exist, that you are, laughably, still valid.
You are not.

How about we define

Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Sure is a lot easier to see that then some
obvious scientific biased total bullshlt.

And you people walk around thinking you're intelligent.

originally posted by: randyvs
How about we define

Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Sure is a lot easier to see that then some
obvious scientific biased total bullshlt.

And you people walk around thinking you're intelligent.

intelligent design - the hypothesis that a sentient cosmic force exerted its influence on the sequence of events surrounding reality as we know it and may still be doing so today

this cosmic force is alternatively known as "god of the gaps" and continues to inhabit exclusively the gaps in scientific knowledge.

a reply to: peter vlar

See I would have fewer issues if they were honest and cited it with attesting too it. Thats honest, not the cut and paste, and hope no one gets where its from....