Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

page: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





another clip from his link...
Of course we have a common ancestor you goof ball, her name was EVE and his name was ADAM.




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 





Sorry you still didn't address the evidence. Good luck with that. Regurgitating lie after lie doesn't change anything! You still need to address the evidence contained in the link. Until you do, you have completely failed. Go ahead, show me which parts are hypothesis and which parts are scientific theory. I doubt you even understand 1% of what that link talks about.
Maybe I'm persistant for a reason, and telling me I need to adressed in what link? There are many links and from I can tell I'm the one posting most of them. All links I have been directed to clearly indicate that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.


www.talkorigins.org...

The same link I've posted dozens of times. You won't go past the first paragraph because it mentions the word hypothesis. What about several sub sections of each form of evidence? You need to address this, and provide logical reasoning for your disagreement with the evidence. Address the evidence instead of playing word games. That's all I'm asking. If you can't you have NO argument and should be ignored. You are claiming that since some parts are hypothesis (what is being tested RIGHT NOW in labs), that the whole thing is wrong. You need to separate the theory from the hypotheses and explain what's wrong and what's right. It's on YOU. The proof has been posted, if you can't counter it, you lose the argument, no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel. That's how it works. Right now you are just a random guy on the internet voicing his opinion. Unfortunately to prove something you need more than that and made up fictitious concepts.

The theory of evolution: 98% fact, 2% hypothesis
Creationism: 0% fact, 100% hypothesis
Interventionism: 0% fact, 100% hypothesis

That's how it works when you have no scientific objective evidence.
edit on 24-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





The same link I've posted dozens of times. You won't go past the first paragraph because it mentions the word hypothesis. What about several sub sections of each form of evidence? You need to address this, and provide logical reasoning for your disagreement with the evidence. Address the evidence instead of playing word games. That's all I'm asking. If you can't you have NO argument and should be ignored. You are claiming that since some parts are hypothesis (what is being tested RIGHT NOW in labs), that the whole thing is wrong. You need to separate the theory from the hypotheses and explain what's wrong and what's right. It's on YOU. The proof has been posted, if you can't counter it, you lose the argument, no matter how many times you repeat the same drivel. That's how it works. Right now you are just a random guy on the internet voicing his opinion. Unfortunately to prove something you need more than that and made up fictitious concepts.

The theory of evolution: 98% fact, 2% hypothesis
Creationism: 0% fact, 100% hypothesis
Interventionism: 0% fact, 100% hypothesis
I didn't think I would have to go to the extent of having to explain this, but it looks like I will have to no doubt.

A theory is only as good as its weakest link. Everything I have been directed to as far as links has turned out to be written as though the subject was a hypothesis. There seems to be a lot of guess work and about 2% fact.

Intervention is backed up with historical documents, which is not the case with evolutionism.
You never even gave a solid reason or proof to discredit the written documents, just that you do. Supernatural events are not testable to scientific standards so this garbage about it being debunked isn't even possible, of course it can't be proved either, except that we have documentation stating that its so.

I have presented all the facts that support intervention, from target food, to Pye's DNA findings, to it being written in the bible. Now I don't know how you can dismiss so many other things that tell you beyond a doubt that your wrong, but you are.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm honestly not seeing where I said that, in the link your providing, either the meaning was taken out of context or I'm looking right over it.

Your inability to remember your own words ins't my problem. Claiming that the "meaning was taken out of context" is also false, given that I linked to your post so anyone could look at the context themselves. Try again.


Well sure it does, hypothesis don't stand as a scientific theory. I'll give you a clue, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and a scientific theory is a scientific theory. I even provided an explanation for you of how one can become the other, but just because it's intermixed with some theory doesn't automatically make it all a theory.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


I'm sorry but the theory of evolution has never been proven to me, at least not in the way that it's being presented from other among ATS.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.


Common DNA does not prove we share a common ancestor with apes, I'm sorry your wrong.

The evidence, including but no limited to common DNA, has been provided to you in this thread and others.


Well sure it does, its a weaker theory.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


If you honestly believe that ANY changes are evolution, then you also believe that when somone smokes while pregnant, they are causing evolutionary changes

Are the changes heritable?


Thats my personal decision, I choose not to accept hypothesis as fact.

I'm glad to see you finally admit that.



