Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: TerryDon79

Now you've qualified evolutionary theory as a religion and want me to provide evidence that it isn't correct. It's just as impossible to provide evidence that a belief is incorrect as it is to provide evidence that it IS correct.

Evolutionary theory fails to be falsifiable as current human ability allows because it by definition takes too long to be empirically observable. Therefore, it is a belief system that requires religious faith and adherence and does NOT qualify as a scientific endeavor since it cannot meet the criteria of falsifiability.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

More opinion backed up by nothing.

You really have shown how badly you understand science. If you have a problem with it, prove it wrong.

a reply to: TerryDon79

BTW, I can't show emperical(sic) evidence of anything, because emperical doesn't exist. It is empirical.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

You're just as funny as raggedyman lol.

Now, try proving MES is wrong using emperical evidence.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You keep repeating this but don't seem to realize how ignorant it makes you seem.

Science refers to many things. Most commonly it refers to utilizing the scientific method to come to reasonable conclusions after observing a phenomena or creating a falsifiable test that is observable to test a theory.

By the definition of evolutionary theory, it DOES NOT qualify as scientific in nature. It cannot be falsified because it cannot be observed because it takes too long to take place.

There are many facets of certain things that are commonly referred to as being scientific that this is the case for. Any theory that falls into this category, ceases to be science and falls into the realm of pseudo science..

There are other qualifiers for pseudo science as well. one of them being that we don't have the means to test for them.

The study of spiritual beings would fall into this, as would dark matter, as would radio waves prior to developing the technology to measure them.

That doesn't mean that we can't get great benefit from these endeavors, but erroneously referring to them as empirical science only adds to the confusion that so many seem to have.

There needs to be separation between these classes of study to better arrest falling under the auspices of pardigmic rigidity.

Jaden

p.s. Nothing I've stated here is opinion. It is merely a logical evaluation of reality based on prescribed definitions that I have no control over.

I don't get to say what qualifies as science, and nor do you. Science requires falsifiability. Evolutionary theory requires at the least, hundreds of thousands of years to take place and be observed. I mean that's what all the scientists that espouse it say anyways. So until recorded history has been around for several hundred thousand years we couldn't falsify it, and not even then, because it could then be stated that we haven't waited long enough to observe it.

Do you see where this is going? If it isn't falsifiable (and it's not) then it can't be science.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Lots of words and opinion, but I'm not seeing any emperical evidence that disproves evolution.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Noinden

Of course you have a camp, your camp is the scientific paradigm with little or no thought and analysis of non-contrived data of your own...

Jaden

Dude! Seriously, come on. I just spilled my coffee from laughing so hard. You are saying this to a scientist. You realize this right? A scientist that actually does do work and analyze data of his own... I think i need a new keyboard now. I had to bring a new one over to type this message LOL.

LOL, I already pointed out how it's not evolution. It is adaptation. Evolution CANNOT have empirical evidence to support it because it is NOT by it's VERY nature observable or testable empirically. It is always only supported by inferred evidence that shows something completely different. In this case, adaptation.

Nobody cares what some shill on the internet points out about evolution. You are laughably wrong. Adaptation is part of evolution. Small changes accumulate. Sorry you don't get it. Maybe try research the subject beyond creationist propaganda and you might actually learn something.

Maybe you should actually address the evidence, instead of redefining terminology to suit your agenda?

Is he Jaden Smith?

a reply to: Raggedyman

hahaha - are you sure you're not a JW or a Mormon?

a reply to: namelesss

Did you ever see the series premier of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? If not, you might want to check it out. It's a pretty good episode.

The reason that, ultimately, evolution will fail as a 'Universal theory' is the same reason that 'creation' fails. Both deal with 'beginnings' and temporal 'progression'...

Like a movie, motion, and the 'time' that defines 'motion' is an illusion!
Just like the 'moving' characters in the flick...

How can 'evolution' even exist, other than as a theory explaining an illusion.

I'm not convinced time is an illusion. If I look at a red apple, is the color an illusion? Someone who's color blind may not see it the same way. Someone who's completely blind would definitely not see it as I do. Even I would have a different perception in the dark; but in the light I can still guess which apple I'd prefer based on what I see. To me that's perception, rather than illusion.

I remember as a kid, when games were much more pixelated, I came to a realization and exclaimed to my brother: "Hey! The characters don't really move; the squares just change color!". Being the older brother, he just informed me that I was wrong and dismissed me; thinking himself to wise to get caught up into my childish nonsense. That was something very tantalizing to me though. I thought it might help me to find the truth behind the illusion.

