Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

And? A Ph.D. can't be wrong? Guess this guy must be lying...

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science.

-- Ronald H. Matson, Ph.D., Interim Dean & Professor of Biology, Kennesaw State University, here

Want to keep trotting out links? I'm pretty sure I can find at least one that says you're wrong for every one that says you're right.

Which clearly shows that your way isn't the ONLY way
Now, get on with your life and get over it.
I did NOTHING wrong, regardless of what your "opinion" of it was as shown by other professionals in the science field. You don't have to like it, but it clearly shows that it isn't absolute in the way you want it to be.
Onward and upward.

In reference to the "Great battle of vernacular"...

You can gather billions upon billions of pieces of data to support a theory, it only takes ONE verifiable piece to disprove it.
Check, and Mate.
The end.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Which clearly shows that your way isn't the ONLY way

There's never only one way, but the consensus opinion is that theories don't become laws after gathering a certain amount of evidence. All you have to do to show that you're correct is provide a single example of where a scientific theory has turned into a scientific law by gathering a particular amount of evidence. I've been asking for a single one for pages now.

Now, get on with your life and get over it.

Why? I find you entertaining.

I did NOTHING wrong, regardless of what your "opinion" of it was as shown by other professionals in the science field. You don't have to like it, but it clearly shows that it isn't absolute in the way you want it to be.

Again, provide an example of where a scientific theory turned into a scientific law. Given your vehemence in the matter, I would expect that you could produce at least a single example. Keep in mind that an attempt to pass off a situation where a scientific theory gave rise to a scientific law as a result of the observations made regarding the phenomenon described by the theory won't count unless you can show that the theory was wholly abandoned in favor of the law i.e. that the theory turned into the law.

**ATTENTION**

Many in this thread are trying the patience of not only the members, but also the Moderators in trying to become the newest reigning Drama Queen, but this will all cease now!

Listen, if you can not discuss a topic without having to do tireless name-calling and finger-pointing, then just get out. Get out of the thread and go some where else. We've got plenty of other forums for you to visit and contribute your voice to. This thread will still be here after you've calmed down and can post in a civil like manner.

This is a hot topic to discuss and if your having to ask yourself, "gee, I wonder if he's talking about me", then yes, I'm talking about you. Please leave, take a walk, call up a friend, pet your dog or cat, but just get out and leave it alone for awhile! The thread will still be here when you can diplomatically discuss your points.

This thread is now under extremely close watch and scrutiny by the staff. Further violations will result in the closing of the thread.


Take an aspirin,
Johnny

reply to post by PurpleChiten

You can gather billions upon billions of pieces of data to support a theory, it only takes ONE verifiable piece to disprove it.

I wholly agree. In fact, I've made the exact same point in this thread repeatedly -- that there's no such thing as "proof" in science.

Check, and Mate.

Except the above statement in no way indicates that a scientific theory can become a scientific law. In fact, when you think about it, it seems to suggest the opposite. You do know the little horsey pieces move in an L shape, right? Mate? I think not.

Still waiting for that example of a theory that became a law.

reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous


People don't need a rope to hang themselves, all they need is a thread and a post.

I still don't get what part of the scientific method is so difficult for you to comprehend
Here, maybe this will help:
The Little Book of Scientific Principles, Theories & Things - Surendra Verma

1. Observations and search for data
2. Hypothesis to explain observations
3. Experiments to test hypotheses
4. Formulation of theory
5. Experimental confirmation of theory
6. Mathematics of empirical confirmation of theory
7. Use of this confirmation to form scientific law
8. Use of scientific law to predict behavior of nature.

Here, try this...

Coulomb’s law of electrical charge: The attractive and repulsive forces for electricity are proportional to the products of the charge. This famous theory is now known as Coulomb’s law, which states that a coulomb is the unit quantity of electricity carried by an electric current of 1 ampere in 1 second. The unit of electrical charge, the coulomb (C), is named after him. As a result, a much better understanding exists of how to quantify electricity as a measurable current forced through a conductor by a voltage differential.

..so, he law was mathematically DERIVED from the theory, as are pratically all laws because that's the way it works whether you like it or not or whether you like the way in which it is explained or not.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

I still don't get what part of the scientific method is so difficult for you to comprehend.

