Evolution Cannot be Proven

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although spank me vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure.

OK, so exactly when was the scientific method not used in respect to evolution? Genetics, palaentology, evolutionary biology all use the scientific method, or else they would have been laughed out of the scientific community. And all of these fields support evolution. What does not support evolution? Ancient 'Holy' texts, which have been translated and transcribed more times than I've wiped my gluteus maximus, and I've been around since Kennedy! Again, you said it best...

look up "ignorant"... its got your picture beside it.

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

Originally posted by kegs

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

Originally posted by kegs
I love it when they call it "just a theory"


A theory is the highest level anything can achieve in science.

All you are doing by saying "it's a theory" is pointing out to everyone you've never once opened a dictionary in your life.

Your right. I'm giving far to much weight to your argument by calling it a theory.

Get out your dictionary there kegs and friends and tell me what it says under "scientific method."

Must be Observable and Repeatable.....two things your unproven postulate can't do.

So you are just like many, many others that don't even have the first idea what they're talking about. Here's your chocolate medal.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by kegs]

That's all you got kid?
Come on your the one who just got spanked *(see above).

You can't even use a reference book. (scientific method doesn't say "observable and repeatable" :lol

Heh. If you really want to salvage anything from this, you picked the wrong target.

reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople


You seem to think that evolution is not observable or repeatable, which is an incredibly disingenuous thing to say as, I posted examples of observed speciation events in my other post. The documented speciation events combined with the magic of genetics shows us that evolution does occur.

Beneficial mutations have also been observed, once again proving the theory of evolution. All your doing is just denying what has been known now for over a hundred years, you simpleton.

Originally posted by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople
That's all you got kid?
Come on your the one who just got spanked *(see above).

You can't even use a reference book. (scientific method doesn't say "observable and repeatable" :lol

Hey.

Remember me? The one who showed you misquoting a popular science book and showing your total ignorance of the subject you're trying (and failing) to debate?

Don't tiptoe around that. Respond to my post, or everyone will see that you're as cowardly as you are misinformed.

IS EVOLUTION A FACT?
A great deal of publicity has focused on this important question. It is relevant to the fossil record because the assumption of an evolutionary sequence remains the primary means of dating rock layers. We must define the terms at the outset. Gould gives an excellent definition: "Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly confirmed it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Gould, Stephen J. , Evolution as a Fact and Theory, p.119). Evolution, in the origins debate, is simply molecules to man transformation. Anything less requires a creation act of some kind. Let’s leave aside the tremendous challenges that cosmic evolution faces in explaining a universe that is fine-tuned for life. Suffice it to say that the field of cosmology has provided a ream of articles over the last few years focusing on the evidence of intelligent design from the universe. Let’s also leave aside the complete failure of chemical evolution and organic evolution scenarios (theories of how the building blocks of life evolved and how life came from non-life--abiogenesis). Suffice it to say that the spontaneous generation of specified complexity faces huge probability problems in the area of information theory. Instead we will focus on biological evolution. A number of obstacles for macroevolution have been identified in recent years. The work that must be done for evolution theory to surmount these formidable hurdles alone should cause it to fail the test as a scientific fact.

Source/More

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by Gemwolf]

So you have the abilty to copy and paste BS

Well done

It's still BS.

reply to post by kegs


And you have the lack or ability to think and reason.

You could not even find the definition of Scientific Method ...

or are you just outright lying.

Which is it?

You have not addressed the facts within the post which shows your ineptitude of the subject matter.

reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople


And the source of this is???? I also think that this qualifies as blatant plagerism without doing so. Mods, can I get a ruling on this one?

reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople


You don't even have the slightest idea what you posted. You've thrown it out there hoping it's some kind of cannonball that'll hit us in the stomach and send us reeling.

Unfortunately it's your common or garden pseudo science bs from people that get their degrees from Universities that double as trailer homes.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople

 

And the source of this is???? I also think that this qualifies as blatant plagerism without doing so. Mods, can I get a ruling on this one?

