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.

 

proof against evolution

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by furiousracer313
 


Certainly by this time someone will have responded to this post, but I will anyway.

You do of course realize evolution is a mind numbingly slow process right? If you believe in all the creationists propaganda surely you believe god has a plan for you and will take care of all of your needs. Go ahead and send me your next paycheck and sign the title to your vehicle over to me.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vector J
A computer program I saw years ago, which was quite literally about evolution was beautiful to watch. By starting with basic agents withn an environment that could move and see to varying degrees and knew they had to eat food that could be found in the environment, the system was run. After each epoch (a period of time) the best agents in the environment would mate using a genetic algorithm to produce offspring. Over time you could clearly see the population evolve to create the best and strongest agents to take advantage of the environment.


THAT's the program I was trying to remember the name of! Yes!

Thanks for your more concise and clear description.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
The word theory does just that. To dub something a theory, implies that there is a possibility it is false. If a theory was not capable of being invalid, it would be a law . . . Yes it implies it is incomplete, it is incomplete because you can still question its validity . . .


Oh my.

The same applies to laws. They are just generalised well-established findings, usually small-scale relationships. They are not infallible. A great example was Newton's law of gravitation, it is only an approximate to nature, and there a few laws that fit as approximates - accurate enough in general. Indeed, Newton's law was shown to be false when calculating aspects of planetary orbits.

Even those that are generally considered more reliable, even very very accurate, are open to be wrong. Laws and theories are both accepted tentatively, open to being falsified. Unless you want to be the inductivist turkey.

Scientific theories are much better, explaining a larger aspect of nature cf. laws. Thus, evolutionary theory has some consituent laws (Hardy-Weinberg etc).



[edit on 2-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Very nice ...



Here is a nice little link that explains it all very nicely.

I recommend that everyone who is not sure, evolutionist and creationist alike read through this.

Scientific Laws, Hypothosies and Theories



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
And another argument from creationists that really gets my goat is:

"If evolution is real, why don't we see chimps still evolving into men"

Lets just make this clear.

Humans did not evolve from a chimp.

We evolved separately from a common ancestor.

Evoking the image that a monkey is our ancestor is really ignorant disinformation.

As original mammals moved around and changed environments and needed certain genetics to survive in certain situations, separate breeding groups slowly evolved.

Firstly, these early mammals evolved distinct genetics mutations derived from that certain breeding pool.

This then evolved into distinct physical characteristics to suit their environment as that environment/nature ruthlessly selected the strongest genetic mutations in that breeding pool to survive.

Then, over millions of years, these breeding groups evolved into distinct genetically separate and physically different species as those mutation that allowed them to survive in their particular environment became more dominant and more pronounced than the original characteristics that the original breeding pool had and in some cases replaced them all together.

If you can please use your imagination:

One breeding group that had the dominant breeding characteristic as speed and strength to ensure survival possibly became the cats.

One group that had the dominant breeding characteristic as the smallest size and the most rapidly breeding to ensured survival possibly became the rodent.

One breeding group decided to live in trees for safety and the more dextrous members of that group were the dominant breeders passing this trait on down the line. They became monkeys.

One of these tree dwelling mammal groups found that there was a niche for them on the plains. Less competition for food source. They began to stand upright to see above the long grass to help them see predators. Those who could stand would survive and pass this survival characteristic down the line. They began to use objects to protect themselves and manipulate their environment. Those with the most dextrous fingers where more succesfull at this and therefore survived, passing this on down the line. etc etc etc

All of these mutations became dominant and therefore became more pronounced replacing the old characteristics from the tree mammal that had no place or point on the plains.

This all happened over millions of years slowly.

Doesn't this make sense


[edit on 2/7/08 by Horza]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


It makes perfect sense to me Horza, I, like you, get annoyed when creationist lecturers who are meant to be educated do things like this:

*pointing to picture of a modern monkey* - 'Are you trying to say that my Grandfather looked like this?' (this is sooo ignorant that it makes me sad.)