I understand the scientific method quite well. I've used it daily for most of my professional career and have two patents to show for it.

..so, he law was mathematically DERIVED from the theory, as are pratically all laws because that's the way it works whether you like it or not or whether you like the way in which it is explained or not.

But you still haven't provided an example of a scientific theory that became a law. You're providing examples of laws derived from theories. I've never disputed that laws can derive from theories. Your claim, however, was that scientific theories turn into scientific laws. The expressions "derived from" and "turned into" have two different meanings. You are derived from your parents. Your parents did not turn into you.

Further, the author of the quote you provided seems to be confused about the difference between Coulomb's law and the coulomb:

This famous theory is now known as Coulomb’s law, which states that a coulomb is the unit quantity of electricity carried by an electric current of 1 ampere in 1 second.

Coulomb's law states that the force between two charged objects is proportional to the product of their charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The coulomb is defined as an ampere-second. This statement is as ridiculous as saying that Newton's law states that a newton is the unit quantity of force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kg at a rate of 1 m/s^2. Newton's law of gravitation states nothing of the sort. Newton's law of gravitation states that the attractive force between two objects is proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Oh, and we're all still waiting to hear your theory of biodiversity. In keeping with the topic of the thread and all.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I still don't get what part of the scientific method is so difficult for you to comprehend.

I understand the scientific method quite well. I've used it daily for most of my professional career and have two patents to show for it.

..so, he law was mathematically DERIVED from the theory, as are pratically all laws because that's the way it works whether you like it or not or whether you like the way in which it is explained or not.

But you still haven't provided an example of a scientific theory that became a law. You're providing examples of laws derived from theories. I've never disputed that laws can derive from theories. Your claim, however, was that scientific theories turn into scientific laws. The expressions "derived from" and "turned into" have two different meanings. You are derived from your parents. Your parents did not turn into you.

Further, the author of the quote you provided seems to be confused about the difference between Coulomb's law and the coulomb:

This famous theory is now known as Coulomb’s law, which states that a coulomb is the unit quantity of electricity carried by an electric current of 1 ampere in 1 second.

Coulomb's law states that the force between two charged objects is proportional to the product of their charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The coulomb is defined as an ampere-second. This statement is as ridiculous as saying that Newton's law states that a newton is the unit quantity of force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kg at a rate of 1 m/s^2. Newton's law of gravitation states nothing of the sort. Newton's law of gravitation states that the attractive force between two objects is proportional to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Oh, and we're all still waiting to hear your theory of biodiversity. In keeping with the topic of the thread and all.

You are incorrect. I have given you the clear answers, you choose not to accept them.
Here is the author, take it up with him. His name is Dr. Robert E. Krebs...
Encyclopedia of ScientificPrinciples, Laws, andTheories
www.scribd.com...
Case closed.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I am not atheist.

I am agnostic (well, my own brand of agnostic).

My core belief though, is the following:

A person (such as and especially priests) who rape children (and use their religious authority to get access to the children), if such a sick person, according to your religion, get's admission to heaven for simply "saying" that he believes in God / Jesus

And

A person, who does good things, does not do bad things, helps his neighbors and fellow man, yet does not belief in a God, if your religion says this person goes to hell...

Than your religion is SICK, and simply used by the darkest of people to gain control over the population.

Religion and certain types of extreme priests and such, they USE religion as an excuse to rape children!
I can go on and on, but seriously, I will repeat again:



If your religion tells me I am going to hell because I don't believe, yet do NO bad, and YES good, and I go to hell

yet

A priest who rapped children goes to heaven because he believs....


Than your religion is a tool / excuse used by the powerful to fullfill their apparent sicko children raping agenda.

I'll take my chances and DO GOOD, do NO bad, and even recently, protect some of my neighbors, etc. and be agnostic....

Cause if your religion tells me that I will go to hell while the preacher goes to heave, than, all in all, this is proof that the religion is a cult.

So, you tell me.

Am I going to hell?

And is the priest that rapes children going to heaven?

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I am not atheist.

I am agnostic (well, my own brand of agnostic).

