Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Dragon]

Here, this will make a start. EVOLUTIONARY/GEOLOGICAL TIMELINE v1.0

Highlights from this timeline based on the fossil record:

3.5-2.8 billion years ago, first one-celled organisms appear

1.5 billion years ago, first multi-celled organisms appear

545 million years ago, the "Cambrian Explosion" sudden emergence of numerous aquatic animal species, including trilobytes

500 million years ago, first vertebrates (fish)

420 million years ago, first land animals (millipedes)

375 million years ago, first sharks

350-300 million years ago, first amphibians, first insects

300-200 million years ago, first reptiles

200 million years ago, first mammals

Now, this being the case, we have a time before 200 million years ago when there were no mammals living on Earth, and a time since then when there have been mammals. Same with all of the other groups mentioned. What's more, over time, we have different species of mammal in the world. None of the earliest species of mammal still live; no species of mammal now alive lived 200 million years ago. And more or less the same is true of all other groups, although there are a few species that have survived unchanged over all that time.

With a one-time creation, you would not see this. You would see all of the species emerging at once. You might see some go extinct over time, but you would not see any new ones emerge. Yet we do. The only explanation for this is evolution: that, over time, the descendants of the old species have taken on the characteristics of the new ones.

Or do you have another explanation? If so, let's hear it.

 

[koshergrl]

TalkOrigin.

REALLY?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL,
lololololol

 

[techieny]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

WOW. What amazing insight you have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, an amazing theory indeed.

Of course, it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Ropey]

Yes, an amazing theory indeed.

Of course, it has nothing to do with science.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOzVkSFnKxI]I have a theory! - YouTube[/ame]

Too right.

 

[JoeB131]

Gravity is a theory...

 

[Cammmpbell]

..........................It's a science:

A million life forms have a skelton, mouth at the top or front, a rectum at the bottom or end, a brain, lungs, a heart, a digestive system, genitals within centimeters of the rectum...they are born or hatched, grow to fruition, reproduce and slowly die. Humans are just one species. If one doesn't eat and shit every few days they die.

Only some kind of ignorant human with the IQ of an idiot or someone who has been brainwashed from birth could fail to see that.

Speaking as an atheist, that has to be one of the lamest argument for Darwin I've ever heard...

So you think the invisible man in the sky created every life form from the same pattern. Absolutely no imagination.

The subtle effects of gravity over millions of years caused food and liquid to continue to flow from the top or front to the end or bottom. I guess the invisible man knew he was going to end up with that, no pun intended.

 

[koshergrl]

It's as likely as life suddenly and coincidentally spontaneously coming into being. I'm just not an intellectual dwarf who pretends my THEORY has been proven.

 

[Dragon]

TalkOrigin.

REALLY?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL,
lololololol

My, what a lovely (and predictable, from you) excuse for blithely disregarding the entire corpus of evidence from the entire fossil record. It's argumentum ad hominem, of course, a logical fallacy.

You do know what a logical fallacy is, right?

Now, would you care to stop making excuses and actually deal with the evidence? Do you have an honest bone in your entire body, or a scrap of intellectual integrity?

 

[konradv]

It's as likely as life suddenly and coincidentally spontaneously coming into being. I'm just not an intellectual dwarf who pretends my THEORY has been proven.

Actually you are, if you have all the evidence, but stick with beliefs that don't begin to explain what we see in the fossil and geological record.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve.

That's true. I was responding to someone else.

I am only saying that there is no scientific principle, testable or falsifiable, to tell us how a primal goo cam to be in the first place from which any living organism emerged and evolved. Science has yet to create any form of life whatsoever from inert matter.

I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here exactly. Are you talking about the origin of the universe, or of life?

If you're talking about the origin of life, there are in fact some falsifiable ideas as to how that might have happened; the problem is actually conducting the experiments so as to verify any of them. You are correct -- so far -- that science has yet to create life in a laboratory. However, the creation of organic molecules, including amino and nucleic acids, has been demonstrated, and there is no reason to believe that it is not just a matter of time and effort.

So you think there is no scientific curiosity that exists prior to the big bang? That isn't important? What sort of limited thought is involved that say what existed before the big bang does not matter? And what we know, despite the huge gaps in our knowledge, of what happened then and since is all that counts? You have to be kidding.

No, I'm not kidding. Whatever a scientist's curiosity may be as a human being, as a scientist he can only concern himself with objective data. Where no information can exist, science cannot tread. It is impossible, in principle, to gain any information about what happened "before" the Big Bang (actually, I would say that phrase is meaningless, because the Big Bang was the origin of time and space, not just matter and energy -- there was no "before"). That means science can't deal with it.

It's a mistake to see in science a way to answer every possible question we can ask. Science is a wonderful tool and method for answering objective questions of fact about the world we can observe and measure. It is useless for answering any other sort of question, though. It is not the way to approach questions of value, nor can it answer questions of fact about what can't be observed or measured.