Well sure it does, its a weaker theory.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


And I'm suppose to take this at face value from someone that believes that a hypothesis is the same as a scientific theory?

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


This just confirms what I have been saying all along that the bible clearly talks about these things as we are from another planet.

Please clearly define how.


: the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2: adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3: something that is adapted; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form

You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Your inability to remember your own words ins't my problem. Claiming that the "meaning was taken out of context" is also false, given that I linked to your post so anyone could look at the context themselves. Try again.
I don't think its my inability as much as it seems to be you making things up.




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.




The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.
I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible.




The evidence, including but no limited to common DNA, has been provided to you in this thread and others
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry.




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.




Are the changes heritable?
Not entirely, but they can be.




I'm glad to see you finally admit that.
I'm glad to see you not accepting evolution as a fact.




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.





You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.





Please clearly define how.
Your welcome to go back and check all my comments in three other threads about intervention, the bible, and Pye, and Von Daniken, and Sitchen.




You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.
Just because all accessable definitions of the term are taxed with the wrong idea doesn't prove its true.

Here is a perfectly good example. The definition of the term Natural


nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".


natural click here

Since it's unnatural if its made or caused by humankind, isn't it safe to assume that humankind is not natural to this enviroment?
Find a def thats not.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I don't think its my inability as much as it seems to be you making things up.

I linked directly to the post of yours that I quote from. You're back to denying your own words again.


No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.


I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.


You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.

It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


I'm glad to see you not accepting evolution as a fact.

I do accept the phenomenon of evolution as fact. I also accept modern evolutionary synthesis as the overarching theory that explains that fact.


You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.

It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence.

It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


Your welcome to go back and check all my comments in three other threads about intervention, the bible, and Pye, and Von Daniken, and Sitchen.

I checked. You have never once commented on how the Bible's assertion that we live in a geocentric system "clearly talks about these things as we are from another planet".


Just because all accessable definitions of the term are taxed with the wrong idea doesn't prove its true.

You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I linked directly to the post of yours that I quote from. You're back to denying your own words again.
The link you shared had nothing about the subject, try again.




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.

Perhaps it would help you if you read up a little bit about what these mean.
terms





The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.
I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible




The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry




It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence




I do accept the phenomenon of evolution as fact. I also accept modern evolutionary synthesis as the overarching theory that explains that fact.
I'm glad to see you not accepting evolution as a fact. I have never read anything credible that proves that evolution is the cause for changes. I'm repeadedly told that evolution will not cause anything as its just a process, but I know of no better way to explain the unproven part. Everything happens for a reason, Changes caused from evolution are no different, as was the example I explained with ADHD and genes. Of course people aren't running around with ADHD claiming that evolution caused this disorder when scientists allready know it can be genetic but can also be programmed through an introduction of lead into ones system. Prior to scientists finding this out, these genetic changes would have been viewed as through they were evolution, but they aren't. All changes that are viewd as evolution have a similuar background just like the ADHD, scientists just haven't identified them yet.




It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
There is no way it has passed the litmus when the cause of these changes remains unidentified. Shame on you for lying. Once that does happen however, scientists will be faced with a new challenge as the cause of all changes will reveal that evolution was false.




It has passed the "litmus test", the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Shame on you for falsely claiming that it hasn't. You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to wil



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence




I checked. You have never once commented on how the Bible's assertion that we live in a geocentric system "clearly talks about these things as we are from another planet".
I may not have brought up the geocentric part, but the rest is there, you need to go back and look.




You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.
It appears that there are no unbiased definitions.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


We must also remember that ALL animals have a target food


If they dont eat this target food they get SOOOO hungry they eat something else... which just proves how hungry they were for the original food.

This was discovered by an deluded person on ATS ive seen him im say it over and over so it must be true. Why would i want the opinion of scientists or experts when i have some religious halfwit to tell me what his imaginary best friend knows about reality?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I dont have imaginary friends, I'm not religious
.

Species are clearly guided to a specific food, when that food isn't available, for whatever reason, you can see them eating just about everything in that food group. This is phase one of hunger. When both target food and phase one are no longer available, you can see them pick up a new food group, like in the diet of the squirrel on wiki. After that its phase 3 of hunger which is starvation, desperation eating rocks and dirt or what ever is around.