You might think I'm joking - that an educated adult wouldn't do this. But you'd be wrong, they do it all the time and want to teach creationism to our children!

Another thing which gets to me is the influential spokespeople who come up with the ridiculous 'nightmares' for evolutionists, like the banana being shaped perfectly video I saw which made me laugh until I cried.

If you want to see it (about 2 minutes) watch this - youtube.com...

There's another which uses a jar of peanut butter to disprove evolution. Hilarious - youtube.com...

It's people like this who are a disgrace to our civilisation. They are so ignorant to the facts that the information they spread to many unwitting civilians is so corrupted that people actually believe the arguments.

If you think the arguments in the videos are valid - I urge you to do some research into what evolution actually is.

The only way to DENY IGNORANCE is to learn more and more.

Out of the people who have a large knowledge of evolution (mainly biologists, lecturers and scientists) over 98% of them agree that it happens.

This overwhelming majority must account for something, this is the reason it is widely accepted by school boards and taught as fact in schools.

I hope some people understand what I am trying to explain, look at the evidence, listen to the scientific community, work it out for yourself and dont let people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Chuck Missler who have no knowledge of what evolution means tell you what to think.


Rant over,

peace.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Unsane
 


"Take that Atheists!"- Kirk Cameron

I nearly spit out my iced tea.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
One difficulty in debating evolutionists is the many "fundamentalist" a-theists that have infected science and brought with it their circular semantics and word play games.

I have been on this planet long enough to have witnessed the absolute and Ill add ASININE way they have bastardized the English vernacular of science to fit their agenda to convert said science to their materialist ideology.


I remember back when the word "FACT" meant the same as it used to in science. That is to say FACT meant something self evident, something that couldn't be argued with whether you agreed with it or not. Sure exceptions to rules existed but if you jumped off a building without a parachute, the laws of gravity and conventional wisdom dictate, you are going to FALL, CRASH, and most likely you are going to die.

That is a FACT that you are going to fall and the higher the building the more emphatically I will say you are going to die.

Is it a Fact you are going to die from falling from a three story building? How about a Ten story building? fifty story? Fifty story building I can say with the utmost certainty YOU WILL DIE and THAT is a fact!
Anyone at that point that still wants to argue with me I can reasonably call a damn FOOL, an absolute IDIOT!

It is at that point I do NOT want to test any theory of Isaac Newton for to do so in that way is certain death. In this illustration, I have given an example of the consequences for testing a theory, NOT of what goes up must come down, but HOW BAD DO I WANT TO KNOW?


Am I so confident in my knowledge of Newtonian laws of Gravity they can be tested in ways that threaten my very life if I am wrong?


Yes I know THAT much.


Now is there an analogy I can use to assume the same kind of certainty, the same justification to call evolutionists believing we came from some primordial soup then some pre-historic sperm milkshake where like most things they call the law of this or that, it is that obvious the wages of error in a given test would be certain death?

Can I get that confidant in my knowledge of Biological Science and Mans origin that I can call someone an IDIOT or like Magistus so often does,, calling creationists "Retards or Retarded" When does it become classless to call someone such a thing? When they actually are and don't know enough to not jump off a ten story building is when.

When someone in your family has downs syndrome is when. When you see someone getting off the short yellow bus is when because THAT is when, what you are saying, says a lot more about YOU then it does the retarded. But what about those who should know better?


Do we have a right to get that angry at those teaching something that may cost them their lives to test that theory in a way that is certain death?


Christians think so, and if you are like most of us, when you see people who don't know what they are doing and it is killing people, WE don't tend to take that lightly. We have a purpose in life and it may be different than the one Atheists want taught in our public schools. That you live you die that's it.

That you are no different than the ape like thing that is your ancestor and just a measure of circumstance, the victim of your own body chemistry, the fault being in your genetic design the reason you are gay or retarded or short, fat, skinny or tall. It is so easy to rationalize ways and / or reasons we are just not "all that" That we are not anything important nor should we be treated with any measure of respect.

