Science is mosly theory

[Dune Dx]

Im kinda annoyed with people on this site accepting evolution as fact. And people saying that science is about facts - its not its about coming up with theorys to explain the universe then trying to prove them

[God of Imperia]

But don't they prove their theory's with facts? Or do you think that Newton manipulated gravity to prove his theory?

[Dune Dx]

Most of Newtons theories on gravity where disprooven by Einstein. Newton believed gravity was instant Einstein prooved it was more of a ripple effect.

See so called facts of the past are no longer so we should keep that in our minds that alot of science is theories

[Hate Is Art]

The thing is Darwin proved evolution exists, Wagner also proved that the earth is changing and that it couldn't have been created in 7 days.

Religion has almost completely been obliterated by the facts that science has shown against it. All that is left is to turn non-living matter into living matter and then we shall be able to know that God doesn't exist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 29 2004, 08:28 PM
Most of Newtons theories on gravity where disprooven by Einstein. Newton believed gravity was instant Einstein prooved it was more of a ripple effect.

See so called facts of the past are no longer so we should keep that in our minds that alot of science is theories
No.


Newtonian gravitational theory applies appropriately to gravity as it affects objects on the earth.


General Relativity applies to gravity as it applies on a macro scale celestially. Einstein's General Relativity is more of an "added building block" onto Newtonian gravitational equations rather than a "substitution" as you have written.




Im kinda annoyed with people on this site accepting evolution as fact

Well I am annoyed that there are still people thinking on a level more equated with that of the middle ages.

[Dune Dx]

How did Darwin prove evolution he just came up with the theory.
You can never prove it inless we can see it happening say one day we see elphants being born with I dont know wings then we could prove evolution works.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I suggest you do some research on when Darwin was in the Galapogos Islands.

[Guest1]

Or some research on fruit flies.

[quaz]

Some very interesting replies to this post

Digital Nirvana- you said that Darwin proved evolution was fact. Unfortunately Darwin in fact only laid out an outline theory describing the possibility of evolution within a species of different sub-species.

There is little or no evidence supporting the idea of macro-evolution from one species to another, and a little study will show the high improbability of the development of new organs and limbs. Darwin himself acknowledged the unlikelyhood of macro-evolution. Hawkins also said that the majority of existing evidence contradicted the theory of evolution yet he determined that as he felt he could not submit to the existance of a deity he was forced to hold to it. Stuart Burgess has written a very interesting book outlaying evidence that both contradicts evolution and supports the existence of a designing force in the universe.

Quaz

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Have a look at the history of God or religion Dune.

It is more symbolic and generally can be shown to be the human reaction to our lack of understanding in our earliest forms.

From an anthropoligical perspective religion is simply something mankind created in order to gain moments away from the mundaneness of life, moments of elation are generally associated with forgetfulness.

Basically God is a theory on how to cope with reality based on nothing but a human fear of loneliness, this is one area I even think science would be needed only that most people shy away from anthropological origens for fear of what they might find.

[elijahcraig]

From an anthropoligical perspective religion is simply something mankind created in order to gain moments away from the mundaneness of life, moments of elation are generally associated with forgetfulness.

Basically God is a theory on how to cope with reality based on nothing but a human fear of loneliness, this is one area I even think science would be needed only that most people shy away from anthropological origens for fear of what they might find.


Many anthropologists have come to the conclusion that the idea of god is an externalized father figure. On a broader scale, mythology is externalized instinct. Gods most usually represent our most human psychological feelings (sex, bisexuality, war, whatever).

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

elijahcraig I did not know you posted here, I was bleh at ISF if you remember me by any chance, a brief encounter but your knowledge of literature and philosophy is quite good, Blake, Nietzsche and Joyce: the trinity: the will...

Why are you restricted?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Digital Nirvana- you said that Darwin proved evolution was fact. Unfortunately Darwin in fact only laid out an outline theory describing the possibility of evolution within a species of different sub-species.



I have to disagree. Current genetic research shows that all life as we know it share approximately 80% common DNA, as in these "basic DNA sequences" are the prominent building blocks for what we consider to be "life".

