The Theory of Evolution

[☭proletarian☭]

Einstein was known to have bouts of stupidity. He refused to follow the implications of his own theories whenever they classed with what he wanted to believe

 

[antagon]

One post above this, you say that ST can be totally summed up in E=MC^2, that E=MC^2 IS ST written in a single equation. Do try to make up your mind.

Those are YOUR words not mine, you don't speak for me!
See your last post



You said that E=MC^2 was the whole of ST, written in 5 characters (when written using actual superscript)

Your words yet again, not mine.


Yes, there was. Else it would have been unverifiable/untestable and thus not a valid theory. It just hadn't been done yet. It was clear how it could be tested; someone just had to design and carry out an experiment meeting the requisite criteria.

.

Those are YOUR words, you have been challenged to show where I used the word "JUST" and you have failed to produce. No matter how many times you repeat your words they never become mine.

And the THEORETICAL formula was verified for the FIRST time 25 years after it was proposed.

The formula itself cannot be theoretical and I have repeatedly shown where you said E-MC^2 is all the whole of ST written in a single equation. Your dishonesty (or is just stupidity?) is astounding.

You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.

i cant but comment again on the religious-esque fervor in the science-believer community... all while majikmyst looks on hacking up it up with his need to call theory with verified consequences (not verified theory, guys) a FACT.

 

[MajikMyst]

.

The formula itself cannot be theoretical and I have repeatedly shown where you said E-MC^2 is all the whole of ST written in a single equation. Your dishonesty (or is just stupidity?) is astounding.

You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.

i cant but comment again on the religious-esque fervor in the science-believer community... all while majikmyst looks on hacking up it up with his need to call theory with verified consequences (not verified theory, guys) a FACT.

I am not sure how to respond?? Either you have no clue what the word theory means or you are making false claims about the people that do?? Which of those theories is correct??

It has been explained over and over and over and over and over in this thread how a theory is both a theory and a fact..

So here is a really short version.. Gravity is a reality and a fact that I am sure none here would deny.. It is also a theory as there are many questions about it's relationship with the universe, How all the planets interact with eachother, how the galaxy interacts with it, black holes, why can it trap even light, and so many other questions that make gravity a theory..

Evolution is fact, but it also a theory.. Gravity is fact, but it is also a theory..

E=MC^2 is fact, but it is also a theory..

The bottom line here is that many people haven't done any research on any of the topics above and can't grasp the full picture.. Are you one of those Antagon??

Why does mankind share 99% of our DNA with a common house plant??

How much DNA do plants share with humans?

That fact alone makes evolution a fact as well.. The only way that all living things would share so much DNA is we all evolved from the same source.. Which in fact we did.. Not Adam either.. From singled celled organisms in the ocean millions of years ago..

 

[JW Frogen]

Evolution can not be a theory, there is no way.

Think about it, any God who created me must be playing with natural selection-chance.

 

[Care4all]

genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.

man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.

 

[Missourian]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

 

[Care4all]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

Do you mean, us coming from an ape?

I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....bottom line, science still does not know...

If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.

The progression of plant life to sea life to birds and animals on the ground is the same progression that evolution or science is now saying.... God did not say man was created first in Genesis Missourian...he gave a general description of the order of events...and that order of events is being theorized and proven by science daily.... science is not evil, evolution is not evil and does not go against God in my book....science is proving God was/is correct (once they get it right and factual)....and that's just how I view it.

 

[antagon]

You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.

i cant but comment again on the religious-esque fervor in the science-believer community... all while majikmyst looks on hacking up it up with his need to call theory with verified consequences (not verified theory, guys) a FACT.

I am not sure how to respond?? Either you have no clue what the word theory means or you are making false claims about the people that do?? Which of those theories is correct??

It has been explained over and over and over and over and over in this thread how a theory is both a theory and a fact..

So here is a really short version.. Gravity is a reality and a fact that I am sure none here would deny.. It is also a theory as there are many questions about it's relationship with the universe, How all the planets interact with eachother, how the galaxy interacts with it, black holes, why can it trap even light, and so many other questions that make gravity a theory..

Evolution is fact, but it also a theory.. Gravity is fact, but it is also a theory..

E=MC^2 is fact, but it is also a theory..