We have seen this from the start when the first best selling books on Atheism came fourth with their "Angry Atheist" strategy for dealing with Christians. We have seen them revise history saying the holocaust never happened or Christ never existed with people like madness finally admitting they HAVE been guilty of airbrushing history but no more than anyone else.


Yeah,, everyone goes on a campaign to Obfuscate the truth like Atheists do making movies about the most celebrated man in history but not to celebrate him or his teaching but to DESTROY. Yeah we all lie about one of the most despicable acts of genocide history saying it never happened. Yeah we all make write books for the explicit reason to bash a people of a religious faith, make websites for the explicit reason of bashing a religion while saying they themselves are not an organized "group".

Why getting them to do such a thing so organized is "like herding cats". When was the last time you saw anyone not in a "group" of any kind who thought they knew so much more than anyone else, they actually refer to themselves as "The Science Community?"


Sound like any "group" you know of?


Mmmmm perhaps when Richard Dawkins says it in four of his books or Sam Harris on his website and in one of his speeches. I won't go into what Christopher Hitchins says, it is too vitriolic and as irritated at my spelling as one of the readers might get, I don't want them to have a conniption fit trying to slur the words in a drunken stupor like Hitchins. Their are whacko in all groups and I know I have seen many Christians that embarrass me. Many of them believe evolution was Gods way he created us. I can't tell you how disturbing that is to hear.

It is antithetical to what the Bible teaches and one step in three the Bible describes in the fall of the Church in the last days. What group singles those whacked out fundies in a display of immature character assassination as if to say the only thing they know about Science is "that God did it" .

I don't know about you guys but even I wouldn't accept that as a reason for anything and I have never seen that excuse said by Christians but ya know what? As ignorant as you think that statement or answer is.

If someone were to ask me HOW something is done having to do with the world we live in,,I think it is up to Science to explain HOW God did it.


Not to prove he didn't.


That is an Atheists Job. No in fact it seems to be their MISSION and THAT is obvious just google atheism and if you don't find a gazillion websites all disparaging Christians and talking in a passive voice as if they are all scientists, then you must be searching atheism in Tiananmen square from China's Google.

What "group" has been bashed on these boards more than any other? Christians that's who.


Up until about a year and a half ago, is when I see they finally started fighting back and created some threads calling a certain science into question. What "group" came herding in not like cats but like cattle, to defend said science with "religious fervor?"


and exposing their claims is that they are masters at the art of equivocation, which means to use misleading language and arguments in order to obfuscate the actual facts of the case. They use it to blur the truth using silly excuses THEY see as perfectly logical but make no sense what so ever.

I have seen this used by Madness saying Atheists weren't Nazi's simply because the uniform had belt buckles with the saying God is with them or words to that effect. Yet when was the last time you saw an atheist turning down his change from the bank because it said "in god we trust"? Logic is in the eyes of the logician. Evidence is in the eyes if the investigator and Truth the opinion of whose side of the truth you are on but FACTS,,Fact is and should be what separates what is REAL what is TRUE from what is BUNK!


I will say that even the very word fact has been changed to suit Sciences Evolution by changing the meaning to become semantically used as theory the same way they have done with the word species when Darwin was arguing to keep his theory alive.

Without the help of someone who would falsify his evidence to support Darwin,, the theory would have met an undeniable death. This kind of action as un-ethical and dishonest as it is was repeated time and again until Darwinism became so deeply rooted in Science they wanted it taught in our public schools. Who is "They" ? They were the atheist's that "group" that hates Christians so much they have picked out every single mistake or action a nut case or whoever has done in history and has blamed them for it not letting anyone forget it.

They are the "group" who while they THINK they know so much about Science, they know very little when it comes to the alleged thousands who died during the Salem witch trials or is it up to a million now? I don't know but the fact is it was a dozen.

Once we saw this happening, we decided,, OK what has Atheism done for Society?

