Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by iterationzero

And the evidence for our DNA having been tampered with is what, exactly?

How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?

Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero

And the evidence for our DNA having been tampered with is what, exactly?

How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?

Exactly, evolutionists think we derived from recessive traits, and I just don't see it.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

I'm still not understanding how someone can believe we evolved with 2 fewer chromosomes.

I'm still not understanding how someone can believe that number of chromosomes is the main measure of "how evolved" a species is. Especially given that we have a similar amount of genetic material to chimpanzees -- there's no loss of genetic material in a true chromosomal fusion, we just have one larger chromosome where chimps have two smaller ones.
How did you come to this conclusion?

All of these guys are basically pointing in the same direction.

Of course they are -- Sitchin based his work on von Däniken, Pye based his on Sitchin. They're not three independent sources.
What do you mean based his work, they don't even talk about the same things. I have never found Sitchen or daniken talking about DNA.

When I talk to evolutionists, they seem to be quick to discredit most of them, but never seem to be able to discredit all of them at the same time.

Why would they need to if, as you claim, they are three independent sources?
I have never found one shred of all of there work that matches except that god was a space travler. Thats it.

Darwin was wrong.

No, he just didn't have a full picture. That's why the modern theory of evolution aka modern evolution synthesis isn't called Darwinism.

The reason why his theory never stuck is because it's full of holes.

Never stuck? You mean the theory that's never been falsified in over a century and a half and forms the basis of all modern biology? That theory?

It reminds me of mainstream religion overlooking the preface of the bible that states it deals with things that are supernatural.

To which preface of the Bible are you referring?
OMG

There is no excuse for the lack of tons of proof.

I couldn't have said it better myself, since in your last thread you admitted that you have zero objective evidence to support your claim. This is in contrast to over a century and a half of evidence collected in support of evolution. Where is your "tons of proof"?

If it takes you a century and a half to piece together an easy puzzle, your doing it wrong!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

"facts are clear" gimme a break what a cop out. why didn't you say this two posts ago? you jumped right into it before you got smacked with some reality.

No cop out, I have explained my position on the pyramids over and over again on the other threads, if you do a little research you will find all the info you need on these boards.
By the way I reject "your" reality- I still agree with me.

Back to the topic-

then please gimme a link to your pyramid thread

I will not.
If your truly interested in the facts you will do research on your own, I'm not doing the leg work for you.
Educate your self and be careful if it's not verifiable it's no good for you.
Lets see you turn a new leaf.

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.

edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong

I am not anti-evolution, but I do have an opinion on the matter.

The only thing I know for a fact is my own existence. Nothing else can be proven to exist as it is mysteriously created in my mind. Based on the observable evidence of this existence, this is all I know for a fact.

Thus, the only existence I can thoroughly contemplate is my own.

Here is how I began.

In the beginning was the WORD.

No matter how I complete this tale, it will begin with a word.

It will be filled in by more WORDS.

and in the end will be nothing but forgotten words.

If one believes in evolution, prove you are more evolved by ceasing senseless debates without knowing the facts of one's own existence. No man knows all the facts. We do not know enough to even begin the debate of the beginnings of OUR existence.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

"facts are clear" gimme a break what a cop out. why didn't you say this two posts ago? you jumped right into it before you got smacked with some reality.

No cop out, I have explained my position on the pyramids over and over again on the other threads, if you do a little research you will find all the info you need on these boards.
By the way I reject "your" reality- I still agree with me.

Back to the topic-

then please gimme a link to your pyramid thread

I will not.
If your truly interested in the facts you will do research on your own, I'm not doing the leg work for you.
Educate your self and be careful if it's not verifiable it's no good for you.
Lets see you turn a new leaf.

scaredy pants

reply to post by IAMIAM


There you go

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

There you go

Again, this is merely what the picture created in our minds reveals through our senses. Do we exist without our senses?

If not, does a blind man exist a little less than a sighted person?

What of the deaf?

If someone is deaf, blind, and dumb, are they almost non-existent?

How does one who is deaf, blind, and dumb know they exist?
Do they also believe they came to be through child birth?

At what point from the fertilization of your mothers egg to your birth did YOU come into being?

With Love,

Your Brother

[Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by The Riley Family

As both an atheist and a scientist, I can't express enough how wrong-headed this interpretation is.

Thanks for the response. We hope this is the case with your experiences but from our experiences up to this point it is what it is.

First, atheism and evolution aren't the same thing.

Correct, and was not our point in any way.

It's an unnecessary conflation of two separate concepts.

There was no intent to conflate any concepts.

The existence of a god or gods is, by its very nature, an unfalsifiable proposition.

We believe this is debatable, besides if this was the case why do so many Religious and Atheists spend so much time trying to verify or falsify the existence of a god or gods if they really believe it's impossible?

Evolution, observable as a fact and supported by all of the evidence gathered to date as a theory, only contradicts a literal interpretation of the passages of Genesis that relate to the origins of mankind and other species.

We agree in that evolution does contradict the "many" Christian interpretations and of the ones we grew up being taught or have heard of none are all that literal. What's literally in Genesis that's contradicted by evolution?

Not the existence of God.

We agree completely and this is our main point. Hope others get it as well.

All you're doing by making these claims is propagating a stereotype, not showing what claim are made by evolution or atheists as they actually are.

