Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[BillyP]

nothing magical about it......and again, its not proposed as a theory.....its a faith choice.....and its on equal footing with your faith choice.....sorry.....

You actually think that the popped into being theory is on an equal footing with science, which has mountains of evidence to support its positions? You're a few bananas short of a bunch.

 

[PostmodernProph]

You actually think that the popped into being theory is on an equal footing with science, which has mountains of evidence to support its positions? You're a few bananas short of a bunch.

do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

"Proof" has meaning in math, it has no meaning at all in science. There is no such thing as a scientific "proof", so it isn't a requirement of the scientific method.

when you conduct an experiment to test an hypothesis the goal is to obtain evidence the hypothesis is correct.....if it fails, one can say the hypothesis has been proven false......this is why one of the requirements of a scientific hypothesis is that it be falsifiable.....

now, it is true that if it passes the first experiment it has not been "proven" true......however, after it repeatedly passes it is often deemed true by the scientific community....

what is unique here is that something has been deemed true by the scientific community even though it has NEVER been tested and never will be.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.

no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....

 

[BillyP]

do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....

H-u-m-a-n e-m-b-r-y-o.

A zygote is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through mitosis, the process of cell division.

 

[BillyP]

no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....

Says the guy who believes humans just popped into existence like in a cartoon. Hey, maybe your god is Walt Disney!

 

[PostmodernProph]

H-u-m-a-n e-m-b-r-y-o.

A zygote is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through mitosis, the process of cell division.

if reproduction is evolution, and the adult is human, what species is the zygote?

 

[BillyP]

if reproduction is evolution, and the adult is human, what species is the zygote?

It evolved from a single cell to a multi. Now Shaddap!

 

[PostmodernProph]

It evolved from a single cell to a multi. Now Shaddap!

doesn't evolution involve transition from one species to another?.......that is, of course what science says.......you don't intend to deny science, do you?.....

 

[BillyP]

doesn't evolution involve transition from one species to another?.......that is, of course what science says.......you don't intend to deny science, do you?.....

Every step of evolution isn't a big one, it takes many little steps to accomplish what you ask. You either already knew that or you should seriously read up on the subject before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.
I used to eat meat, but my thinking evolved over time and now I'm a vegetarian, I've evolved to a better species of human, if you like.
Humans also have been getting taller over time, that's also evolution.

 

[PratchettFan]

when you conduct an experiment to test an hypothesis the goal is to obtain evidence the hypothesis is correct.....if it fails, one can say the hypothesis has been proven false......this is why one of the requirements of a scientific hypothesis is that it be falsifiable.....

now, it is true that if it passes the first experiment it has not been "proven" true......however, after it repeatedly passes it is often deemed true by the scientific community....

what is unique here is that something has been deemed true by the scientific community even though it has NEVER been tested and never will be.....

No. If a test indicates the hypothesis is correct that merely moves it up a step. In fact, it takes many tests for it to move up a step. It does not "prove" it to be true. Proof has no meaning in the process. If you are talking about evolution from single to multi-cell life, it is not deemed to be true by the scientific community. That is the prevailing theory based upon the available facts. It is not a "truth". Science is an investigatory process, it does not provide truths.

 

[PostmodernProph]

No. If a test indicates the hypothesis is correct that merely moves it up a step. In fact, it takes many tests for it to move up a step. It does not "prove" it to be true. Proof has no meaning in the process. If you are talking about evolution from single to multi-cell life, it is not deemed to be true by the scientific community. That is the prevailing theory based upon the available facts. It is not a "truth". Science is an investigatory process, it does not provide truths.

so, no one here believes it is true that multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms?......

 

[PratchettFan]

so, no one here believes it is true that multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms?......

I'm sure many people believe that. I believe that. I am sure the majority of scientists believe that. But that is irrelevant to the scientific method. There is no such thing as proof in that process.

