Question for Evolutionist's

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by MamaJ

 

That's yet another logical fallacy. Hinging an argument based on the 'fact' that science uses hypothesis and theories.

A hypothesis does not become a theory without a lot of facts to support it. Evolution itself, as with all theories, will probably never be listed as a 'fact', but it doesn't make their conclusions any less valid because they have many 'facts' to support them. Any rules derived from a theory are described as laws.

If you wish to follow such an argument, all I can tell you is that you'd better buy a ton of velcro for yourself and any possessions you care about. Gravity is only a theory after all.

Suit yourself.....if you want to argue and have the blind lead the blind then go to the mirror or someone else...

You say a hypothesis does not become a theory until a lot of "facts" support it. Whose facts? Mine or yours?

In my opinion there is no argument that can be had that will lead to a Truth in this regard. There is no PROOF.

edit on 15-9-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

Also....would you like for me to tell you what you better do if you follow such an argument as you did with me? I can.

edit on 15-9-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

I think I need an explanation here. You ask "Whose facts? Mine or yours?" Facts are facts. There is no possessive to be derived on the term. If it's a fact, then it is a fact period...that's the whole point of the term.

Do these arguments really have to bandy words in this manner? If people want to pick on the concept of the term 'theory' then you cannot ask such a question as 'Whose facts?'

Lastly, I advised on the velcro simply as a dramatic example that all we have are theories using one that is so ingrained in our existance that we don't even think about it much - Gravity. I apologize for forgetting that you might take such a statement literally since we have evidence throughout this entire thread of such literary misinterpretation.

Originally posted by Partisanity
reply to post by MamaJ

 

The statement I presented was completely true. Science and religion will never peacefully coexist. I don't see how that's "harsh" or in need of some finger-wagging. Unless you're defending the blatant blasphemy in this thread and gluing my "attacks against it" it to "anti-religion", in which case I would reconsider which of us is being "biased".

edit on 15-9-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)

It's not uncommon for the blasphemously religious to pretend that everyone has to prove "their points", yet whenever they are asked for proof they just say "YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG!" and then present a throng of pretentious, "way-out-there" walk-arounds to support the conclusion that they have been adhering to since they were children.

I am for peace and love that is what I defend......and if anyone is finger waving it is not me. I was just saying in order to get along and have peace then ...... words to others are important in doing so.

I think I need an explanation here. You ask "Whose facts? Mine or yours?" Facts are facts. There is no possessive to be derived on the term. If it's a fact, then it is a fact period...that's the whole point of the term. Do these arguments really have to bandy words in this manner? If people want to pick on the concept of the term 'theory' then you cannot ask such a question as 'Whose facts?' Lastly, I advised on the velcro simply as a dramatic example that all we have are theories using one that is so ingrained in our existance that we don't even think about it much - Gravity. I apologize for forgetting that you might take such a statement literally since we have evidence throughout this entire thread of such literary misinterpretation.

reply to post by Dashdragon


In my opinion a fact is based off either an experience or an observation. This is where a theory becomes a fact. If we base some facts on an experience or an observation then said "fact" may not be a "fact" to another observer and for this reason scientists find themselves arguing over observations.

Either way..... on this subject matter....I really find myself not caring either way. Who is right and who is wrong? It is an argument that goes in a circle and the fact to me is none are 100% correct in their facts.

You know....I have a degree in Geography with minor in Earth Science and Biology. I was raised Catholic up to confirmation and attended church through most of high school. I have studied both religion and science searching for answers.

In the end science has answered almost every question I have had where religion just leads me to more questions and frowns when I ask "why" or "how".

I once asked 3 individuals in the same room who all follow different forms of Christianity, "how do I get to heaven". One told me that If I believe Christ died for my sins I was golden. The 2nd stated that if I believed Christ died for my sins and I was baptized I would go to heave...the 3rd stated that if I believed Christ died for my sins and I was baptized at an age where I knew right from wrong I would go to heaven. I then looked at the other two and said I guess Ill see you in hell. They were so upset that 3 people under the same branch of religion could have 3 different answers for the simplest goal of religion....to get to heaven. I watched as they argued....and finished my statement with "this is why we have wars over this #".

Religion is fantasy....it helps people in many ways...in the same way it does for me to read a book or play a video game.

And even if God did exist...who says you couldn't have evolution with it. Either way...there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs on some scale.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


I'm sure you know this is a loaded question, as there are many examples of animals that seem to be in transitional states between Genus....The Platypus is probably one of the more famous examples of an animal that is seemingly stuck between two genus's.....A place where it seemingly feels quite comfortable in genetically. None the less since actual transition from one Genus to the next is an extraordinarily long process of small changes, all you will find is such transitional animals....Finding something like this is like asking to point out the moment that someone becomes old. It's a process that develops over time. None the less, finding Macroevolution in life forms that are a bit simpler, and quicker to reproduce has indeed been observed as in the examples below.

