It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

page: 21
34
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You have proven absolutely nothing... but... sure mate, you win.




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

You have proven absolutely nothing... but... sure mate, you win.


Will so far no one has proven me wrong about life not creating life and the opposite is non-living to non-living. So yes, on this plateau of argument, I win because these are facts.

bye.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Russell's Teapot... oh yes, you are definitely winning... lol



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Russell's Teapot... oh yes, you are definitely winning... lol


Oh. I thought you're done.

Russell's Teapot is cute but are you arguing from authority now?

In any case, the foundation of evolutionary theory is so weak or non-existent that it takes blind faith to accept it.

"We don't know where life came from, but you have to accept evolution because it is a fact. Never mind the other explanation because only evolution is scientific."

Talk about Russell's Teapot.




Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist.[3] Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it – each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."[3]



I think you didn't understand the concept.


edit on 26-6-2019 by edmc^2 because: you didn't understand the concept.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Just pointing out exactly what you did in your last post... you can call it cute, but you literally said no-one has disproved your negative... a textbook example of Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof is on you to prove god, no matter how much you may want it to be the other way around.

If evolution is so wrong... then offer a testable alternative... you can't... so all you can do is have a tantrum that your fantasy is not believed by everyone... and claim victory when people can't be bothered pointing out your fallacies anymore... meanwhile the rest of the world will keep researching evolution (because it is the only testable theory we have), and potential alternatives if they arise, and creating real world applications based on the established theories that you insist are wrong, but never actually logically refute.

Mixing origins and evolution in one sentence and calling it Russell's Teapot... that's funny... and fallacious once again. You seem incapable of presenting a non-fallacious argument.

Oh, I also replied just to reiterate how much you are winning with your fallacious arguments.
edit on 26-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Garvey successfully pointed out a weakness in the teacup argument, but the teacup argument still seems to successfully illustrate the fact that it is most rational to reject the existence of strange entities unless there is sufficient evidence. Moreover, Garvey failed to give us any good reason to think that arguments can’t help us decide if God’s existence is sufficiently reasonable. He seems to think that either science or religion must be able to provide us with knowledge and just seems to reject the possibility that secular philosophy can provide us with knowledge without a second thought.

This is nothing more than a common prejudice people have against philosophy. The fact that Garvey assumes that the teapot argument only discusses scientific evidence seems strange considering that the argument’s creator, Bertrand Russell, was a philosopher, logician, and mathematician with a large interest in nonscientific philosophy. The fact that virtues and vices of reason can involve logic is at least one good reason to think that philosophy can help us figure out which beliefs are the most reasonable.


Kind of my point... you are turning a scientific debate about evolution or it's potential testable alternatives to an un-testable philosophical debate. It's the reason I introduced Russell's Teapot to begin with...

... you're definitely winning with all those "facts" you keep presenting... sorry, not facts, idea and opinions.

edit on 26-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: edmc^2

Hasn't been explained like... a million times... that evolution isn't about how life started

Its about how it changes over time

Funny how that never seems to hit home with you people



nah, it's just two peas in a pod I call evolution.

you know, abiogenesis+biological evolution = evolution theory. It keeps it simple and makes people like you remain confused.

Then again there are many more theories besides abiogenesis, but I'll just keep it there for simpletons like me.


Well when people tell you over and over that it has nothing to do with how life started... and you insist it does...

you are the only one that is confused here...

but hey... bang your religious drum bro




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: edmc^2

Hasn't been explained like... a million times... that evolution isn't about how life started

Its about how it changes over time

Funny how that never seems to hit home with you people



nah, it's just two peas in a pod I call evolution.

you know, abiogenesis+biological evolution = evolution theory. It keeps it simple and makes people like you remain confused.

Then again there are many more theories besides abiogenesis, but I'll just keep it there for simpletons like me.


Well when people tell you over and over that it has nothing to do with how life started... and you insist it does...

you are the only one that is confused here...

but hey... bang your religious drum bro



This is what amazes me. Evolutionists become chickens and somewhat afraid of discussing evolution theory when it comes to origins. I wonder why?