Some scientist would even suggest a common DNA factor of nearly 86%. The other 15 - 20% of non-common DNA sequences forms the different species common to this planet. I find it hard to believe that evolution be a selective trait within the uncommon DNA sequences of different species. Considering the human genome (as well as the genome for many different species) is completely mapped and their is no evidence of a specific sequence of DNA that controlls "evolution" of a species, I find this theory to be less than acceptable.



There is little or no evidence supporting the idea of macro-evolution from one species to another, and a little study will show the high improbability of the development of new organs and limbs. Darwin himself acknowledged the unlikelyhood of macro-evolution. Hawkins also said that the majority of existing evidence contradicted the theory of evolution yet he determined that as he felt he could not submit to the existance of a deity he was forced to hold to it. Stuart Burgess has written a very interesting book outlaying evidence that both contradicts evolution and supports the existence of a designing force in the universe.



Jablonski and quite a few other would disagree with this statement.

[lucid]

I proved that you can make someone puke with a gravity bong.

[RedCeltic]

:o

I don't know if this is in response to the debate in "Meat is Murder" but I had never meant that science isn't proven. I meant that alot of what we think as being "scientific" actually hasn't been proven.

I wasn't seeking to discredit science but rather to show that people put their faith in it regardless if they are clear on all the facts.

The truth is that evolution was a "Theory" at one point, and before any research done on it.. you could say that anyone who believed it was putting their "faith" into science... much like most of us put our "faith" in bio-medicine despite much of it's practice has never been actually scientifically tested.

Evolution however is a theory that actually has been tested due to sharp attack on it and it's actually very much so been proven to be a fact.

We can observe natural selection through bacteria for example. Anti-bacterial medication can only kill off 99% of the bacteria. Without any competition, this bacterium multiplies quickly, and if you continue to use the same medicine without changing it, you will end up with a bacteria that is immune to that medicine.

This is how through natural selection, plants and animals have changed over thousands of years.

For Christians, this only discredits their religion if they are idiotic enough to take their silly book literally.

For me, that takes more than just faith in some spiritual force and "higher power" it takes faith that people long ago lived to be 900 years old or whatever like Abraham... because they were "holy"...

You don't have to be an atheist, pagan, or any other non Christian to see that the bible is a group of stories that are meant to teach you a lesson. Weather you want the lesson of male domination, slave ownership, and everything good about life being a "sin" or "taboo" is another story.

[elijahcraig]

elijahcraig I did not know you posted here, I was bleh at ISF if you remember me by any chance, a brief encounter but your knowledge of literature and philosophy is quite good, Blake, Nietzsche and Joyce: the trinity: the will...

Why are you restricted?

I remember.

I am restricted because I called the moderator (Malte, before RAF) a pussy once.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Actually, I think you did it a few times comrade. You are a ball breaker extraordiaire.


I love this cat.

[D'Anconia]

We can observe natural selection through bacteria for example. Anti-bacterial medication can only kill off 99% of the bacteria. Without any competition, this bacterium multiplies quickly, and if you continue to use the same medicine without changing it, you will end up with a bacteria that is immune to that medicine.

This is how through natural selection, plants and animals have changed over thousands of years.


How does that "prove" evolution? Observing bacteria that adapt to certain conditions does not prove anything. The bacteria "evolve", yes. But never are they anything other than bacteria.

No one has ever observed the evolution of one form of life into another. How can you then say that evolution has been proven?

[elijahcraig]

Actually, I think you did it a few times comrade. You are a ball breaker extraordiaire.


I love this cat.


I really couldn't remember what happened. Or why I called him that.

[Guest1]

Well I wouldn't be too surprised if you got uncaged sooner or later.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 29 2004, 09:29 PM
Well I wouldn't be too surprised if you got uncaged sooner or later.
more sooner than later maybe..;)

I've unrestricted elijahcraig for now... this may piss Malte off but a majority of the posters voted to let him out.

[Guest1]

Yeah, I posted this here, then went to check the CC and saw the old thread was already bumped :)

[Guest1]

For those of you saying evolution is a theory, and the only way to prove it is to create new life in the lab:

Science On Verge of New 'Creation' (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/chi-0403280359mar28,0,4395528.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)

[quaz]

Someone I can't remember who was saying that the similarities in genetic code between species showed that macro-evolution was possible. This makes very little sense to me, The 15% of genetic code that varies between species consists of millions od genes, enough to make a profound difference. Also enough that vast numbers would have to change to create a significant enough change to constitute a change in species. When you take into account the many irreducible joint and muscle structures that you claim to have evolved, which would need each individual component to be present to result in anything remotely useful, and not a piece of flesh then evolution seems as unbelievable as the existance of supernatural beings.