And you said that Einstein made no statements that were not falsifiable. So falsify or offer a way to falsify this:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”--Albert Einstein.

I said Einstein made no statements as a scientist that were not falsifiable. There is nothing in any of his published scientific papers, from the Special Theory of Relativity on, that is not falsifiable. Like every other human being, he did have some interests outside science.

You don't consider the orderly harmony of what exists to be science? Einstein certainly did. In those published papers he wasn't dealing with that observable harmony.

He wouldn't be put into a box that would allow discussion only of that which could be tested, falsified, or written into scientific opinion--such opinion which has so often through the centures had to be rewritten when the prevailing scientific wisdom of one time was shown to be in error at another time. Einstein left room for theories that science was still looking for ways to test or falsify.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people who are otherwise bright, intelligent, and open minded on things are so close minded when it comes to the Theory of Evolution which still has more questions than answers even after being studied all this time.

 

[Cammmpbell]

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve.

That's true. I was responding to someone else.



I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here exactly. Are you talking about the origin of the universe, or of life?

If you're talking about the origin of life, there are in fact some falsifiable ideas as to how that might have happened; the problem is actually conducting the experiments so as to verify any of them. You are correct -- so far -- that science has yet to create life in a laboratory. However, the creation of organic molecules, including amino and nucleic acids, has been demonstrated, and there is no reason to believe that it is not just a matter of time and effort.



No, I'm not kidding. Whatever a scientist's curiosity may be as a human being, as a scientist he can only concern himself with objective data. Where no information can exist, science cannot tread. It is impossible, in principle, to gain any information about what happened "before" the Big Bang (actually, I would say that phrase is meaningless, because the Big Bang was the origin of time and space, not just matter and energy -- there was no "before"). That means science can't deal with it.

It's a mistake to see in science a way to answer every possible question we can ask. Science is a wonderful tool and method for answering objective questions of fact about the world we can observe and measure. It is useless for answering any other sort of question, though. It is not the way to approach questions of value, nor can it answer questions of fact about what can't be observed or measured.

And you said that Einstein made no statements that were not falsifiable. So falsify or offer a way to falsify this:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”--Albert Einstein.

I said Einstein made no statements as a scientist that were not falsifiable. There is nothing in any of his published scientific papers, from the Special Theory of Relativity on, that is not falsifiable. Like every other human being, he did have some interests outside science.

You don't consider the orderly harmony of what exists to be science? Einstein certainly did. In those published papers he wasn't dealing with that observable harmony.

He wouldn't be put into a box that would allow discussion only of that which could be tested, falsified, or written into scientific opinion--such opinion which has so often through the centures had to be rewritten when the prevailing scientific wisdom of one time was shown to be in error at another time. Einstein left room for theories that science was still looking for ways to test or falsify.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people who are otherwise bright, intelligent, and open minded on things are so close minded when it comes to the Theory of Evolution which still has more questions than answers even after being studied all this time.

There are as many people with an IQ below 100 as there are who have one above 100. Recently a special high cash poker game only had geniuses playing. They played for as long as it took for one player to end up with all the chips. The lowest IQ at the table was 138. As the game progressed one of the players was talking about the cards he was being dealt and said something about the "poker gods." That led the conversation to each of them stating that they did not believe in god. Go figure...six geniuses and not a one of them believed in a god.

One of them was Andy Bloch...the man who when at Harvard put together a crew so mentally capable that they went to Las Vegas and counted cards playing blackjack and won millions before the security people out there figured out what they were doing.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's true. I was responding to someone else.



I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here exactly. Are you talking about the origin of the universe, or of life?

If you're talking about the origin of life, there are in fact some falsifiable ideas as to how that might have happened; the problem is actually conducting the experiments so as to verify any of them. You are correct -- so far -- that science has yet to create life in a laboratory. However, the creation of organic molecules, including amino and nucleic acids, has been demonstrated, and there is no reason to believe that it is not just a matter of time and effort.



No, I'm not kidding. Whatever a scientist's curiosity may be as a human being, as a scientist he can only concern himself with objective data. Where no information can exist, science cannot tread. It is impossible, in principle, to gain any information about what happened "before" the Big Bang (actually, I would say that phrase is meaningless, because the Big Bang was the origin of time and space, not just matter and energy -- there was no "before"). That means science can't deal with it.

It's a mistake to see in science a way to answer every possible question we can ask. Science is a wonderful tool and method for answering objective questions of fact about the world we can observe and measure. It is useless for answering any other sort of question, though. It is not the way to approach questions of value, nor can it answer questions of fact about what can't be observed or measured.