Just going by personal experiences, if others have different experiences we look forward to hearing about that.

Which just goes to show how uninformed most people are about evolution.

Agreed.

If you think that's "really what it is all about", then you haven't read the thread.

Our point wasn't it's what we think it is all about but rather with the “uninformed”. From our experiences, that is what is rather prevalent in the uninformed's way of thinking and in our interactions with them. Our point is that the uninformed's concept of evolution as well as the Christian's and how they use it is wrong. We were not referring to the concept of evolution or the informed Atheist themselves.

This is nothing more than a strawman argument for the reasons outlined above. The theory of evolution is absolutely falsifiable -- all scientific theories are, ultimately, falsifiable. It's why evolution is a scientific theory and creationism/intelligent design are inherently unscientific.

Yes evolution is a theory and as such, “ultimately, falsifiable” at least in part or quite possibly just minor ones at that. Yes “creationism/intelligent design are inherently unscientific” which in and of itself should cast a shadow of doubt on their credibility. We don't see why a literal interpretation of Genesis couldn't be done scientifically.

So you can't or won't try and refute evolution based on its scientific merits, but only in terms of you own fallacious conflation of evolution and atheism? That's the definition of a strawman argument.

No, not a strawman argument nor a conflation, but rather a misunderstanding. We don't try and refute evolution based on its scientific merits because we don't disagree with evolutions scientific merits and because those scientific merits support a literal Genesis, though it does not support literal interpretations of any of the Christian doctrines.

We see the merits of evolution more realistic in the concept of the existence of a God/Creator, especially the biblical entity, than any of the many Christian doctrines offer.

Where you may be seeing conflation is that our experiences with Atheists and Christians have been nothing but Atheist's using an uninformed concept of evolution as definitive proof there is no God/Creator therefore supporting their indoctrination of Atheism towards others. Christians, on the other hand, ignore evolutions merits believing by not accepting the concept of evolution it proves a God/Creator exists and therefore their justification of indoctrinating others to their belief.

So we do believe this uninformed concept of evolution and how it is used is wrong.

What we are saying is we don't think any Atheist should use the concept of evolution as a definitive to a God/Creator's non-existence. Do you really believe that the Christian doctrines, which aren't even in agreement themselves, are really scientifically “literal” in their supposed literal interpretations of Genesis rather than just poorly motivated fanciful interpretations?

We would like to know from an Atheist's perspective what evolution disputes about an actual literal translation of Genesis?

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?

Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.

www.nytimes.com...

What seems clear is that when Homo sapiens began displacing Neanderthals throughout Europe 40,000 years ago, they brought the cystic fibrosis mutation with them, and it was distributed more or less homogeneously across the subcontinent, said Dr. Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist at Stanford University who has used molecular techniques to study the migrations of prehistoric peoples.

The timing fits just fine with Intervention Theory.

reply to post by IAMIAM


You're mixing philosophy with science

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
How did cystic fibrosis or any of the other diseases that kill children not disappear from our species? How would it survive if it kills the child before puberty? Did we inherit that from our pre-human ancestors? How is that a successfully adaptive trait?

Confirmed for not knowing what a recessive gene is.

www.nytimes.com...

What seems clear is that when Homo sapiens began displacing Neanderthals throughout Europe 40,000 years ago, they brought the cystic fibrosis mutation with them, and it was distributed more or less homogeneously across the subcontinent, said Dr. Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, a geneticist at Stanford University who has used molecular techniques to study the migrations of prehistoric peoples.

The timing fits just fine with Intervention Theory.

But you have ZERO proof for that intervention...you're just speculating.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

You're mixing philosophy with science

sci·ence    
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

phi·los·o·phy  
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

It would seem that they are designed to be mixed into a fine brew of thought my friend.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


But what you're essentially doing is saying "I don't accept reality I perceive through my senses and rather make up my own stuff". I mean, literally, according to your "logic", you could make up anything you wanted.

Let me ask you this: If I hold a magnet close a metal, it'll attract the metal...and we can prove it through science. Do you believe in magnetism?

Why do people believe? why dont they look if they want to know?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I mean, literally, according to your "logic", you could make up anything you wanted.

Why not?

We have been doing it for ages my friend.

The more we learn, the more we adapt the story.

However, no matter how grand we make the story, future generations will look back at us as idiots.

So don't get so attached to your story my friend.

That is all I am saying.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


But making stuff up isn't LEARNING.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Let me ask you this: If I hold a magnet close a metal, it'll attract the metal...and we can prove it through science.

You cannot prove this through science.

Science does not prove the phenomenon exists. The phenomenon proves itself. Science merely seeks to observe and report.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM

If one believes in evolution, prove you are more evolved by ceasing senseless debates without knowing the facts of one's own existence. No man knows all the facts. We do not know enough to even begin the debate of the beginnings of OUR existence.

I agree " No man knows all the facts", but also believe a great deal is understood.
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There are mountains of evidence.
As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain.

In contrast creationism depends only on highly questionable and subjective ideas that DO NOT fit together into a coherent whole. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very, very highly motivated not to accept it. Scientists, on the other hand, welcomes disconfirming evidence.

This is why it's worth debating creationist so that others can decide for them selves what is fact and what is fiction.