[Dune Dx]

Also going back to whoever posted that thing on bacteria thats adaption not evolution! Humans adapt to deseases as well we dont evolve were still human

Because most of my arguments on this site over the existance of God or not have ended up with you cant prove anything i started this topic so the people that keep posting evolution as fact would stop doing so then I wont go on about God on a totally unrelated topic so just stop doing that its a theory you can say a likely theory but still a theory!

And can you people stop using my topic for your own conversations on restrictions!!!!!!!!

[Dune Dx]

Che Y marijuana Im probably looking at the wrong bit but what does your link have to do with evolution!

Its just creating life to solve the worlds problems

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 29 2004, 08:36 PM
The thing is Darwin proved evolution exists, Wagner also proved that the earth is changing and that it couldn't have been created in 7 days.

Religion has almost completely been obliterated by the facts that science has shown against it. All that is left is to turn non-living matter into living matter and then we shall be able to know that God doesn't exist.
yea, some of the myths of religion are entirely shot to hell, but yet there are still avid zealots out there trying to ban biology and evolutionary theory in schools. Religion can be a good thing, (in my opinion and if done correctly) but this is just ignorance.

[Dune Dx]

Evolutionary theory shouldnt be banned in schools nothing should be banned it should just be presented as what it is. Not that evolution disproves the bible because there are alot of christians that agree with Evolution. - I dont its seems a bit silly to me the idea of one day an animal started to grow a whole knee joint when a knee joint is comprised of lots of individual bits - quaz put it best look at his post

[Osman Ghazi]

Evolution is based on chance mutations. You see, sooner or later, without fail some member of a species will be born with a gene that is at least slightly different than the rest of teh species. If the gene helps the species to adapt to its environment, then the animal will thrive and its children will also have the same mutation and they will thrive until finally the whole area is filled with that particular mutation's offspring. You see, we used to be monkeys millions of years ago. It took millions of years to become what we are. We didn't just wake up human one day.

Also, adaptation is evolution. Your stupid comment about how it isnt evolution to become resistant to disease is simply retarded. People who don't die from a disease have a genetic resistance to it. Hence when they have children, their children are also resistant to the disease.

[Dune Dx]

evolution is the result of lots of adaptions so my comment that the bacteria become resistant isnt retarded retard its just one adaption it hasnt evolved if I get anti bodies (at least I think there called anti bodies) to protect me from a disease then I havnt evolved

[truthaddict11]

there are alot of christians that agree with Evolution

lol how can that be true when Genisis says that "God created Man in his own image" or how according to your faith the universe was created in 6 days? Give me some credible information on christians that believe in evolution, because I have never met one in my life.



And can you people stop using my topic for your own conversations on restrictions!!!!!!!!


oh dear! someone brought up an unrelated subject lets get all pissed off :rolleyes:

[Dune Dx]

There are christains that believe in evolution just not the evolution of man and lots of christians belive that the 7 days is not literal but if you look the order that the animals apear on the earh is the same as what science says

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 30 2004, 10:20 AM
There are christains that believe in evolution just not the evolution of man and lots of christians belive that the 7 days is not literal but if you look the order that the animals apear on the earh is the same as what science says
no, because many scientists believe that whales and other marine mammals once walked on earth and evolved into their current form. so a "7 days" theory is bull. and where are your credible sources on christians that believe in evolution when this contradicts what is in the Bible man is an animal so how come you believe we didnt evolved but all other animals did?. and what about dinosaurs? how come no mention of them in the bible? geological evidence of the age of the earth? most theologions i have heard from think the earth is only a few thousand years old. explain how the Grand Canyon was formed. the only response i have every heard from christians was the "great flood"

[Dune Dx]

Ok I dont belive in evolution at all im only showing there are christians out there that do! and I think the great flood would be a good awnser but I thought scientists say it was caused by some thing to do with some glaciers but i dont know much about it so cant say much but erosion isnt always slow it can happen very fast.

