Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Carbon dating is not observable in a lab either, nor are estimates about the age of the Earth and the universe

More creationist nonsense.

Carbon Dating IS observable in the lab, which you would know if you ever bothered to check the facts.

But anyway -
what is this cretinist nonsense about being "repeated in a lab"?

It's silly nonsense.

Can we replicate a volcano in a lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe in volcanoes.

Can we replicate the moon's orbit in a lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe the moon orbits the earth.

Can we replicate a tsunami in the lab?
No.
So vcwxvwligen does not believe in tsunamis.

This is such a stupid argument, but creationists still make it, decades after it has been disproved.

That's the problem with creationists - they are incapable of learning.


Kapyong

Silly nonsense?

Yes all those things can be replicated in a lab, heck I could replicate them out in my shed. LMAO

Gday,

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You can't prove that a mummy is 3,000 years old unless you sit there and watch it for 3,000 years. Carbon dating is only "established" by people who depend on it.

Wrong again.
Which vcwxvwligen would know if he didn't refuse to study the facts.

Carbon Dating HAS been conclusively shown to be accurate by many tests of actual known age objects.

Of course, creationists have to deny this fact.


Kapyong

reply to post by Kapyong


Kapyong, what do you think about this view:

What if intention influences the evolving of the body/plant. For example: If the animal/plant is often in a problematic situation, could it be that the will/intention of the creature forms its body to overcome the problem over the generations.

Who/what else could know what the problem is and what to want to solve it?

And since intention has to do with consiousness and that has a connection to the higher self (that what people call god...and which we are al part of) both evolution theory and religion are right but incomplete or/and manipulated.

Keep in mind that quantum phisics showed us that consiousness can manipulate/create matter.
And it is alsow known (but not widely accepted) that healing can occur just by sending some intention.
Some monks can materialise things in their hands like apples and such.
And Cleve Backster showed us that every living thing is connected to the consiousness network, with over 40 years of his research.
So why couldn’t it work on the body of less conscious beings such as plants and animals but somewhat slower?
I am not saying that this would be the absolute way things went, it would be unlikely that its just one way, but I think its part of it

Originally posted by peaceonearth
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

While one of the stronger arguments against evolution, it is faulty. While the Laws of Thermodynamics are laws they work in a closed system, and the Earth is an open system constantly recieving energy from the sun. Our primative understaning of the nature of the BIG universe and given that we can only observe traces of it leads us to a big question mark and any good scientist wants to theorize that mystery through reason.

I read a post saying how 'evolutionists' are on the attack of creationist and God. This is backwards, it is us the evolutionist who are trying to show the reasoning and evidence behind evolution while being attacked by weak arguments from the extreme creationist side.

I can only pray those who choose to ignore the facts and refuse to open their eyes will have to answer to God one day. I promise you that the God almighty is a god of reason and not a jealous dictator who wants his/her followers to believe in a fairy tale.

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
www.talkorigins.org... - this isn't a scientific website. That's like me sending you to a creationist website.

Just like I said -
B.A.C. REFUSES point blank to study the facts.

Talk Origins is an excellent scientific site dedicated to showing the evidence for evolution.

So naturally, B.A.C. rejects the entire site with a silly false comment.
Anything to AVOID the facts.

Well done B.A.C., you have made it clear to everyone that you refuse to learn about evolution. A classic creationist.


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You can't prove that a mummy is 3,000 years old unless you sit there and watch it for 3,000 years. Carbon dating is only "established" by people who depend on it.

Wrong again.
Which vcwxvwligen would know if he didn't refuse to study the facts.

Carbon Dating HAS been conclusively shown to be accurate by many tests of actual known age objects.

Of course, creationists have to deny this fact.


Kapyong

You've really done your homework. Ever hear of the Magnetosphere? Or changes in Cosmic Ray intensity?

They both effect the results and accuracy of RCD.

reply to post by Kapyong


Who's avoiding facts here? Me or you? You haven't answered anything. You're like the energizer bunny....

Gday,

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by jfj123

 

Then how do you explain that evolution is FACT back up by incredible amounts of science ?

Yes ... there's that s-word again ...

What S-word?

Originally posted by visible_villain
Maybe the best way to answer that is to point out what others, much smarter than I am, have already said

WTF d00d?

You quote some people critical of STATISTICS as if that means something about evolution ?
What? What is your point?

This is another classic creationist tactic - quote some people who say something vague that can be twisted to mean something that supports your beliefs.


Kapyong

reply to post by Kapyong


Why do you keep bringing up posts from pages ago, they have already been argued.

Let's address today's posts.