I've always been fascinated by computers, they're boxes full of mysteries. Watching a machine 'think' as I played chess against it drove me crazy trying to figure how it worked. My path of investigation lead me into x86 Assembly Language. This is the first character I programmed to 'move':

To make it 'move' I simply have the computer set the appropriate set of pixels to the desired values on each frame (I was writing directly to VRAM in DOS). Despite being a thing I can interact with, is it an illusion? I think of it more as a representation nowadays. If you google 'optical illusion', you'll see some things that evoke the illusion of movement by placing a still image on your screen. You may call my animation an illusion, but it's still not the same as this: This Isn't an Animation.

So, is time really an illusion; or just a perception? If time is a perception (as I believe it to be), I don't see why evolution, or even creationism, would fail as theories. Evolution doesn't deny the existence of things in the past, it just posits a relationship between ancestors and decedents. If I understand you correctly, when you say all that exist is here now, you're not saying we're nothing more than Boltzmann Brains right?

If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. In an infinite universe, the number of self-aware brains that spontaneously and randomly form out of the chaos, complete with memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable Universe.

The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains. So this refutes evolution in multiverses. It also refutes the anthropic principle and even multiverses altogether: Why should we accept the anthropic principle, or indeed any argument, if it just popped up randomly into our Boltzmann brain? No argument is reliable in a Boltzmann brain universe. -Wikipedia

I sent you a PM.

a reply to: UB2120

His creative technique in time/space is progressive evolution. It is a technique designed to ensure life will evolve/adapt in varying environments across the universe.

Every time I fart millions of bacteria escape - they are my creations. Sadly they don't worship me. Butt like the Old Testament god I strike fear into my neighbours!

a reply to: Barcs

I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand the theory of evolution. small changes accumulate. yep,I understand it.

what you seem to be incapable of understanding is that a lack of ability to see all that time prevents the theory from being falsifiable am absolute requirement for legitimate science.

I don't care what you observe and test and experiment unless the their of evolution requiring immense time changes you are NOT doing science about evolutionary theory but are merely doing science that examines the mechanisms that are purported to lead to evolution based on evolutionary theory.

here allow me to put it into a simple logic algorithm.

premise a) science must be falsifiable or it is not science.

premise b) evolutionary theory requires such immense Periods of time to take place that it cannot be directly observed

premise c) anything that cannot be directly observed either through sensory perception or through instrumentation cannot be falsified

conclusion) evolutionary theory is not falsifiable and therefore is not science.


the above logic is sound so until you can validly prove one or more of the above premises wrong, you fail.

jaden

a reply to: coomba98

Google crocoduck

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand the theory of evolution. small changes accumulate. yep,I understand it.

Well that's a start I guess

what you seem to be incapable of understanding is that a lack of ability to see all that time prevents the theory from being falsifiable am absolute requirement for legitimate science.

And what exactly is the falsifiable alternative you are proposing? I haven't seen you propose one as yet.

I don't care what you observe and test and experiment unless the their of evolution requiring immense time changes you are NOT doing science about evolutionary theory but are merely doing science that examines the mechanisms that are purported to lead to evolution based on evolutionary theory.

You're limiting yourself to a rather narrow minded view of science. There are many legitimate observations that can corroborate or refute the predictions of MES. I haven't seen you demonstrate any refutations while you focus all of your energy on direct observations and how the inability to make direct observations invalidate Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Please show some examples of dossils located in strata dated to millions of years before or after the organisms is said to have lived. Or show me a frog evolving into a completely new organism in a time frame MES claims is impossible. It would be so easy to falsify MES but I've yet to see anyone do so.

here allow me to put it into a simple logic algorithm.

premise a) science must be falsifiable or it is not science.

Testability is, according to Popper(who was the first to come up with the concept of falsifiability regarding scientific theories) also a hallmark of good science. Good science does not live and die by falsifiability. If you can test the predictive ability of a theory, it then stands up to scrutiny.

Karl Popper in 1919

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

1.It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.


2.Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.


3.Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.


4.A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.


5.Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.


6.Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")


7.Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability

premise b) evolutionary theory requires such immense Periods of time to take place that it cannot be directly observed

Direct observation on the scale of "macroevolution" is not required to test the predictive powers of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis nor is it required to demonstrate falsifiability.