[quaz]

Evolution is based on chance mutations. You see, sooner or later, without fail some member of a species will be born with a gene that is at least slightly different than the rest of teh species.

If a creature is born with ONE gene that is different this will make very little difference to the total structure of an animal. Any difference that is caused is higly unlikely to be of any real use. What is more for the gene to help in a lasting difference it must be successfully passed to the following generation. Whats more many of the changes that would be needed for any evolution between species depend on many factors being created at once. For example the evolution of a knee joint that works would require all the components to be present at once. For this rather than a gene that is slightly different you would need millions of genes to change at once otherwise the new "joint" would be a hindrance rather than a help.

Here is a book that outlines the scientific reasoning against evolution and gives evidence of a designing influence behind the universe:
Hallmarks of Design - Dr Stuart Burgess

[truthaddict11]

you still havent proved to me a single credible christian who believes in evolution. and it was formed by the Colorado River.

[Dune Dx]

and wait a seccond scientists believe there was life in the oceans then life on land just like the bible says he made life in the seas so they both agree that sea creatures came first just depends weather you take the 7 day time limit literaly or not personaly I dont think it makes much difference and dont have a view if it was 7 days or 7 stages

[quaz]

christians that believe in evolution when this contradicts what is in the Bible

You seem to be under the misconception that Christians base their view on the Bible. I'm very sorry to say that this isn't always the case. For example compare Paul's view on women preaching in churches and that of the CofE

[God of Imperia]

So you do believe in evolutuion or do you prefer to believe that this all was gods vision?

[truthaddict11]

quaz, i was refering to Genisis and how saying how "God" created man in his own image and how a christian believing in evolution is contradictory to the bible. not about something written in the "new testament".

[quaz]

explain how the Grand Canyon was formed. the only response i have every heard from christians was the "great flood"

I would have to say God did it.


single credible christian who believes in evolution

I believe that the current Bishop of Oxford is an evolutionist, however I don't think you could describe him as a Christian.

[Dune Dx]

I believe God made the world and do not believe in evolution but have no opinion on how old the world is. My disbelief in Evolution is mainly enphersised in Quaz's points

[God of Imperia]

That's a choice we all have to make for ourselves, I personally don't believe in God, it might be possible that there is some greater force somewhere, but a God ...
If there is a God I believe he fucked some things up ...

[quaz]

Truth addict 11, whether in the old or new testament or the new it still holds true that there are those who call themselves Christians yet do not feel that this makes them obliged to follow the teachings of the Bible or the Christ that they say they follow. It has become more of an "image" than a faith. It could be said that true followers of Christ are in the minority.

quaz

[Dune Dx]

to God of Imperia I would like to say that the world is not perfect because God gave us free will I would go on for ages back it up and stuff but Im sure most people will just get annoyed with me flooding my own topic!

[truthaddict11]

lol so someone can call themselves a christian without believing in the core value of the faith then? thats funny because I havent met a single christian ever who doesnt believe in the cruxifiction or any that dont believe in creationism. so why are these people calling themselves christians if they dont believe anything about that religion seems kind of stupid to me.

[Dune Dx]

Really i have there are loads of people I know who call them selves Christians who do not even believe in God most of Britain on their censorships say their Christians even tho their not!

[quaz]

like you said truthaddict11 it is stupid people in Britain often call themselves Christians because they see Britain as a Christian society. It seems that only those who bother to think will say they are atheists or agnostics. Of course a sub-conscious thought won't bring you salvation, so by not coming to an opinion they are condemning themselves to all who have gone to that effort.

quaz

[Vinny Rafarino]

Someone I can't remember who was saying that the similarities in genetic code between species showed that macro-evolution was possible. This makes very little sense to me, The 15% of genetic code that varies between species consists of millions od genes, enough to make a profound difference

No it didn't.


I directly refuted an "interesting" statement you had made. I suggest you go back and review the post.

In addition, I advised you that there is no specific gene that is designed for evolution only, making your comment on what you assume Darwin "thought" seem a bit "odd" at best.

Those millions of genes that you refer to as "similar" are identical.

What you are attempting to say (despite prolific scientific evidence, again, it seems odd you would say that "little or no" evidence exists) in regard to Darwin only suggesting "selective" evolution (one more time, no "evolution" gene exists in any human DNA) is actually quite pedomorphic from a genetic point of view. It makes me wonder if you have received your information from some right wing "creationist" source.