The fact that any wiki with an observable diet will prove to you that a species always eats the same thing as a whole, should be a little suspicious right off the bat. How do they all know what the others in the species are eating? They don't have cell phones, and they don't hold meetings to elect what the food will be, and most species don't even teach their young what to eat. To prove the point even more, they also don't experiment with food to come to a decision on what they will eat. Not to be confused with starving.

So the facts are, ...
They always eat the same diet within a species, as long as geographics and availability allow so.
They are never found to be experimenting with food, not to be confused with starvation.
They are almost never taught what to eat.
They are never seen just eating what ever, as you can see there is an order to selection.
It doesn't matter what senses they use, they don't appear to be making a personal choice as they are all making the same choices.

So as you can see, its more than obvious they are directed on what to eat. Now I never said god did this, in fact all I have said is that some sort of intelligence had to be involved in order to programm them on what to eat. The reason you know it's intelligent is because there is no way something can program something else to know what food they are supposed to eat without prior knowledge of the food to begin with.

Evolution failed at explaining how a species eats. Claiming that food evolves right along side with the species is false. It's clear to see there has to be some form of intelligence involved in order for these steps to be present, and evolution doesn't afford the idea of intelligence, so its failed.

Even if evoluton was responsible for this programming, its still intelligent.
Now you evolution process is sounding a hell of lot more like a creator. First there is this claim that evolution is responsible for creating over a billion species, but you wouldn't dare call it a creator. I have news for you, anyone, or anything that creates over a billion species is definitely a creator. If this same process is responsible for intelligent input so that species know what to eat, need I say more?
edit on 25-11-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 





If they dont eat this target food they get SOOOO hungry they eat something else... which just proves how hungry they were for the original food
Also I wanted to correct you on this mistake.

They don't just eat something else, they start to eat just about everthing within that original food group, its a serious clue.
There is another fact that I failed to post in the prior column, and that is that some people are claiming that a species has personal choice in food, but if that were true, why are they all making the exact same choices?

It doesn't matter if you believe they are using thier eyes, nose, mouth, or paws to check out food, they are all making the same decision.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
tooth

Repeating your assertions does not make it any more valid. Show me how being aggressively wrong, is somehow different from being stupidly wrong? Your opinion has been shown to have little effect on reality.

Do not repeat previous points without any objective evidence.

Do some more reading, read for comprehension instead of ammunition, and your lack of social skills might not hurt you quite as bad in this sort of debate.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Repeating your assertions does not make it any more valid. Show me how being aggressively wrong, is somehow different from being stupidly wrong? Your opinion has been shown to have little effect on reality.

Do not repeat previous points without any objective evidence.

Do some more reading, read for comprehension instead of ammunition, and your lack of social skills might not hurt you quite as bad in this sort of debate.
Not sure if you talking about target food or the addressing of the term scientific theory.

I have reviewed both, Target food is solid as a rock and very real and easy to identify. The term scientific theoy that is trying to be willed into existence is solid as well. Everything I'm reading says that a hypothesis can't become a theory until it's proven. It's allready admitted that all contents of the theory have not been proven, which is why why are saying parts of it are a hypothesis. If only the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis need to be present for it to be a theory, then why are they also referring to it as parts being a hypothesis? They would have just called it a scientific theory if thats what it was, but they don't.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The link you shared had nothing about the subject, try again.

I was replying directly to one of your posts.


No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


I'm sorry but I haven't been presented with anything credible

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.


I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.


You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


All changes that are viewd as evolution have a similuar background just like the ADHD, scientists just haven't identified them yet.

Because for something be defined as evolution, it just has to be a change in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. The cause of that change in frequency is irrelevant in terms of defining it as evolution.


There is no way it has passed the litmus when the cause of these changes remains unidentified. Shame on you for lying. Once that does happen however, scientists will be faced with a new challenge as the cause of all changes will reveal that evolution was false.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.


I may not have brought up the geocentric part, but the rest is there, you need to go back and look.

So if the scientific veracity of the Bible was shown to be wrong long before the theory of evolution, why would you assume that it's correct about our origins?


It appears that there are no unbiased definitions.