 

[konradv]

and to the extent it is proven by science I believe in it......the problem arises when you take it beyond what science has proven, by the assumption that if you give it enough time, it could have accomplished anything.....

That's science. It's done all the time. It's just that this time it doesn't fit your religious feelings. Get used to it and fight with facts, NOT complaints about how conclusions are drawn. If you puts your facts together logically, the opposition's flaws will be obvious. You haven't met that standard.

 

[konradv]

this is so tiring.....which one of us in an imbecile, when I have stated at least five times in this thread alone that I am not proposing my faith statement as a scientific theory......one does not submit "proofs" of faith statements, you submit proofs of scientific theories....that is a requirement of the scientific method.......there is no corresponding "faith method" which requires the same......if you want equal treatment, stop pretending what you have is science instead of faith.....as long as you claim its science I will be asking you for proof that meets the scientific method.....

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

 

[Rationalist1016]

The main problem with this current argument is that evolution and abiogenesis are being confused. Abiogenesis is life forming from non-living matter. Evolution only addresses how multi-cell organisms change over time. It makes NO claims about how life came to exist.
These two subjects should be argued separately because they address two different things.

 

[PratchettFan]

The main problem with this current argument is that evolution and abiogenesis are being confused. Abiogenesis is life forming from non-living matter. Evolution only addresses how multi-cell organisms change over time. It makes NO claims about how life came to exist.
These two subjects should be argued separately because they address two different things.

I would think the transition from single cell to multi-cell would still be evolution.

 

[pinqy]

when you conduct an experiment to test an hypothesis the goal is to obtain evidence the hypothesis is correct.....if it fails, one can say the hypothesis has been proven false......this is why one of the requirements of a scientific hypothesis is that it be falsifiable.....

Not quite. You test the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship. If you can reject the null hypothesis, that means that it is likely the alternative hypothesis is correct. In other words: you don't test to see if your idea is supported, you test to see if the opposite of your idea is supported.

Falsifiability simply means that conditions exist under which the proposal could be proven wrong. There are any number of observations that would prove evolution wrong. The classic is a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, but others would be things like a dog giving birth to kittens, or a pig with wings, or a dog with scales...any kind of true chimera.

what is unique here is that something has been deemed true by the scientific community even though it has NEVER been tested and never will be.....

You seem to be under the misapprehension that hypothesis testing can only occur in a lab. That's ridiculous...unless you want to say all of astronomy is false because it's never been tested. For cases where direct experimentation cannot occur, testing takes the form of observation. No observation that contradicts the general theory of evolution has yet been made. Some parts of Darwin's original theory have been demonstrated to be incorrect, and other ideas have come and gone, but that species change over time and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor? Nothing to contradict that has been found and plenty of evidence to support it has.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not quite. You test the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship. If you can reject the null hypothesis, that means that it is likely the alternative hypothesis is correct. In other words: you don't test to see if your idea is supported, you test to see if the opposite of your idea is supported.

Falsifiability simply means that conditions exist under which the proposal could be proven wrong. There are any number of observations that would prove evolution wrong. The classic is a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, but others would be things like a dog giving birth to kittens, or a pig with wings, or a dog with scales...any kind of true chimera.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that hypothesis testing can only occur in a lab. That's ridiculous...unless you want to say all of astronomy is false because it's never been tested. For cases where direct experimentation cannot occur, testing takes the form of observation. No observation that contradicts the general theory of evolution has yet been made. Some parts of Darwin's original theory have been demonstrated to be incorrect, and other ideas have come and gone, but that species change over time and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor? Nothing to contradict that has been found and plenty of evidence to support it has.

Very well put. I wish I had done as good a job.

 

[NYcarbineer]

do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....

You need someone to conduct an experiment lasting 5 billion years, that would require the exact conditions that occurred on the Earth over that time period, in order to prove that complex organisms can evolve from single celled organisms,

otherwise we must dismiss the theory of evolution as just one more creation myth on par with Genesis in the Bible?

lol, good one