If you would like to learn the truth, perhaps you should research the hundreds of documents and studies (yes, the ones you claim don't exist) proving macroevolution that have been re-published right here on the internet.

[quaz]

You seem very set in your views as am I, all I am trying to say is that Darwin presented evolution as a theory, and that the evidence that I have seen does not support it. I do not recall saying there was an "evolution gene" if I did I am sorry for my mistake, thank you for your correction.

It appears that I must also thank you for kindly pointing out how a right-wing creationist source of information could of course never be from scientifically accurate. Of course only the views you hold can be supported by science.

For evolution between species there would have to be an extremely extremely large change in genetic structure at once as the structure of things such of the knee joint must happen in one large event. A partially developed knee joint would be of absolutely no use. Therefore it still appears to me that it is nigh impossible for a creature to evolve between one species and another in small steps.

I thank you for your instruction. Please reply.

quaz

[Dune Dx]

I think Quaz's last remark just destryed any evolutionists left but whats that is there another contender ... no.. none out there who thinks they have a good counter argument for Quaz

3...

2...

1...

and I think we can say Quaz has won the argument wooo yeah round of applause for Quaz!!!!!! :D

[Sabocat]

I didn't think there actually were any creationists, I mean, I've heard of them sure, but it's hard to believe anyone would buy into it.


Prerequisites to be a Creationist

This essay outlines the basic requirements to be a Creationist, specifically, one of the self-righteous ones that believe that Creationism has a place in public schools. It is presented in a somewhat humorous fashion, but what it says is entirely true. I must maintain that I hold all Creationists who think that Creationism should be taught alongside or instead of evolution in schools in very low regard. I don't have a problem with Creationists that just admit that their beliefs are totally faith-based and have no grounding in logic or science.

1. IGNORANCE

You must, without question or exception, be completely ignorant of science, logic and real life, in general, to be a Creationist. Every "argument" a Creationist puts forth to "disprove" Evolutionary Theory is nothing more than a mangling of pseudo-science, outright lies, logical fallacies, exaggerations and misinformation. They also rely on the same, recycled, refuted arguments. There has not been one new Creationist argument recently put forth. It's still attacking radiometric dating with the abhorrent notion that decay rates vary, and it's still lying about the Law of Entropy to make it seem as if it makes evolution impossible. Nothing has changed.

2. DISHONESTY

You must be completely dishonest to purport Creationist arguments. Creationists routinely lie about thermodynamics, radiometric dating, Evolutionary Theory, science, scientists and general scientific concepts.

3. INEXCUSABLE INCOMPETENCE

It's not lying if you think it's the truth. Many Creationists actually believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes Evolutionary Theory. This is simply stupidity, and it is totally inexcusable. Anytime someone who doesn't have a legitimate authority in science tells you that scientists are wrong because of whatever reason, you'd better check up on it before just blindly accepting it as fact. The fact that so many have been taken in by Creationist pseudo-science and lies is testament to intellectual laziness. It is also a testament to the scientific education of the general populace.

4. FERVENTLY RELIGIOUS LUNACISM

If you believe that the Bible is correct about the creation of the Universe, then you must believe that it is completely literal, as no contextualist would ever interpret a story which contradicts physical evidence and is contradicted by another story in the same book, in the same section.

5. RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY

If you believe that the Bible is to be interpreted literally, then you believe that all other religions are wrong, and that all of their followers will forever be tortured in the afterlife. Consequently, you also must believe that it is your duty, as a Christian, to seek out and destroy all these other religions' sacred objects and defile their practices. Anyone who interprets the Bible literally must also accept that racism, slavery and sexism are all the will of God. See the Organized Religion section for details.

6. DISBELIEF IN HUMAN RIGHTS

The Bible makes it clear that humans have no rights. No one has the right to practice their own religion (except Christianity and Judaism) without punishment, and no one is allowed to say what they want to say without retribution. To do so violates some of the Ten Commandments.

7. ANTI-DEMOCRATIC/PRO-THEOCRACY MINDSET

The Bible makes it clear that a democracy based on the will of the people is not God's preferred government. Rather, the best government is a dictatorship, enforced with terrorism, mass-homocide and "Big Brother" tactics (i.e. "God knows everything that you do").