The bottom line here is that many people haven't done any research on any of the topics above and can't grasp the full picture.. Are you one of those Antagon??

Why does mankind share 99% of our DNA with a common house plant??

How much DNA do plants share with humans?

That fact alone makes evolution a fact as well.. The only way that all living things would share so much DNA is we all evolved from the same source.. Which in fact we did.. Not Adam either.. From singled celled organisms in the ocean millions of years ago..

lemme venture to guess that youre not a scientist.

i run a handyman/construction firm, but getting a BSc in each of biology and chemical engineering's required i plow through plenty of genetics, plenty of physics. i subscribe to the idea we've evolved from bubbling sludge.

science doesnt work with 'fact' like you say. no matter how plausible and consistent conservation of matter/energy and its relationship to the speed of light is, stating it remains a hypotheses, a theory. it welcomes further exploration.

your declaration of absolute fact is counterproductive to the whole mechanism of science, and is the urge that i think links the fans of science to the religious.

 

[Immanuel]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

Do you mean, us coming from an ape?

I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....bottom line, science still does not know...

If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.

The progression of plant life to sea life to birds and animals on the ground is the same progression that evolution or science is now saying.... God did not say man was created first in Genesis Missourian...he gave a general description of the order of events...and that order of events is being theorized and proven by science daily.... science is not evil, evolution is not evil and does not go against God in my book....science is proving God was/is correct (once they get it right and factual)....and that's just how I view it.

Well said, Care. The only reason anyone thinks or thought that science and/or the Theory of Evolution is evil is because the church, Catholic Church I believe, took the stand that the Bible should be literally translated and left no room for the interpretation presented by Darwin and those who followed his line of thinking later. As I have always said, I think there is room for both ideas. Evolution does not destroy the possibility that God began it all and neither does the creation account in the Bible preclude the facts presented by science about evolution.

Science is still asking questions... that is what science does; ask questions, find answers, ask more questions. Fossil evidence points heavily to the idea that animals do in fact, evolve throughout time in such a manner as was pointed out earlier in the thread by someone showing the progression from Eohippus to the modern horse. There is nothing hard to understand about that progression.

I believe it is a leap, however, to go from "dog" to whale. I'm not saying it did not happen or it could not happen, rather I am saying that it takes more of a leap to go from dog to whale than it does to go from Eohippus to horse.

Science has not answered the question about how life started on earth. Scientists have shown us what they believe the "evidence" points to. I happen to agree with much of what they have been led to believe. Only a fool would deny everything they say. What we don't know for sure is at what point it all began. Does it go all the way back to a single celled animal and a bolt of lightning or did it start somewhere in time after that? I don't think well ever know the answer to that question, but in the meantime we can and should keep asking those questions.

Immie

 

[antagon]

not the catholic church. literal interpretation is a jux to papal interpretation and a protestant deal.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

genesis 1 is evolution.

right... plants evolved before the stars (including the sun) existed

you people are fucking retards.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

Two populations don't interbreed. They each change amongst themselves. There comes a point where they can't interbreed. This is a speciation event.

A third group might interbreed with subgroups of the first two populations and be able to breed with both. The three groups are known as ring species. Type 'ring species' into Google. Learn something. Stop being so fucking stupid.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

Do you mean, us coming from an ape?

We are apes. IN fact, we're great apes. Thanks for showing you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....

It never did, dumbass.

If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.

Plants before the sun? Males (wich are incapable of reproducing without females) before females (which can reproduce without males)?

Why are you people so stupid?

 

[Care4all]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

Do you mean, us coming from an ape?

We are apes. IN fact, we're great apes. Thanks for showing you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....

It never did, dumbass.

If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.

Plants before the sun? Males (wich are incapable of reproducing without females) before females (which can reproduce without males)?

Why are you people so stupid?

JB? Whoever you are...

you need to change your ammo....

the sun was present, as I have said before....in Genesis, the first proverbial Day, there ''was light and the light was good''....

the affixing of the earth, sun, moon, other planets and stars took place on the proverbial 4th Day, so that we could travel through the affixed position of the stars in our galaxy in relation to us and the Sun and the ability to tell time....eventually the 24 hour days we have now. When the proto planet Thea hit the side of the earth and spun off in to the moon, about 300 million years after the Earth was formed.