So forget about this dumb theory of evolution then since it has no beginning. But my question to you now is what theory are you proposing in lieu of evolution. Abiogenesis, Exogenesis, Thermal Vents, there are many you know. Pick one that you're comfortable with. In fact, pick all.

What dumb theory are you proposing for the origin of life?

Perhaps, the Selfish Gene by Pro. Dawkins.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Funny thing is I believe in creation of life... just not the way you Christians believe it happened

so your question is moot... and so is the idea that God went "poof" and life began to me




posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2
...
You are welcome to offer an alternative, but even if you do, it won't change the reality that, rather than being impossible... EVOLUTION IS FACT.

"The phrase "Evolution is fact" or "Evolution is a fact" works a bit like a mantra. Can you already call it a meme?

Is Evolution a Fact?

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* [Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders can produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the dachshund’s small size is caused by a failure of normal development of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism.] These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* [While the word “species” is used frequently in this article, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.*
[See the box “How Organisms Are Classified.”]

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.


Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Can Mutations Produce New Species?
...
Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species?
...
Does the Fossil Record Document Macroevolutionary Changes?
...
Evolution​—Fact or Myth?
...
If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

The first 2 questions or related evolutionary assumptions and myths I discussed in more detail in these 3 comments. For example how mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. And how Lönnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation.” And concluded that: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one”. What I didn't mention in that comment but I could add now is that in 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed: “Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection.”

Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Taking us back to what the discoveries in over a 100 years of mutation research have revealed (as earlier quoted from Lönnig and discussed in more detail in those comments I linked; along with further pertinent facts concerning regular breeding techniques as opposed to mutation breeding experiments where mutations are induced by irradiation and such).

In this thread I commented on the fossil record in more detail, page 17.
edit on 27-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created​—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that​—apes, or monkeys—​not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”
...


I like that question.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

It will be hilarious when the mechanism for origins is scientifically confirmed... there will be no gaps left for feeble god arguments!

Then it will be "everything is wrong except for my faith!"

Coo-coo coo-coo...



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

All you ever present is negatives of evolution. For someone who thinks evolution is wrong, you spend a lot of time focusing on it.

Why not conceive of an experiment or test that confirms creation, or an alternative to evolution, instead of wasting your time on something, that in your opinion, is so obviously wrong?

Or at the very least, if you dispute a presented fact of evolution, don't just say "it's wrong", therefore all evolution is wrong... offer a testable alternative that keeps the discourse going and searches for verifiable fact... something you never do.

Why don't you ever present positives of an alternative?
edit on 27-6-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

JW only learn from JW doctrine and writing it seems


edit on 27-6-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

You are probably right... but when I see logical holes you could drive trucks through in arguments, I can't help myself but point it out!



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

how can one post a logical argument when it only has one face to a multi faceted situation?




posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The simplest answer would be that it is a combination of panspermia and evolution.
There is ample evidence that shows that species evolve by mutation and selection.
Critters that get hear hitching a ride on meteors and comets have a lot of the work already done.
Anyway, that is MHO.
edit on 27-6-2019 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

You may be right for planet earth, but Panspermia just pushes back that initial catalyst to another time and place. Something like abiogenesis (... or creation if you must... but not a shred of evidence yet that supports it) must have happened somewhere at some point in time.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
...
Glad to know you were once a peer-reviewer. As such, I'm sure you're very aware of the problems facing the scientific community when it comes to peer-review, especially when it comes to something that can't be replicated or falsified over a period of time - i.e. biological evolution.

As an example of the pitfalls of peer-reviewed journals.


...

I found the phrase at 1:46 in that video quite interesting: "The authors report no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript".

It somewhat reminds me of Darwin's phrase at the end of this statement: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

That was just after having described such a complex organ, the eye. Which still hasn't been proven to be a product of “numerous, successive, slight modifications” (evolution) and still demonstrates that it “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications”. Complete denial, just say it with a straight face often enough and people will actually begin to believe that no such complex organs exist, while all of them already demonstrate as such (heart, lungs, eyes, brain, etc., not to mention all the biomolecular machinery that make living sytems live and reproduce, and their interdependent correlations within such larger systems demonstrates this even further, or clearer). As admitted in one of my quotations before (the first part at least, that these complex organs haven't been proven or demonstrated to be a product of evolution).

originally posted by: whereislogic

French science writer Philippe Chambon wrote: “Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And today’s biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that ‘the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.’”