8. BELIEF THAT GOD IS THE ARBITER OF MORALITY

The Bible purports the massively-flawed belief that God is infallible. Even though God has been convinced to change his mind repeatedly by human beings in the Bible, he is still incapable of doing wrong. This belief only reinforces the belief that humans have no rights, as we are under the watchful eye of God, who will severely punish us for minor infractions.

9. BELIEF THAT ALL BRANCHES OF SCIENCE ARE CONSPIRING TO COVER UP "THE TRUTH" OF CREATIONISM

In order to be a Creationist, you must believe that scientists are untrustworthy servants of the devil, whose agenda is to distort facts and make it seem as if Evolution is the truth, when, in reality, they're not telling us about the volumes of "facts" that the Creationists do. Scientists want everyone to believe that the Universe was caused by random chance, that there is no God, and life has no meaning (because, Evolution obviously necessitates all of these things). All branches of science that give evidence for an ancient Earth are just flunkies for the Evolutionists. Astrophysics, geology, physics, astronomy...none are credible branches of science, only beams in the support structure of Evolution.

10. OVERALL, GENERALIZED STUPIDITY

If you're a Creationist, you're an idiot. I don't care if you're the nicest person on Earth, have a doctorate in astrophysics, or stumped Stephen Hawking on general physics. The complete dismissal of so many branches of science, scientists' credibility, evidence in addition to the intellectual laziness and fervent religious bigotry that come with being a Creationist makes one a complete idiot. This is one blanket statement that I am not afraid to make, because it is true. If you find a religiously-tolerant Creationist, you've found a hypocrite. The person in question would accept the Bible as literal truth on a scientific level, but would be ignoring the commandments of racism, religious intolerance and persecution that God handed down to the Israelites.

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creatio...equisites.shtml (http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/prerequisites.shtml)

[Dune Dx]

Is that intended at anyone on this topic?

[Sabocat]

The Creationists. :lol:

[quaz]

Lovely insults Disgustapated but no actual reasoning. I've often found that it is far easier to insult an idea than reason against it. Anyway... As far as I can tell there is no way to disprove creationism, so I'll keep believing in it. I could probably construct an argument against your list but I'm too lazy.

[Dune Dx]

If you look at mine and Quaz's argument we havnt ignored science in Quaz's hes used science to back his up so I dont see the point in your post :huh:

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Dune [email protected] 30 2004, 02:46 PM
If you look at mine and Quaz's argument we havnt ignored science in Quaz's hes used science to back his up so I dont see the point in your post :huh:
Somehow I've missed the representation of science in either of your posts. The "science" being put forth by Quaz as near as I can tell is from a Doctor of Mechanical Engineering. Dr. Stuart is neither a Biologist or Archeologist.


How did Darwin prove evolution he just came up with the theory.
You can never prove it inless we can see it happening say one day we see elphants being born with I dont know wings then we could prove evolution works.

Is this your representation of scientific theory? I believe that even modest research of evolution on your part would explain that even small changes require hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to realize. I think it's safe to say that in your lifetime, seeing elephants evolve to flight just isn't going to happen.


Ok I dont belive in evolution at all im only showing there are christians out there that do! and I think the great flood would be a good awnser but I thought scientists say it was caused by some thing to do with some glaciers but i dont know much about it so cant say much but erosion isnt always slow it can happen very fast.

I mean seriously, how can you argue against evolution when you yourself confess to not knowing or understanding glacial movement and erosion?

Since you are willing to accept creationism, here is another site that you may be interested in.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskop...arthsociety.htm (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)

They have many "scientists" backing up their theories too! :lol:

[Misodoctakleidist]

Dune DX, evolution may not be proven but it's almost certainly true.

Science uses the hyperthetico-deductive method, this means that a theory is put put forward and accepted as true untill it is disproven because it's impossible to prove anything.

Why do you reject evolution despite the overwhelming evidence? Why don't you reject gravity? Or the theory that 1+1=2?


Im kinda annoyed with people on this site accepting evolution as fact

I'm kinda annoyed with people saying that evolution is only a theory becuase it isn't 100% proven, what do you want us to do, refer to everything we say as a theory?

[elijahcraig]

You seem very set in your views as am I, all I am trying to say is that Darwin presented evolution as a theory, and that the evidence that I have seen does not support it.