You almost seem desperate.

gday,

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Sorry Andre18, you're only partially right. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, which is the basis for the idea of random evolution IS a theory but is NOT a fact. Gravity is a fact. That's why it's called the Law of Gravity. Einstein's theory of relativity is still called a Theory even after scientific experiments have validated it.

Another ignorant creationist.
Theories do NOT become Laws when they are proven.
This just another false claim only made by people who have never studied the facts.


THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The evidence on transitional fossils is slim at best, definitely not conclusive.

How would you know?
You refuse to even look at the evidence.


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Freaky
Yes, and so Evolution will always be a theory, because unless someone makes a time machine, we'll never know the answers to those questions.

False.
Another person who can't even grasp what the word "theory" means.


Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The evidence on transitional fossils is slim at best, definitely not conclusive.

How would you know?
You refuse to even look at the evidence.


Kapyong

I've looked at the evidence, and you can't name 51, let alone thousands.

You're ignorance.

deny ignorance.

Gday,

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I actually agree with you that the science of genetics is not absolute and therefore genetics can't be used to declare evolution to be a FACT. Theory yes, but a theory full of holes, mysteries and inconsistencies.

Evolution is a fact.
It is observed.
And the theory of evolution explains those facts.

You still haven't even got to the most basic stage of even understanding what the WORDS mean !


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
By the way, I just want to make it clear, that even though I'm arguing against evolution, I'm NOT a creationist and never have been. I have no problem with evolution being put forward as a working theory as long as both the general public and the experts are open-minded enough to recognize it's flaws and continue to search for a better theory. Unfortunately, evolution is being taught to the average person as if it's an unassailable and established fact and that simply is not valid.

It IS an established fact.
But feel free to keep denying it if it makes you feel better, as long as you don't mind looking completely foolish.


Kapyong

Why isn't anyone taking any shots at my opinion?

Being a strong beliver in evolution I should be an easy target. Someone enlighten me, why is evolution such a hated theory?

Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Thousands of examples of Transitional Fossils is there? And you actually claim to have done research on this, and say I haven't?

Correct.
All fossils are transitional (essentially.)
There are VAST numbers of transitional fossils.

You deny they exist,
AND
you refuse to even LOOK at the evidence.

Incredibly, you actually seem to think that your ignorance and refusal to even LOOK proves they don't exist.

Amazing.


Kapyong

So here we are bickering back and forth who is and isn't a creationist. You know that is really not the topic at hand.

There are in fact gaps in evolution. Some of these gaps span hundreds of millions of years.

I mentioned the first one in a previous post. We have no idea how life spontaneously came into being. Evolution can't explain this one, because evolution is not involved at that level. How does an amino acid combine with others to form a protein?

How do these proteins suddenly learn how to combine to form RNA? Again, natural selection can't explain it because what selection process is there with identical strings of protein? What would make RNA special, unique, and superior?

The current theory of life on earth is that RNA based life was here about a billion years before DNA based life. What happened? How did DNA come into being? Why did it replace simple RNA based forms?

Leaving all that aside and labeling it organic chemistry and not biology, there are other bigger problems as we go on.

Where are the transitional forms between bacteria and plant life?

How about between plant and animals? There is no transitional lifeform that is both plant and animal or that shows the transition. Plants dominated for over a billion years, then suddenly tiny animals show up.

There is a gap between vertibrate and invertibrates.

There is another one between exoskelleton and indoskelleton. There is no animal who has both an indo and exo skelletal structure. And no scales and body armor are not the same as an exoskelleton. Totally different purpose and totally different in composition.

As I pointed out there are at least 3 different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. There is no evolutionary path between them. So, we have to assume that they developed independently. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with the idea that insects and higher organisms have common ancestry. Insects have a different body symmetry, different biochemistry, and they have different eyes. It is a problem that evolution has not been able to address. Personally, I don't think that insects are originally indiginous to earth. That is another matter though.

These are just a few of the things that we don't know.

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.

Gravitational Theory explains the LAW of Gravity.

Electromagnetic Theory explains the many LAWS of electricity.

Germ Theory doesn't explain a LAW because it depends on evolution theory.

Evolution Theory doesn't explain a LAW because there is no LAWS to explain.

Again, go do your research before you accuse others of having not done theirs.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Thousands of examples of Transitional Fossils is there? And you actually claim to have done research on this, and say I haven't?

Correct.
All fossils are transitional (essentially.)
There are VAST numbers of transitional fossils.

You deny they exist,
AND
you refuse to even LOOK at the evidence.

Incredibly, you actually seem to think that your ignorance and refusal to even LOOK proves they don't exist.

Amazing.


Kapyong

I HAVE looked at the evidence, and I'm telling you there are no more than 50 possible examples.

Go do the research.

Then come back and list the thousands you claim have been found.

Or just keep spouting off with nothing to back yourself up.