The ripped off source is here:
www.genesispark.org...

reply to post by BUYthepeopleFOREthepeople


Two things:

1. It was me that used the dictionary definition for 'scientific method' not kegs.

2. It is apparent that you went to the Dan Ackroyd school of debate, i.e. "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

Bottom line, can the Theory of Evolution be proven- no. Can it be disproven at this time- no. It is the best model out today that can explain the data observed in nature. And unlike you, if the data pointed in another direction, and another viable theory could explain it, the scientific community would drop evolution like a hot potato. Let's face facts, you are against evolution for one of two reasons; either you disbelieve because your 'Holy' book contradicts it, or because your ego won't let you accept being a close relative of apes. Both are emotional rationales, not scientific. Twisting the science is not going to disprove the theory. You got a better one with as much or more data supporting it, well then, let's hear it spanky, otherwise stop spewing hateful arguements and move along.

This is the "University" Kent Hovind got his "degree" from btw





[edit on 26-9-2008 by kegs]

Right well lets begin tearing apart this steaming pile.

IS EVOLUTION A FACT?
It is relevant to the fossil record because the assumption of an evolutionary sequence remains the primary means of dating rock layers.

No, geology uses many types of isotope dating among others.

Evolution, in the origins debate, is simply molecules to man transformation.

Again, you're mixing evolution and abiogenesis

Let’s leave aside the tremendous challenges that cosmic evolution faces in explaining a universe that is fine-tuned for life.

It isn't. The universe is incredibly devoid of life.

Suffice it to say that the field of cosmology has provided a ream of articles over the last few years focusing on the evidence of intelligent design from the universe.

Show me.

Let’s also leave aside the complete failure of chemical evolution and organic evolution scenarios (theories of how the building blocks of life evolved and how life came from non-life--abiogenesis).

still abiogenesis.

Suffice it to say that the spontaneous generation of specified complexity faces huge probability problems in the area of information theory.

It's good then that the first life forms would be ludicrously simple

The work that must be done for evolution theory to surmount these formidable hurdles alone should cause it to fail the test as a scientific fact.

Yet it hasn't, it's been observed in the lab and in the field.

The genetic challenge: Where are the beneficial mutations that are adding new information to become the basis for an evolutionary novelty?

Man alive, this is such garbage! Most mutations are neutral, and the majority of the rest are deleterious, but not all..

Since by anyone’s estimation most mutations are not beneficial

WRONG

Where did you get this trash? This is toilet paper material.


[edit on 9/26/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Phage


And that site doesn't even bother to site it's source! More theist rhetoric that twists science to make it say what it wants it to.

Originally posted by kegs
This is the University Kent Hovind got his "degree" from btw

Is it accredited?

I took Creation-Evolution controversy class at Liberty University. Yes I was a christian at that time. Darn, I wish I still have the book.

One of the biggest topics in that class was the left-handed and right-handed molecules and how evolution cannot explain left-handed molecules.

I haven't seen any creationists talk about this (maybe I have missed it or have forgotten about it.)

Originally posted by Good Wolf
This is toilet paper material.

I wouldn't even use it for that! It would probably give you a rash!

Dupe.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Phage

 

And that site doesn't even bother to site it's source! More theist rhetoric that twists science to make it say what it wants it to.

Sure it does!

(From a private correspondence, used with permission, 1999.)

Apart from that, does the original source of that...stuff, really matter?


[edit on 26-9-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
One of the biggest topics in that class was the left-handed and right-handed molecules and how evolution cannot explain left-handed molecules.

This is a new one on me! What the blue hell are left-handed and right-handed molecules and what the blue hell do they have to do with evolution????

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Let’s leave aside the tremendous challenges that cosmic evolution faces in explaining a universe that is fine-tuned for life.

It isn't. The universe is incredibly devoid of life.

Hey, we don't know that. The universe could be full of life for all we know.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by Deaf Alien]