What evidence would that be?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Evolution is more then a theory, it is a scientific fact. I know this because people have done it themselves on a smaller extent, both directly and indirectly. If all life was created exactly the way it was by "god", then the genetic code must be unchangable. However we have been able to create new species, both directly by genetic engineering, and passively by selective breeding. If we can do that here and now, then why wouldn't nature be able to do such a simple task?

[elijahcraig]

Evolution is more then a theory, it is a scientific fact. I know this because people have done it themselves on a smaller extent, both directly and indirectly. If all life was created exactly the way it was by "god", then the genetic code must be unchangable. However we have been able to create new species, both directly by genetic engineering, and passively by selective breeding. If we can do that here and now, then why wouldn't nature be able to do such a simple task?


I don’t think this is a way to go about arguing against the idea of God. Theists would simply said God “meant for that to happen that way,” etc. It’s irrational, but logical in the mind of a Theist.

The way to critique the idea of God in my view is to 1) take away literal meaning, 2) analyze it psychologically, 3) prove rationalism to be above empiricism, and 4) go from there.

It varies, but that’s a good way to go about it.

[Dune Dx]

Ok there is quite a big difference with animals getting bigger through selcted breading and growing entirely new respirtory systems and lymbs.

and I do know things about erosion i meant I dont know alot about the grand canyon!

and my dibelief in evolution is basickly founded on how can animals grow small adaptions that wont work in less there are lots of small adaptions therfore making them no longer small adaptions just on big one.

you still havnt countered Quaz's point on the knee joint till you do I will not believe evoution happens.

[Osman Ghazi]

I have just discovered that Quaz and Dune Dx are complete twats. (No offense) ;)

There are only 30,000 or so genes in the human DNA sequence.
So, if 80% of the genes of the beings of earth are the same, only 6,000 need to be changed to go from one species to another. Is it really so hard to believe that 6,000 genes changed over the course of a couple of million years? Just look at people with down syndrome, they lack whole chromosmes which contain about 800 genes each.

As for Quaz's 'evidence', it doesn't surprise me that a mechanical engineer doesn't understand how a knee-joint developed. Maybe if he were say, a geneticist, I might be inclined to actually consider what he had to say.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Dune Dx if you want to argue Free Will with me in relation to God I am up for it since nobody else took up the challenge.

Elijah I believe God can be proven to be a symbol, man's creation from an anthropoligical perspective and also psychologically.

[elijahcraig]

and my dibelief in evolution is basickly founded on how can animals grow small adaptions that wont work in less there are lots of small adaptions therfore making them no longer small adaptions just on big one.

I don’t know what this means.

Take time to make an argument and then we can debate. Don’t be so vague.


Dune Dx if you want to argue Free Will with me in relation to God I am up for it since nobody else took up the challenge.

Which side are you on?


Elijah I believe God can be proven to be a symbol, man's creation from an anthropoligical perspective and also psychologically.

God originated in the Sun. The Sun is the God in primitive societies. As more rationale developed, this conception became “illogical” and was rationalized by assigning the god to an external place, ie giving the god an identity, etc: anthropomorphizing of the god.

I don’t know what you mean by “a symbol,” care to expand?

[Sabocat]

For your consideration.....

Fossil Illuminates Evolution of Limbs from Fins


The discovery of a 365-million-year-old forelimb is helping scientists better understand how ancient creatures made the transition from water to land. A report published today in the journal Science describes the fossil, which represents an intermediate stage in the evolution of fish fins into vertebrate limbs.
Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago and his colleagues recovered the bone, which was encased in a brick-size piece of red sandstone, from the side of a highway in north central Pennsylvania. The layered rocks are the remains of a stream system dating back to the Late Devonian Period. "We knew it was a humerus," study co-author Michael I. Coates of the University of Chicago recalls, "but it was an entirely different kind. We had never seen one like it before." For example, compared with the anatomy of other tetrapods of the same age there is a large space for chest muscle attachment, the scientists report. This added brawn would have enabled a motion similar to a benchpress or push-up. Based on the apparent size and extent of the muscles, the authors posit that the humerus played a significant role in the support and movement of the animal.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...A3083414B7F0000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000BC4A9-8057-106C-BA3083414B7F0000)