I said Einstein made no statements as a scientist that were not falsifiable. There is nothing in any of his published scientific papers, from the Special Theory of Relativity on, that is not falsifiable. Like every other human being, he did have some interests outside science.

You don't consider the orderly harmony of what exists to be science? Einstein certainly did. In those published papers he wasn't dealing with that observable harmony.

He wouldn't be put into a box that would allow discussion only of that which could be tested, falsified, or written into scientific opinion--such opinion which has so often through the centures had to be rewritten when the prevailing scientific wisdom of one time was shown to be in error at another time. Einstein left room for theories that science was still looking for ways to test or falsify.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people who are otherwise bright, intelligent, and open minded on things are so close minded when it comes to the Theory of Evolution which still has more questions than answers even after being studied all this time.

There are as many people with an IQ below 100 as there are who have one above 100. Recently a special high cash poker game only had geniuses playing. They played for as long as it took for one player to end up with all the chips. The lowest IQ at the table was 138. As the game progressed one of the players was talking about the cards he was being dealt and said something about the "poker gods." That led the conversation to each of them stating that they did not believe in god. Go figure...six geniuses and not a one of them believed in a god.

Look, nobody has been talking about a "God" except you. If that is what you wanted to talk about instead of evolution being a theory or not, why didn't you be honest and up front and just put that in the OP? It would have saved a lot of us a lot of wasted time because I wouldn't have bothered subscribing to the thread.

If you want to discuss evolution as theory or not, then let's discuss that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am not one who has ever said mammals did not evolve. I am only saying that there is no scientific principle, testable or falsifiable, to tell us how a primal goo cam to be in the first place from which any living organism emerged and evolved. Science has yet to create any form of life whatsoever from inert matter.

The theory of evolution does not address how first life came to be. The theory of Evolution begins with the last universal common ancestor but does not attempt to explain how it came about. That is certainly no reason to reject the theory. Are we to reject quantum theory because it doesn't explain the origin of matter and energy?

Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA.
BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists

Oh now that is not entirely true,they have tried to figure out how non-living matter could have produced the life we see .Since they plead ignorace on the issue of origins of life they avoid the question.

Well if your natural process of evolution is a fact then you should be able to show it was even possible of happening on it's own.

This is a copout answer to the question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God is a theory

No, Gawd is a fantasy.

Evolution is a "scientific" theory.

Trickle down is a "theory".

All three are different. Only one has been positively proven to be false.

How did scientist prove God does not exist ? this should be fun.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's pretty sad when wicki is all you have in terms of education.

I was merely presenting something appropriate to the target audience. It's by no means all I have to offer, but I didn't want to shock your system.

If you're a Neo Darwinist thank you for providing timelines because it further supports the mathematical answer to how long it would take for man to diverge from an apelike creature through mutations. Your timelines show that it was impossible.

The math figures , if it happened through mutations as you and most believers of macroevolution claim that man could not have diverged some 10 billions years ago.

You guys need to move the goalposts now.

 

[Sunni Man]

There are as many people with an IQ below 100 as there are who have one above 100. Recently a special high cash poker game only had geniuses playing. They played for as long as it took for one player to end up with all the chips. The lowest IQ at the table was 138. As the game progressed one of the players was talking about the cards he was being dealt and said something about the "poker gods." That led the conversation to each of them stating that they did not believe in god. Go figure...six geniuses and not a one of them believed in a god.

Since most religions and religious people consider gambling to be a sin.

It is not surprising that the poker table was full of atheists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol.

Still waiting for a single citation to all this science you claim proves..whatever...irrefutably.

What do you want a citation for, exactly? I have made exactly one factual claim, namely that the fossil record shows that the species of plant and animal on earth have changed over time. Everything else is reasoning from this one fact.

Do you dispute that fact, and want a link to demonstrate it? Or do you dispute the reasoning? In the latter case, it's incumbent on you to establish a counter-argument, since facts are not in dispute.

Oh boy

 

[Youwerecreated]

Gravity is a theory...

We can see and feel the effects of gravity the same connot be said for macro-evolution.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's as likely as life suddenly and coincidentally spontaneously coming into being. I'm just not an intellectual dwarf who pretends my THEORY has been proven.

Actually you are, if you have all the evidence, but stick with beliefs that don't begin to explain what we see in the fossil and geological record.

Okay, if you see KG as an intellectual dwarf, you must view yourself as an intellectual genius. Good. We need a genius to explain this stuff to us.\

Please explain the appearance of the first organic life form. Where did it come from? Where did the stuff that created the amino acids or whatever that science theorizes produced the first life form come from?

And then explain how science, with all these theories and knowledge, has yet to produce a single living cell from inert matter?

And then tell us that because you have no answers for such questions, they have no place in science. That it is okay to just start with the fact that things are what they are and why or how they got started is of no importance whatsoever and could not possibly have any bearing on what they have become.