SCIENCE IS NOW SAYING that life on earth could have been present before we got hit by Thea but Thea's hit would have killed off most if not all of that life....yet before this hit by Thea, and during the great bombardment period, both water and amino acids were deposited by asteroid hits, which are the necessities needed for life on Earth.

You just are stuck on dumb, and refuse to view what Genesis, chapter 1, is really explaining....imho....learn how to open your mind, instead of shutting it down, when something does not fit with your preconceived notions.

oh, and we are not apes, we are hominids....you need to study the latest...
care

 

[Cecilie1200]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

I promise you that your "scientific" answer is going to be the same thing they've been babbling all along: I can't believe you're stupid enough to ask, all smart people believe in evolution, if you have to ask for proof, you're stupid and your mind is made up, so I'm not going to bother, I only cite my "proof" to people who agree with me.

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.

You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.

Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.

That's blind faith.

At least we're in the religion forum.

Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?

There is no real difference between "maco-evolution" and micro-evolution. The only people who get hung up on it, are the anti-evolution crowd. Macro-evolution is the accumulation of enough micro-evolutionary events to confer a novel phenotype.

As I said earlier, you statement is akin to saying "I believe in a penny, but not a dollar."

 

[geauxtohell]

genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.

man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.

And you believed that all happened in seven days and that woman was created from the rib of man?

There is nothing inherent to evolutionary theory that states either of those. I understand the Christian apologist movement's need to intellectualize Genesis to fit with the overwhelming scientific data that is evolutionary theory, but your statement is a little bit of stretch.

I don't have a problem with Christian Apologetics either. I really enjoy reading C.S. Lewis.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well said, Care. The only reason anyone thinks or thought that science and/or the Theory of Evolution is evil is because the church, Catholic Church I believe, took the stand that the Bible should be literally translated and left no room for the interpretation presented by Darwin and those who followed his line of thinking later. As I have always said, I think there is room for both ideas. Evolution does not destroy the possibility that God began it all and neither does the creation account in the Bible preclude the facts presented by science about evolution.

Actually the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution, without reservation. The Catholic Church is pretty good to support the scientific method, and many Catholic Priests have Ph.D.'s and work in scientific fields.

It's the Christian Fundamentalist movement that has a problem with evolutionary theory and has found the need to conduct subtle assaults on it (i.e. the Discovery Institute and "intelligent design").

I believe it is a leap, however, to go from "dog" to whale. I'm not saying it did not happen or it could not happen, rather I am saying that it takes more of a leap to go from dog to whale than it does to go from Eohippus to horse.

It is a leap. A leap that will not be found in evolutionary theory.

 

[Care4all]

genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.

man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.

And you believed that all happened in seven days and that woman was created from the rib of man?

There is nothing inherent to evolutionary theory that states either of those. I understand the Christian apologist movement's need to intellectualize Genesis to fit with the overwhelming scientific data that is evolutionary theory, but your statement is a little bit of stretch.

I don't have a problem with Christian Apologetics either. I really enjoy reading C.S. Lewis.

no, i don't believe for one nano second that this happened in seven, 24 hour days! I thought i was clear by using the term, ''proverbial'' before the word day...at least in my later post?

 

[geauxtohell]

genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.

man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.

And you believed that all happened in seven days and that woman was created from the rib of man?

There is nothing inherent to evolutionary theory that states either of those. I understand the Christian apologist movement's need to intellectualize Genesis to fit with the overwhelming scientific data that is evolutionary theory, but your statement is a little bit of stretch.

I don't have a problem with Christian Apologetics either. I really enjoy reading C.S. Lewis.

no, i don't believe for one nano second that this happened in seven, 24 hour days! I thought i was clear by using the term, ''proverbial'' before the word day...at least in my later post?

Your post was a little bit confusing. I get the "to God, one day is as a million years and a million years is as one day." thing, which implies that there is no time to God.

However, to hack a famous (and now debunked) evolutionary quote, to imply that:

Evolutionary theory recapitulates the book of Genesis, is somewhat of a stretch. At least IMO.

I think at best, the Christian apologist movement acknowledges that genesis (or at least the creation story of Genesis) is a collection of myths that early man created to explain the origin of species, but that doesn't even begin to resemble evolutionary theory.