Then it would appear that the "biased" one, which is the definition that is accepted by the scientific community, particularly the parts of the scientific community that actually understand science, understand biology, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology, is the correct one. It just happens to be the definition that you dislike regardless of the fact that it's the consensus definition.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I was replying directly to one of your posts.
I wasn't able to see where the link was related, if you want you can re ask the question and try again.




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory


No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying




The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.
I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence





Because for something be defined as evolution, it just has to be a change in allele frequency within a population over successive generations. The cause of that change in frequency is irrelevant in terms of defining it as evolution.
So if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and ended up giving him ADHD, your saying thats evolution
.




You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

You can keep telling yourself that but your not going to be able to will a scientific theory into existence. It must pass a litmus test, which it doesn't which is also why it's listed as a plurality of theories and hypothesis. I'm sorry but your wrong again, and shame on you for trying to will a title into existence





So if the scientific veracity of the Bible was shown to be wrong long before the theory of evolution, why would you assume that it's correct about our origins?
Because it can't be proven wrong, just like it can't be proven correct. Without the supernatural elements present to give it a fair test, no one is going to be able to prove anything. The supernatural can't be tested by the standards of science.


su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

supernatural




Then it would appear that the "biased" one, which is the definition that is accepted by the scientific community, particularly the parts of the scientific community that actually understand science, understand biology, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology, is the correct one. It just happens to be the definition that you dislike regardless of the fact that it's the consensus definition.
The theory and hypothesis of evolution has failed, as in the examples that I have presented regarding target food, where evolution failed to explain the channels of intelligence, to ADHD and changes in our genes. Which is NOT evolution and if you think it is, your delusional.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I wasn't able to see where the link was related, if you want you can re ask the question and try again.

You aren't able to see how one of your own posts in this thread was related to this thread?


No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying

All scientific theories "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses"... atomic theory, gravitational theory, cell theory, etc. The fact that you don't understand that yet means you're still confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory and how that's different from being "entirely hypothetical."


I haven't been presented with anything that was stronger than a hypothesis, I'm sorry

You have been presented with evidence of hypotheses that have been tested and verified in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level. You can't refute it on a scientific level, so instead you retreat to a claim that it simply isn't enough evidence for you.


So if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and ended up giving him ADHD, your saying thats evolution .

Are the genetic changes heritable?


Because it can't be proven wrong, just like it can't be proven correct. Without the supernatural elements present to give it a fair test, no one is going to be able to prove anything. The supernatural can't be tested by the standards of science.

But not all of the claims made by the Bible are supernatural. The Bible claims we live in a geocentric system; we live in a heliocentric system. The Bible made a naturalistic claim, and it has been shown to be demonstrably wrong. This is far from the only case in which the Bible makes a naturalistic claim that is testable and has been shown to be demonstrably wrong. If you're looking to the Bible as an accurate historical record or for scientific veracity, you're looking in the wrong place.


The theory and hypothesis of evolution has failed, as in the examples that I have presented regarding target food, where evolution failed to explain the channels of intelligence, to ADHD and changes in our genes. Which is NOT evolution and if you think it is, your delusional.

If you can't accept the consensus definition of adaptation -- the one actually used by people who understand science in general, biology in particular, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology -- why should anyone accept your personal definition for target food, which consists of "whatever itsthetooth feels like calling target food on a given day"?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


To quote your sig;



"When a man makes up his mind without evidence no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind." - Heinlein


Other then amusement, why are you bothering?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You aren't able to see how one of your own posts in this thread was related to this thread?
That isn't what I said, I said I'm not able to locate any section that was part of your question. In other words it would appear that you are confused.




All scientific theories "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses
Well all might start out as a hypothesis, but it doesn't move on to being a theory untill its proven, and even theorys can be proven wrong. Just like in the example of Target food proving intelligent involvement. Any theory is only as good as its weakest link, and if you have hypothesis dominating your theory like that of evolution, you don't have much. Seriously your polishing a turd.




atomic theory, gravitational theory, cell theory, etc.
These are perfectly good examples of something that evolution is not. These theorys are reliable, repeatable, recreatable and predictable, evolution is not repeatable, we never know from one example to the next if the same changes are going to occur, and if they do, they are not guaranteed repeatable. What happens to one organisim may not happen to the next. Evolution has no scientific value.