From evolutionlist.blogspot.com...

MACROEVOLUTION ABOVE THE LEVEL OF SPECIES

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as Chlorella vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69

 

So there's nothing actually observable? We have to just believe that one fossil became another without seeing it happen? I know its supposed to take "millions and millions of years" but if that's the case wouldn't we see animals even today evolving and becoming a knew kind? How come we never see this? I think it takes alot of faith to believe one animal genus became another with no one ever seeing it happen.

How do you know its not happening right now? Evolution is not like in the movies, it takes time, lots of time. The best 'observable' evolution that you are going to be able to see will be with viruses and bacteria, ie: H1N1 and all its derivatives.

The proof you ask for is absurd. Evolution does not take place overnight but rather through a long and arduous path of restructures in its DNA to help the specie adapt and survive. This progression can therefore be minimal or intensely complex. The most notable examples have already been provided to you by other members. More complex evolutionary changes require the use of the Fossil record. (Which as you have more or less stated, doesn’t prove a thing).

Unlike what many creationist may think, science does not hold evolution as a perfect and impeccable process. As a matter of fact, it is far from it! I’m sure during the course of our planet existence; millions of species have seized to exist by either taking the wrong turn in their evolution or their inability to keep up with the stimulus of a quickly changing environment or necessity. However, it is precisely the absence of perfection that makes evolution so amazing. Look at it this way, after all the downfalls and dead ends many species have encountered, some how it still managed to keep life away from total extinction.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


Thanks for that link. That should keep me busy for hours!

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by josh2009s

 

Like i said if this is true:

The change takes place over a long amount of time in slight increments.

Then why do we not see plants with growing legs???

It takes long amount of time right? well the world's been around milions of years according to the evolutionist, so we would atleast see this process taking place over time, yet not one plant has acquired intelligence or limbs.

Lets say for example that evolution is correct. What makes you think that if evolution is correct that a tree would ever grow legs?

You reject transitional fossils? Whats wrong with those? Those are obvious evidence. Its like saying "well we have Mr. 'RevelationGeneration's' skeleton here but well he never existed I mean come on this is just a skeleton we don't see him running around here so therefore he never existed, and this skeleton of his is just speculation.

I mean of course! God put all of these fossils in the ground when he created the earth just to confuse us and make us believe that there might be something called evolution! Thats it!

I had an argument with a Creationist one time. He said that he believed in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Well of course he would have to have it this way, because evidence for micro evolution is irrefutable.

But, like I told him. macro evolution is cause by micro evolution. Evolution is evolution. Period.

If small changes are occurring then there you go bang there is your proof. If God Made things the way they are then Why do we observe changes? We do actually observe real evolution, real changes.

Evolution is evolution even If we cannot see the macro changes (because our lifespans are too short) we do see micro evolution what more do you want?

Evolution is undeniable we observe it in the labs and in our environment it has been proven. The fact that you cannot observe one genus changing into another (because you don't live long enough) doesn't mean a damn thing and proves nothing to the contrary.

Evolution is evolution micro or macro there is no difference.

Is one species changing into another species good enough? If not then why not?

Here is PROVEN EVOLUTION.

Natural selection's fingerprint identified on fruit fly evolution Researchers at the University of Rochester have produced compelling evidence of how the hand of natural selection caused one species of fruit fly to split into two more than 2 million years ago.
The study, appearing in today's issue of Nature, answers one of evolutionary biologists' most basic questions--how do species divide--by looking at the very DNA responsible for the division. Understanding why certain genes evolve the way they do during speciation can shed light on some of the least understood aspects of evolution.

"The study of speciation has a reputation for wild speculation because every time we find a curious genetic element, we suspect it of causing speciation," says Daven Presgraves, lead author on the study and postdoctoral fellow at the University.

"We know embarrassingly little about a core process in evolutionary biology, but now we've nailed down the exact sequence of a gene that we know was involved in keeping two species separated.

We can see that it was natural selection that made the gene the way it is."

The study breaks ground in two ways: First, it's the first time that a gene known to be involved in speciation has had its DNA fully revealed. Presgraves and colleagues found 20 regions that differed on the chromosomes of two species of fruit flies that were estimated to have diverged in evolution 2.5 million years ago--fairly recently in evolutionary terms.
He then needed to find a gene in one of those regions that was responsible for preventing successful reproduction between the two species. If the species could reproduce, then they could swap genes back and forth and thus would not be truly separate species.
Something would have to prevent the transfer of genes, and in the case of Presgraves' fruit flies, that something was the proclivity for hybrid larvae to die before maturing into adults.
He found his gene, called Nup 96, that always prevented a hybrid of the two species from living to reproduce, and he sequenced its DNA.

"We're seeing a gene responsible for speciation at the maximum possible resolution," says Presgraves. "It's as if we had a map and could once zoom in on a city, but now we've zoomed in on the exact address."