Brought us Culture?

no the word comes from religion cults so it wasn't that.

How about Science?

Nope, Religion brought us that too.
Laws of our Government?


Nope. those were based on the ten commandments but I am sure Atheist will disagree or claim some bull about the founding fathers not being Christians but the Book they all read was the Bible and the hand you placed on it in court was the oath you took for the truth and it served us well until secular humanism infected our schools and our church's.

Is this true? Are Atheists trying to usurp our nation over time using Science to create a Marxist or communist government? Or is it like Hitler who's quasi cultish demon possessed obsession with social Darwinism wanting a fascism to take place?


What group more than any other makes threads or posts welcoming the NWO? Madness do you know? How about you Jimbo? Weed? Dave? You have all posted for it and Ill be more than happy to post the gif images of them rolling by, your support of a class of people who YOU think should be allowed to Vote in this country. After all, YOU are all Atheists which gives you a genetic predisposition for being smarter than all us "little people" . How about YOU Mel,, you have a list of those you will "take the time to talk to" so many of us are not worthy of your staggering intellect and your incessant use of equivocations in the passive voice placing you as spokes person of Science.

I would add astyanax but his prejudice and absolute bigotry of Christians is legendary here and made that patently a FACT when he created the thread about creationists are destroying ATS. This not only ended up lumped us all up as Christians / Creationists, something of a stereotype that fits but also took away any excuse we couldn't do the same for Atheist evolutionist.


Why would he do this? Well for the same reason they have done it for Science and want to keep us out of there too. No other Science argues with Christians like Darwinian Evolutionists do and for good reason. Not that we need evolution. You will notice when ever they try to insult our intelligence affirming the consequent or by assuming if we hate evolution we must hate the car we drive the Freon that cools our homes with air conditioning blah blah blah but invariably it is a product of another Science and never one of Darwinism.

Most of those other Sciences have intelligent mature professionals that don't go around making websites about how bad Christians are. Nope they make websites about quantum mechanics or Chemistry.

Even the serious Darwin sites can't say jack without mocking creationists like a bunch of keystone cops laughing at the flying spaghetti monster. Yeah then they wonder why Scientists in the Grown up world have no respect for them when talking behind there backs.

The fact is they have made it difficult for everyone else in Science. Not because of their evolution,, but because of their ATHEISM.

The word games have overlapped into other areas of Science. They say they bring up false and tautologous arguments are nothing but cleverly contrived phrases to appear as though a logical process is used. They have done this so much they created a myth they use to defend against any claims they are doing anything dishonest. It is called "The Scientific Method" and it too is BUNK!

cleverly constructed fibs that are cloaked in scientific nomenclature that snare those unaware of their techniques; propagating the myth of Darwin that has been repeated ad nauseam for the past century. They are going to use the media and their control of Science to advance NOT the theory Darwin came up with,, HA HA HA That is just a silly tool but to use Science to advance Atheism?

If that is true, how far does it desire to go? If it is true what Ben Stein says would they make other distinctions that make us guilty by association?

I mean is the THAT much a closed minded dogmatism in Science that it could skew their objectivity so much?


from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. At the conclusion of his talk (beginning at the 40:47 mark in the clip) is the following exchange:

Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.]

Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the question you asked about “Why 15%” disturbs me a little bit because of this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that they don’t have the same delusions — I mean, how many of them are pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences?

How many of them are Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were zero. That would be the news story. But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them in general to view their religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings or whatever. So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else. We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we are who we are.

Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?

Krauss: I don’t think we have to convert those people. They’re fine. That’s the point. They’re doing science. I don’t understand why you need to do that.

It’s rare for Larry Krauss to come across as the voice of reason in these debates. But that’s only because Tyson is by comparison so scary. Not only does Tyson want to “convert” his fellow scientists to atheism but he won’t be content with anything less than 100% conversion. I seem to recall past leaders who demanded that 100% of their subjects conform to the religion of the land on pain of death. Is this any different? But of course it is: that was religion, this is science!
www.uncommondescent.com...



