Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

Double post

[edit on 30-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by littlebunny

 

And once again you criticize scientific method without apparently having the slightest clue about it. If you doubt carbon dating,READ

Wow, carbon dating can now go back millions of years... oh wait, that's not what that link says... but so what, evolution is true simply because you say so... how ridiculous you would even bring up carbon dating as a way to prove evolution... how sadly pathetic... once again, the rocks date the dino's and yet dino's date the rocks much better... that too is sadly pathetic! And OMG, why would I need to keep bringing up all the old crap we've all linked before, what the hell is the point... this is simply a battle of words... grow up!


--Charles Marcello


[edit on 30-5-2010 by littlebunny]

Like others have already mentioned, carbon dating is just one of the methods of radiological dating. It's been proven to be accurate and reliable.

But continue to walk through the world blind and shut your eyes from all the facts if it makes you happy. It's just a very ignorant, and stupid way to live...similar to the guys who burned witches in the middle ages. No one can help you if you're so brainwashed that you refuse to accept FACTS. May your god (Christian god, Allah, spaghetti monster, I don't care...) have mercy on your ignorant soul.

In all my years at the university I have never even once heard science declare something impossible. Under the right circumstances, everything is possible. But not everything is equaly probable. That's something some people refuse to acknowledge.

Why is "science" when used by creationists ALWAYS a straw man conception?

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

In all my years at the university I have never even once heard science declare something impossible. Under the right circumstances, everything is possible. But not everything is equaly probable. That's something some people refuse to acknowledge.

Why is "science" when used by creationists ALWAYS a straw man conception?

They KNOW they can't defend their opinion because it's not based on facts...so the only option they have is to attack the opposing view no matter what. I find it always hilarious that they're more focused attacking evolution rather than defending their own belief. No creationist can look you in the eye defending his belief without coming over as bat# insane.

Originally posted by littlebunny
the rocks date the dino's and yet dino's date the rocks much better...
[edit on 30-5-2010 by littlebunny]

Please tell us where you're getting that simplistic idea of geology from.

reply to post by littlebunny

Wow, carbon dating can now go back millions of years... oh wait, that's not what that link says.

this is simply a battle of words... grow up!

This is once again a typically dismal attempt to employ a straw man argument when faced with overwhelming evidence.

If you are suggesting that a dinosaur species could be used as an index fossil I'd like to see the reference. Maybe you are just making things up as you go along. No surprise if you did.

natural selection is something we see even in our freaking society nowadays

it exists and with genetic recombination it just makes sense


I wont discuss, I am just saying this fact

reply to post by MrXYZ



but evolution can't be supported by facts either... if it could then it could be replicated by science.... and thus it wouldn't be a THEORY any more it would be FACT.. Creationism can be proved more than Evolution because everything has to have a creator.... Let's take a pocket watch for example.... i would give you as many tries as you like to drop the gears and pieces into the case of the pocket watch from as close as you can get however once you let the piece fall you can't touch it anymore... and i'll bet you will never be able to form a pocket watch.... but if i let you form it and mold it and fix it you'll have a pocket watch in no time..... that is basically evolution vs. creationism in a nut shell... you have to have a creator at some point.... if not then nothing is possible.

prove to me through the "FACTS" of evolution how life began???

[edit on 5/30/2010 by Soup or Fly]

reply to post by Soup or Fly


Evolution does not describe how life began. It describes the diversity of life.

reply to post by stereologist



so then how did life begin according to somebody who believes in evolution or the big bang theory....


again Creationism answers all these questions....


[edit on 5/31/2010 by Soup or Fly]

reply to post by Soup or Fly


Evolution is a fact. The theories explain the fact of evolution. And yes there are different theories on evolution. Creationism cannot be proved. The claim of a creator is not necessary. Your analogy with the watch does not describe evolutionary processes.

reply to post by Soup or Fly


Again this is a discussion of evolution, not the origin of life.

reply to post by stereologist


how can the theory prove fact... you have to have evidence to prove fact.... if you go to court with just a theory then the defendant will get away clean... you have to have evidence....and the watch analogy does explain evolution... how can something come from nothing as evolution says.... the we came from some gook and evolved... well what formed that gook.... there has to be a creator somewhere in the line.... we couldn't have just come from nothing.... again evolution and any other theory besides Creationism cannot prove this .... and You say Evolution is based on Fact if it was then it would no longer be a Theory it would be the Fact of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution

Originally posted by Soup or Fly
reply to post by stereologist

 

so then how did life begin according to somebody who believes in evolution or the big bang theory....
[edit on 5/31/2010 by Soup or Fly]

You're asking about abiogenesis. This video (as posted in this forum just recently) explains it extremely well, and gives the evidence for it.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Soup or Fly
reply to post by stereologist

 

how can the theory prove fact... you have to have evidence to prove fact.... if you go to court with just a theory then the defendant will get away clean... you have to have evidence....and the watch analogy does explain evolution... how can something come from nothing as evolution says.... the we came from some gook and evolved... well what formed that gook.... there has to be a creator somewhere in the line.... we couldn't have just come from nothing.... again evolution and any other theory besides Creationism cannot prove this .... and You say Evolution is based on Fact if it was then it would no longer be a Theory it would be the Fact of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution

You're misunderstanding basic scientific rhetoric. A Scientific Theory is a set of explanations for an observable phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution, which is an observable phenomena. A Theory does not prove something as fact, but as I said before, explains how and why something happens. The Theory of Evolution and evolution are two separate things.

Evolution is simply defined as a change in the gene frequency in a population. This happens all the time, but there are a handful of different ways for it to happen. Thus, the Theory of Evolution is required.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by PieKeeper]

reply to post by PieKeeper


Thank you for answering my question

reply to post by Soup or Fly


Theories are based on facts. They don't prove facts. You are mixing up the scientific use of the word with the vernacular.

And the watch analogy is in no way related to evolution. Evolution never says something comes from nothing. That is a lie stated by every creationist lecturer I have heard talk. You claim there has to be a creator somewhere. Why?

Take the time to learn the vocabulary of science. Learn the difference between fact and theory. Then you will realize that the following statement is a nonsense statement.

and You say Evolution is based on Fact if it was then it would no longer be a Theory it would be the Fact of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution

Originally posted by Soup or Fly
reply to post by MrXYZ
but evolution can't be supported by facts either... if it could then it could be replicated by science.... and thus it wouldn't be a THEORY any more it would be FACT..

And that they have.

reply to post by PieKeeper


Actually, a scientific theory proper (or even a hypothesis for that matter) is both observable and testable. A theory can not be proven, but is either supported or falsified by experimentation. Neither creationism or evolutionary theory are testable, so in truth calling either a theory is really a misnomer.

Creation is not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore, it was accomplished in the past and thus is inaccessible to the scientific method.

If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science. The evolution of one kind of organism into a higher organism would presumably take millions of years and no team of scientists is equipped to make measurements on any such experiment.

So.............

Instead, creationism and evolution should be considered tentative scientific models. It is proposed that these two "models" be used as systems for predicting data, to see which one does so more effectively based on observation.

Ultimately however, since neither "model" can be tested, they are not verifiable using the scientific method which means that accepting either model as true requires an element of faith (belief in the absence of proof).