My core belief though, is the following:

A person (such as and especially priests) who rape children (and use their religious authority to get access to the children), if such a sick person, according to your religion, get's admission to heaven for simply "saying" that he believes in God / Jesus

And

A person, who does good things, does not do bad things, helps his neighbors and fellow man, yet does not belief in a God, if your religion says this person goes to hell...

Than your religion is SICK, and simply used by the darkest of people to gain control over the population.

Religion and certain types of extreme priests and such, they USE religion as an excuse to rape children!
I can go on and on, but seriously, I will repeat again:



If your religion tells me I am going to hell because I don't believe, yet do NO bad, and YES good, and I go to hell

yet

A priest who rapped children goes to heaven because he believs....


Than your religion is a tool / excuse used by the powerful to fullfill their apparent sicko children raping agenda.

I'll take my chances and DO GOOD, do NO bad, and even recently, protect some of my neighbors, etc. and be agnostic....

Cause if your religion tells me that I will go to hell while the preacher goes to heave, than, all in all, this is proof that the religion is a cult.

So, you tell me.

Am I going to hell?

And is the priest that rapes children going to heaven?

beats me, how should I know? I don't believe in the present mainstream Christianity, but still have a belief in God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit). You're probably posting to somebody I replied to or something. If it were my decision, those rapist priests would go to hell, the decent people would go to heaven and those in between get decided on when they have their little chat with God. I'd probably be called Agnostic by the "fundamental evangelicals"... or maybe even an athiest by that group, but I'm not, so if you find out, let me know because I'm in the same boat with you. ... oh, and even the demons believe in Jesus Christ, they KNOW he's real (if there are really demons).

reply to post by itsthetooth

What are you talking about, there is clear documentation in the bible that intervention is real.

Show me. And by show me, I mean this, exactly:

1- Please write what parts of the Bible you are referring to.

2- Please explain why those parts have anything to do with intervention.

3- Please explain what you mean by "clear documentation."


4- Please, tell us

Names of all the authors of the Bible. Dates that the author's wrote the Bible. Name the editor's of the Bible. Explain why some books where included, while others were not.


5- DO NOT DARE USE THE BIBLE ITSELF TO ANSWER QUESTIONS #2, #3, #4


6- Explain what you mean by intervention.

Well no , I was just trying to say we aren't the only things that breath air.

How dare you? Again?

I see what you do. Instead of reading a person's question(s), and answering a person's question(s), you replace their question with whatever question your sick mind tells you, and than you answer your own question!

Let's see if you can actually read, comprehend, and answer ANY of the above questions I asked 1-6


Now, for the third time....

Animals / Humans USE OXYGEN, and PRODUCE Carbon Dioxide.


Plants USE Carbon Dioxide, and PRODUCE OXYGEN.

BEFORE WE CONTINUE, please proof that you read the above.

Please write something like this, "Confusion42 wrote that Animals / Humans USE OXYGEN and produce Carbon Dioxide, while plants use Carbon Dioxide, and produce Oxygen."


If you do not write this, than your an ignorant fool who takes other's questions, and claims to answer it... while in reality you are replacing other's questions with your own than end up answering your own questions!

Your also making assumptions that there is an evolutionary connection between us because we breath air. It's a mistake I'm finding frequently on the evolution side.

I am making assumptions???????

FOR THE FOURTH TIME




Plants and Humans are linked. Before I even continue, I want to see if you are crazy or not.

Please, explain why I (Confusion42) said that Plants and Humans are linked.
If you cannot explain why I said that Plants and Humans are linked, than you truly are a lost cause.





Please write the following sentence, so that you stop putting questions in other people's mouths.

If your respond does not contain the following sentence (or something of this nature), than your a lost cause.

(Confusion42) wrote that, "Animals / Humans Use Oxygen."

reply to post by PurpleChiten

You are incorrect. I have given you the clear answers, you choose not to accept them.

I gather that "clear" means "the first answer I could find that agreed with me, which is easily refutable by doing five minutes of basic research" in your vernacular. But by all means, don't respond to any of the points I bring up or any of the evidence I present when it's much easier to sidestep by saying that I should take it up with the author of the resource that you're using to present your side of the discussion and then saying "case closed" like you get to dictate the terms.

Now, back to the actual topic of the thread -- what's your theory explaining biodiversity? You still haven't weighed in and I'd love to hear what you think.

reply to post by colin42


In science, theory is more important than fact.