That isn't Science. That's pathetic is what that is and makes an enemy of the religious and I am very willing to oblige in fighting them to the death if need be. What they stand for isn't Science it is a condescending grotesque view of just what history has taught us before with Stalin and Hitler and any other so called scientist or Atheist who by apparently by virtue of their atheism is a scientist Do they laugh in that article when the word "Republican" is mentioned for no reason?

You know why I'm not a Scientist? Yeah that's right, I am not very smart, at least not as smart as Mighty Magistus thinks he is calling me a retard or as desperate to find flaws in spelling. Mel who makes mention of his modesty intentionally for a reason. He is smart that way, it's good politics but is transparent as hell.

No I am not a Scientist because I always believed Scientists were people like Einstein who tried avoiding subjects like this like the plague. I can't picture him standing before the NAS saying something as idiotic as Tyson. The fact is I never thought I could live up to it. Now I see all you have to do to be a Scientist is be an atheist and talk a good shtick. I used to look up to them, I don't anymore and that isn't my fault.
It's Atheism's .

It isn't my fault every time another Hoax gets discovered Atheists say "Science is Self Correcting" when it was the Photographers insistence the fraud get foiled and lose faith in them.

It isn't my fault that every living Fossil thought to be extinct shows up still intact and Atheists say it must not have needed to evolve that's why it didn't but every time? I begin to lose faith in the Science community as a whole.

It isn't my fault whenever I catch them equivocating using micro to substantiate macro in the same kind of argument showing pressures were present hence the reason the micro took place they come up with "well that was only micro pressures and not macro" I begin to ask myself,, do Christians walk around with a tattoo on their foreheads saying we are stupid? Apparently ATS's "Unsane" thinks so. If it is true we are so stupid about evolution it must be the God Gene that makes us this way huh?

I guess their is no cure for that and if their was you'd cure Homosexuals ? NO? If it is bad to insult that then why the God Gene? The fact is Atheists need a big heaping helping of Humble Pie and I ain't talking hot and nasty (song by band humble pie)

Are we always wrong ?

Even on Religion we seem to always be the ones who are ignorant of our own Bible. Could Atheist have a gene called ARROGANCE? Who are THEY to decide what Science is or isn't?


I am begining to wonder, are they all that smart Or are these people making more stuff up?

I know Scientists have always been able to explain the complex making it easier to understand, but do we see that with Atheists explaining Science?

Nope. In fact they have taken it from the sublime

to the ridiculous.

- Con




[edit on 2-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Con - I am a scientist. I also believe in a creative force.

My belief is that part of the natural process of the universe is to create life where ever it possibly can.

I believe that evolution is that process.

I believe that when I die, eventually my energy will be returned to it's creator.

I believe that, possibly, my energy will be used in the creation of another life.

I believe that there is no separation between all that exists and the force that created it.

The knowledge that I am the master of my own existence, gives me extreme comfort and confidence in living my life.

I also know that my thoughts and actions will effect things around me. What I decide to do and how I effect other things is what characterises me. I am the most powerful thing in my existence

I want to ask you some questions:

Why did you polarise this debate into believers of a god and atheists?

Does evolution disprove the notion of a creator?

I ask atheists this:

Does the existence of a creator disprove the notion of evolution?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Con - I am a scientist. I also believe in a creative force.


ok



My belief is that part of the natural process of the universe is to create life where ever it possibly can.


ok



I believe that evolution is that process.


That would be your God and that would be your religion no?

Whether it is or isn't I do not believe we macro evolved because I haven't seen it and the evolutionist sites and people I met here have pretty much ruined any chance I ever will. Calling me a retard doesn't enlighten me,, it just pisses me off and makes me want to meet the person, in person and suggest he say it again.

He may be a scientist but he will be one ugly looking scientist and it will be him that learns about Science, the science of cause and effect.