The fact that you don't understand that yet means you're still confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory and how that's different from being "entirely hypothetical."
I didn't say it was all hypothetical as a result, what I said was you can't will it into a theory if most of it hasn't been proven, and I don't think one link of material I was ever directed to, proved any of it to be a theory, it's all speculation from what I read.

No confusion on my part, your the one assuming that a plurality of theories and hypothesis can be called a scientific theory. It's a commonly known step for people to skip the litmus test to try to get their theory more unofficial credibility. You can't will this theory / hypothesis into being a scientific theory, there are parts that are unproven. Shame on you for trying






You have been presented with evidence of hypotheses that have been tested and verified in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level. You can't refute it on a scientific level, so instead you retreat to a claim that it simply isn't enough evidence for you.
And you would be wrong again, I never claimed to have made my own decisions about believing evolution, I'm just going by what all I have read from all the links I have been sent to, its clear to me they weren't suppose to be a scientific theory, and most of the hypothesis aren't proven theory. I don't know what to tell, maybe find better links before sending people to them is probably a good start. Of course with multiple links from the past all presenting this as mostly hopethesis, it's going to be pretty hard to prove that wrong now.




Are the genetic changes heritable?
In some cases but not all. Others are found to be aflicted from being exposed to lead. So I guess that means evolution to you right?




But not all of the claims made by the Bible are supernatural. The Bible claims we live in a geocentric system; we live in a heliocentric system. The Bible made a naturalistic claim, and it has been shown to be demonstrably wrong. This is far from the only case in which the Bible makes a naturalistic claim that is testable and has been shown to be demonstrably wrong. If you're looking to the Bible as an accurate historical record or for scientific veracity, you're looking in the wrong place
The only valid reason I can come up with on why that is, is because they were only worried about what it was from our perspective here on earth. I have actually always believed that both scenerios are wrong and there is a lot more independence then understood. Your also making the false assumption that we know absolutly everything there is to know about our planets, and the fact is we don't, and anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. And I am seriously interested in knowing exactly what part of the bible refers to this.




If you can't accept the consensus definition of adaptation -- the one actually used by people who understand science in general, biology in particular, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology -- why should anyone accept your personal definition for target food, which consists of "whatever itsthetooth feels like calling target food on a given day"?
Just because people use it doesn't mean its correct. Target food is observable, repeatable, predictable...



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





If you can't accept the consensus definition of adaptation -- the one actually used by people who understand science in general, biology in particular, and do research in the field of evolutionary biology -- why should anyone accept your personal definition for target food, which consists of "whatever itsthetooth feels like calling target food on a given day"?


If evoluton were observable, at least in terms of what exactly was causing the changes, it would put an end to the whole question idea dead on, instead people have automatically accepted the fact that there are changes, so it must just be evolution, when in fact those changes all happen for a scientific, verifiable reason, which will all be verfied and accounted for, one day.

But this didn't happen, evolution went on to become a process at this point simply because there are changes, and because changes were also being observed in other ways, not necessarly related. however these changes are not bound to any process, they are the end result of the elements coming into contact with one another, just like with Lead and ADHD.

In all of the debates about any level of this subject, no one has ever pointed out the fact that there is nothing that proves that these changes are related in any way, just assumed that they are. As an example scientists recently found out that people aflicted with ADHD usually have sections with missing genes, and other sections with repeated genes. They have verfied that either the exposure to lead or having genes that are already carrying the disorder can carry it to an offpring.

Now you might assume that if it's passed on genetically its evolution, but what if that original afliction was forced by exposure to lead, is it still evolution? Of course not, its man made.

Another example I can give you is a debate I had with Colin about a field mouse, if you all of a sudden start feeding him at your door, does he all of a sudden become a door mouse?

The fact of the matter in all this is that there is NO WAY to ever know what changes could have been forced or altered by man. Just driving your car can cause variations in our air that could end up causing genetic mutations in organisms that are being viewed right now as evolution.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


Other then amusement, why are you bothering?

At this point it's 90% amusement. The other 10% is hoping that someone lurking in the thread will come to recognize that itsthetooth has little to no concept of the basic concepts of science in general, much less the basic concepts of biology and genetics that he keeps trying to argue against. All he's really arguing at this point is an incredibly convoluted version of the "it's only a theory" mantra the creationist movement is known for.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join