Link

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

you can contact the evolutionary scientist here personally if you wish to attempt to discredit their findings.
Contact: Jonathan Sherwood
[email protected]

University of Rochester



-Alien

Question for evolutionist's what?

It won't hurt to watch

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by MamaJ

 

That's yet another logical fallacy. Hinging an argument based on the 'fact' that science uses hypothesis and theories.

A hypothesis does not become a theory without a lot of facts to support it. Evolution itself, as with all theories, will probably never be listed as a 'fact', but it doesn't make their conclusions any less valid because they have many 'facts' to support them. Any rules derived from a theory are described as laws.

If you wish to follow such an argument, all I can tell you is that you'd better buy a ton of velcro for yourself and any possessions you care about. Gravity is only a theory after all.

Suit yourself.....if you want to argue and have the blind lead the blind then go to the mirror or someone else...

You say a hypothesis does not become a theory until a lot of "facts" support it. Whose facts? Mine or yours?

In my opinion there is no argument that can be had that will lead to a Truth in this regard. There is no PROOF.

edit on 15-9-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

Also....would you like for me to tell you what you better do if you follow such an argument as you did with me? I can.

edit on 15-9-2011 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)

The problem is you can not agree on what a fact is and by your definition of fact -- I would say you have no facts

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


Don't confuse religion with creation or spirituality. Religion is man made and Religulous. Origins of Life have not been successfully explained by man either with the story of creation in the bible or the story of evolution in the book of science. What I'm glad about is that the journey for truth today is a wide open forum to be discussed openly in public on the internet and nobody is being burned at the stake for their opinions. Thank God (woops)

I think it’s clear what needs to done

Tell the creationists the theory of evolution has been upgraded to the law of evolution

And to show even handedness tell them the bible has been upgraded from fairytale to myth

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Do you have issues with other `phenomenon` which take place on geological time scales ?

The formation of oceans, mountains etc.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Youji69

 

perhaps these changes are happening right in front of our eyes, but since they are happening so slowly over thousands or even millions of years

So how cant that be the case if the animal is dead before it ever get's time to "evolve"???

Individual animals dont evolve... they pass off certain genetic traits and mutations to their children... are you sure you understand the theory of evolution properly?

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
Exactly! If we evolved from apes or fish, why are there still fish and apes and even better if it took millions of years to happen...obviously the millions of years have already passed so we would still be seeing evolution take place. So revelation the answer your lookin for is no there is no such thing as evolution.

You realize there are different types of fish and apes, right? Like, Chimpanzees and Gorillas are both apes. Trout and Bass are both fish. If one species of fish or ape evolved into something different, doesn't mean the rest would just disappear.

reply to post by MamaJ


Please please please these conversations would be so much smoother, but so much less entertaining, if you people actually understood the scientific principles you are trying to use.

And this is why creationists fail so badly and resort to because I say so because they don't even have a basic grasp of terminology.

A fact, is an object, event, etc that can be oberved by anyone. Fact is I was at a baseball game last night. Can I prove it? Yes. Does it change the world? not really.

A SCIENTIFIC fact has been studied, blind studied, modeled, and scrutinized and vetted by peers who come to a consensus. And considering no scientist will put a stamp on something unless they approve, it is not easy to come to an acceptable consensus.

A helium balloon goes against gravity. Is it magical? Is its God's balloon? No. Some scientists got together, studied helium, realized it wasnt' air, that it was lighter then air, that it makes your voice sound really funny for a moment, and they all agreed it was a cool element.

So are you gonna suddenly tell me that helium isn't a fact because you decide that God just likes balloons because that is the fact you prefer? Does he prefer red, green, or blue?

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

if you watch this whole video it makes some good points near the end

edit on 14-9-2011 by UniverSoul because: (no reason given)

Its too bad that people of the church are so ignorant. The old testament was written for a lawless group of people where idol worship and child sacrifice was considered quite normal and acceptable behavior. The laws were strict to ensure obedience. With obedience came prosperity. By the time Jesus came the moral code was more imbedded into humanity and therefore Jesus changed the laws. Saying that the old laws were fulfilled through him and the new laws were guided by love and the holly spirit not man. But you do have to read the whole bible with an open mind and the ability to accept it as truth. Unfortunately this man is speaking for Satan and he knows it. Also unfortunate is that many of you will accept his truth without ever reading with an open mind for yourself. However the faith of Science is so much easier for you to believe for some reason.

reply to post by MamaJ

Thankyou for that reply. It sounds like you have an open mind. That is all we need to find out the truth. Or it to find us. It will find us if we keep looking and remain open.

I too played telephone in school as a kid and know that mans knowledge is good for bridge building and open pit mining but not so good for deep questions like the origins of life.

Don't depend too much on him for that.

But rather depend on your intuition. Compare stories to your own reason and intuition. As a woman ( the engine of creation) you are better equipped for that than men are.