I believe that when I die, eventually my energy will be returned to it's creator.


You are a scientist?



I believe that, possibly, my energy will be used in the creation of another life.


Ok



I believe that there is no separation between all that exists and the force that created it.


So do I



The knowledge that I am the master of my own existence, gives me extreme comfort and confidence in living my life.



Tell that to the Car Jacker that believes your existence is to provide him with a car and takes you and your mastery of your life, out of this life.
I am sure you have a theory on that too but the fact still remains



I also know that my thoughts and actions will effect things around me. What I decide to do and how I effect other things is what characterises me. I am the most powerful thing in my existence


lol yeah there ya go and what charactersizes you is the epitaph after the car jacker incident or what ever the effect others have on us as you say. This is begining to sound very familiar but,, go on.



I want to ask you some questions:

Why did you polarise this debate into believers of a god and atheists?


Oh I haven't,, some exceptions to the rule notwithstanding the polarization thing goes all the way up the ladder in the science of evolution just as my example of Tyson illustrates and that is one of the many out there that talk JUST like THAT.



Does evolution disprove the notion of a creator?


It does and a creator is intelligent, intelligence is not allowed in science. A creator is not allowed in science, a God is not allowed in science and as they will tell you the evidence of one is not allowed in science. The very idea that we are anything more then a cosmic coincedence is all I am to think I am and any thing else is just plane stupid, that the bible is a book of fairytales and anyone who buys that stuff is dumb.

all I got to say is I am glad I am dumb enough

to believe it.

- Con



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
From this link that Horza posted earlier, props to him/her (?):


Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

1. Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
2. Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
3. Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
4. Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
5. Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
6. Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.


This is how creationists seem to view things, as far as I can tell:

6. Theory: God created mankind, and everything else.
But, but,
1. Observation: ?
2. Hypothesis: ?
3. Test: ?
4. Publication: ?
5. Verification: ?
(6). ?!
Prediction: ??

IMHO, creationism could be, at most, a hypothesis, but certainly not a scientific theory. If it wants to be included in the field of science, then it has got to play by scientific rules, not its own.


[edit on 2/7/08 by Anomander]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomander
From this link that Horza posted earlier, props to him/her (?):


Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

1. Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
2. Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
3. Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
4. Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
5. Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
6. Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.


This is how creationists seem to view things, as far as I can tell:

6. Theory: God created mankind, and everything else.
But, but,
1. Observation: ?
2. Hypothesis: ?
3. Test: ?
4. Publication: ?
5. Verification: ?
(6). ?!
Prediction: ??

IMHO, creationism could be, at most, a hypothesis, but certainly not a scientific theory. If it wants to be included in the field of science, then it has got to play by scientific rules, not its own.




Oh you mean we get to manufacture evidence, lie, keep certain political party people out of the loop, learn new alibi's excuses and creative verbal gymnastics like "fundie" and flat earther.

You think evolutionists play by Sciences rules??

No way,, they never have and they never will and I don't trust them as far as I can throw em. they have all the credibility of a used car sales man

Here is a piece on the SM I think holds many truths

The Theory of Evolution is believed by many to be "true" - especially by most of today’s scientists. Many others, even among evolutionists, believe in the "truth" of God or in an original designer. Still others believe in the “truth” of original creation where the basic ideas of evolution are completely excluded. But how, exactly, do different people come to their own personal understanding of what is true and was is not?
www.detectingdesign.com...


To read the rest
www.detectingdesign.com...

- Con


[edit on 2-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Whether it is or isn't I do not believe we macro evolved because I haven't seen it and the evolutionist sites and people I met here have pretty much ruined any chance I ever will. Calling me a retard doesn't enlighten me,, it just pisses me off and makes me want to meet the person, in person and suggest he say it again.

He may be a scientist but he will be one ugly looking scientist and it will be him that learns about Science, the science of cause and effect.