Coming back to the earlier phrase at 1:46 in the video, it also reminds me of the line of argumentation and promotion used at 0:15 below:

They're all a little different though. Some more obvious than others.
edit on 27-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2
...
You are welcome to offer an alternative, but even if you do, it won't change the reality that, rather than being impossible... EVOLUTION IS FACT.


originally posted by: whereislogic

"The phrase "Evolution is fact" or "Evolution is a fact" works a bit like a mantra. Can you already call it a meme?

Is Evolution a Fact?
...

So, is it a fact? What happens if we apply the most often proposed scientific method to evolutionary ideas and claims? Many evolutionists are dogmatic, but is there room for reasonable doubt?

For example, Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier is very dogmatic. At an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in the early 80's, he said: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world. That’s a hundred million facts for evolution.” How 100,000,000 fossils, admittedly not the transitional ones the theory demands, constitute 100,000,000 facts proving evolution, is not at all clear. Kier then adds that, while evolutionists may argue over details, “they agree that evolution is a fact and should be so labeled.”

Famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky is not so dogmatic. In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their truth can never be conclusively established.” Using Dr. Karl Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical [experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.” Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: “A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”

Why is all of this relevant to our discussion? Because it is on this basis that Gould and others eliminate creation as a science and therefore say it should not be included in science classes. Creation is not testable, not falsifiable by scientific experimentation. Creationists say ‘God did it’ and there’s no way to test that or prove it false. “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase,” Gould says, “precisely because it cannot be falsified.” But he is adamant that evolution is a fact. (suddenly I'm reminded of parrots, I wonder why)

Very interestingly, however, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Since it is not testable, the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions. Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method. Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method, and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable for metaphysical research.

Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not only describes it but also shows its value: “The most important thing about science is the scientific method​—a way of thinking systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one’s own errors, a way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific method.”​—Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.

If Darwin's theory of evolution is “not a testable scientific theory” (Popper), why then, do so many scientists believe evolution? “The reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted,” writes Dr. Popper, is that “its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation has been reached.” As evolutionist Peter Medawar puts it: “For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.”

The acceptance of evolution by scientists has largely been due to their dislike of the alternative​—theism, a belief in God. But is it scientific to accept a theory simply because you do not like the alternative? What may rankle scientists like Medawar is that acknowledging God as Creator means they would be glorifying Him when they discovered amazing new facts about His creation. Would that be too much for their pride? Atheist Aldous Huxley’s admission reveals another possibility, when he says: “We objected to the morality [of the Bible] because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Is evolution a scientific fact? No.

Is it a testable scientific theory? No.

Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.

Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

Is there cause for reasonable doubt?

Is it reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish, lizards? or that lizards turned into robins and wolves?

The book “Evolution,” by Dobzhansky, said that while the truth of evolution could never be established, it was a hypothesis “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt.” “Reasonable doubt” is legally defined as “such a doubt as would cause a reasonable and prudent man in the graver and more important affairs of life to pause and hesitate to act upon the truth of the matter charged [or, claimed].” One judicial decision ruled: “A ‘reasonable doubt’ is such a doubt as an upright man might entertain in an honest investigation after truth.”​—Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 580.

In court if there is reason to doubt a crucial piece of evidence, no conviction follows. Is it reasonable to have doubts that life spontaneously generated by chance? Reasonable to doubt that amoebas became fish? or fish lizards? or lizards turned into robins and wolves? Is doubting evolution reasonable doubt or unreasonable doubt? Is it really true/factual/certain/conclusive/absolute/correct, without error, “corroborated beyond reasonable doubt”?

And yes, when using the word “evolution” the so-called “chemical evolution theory of life” (regarding the origin of life, a.k.a. the hypothesis of abiogenesis in most, if not all its variations, as quoted from the wikipedia page for abiogenesis) is included.
edit on 28-6-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join