All one would have to do is, for example, is find the remains of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Devonian strata or perhaps the remains of Pterosaurs in Holocene strata. Nothing remotely similar to the above has ever been demonstrated under the scientific method. Again, falsifiability is most definitely possible without keeping 500 KA of observations to refer to.

premise c) anything that cannot be directly observed either through sensory perception or through instrumentation cannot be falsified

You're limiting your view to direct observations alone and that's disingenuous and myopic. We have a wealth of data from the fossil record to substantiate predictions made by MES such as transitional forms detailing whales journey from land to see, as predicted in 'On the Origin of Species' . In genetics, we are able to establish molecular clocks and establish when and where mutations occurred. Blue eyes and red hair are prominent, recent examples of this. We can determine where and when haplogroups emerged and from what earlier haplogroups they derived. This corroborates the predictive power of MES even without direct observation.

conclusion) evolutionary theory is not falsifiable and therefore is not science.


the above logic is sound so until you can validly prove one or more of the above premises wrong, you fail.

They are wrong. No matter what information or citations are cited though, people like you and raggedyman will lgnore it all and continue to insist the same tripe to be accurate no matter how glaring the flaws. Please show me one Homo Sapiens fossil older than the time frame estimated by establisging molecular clocks regarding the divergence of the most recent common ancestor of the genus Homo and the Genus Pan and you have completely falsified MES.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Your papa is calling young Jaden. His movies have sucked as much as your recently. Go learn what empirical means.

a reply to: Masterjaden

I am a pagan pharmaceutical chemist and bioinformaticist. No camp here unless the RHPS is not in

Get a job and a hair cut. Oh and get off my lawn

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Who said anything about the Old Testament? I have found most people box themselves into the concept of God (old bearded white guy, like Zeus) as presented in the Bible which is sad. They fail to realize that the concepts of God presented in the Bible (and most other religious texts) are thousands of years old and were written so the people of those days could comprehend it. Humans have progressed and it is time our concepts of God grow beyond what the Bible or other ancient texts have.

In our age of science and technology the idea of being the only life in the universe is absurd and I feel that is why many struggle with the idea of God when all they know is what the Bible describes.

Much of my understanding of God comes from The Urantia Book (www.urantia.org...). I highly recommend anyone wanting to expand their understanding to take a look.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Progressive evolution is more than just a belief system. We see evolution working all the time. Plant and animal selective breeding is evolution, albeit controlled by humans. To clarify, the breeding is not but the outcome is.

In the early days of life on a planet (and life is brought to a planet, it does not originate spontaneously) evolution is fostered by beings known as Life Carriers. (www.urantia.org...) Click the link to read about them.

a reply to: cooperton

If you believe that the only life in the universe is on this planet, then I can understand your position. Even though we don't have hard evidence of life on other planets (yet) the concept that we are the only life in the universe is just something I can't bring myself to believe. The universe is just too massive. Also to me, the concept that "life" spontaneously developed on this, and only this planet by chance is a much greater leap of faith than the concept of a universe teeming with life and that all life originated from God. Also, God does not do all things himself and I think a lot of people look at it that way which does make the concept of God much harder to understand. He has created a vast number of beings who do much of this work on his behalf. He also created the universal laws that govern how the universe operates on a physical level.

Part of the problem on our planet was the disruption of the cultivation of civilization early on in our planetary history. All planets that harbor life of the mortal type are fostered from the earliest days of life. Initially that fostering is just on a physical level until a type of life with the potential of higher development appears. Then the cultivation of civilization is started. On a planet where everything goes according to plan it is common knowledge that other worlds exist with life. They are also taught that once born into the universe we have the potential to progress/ascend from a mortal existence to one that is spirit like.

Since it has been tens of thousands of years since humans have had direct contact with the beings who's purpose it was to cultivate civilization it is understandable that many have the feeling isolation. And thing "why would God allow this". People say the same thing when a loved one is stricken with illness. Those who say things like this don't understand God. If you think about the possibility of eternal life, the years we live in the flesh are a very small part of our overall life.

The below passage is from The Urantia Book (www.urantia.org...) Paper 3.

...All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:

Is courage — strength of character — desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

Is altruism — service of one’s fellows — desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

Is hope — the grandeur of trust — desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

Is faith — the supreme assertion of human thought — desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

Is idealism — the approaching concept of the divine — desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

Is loyalty — devotion to highest duty — desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

Is unselfishness — the spirit of self-forgetfulness — desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

Is pleasure — the satisfaction of happiness — desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.

a reply to: sputniksteve

I do agree. Playing two or more sides against each other has been a tactic used on many fronts. I think we as a species would benefit if we stop trying to believe we know anything as absolute fact.