OK, I think you are putting words in Horza's mouth here. Unless I am myopically bypassing something in one of his threads, I don't believe he ever called you a name.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by round_eyed_dog

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Whether it is or isn't I do not believe we macro evolved because I haven't seen it and the evolutionist sites and people I met here have pretty much ruined any chance I ever will. Calling me a retard doesn't enlighten me,, it just pisses me off and makes me want to meet the person, in person and suggest he say it again.

He may be a scientist but he will be one ugly looking scientist and it will be him that learns about Science, the science of cause and effect.




OK, I think you are putting words in Horza's mouth here. Unless I am myopically bypassing something in one of his threads, I don't believe he ever called you a name.


Yes he hardly seems the type to be so ignorant.

My apologies,, I should have been more specific but the name and who it was that called me that (also claimed to be a scientist) was mentioned in the post horza was responding to.


- Con





[edit on 2-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I invite everyone to read this fully, sit back and think about it.
This is an extraordinary little creature that has successfully adapted to its environment.

www.livescience.com...

Evolution just seems logical.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
Entropy rules our universe, it is obvious everywhere, the slow decay of everything, evolution would break this rule if it were true


Originally posted by malcr
Entropy and evolution are different. Entropy is an assumption based on observation of closed systems. I like many others believe the theory of entropy is flawed. wherever you find life entropy is reversed. This is also an observation which is conveniently ignored.

Entropy is not flawed. Energy can be accumulated and temporarily stored. Temporary, can even be billions of years, as in the heat in the earth's core.
All biological energy comes from metabolic processes fueled directly or indirectly, ultimately by the sun. There is no way to exclude the sun from the life energy system and the sun will eventually die.
The 3 laws of thermodynamics, aka the Carnot Cycle, were discovered by studying steam engines, decades before galaxies were even discovered, and still apply as fundamental principles of astrophysics even though matter and energy were found to be interchangeable.
Even Bibleologists ought to be impressed with with that, if they didn't require total contempt for logic.


sty

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
no positive mutations? are you joking?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I am not going to call you names. I am merely going to impart my observation of your behavior as I interpret it.

It would seem you have a paradigm with no repeatable evidence to back it up. Given that, you seem to behave belligerently, grandiosely, and with a mind that will not open to any other paradigm, perhaps to compensate for your lacks.

I will offer you The Terra Papers to consider. Here are my predictions based on my observations of your behavior:

1. You will not read in detail all of the work (and likely not read all the way through);

2. You will declare it science fiction;

3. You will dismiss anything I might say regarding the Papers.

Here's the link to the thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are brave enough to read them in detail, all the way through, I would love to hear your thoughts.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


I am not going to call you names. I am merely going to impart my observation of your behavior as I interpret it.

It would seem you have a paradigm with no repeatable evidence to back it up. Given that, you seem to behave belligerently, grandiosely, and with a mind that will not open to any other paradigm, perhaps to compensate for your lacks.

I will offer you The Terra Papers to consider. Here are my predictions based on my observations of your behavior:

1. You will not read in detail all of the work (and likely not read all the way through);

2. You will declare the work science fiction;

3. You will dismiss anything I might say regarding the Papers.

Here's the link to the thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are brave enough to read them in detail, all the way through, I would love to hear your thoughts.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

A scientific theory is this:

Definitions



I was obviously referring to a scientific theory in my post. I thought it was rather obvious that that was the case. Just put the word scientific in front of the word theory in my post and you have nothing more to nit pick.


Why did you ignore these very real, correct and valid definitions of the phrase "scientific theory"?

I didn't ignore them, my assertions are still correct based on that definition. In fact. I pretty much paraphrased parts of this definition in my reiteration.


Why do you purposefully use "theory" out of context when it comes to evolution?

It is you who was using the word out of context. You thought that gravity was a theory. Evolution is a theory. Whether it is scientific or not, it is still a theory.


Creationism and I.D. are theories because they cannot be tested scientifically. They are faith based philosophies.