This isn't up for petty debate, this is a fact of the scientific community - look it up yourself.

Theories:

Gravity
Relativity
Mass-wave Duality
Evolution

Can you prove evolution? Nope. Because it's not fact.
But you can't disprove it? No, because there's a ridiculous amount of evidence around you.

To say "forget all the evidence, can you disprove this?" doesn't make any sense, because you need evidence to prove or disprove anything.

So short answer - without evidence, can I disprove it?
No.

If you want my opinion, god made everything. Not biblical god, but the non-local consciousness that quantum physics essentially proves. Again, I'm saying "prove" because theory is more important than fact. Technically gravity isn't proven (again, scientific fact, not up for debate - google it, it takes 5 seconds), but we all know it at least has some actuality. There is math and structure in the universe which is essentially unexplainable, and the only physicist who says "after death, there is nothing" is the physicist who has never truly contemplated the consequences of quantum mechanics.

Again, in my opinion, god is literally the matter and waves (because matter exists as waves when it is not being observes by a conscious, I know, it's mindblowing, but it's also scientific fact.) which compose everything. Therefore, not only is evolution a literal act of god, but everything you see, hear, breathe... every quanta that moves(because to some extent, subatomic particles display free will), everything you perceive, is an act of "god."

It is the human "local conscious" which misinterprets this "god." And once that "god" has been misinterpreted, often times with human emotions, he becomes dangerous.

Because of this, the inherently spiritual question you ask is no longer valid, because now god (who is represented by PURE POSSIBILITY) is known to science.

I tried not to ramble too much, and keep the quantum physics to a basic understanding, but that is the best honest answer I can give.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
beats me, how should I know? I don't believe in the present mainstream Christianity, but still have a belief in God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit). You're probably posting to somebody I replied to or something. If it were my decision, those rapist priests would go to hell, the decent people would go to heaven and those in between get decided on when they have their little chat with God. I'd probably be called Agnostic by the "fundamental evangelicals"... or maybe even an athiest by that group, but I'm not, so if you find out, let me know because I'm in the same boat with you. ... oh, and even the demons believe in Jesus Christ, they KNOW he's real (if there are really demons).

Just a quick interlude -

Saul of Tarsus a.k.a. Paul a.k.a. the dude who wrote the first book of the Bible which all later books are based on actually said, right in his letters, that he never met Jesus.

He even eludes to the fact that when God spoke to him and said "spread the good word of Jesus" that this 'god' he spoke to basically told him directly that this "Jesus" he spoke of came from another world.

Paul was told Jesus' teachings, but again, never met Jesus, and claimed himself that Jesus was from another world.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you should investigate the "gnostic" sect of Christianity, which was largely disbanded and attacked around that time. They say the Seraphim and Nephilim were actually just different types of beings from other worlds.


Edit: Also, the Bible's literature is almost exactly the same of the Egyptian Book of the Dead's literature.
Yep.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

You are incorrect. I have given you the clear answers, you choose not to accept them.

I gather that "clear" means "the first answer I could find that agreed with me, which is easily refutable by doing five minutes of basic research" in your vernacular. But by all means, don't respond to any of the points I bring up or any of the evidence I present when it's much easier to sidestep by saying that I should take it up with the author of the resource that you're using to present your side of the discussion and then saying "case closed" like you get to dictate the terms.

Now, back to the actual topic of the thread -- what's your theory explaining biodiversity? You still haven't weighed in and I'd love to hear what you think.

Oh, it's a giant booger and the little slimey parts are the ocean. What's your theory of biodiverity as far as toenail fungus goes? Be sure to limit your response to toenail fungus and state your answer in the form of a question. Use at least 3 dangling participles and finish off with a cute little ditty similar to a childhood song.
You have 20 minutes, now get started!

reply to post by camaro68ss[/
Not every bone that ever existed is going to be layin around as a fossil, it requires specific conditions for fossils to remain. Also there are many events that will disturb these fossils. Finally we cannot dig every square inch of land to find all the fossils in the world

Then to answer your other question about population size, the population boom has only occured in the last 100years, then theres the mortality rate increase and longevity just to mention a few factors