The current SCIENTIFIC theory of MACRO-evolution cannot be tested scientifically because of the predicament of mass amounts of time constraints. And lack of empirical evidence from time superseded from humans.

Most theories can be tested scientifically; if they are, and yield evidence, they become scientific theories. To make a poor analogy . . . If I set out with a scientific experiment to prove that a rhombus is a square and it turns out the rhombus (of course) is not a square. I now have a scientific theory that rhombuses are not squares. Your fault lies with the assumption that science can not set out to disprove impossibilities.

You already inadvertently said that science is a faith based system in your first post i replied to. You’re now contradicting yourself.


You are just being semantic here.

You are the one that had the nerve to say that my post was inaccurate for not superfluously putting the word SCIENTIFIC before the word theory.

Gravity is not a SCIENTIFIC theory. It is the word attributed to the phenomenon which causes all forms of mass to be attracted to each other. The means by which this phenomenon operates are SCIENTIFICALLY theoretical.

There are many species; this is also not a SCIENTIFIC theory. Species is a word used for animals which are so different they cannot procreate together. The explanations for why we have different species are SCIENTIFICALLY theoretical.

Understand now???


Environmental adaptation is one of the determining factors in evolution.

That means absolutely nothing. That’s like saying that my invisible pet dragon has more grounds for existence, simply because he drinks kool-aid and kool-aid exists . . . are you serious? Since this illogical thinking is the basis for the rest of your succeeding points. There’s really not much point for me to address them because they are unsound.



In 1859 the English naturalist Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. The book contained two major arguments:
First, Darwin presented a wealth of evidence of evolution. He said that all living things on earth today are the descendants — with modifications — of earlier species.


He presented a wealth of evidence for environmental adaptation. And he did not say that all things on earth MACRO-evolved. He proposed this because of his findings concerning E.A.


Second, he proposed a mechanism — natural selection — to explain how evolution takes place.

He discovered the mechanism and then contrived a theory based on it. You have it backwards. The way you have it is ground-and-consequent. The way it happened is cause and effect.


Evolution involves two interrelated phenomena:

Incorrect, macro-evolution (speciation) is not directly observable; therefore it is not a phenomenon.


Please explain how a species adapting genetically to their environment is not evolution?

It’s not macro-evolution, its micro evolution. Define your terms. After you do that, explain how my invisible pet dragon could not exist; mind you! He drinks kool-aid and kool-aid exits!


And yes the different types of gravity are referred to as "the or a theory of gravity"

Thank you!


You see ... Scientific theory is a phrase that is used to describe:

an explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs.


My friend . . . I’ve already told you that macro-evolution is not a phenomenon because it is not directly observable. More and more you’re implying that MACRO-evolution is not scientific. My only true goal was to show you that gravity is not a theory, but you’ve managed to paint yourself into a corner quite nicely.


Not an opinion that has the possibility of being false.

Is that your opinion? Pun intended. Melatonin already consented that scientific theories can be false as well. The only difference is that science is applied.


Not a philosophy that is based on faith.

You put faith in science. So did Edison, as you so clearly illustrated in your first post.


Not an idea that has not been tested.

Of course it can’t be an untested idea, it’s scientific! But remember. If I scientifically test for the existence of my invisible dragon, I now have a scientific theory that addresses the existence of an invisible dragon . . .


We know that evolution occurs.

Once again, define your terms. Are we talking about micro or macro evolution? Because we know that micro occurs, not macro. To know implies knowledge; knowledge is the understanding of truth, through belief.


And I play cricket.

You should probably stick to that.


We have established that gravity is referred to as a theory.

We have established that gravity is not a theory


Using the word theory in reference to the phenomena of evolution implies that evolution lacks validity.

We have established that evolution is not a phenomenon.


This would then imply that you think that there are question marks surrounding the validity of gravity.

Once again . . . we have established that gravity is not a theory. But I think that there are very big question marks surrounding the theories of how gravity operates.


Would you like to rephrase?

Not at all, would you?

[edit on 7/2/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join