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

[AmericanFirst]

God is a theory

Only to satan worshipers.

Scientifically there is no proof that god exists

There is a theory that a being named god created everything and controls everything

That theory has never been scientifically proven. Especially to the levels that evolution has been proven

Evolution has never been proven. Proof of God is in his CREATION.

 

[AmericanFirst]

And theoretically somehow the Godless universe was somehow able to organize itself out of stuff for which nobody can explain an origin and was able to all by inself produce an organic soup with enough stuff of life for a primitive single cell lifeform to appear in the soup and that lifeform, with no brain or other intelligence yet developed made choices to eventualy evolve into a giraffe or aardvark or human being.

We can find incomplete correlation for that theory but correlation that is sufficient to qualify it as scientific theory suitable for teaching in classrooms.

But nobody has ever proved it. Have they.

Exactly.

 

[rightwinger]

Only to satan worshipers.

Scientifically there is no proof that god exists

There is a theory that a being named god created everything and controls everything

That theory has never been scientifically proven. Especially to the levels that evolution has been proven

Evolution has never been proven. Proof of God is in his CREATION.

The theory of God has not been proven to the level of fidelity that the theory of evolution.

As a scientific theory, the theory of God is very weak

 

[Foxfyre]

Scientifically there is no proof that god exists

There is a theory that a being named god created everything and controls everything

That theory has never been scientifically proven. Especially to the levels that evolution has been proven

Evolution has never been proven. Proof of God is in his CREATION.

The theory of God has not been proven to the level of fidelity that the theory of evolution.

As a scientific theory, the theory of God is very weak

Still, some sort of intelligence being behind the process sure makes more sense to me than all this just happened by chance through a natural selection process by primitive organisms with no ability to even feel much less choose or prefer.

Even Einstein, though he accepted no concept of a personal God and was technically an Atheist as modern folks would define that, believed that there had to be some sort of cosmic intelligence within the universe. That made far more sense to him than the idea of the diverse, beautiful, complicated, and intricate components of the universe happening purely by coincidence or accident. His view was shared by Spinoza and many others.

But the dedicated anti-religionist doesn't want to consider a theory of some of the greatest minds in the universe as 'scientific' because it is just too easy to transfer a concept of a cosmic intelligence into some sort of God.

 

[rightwinger]

And theoretically somehow the Godless universe was somehow able to organize itself out of stuff for which nobody can explain an origin and was able to all by inself produce an organic soup with enough stuff of life for a primitive single cell lifeform to appear in the soup and that lifeform, with no brain or other intelligence yet developed made choices to eventualy evolve into a giraffe or aardvark or human being.

We can find incomplete correlation for that theory but correlation that is sufficient to qualify it as scientific theory suitable for teaching in classrooms.

But nobody has ever proved it. Have they.

There is substantial genetic and fossil evidence that has been subjected to extensive scientific hypothesis testing and peer reviewed evaluation

There is no scientific evidence supporting the theory of god

 

[Dragon]

And theoretically somehow the Godless universe was somehow able to organize itself out of stuff for which nobody can explain an origin and was able to all by inself produce an organic soup with enough stuff of life for a primitive single cell lifeform to appear in the soup

None of this has anything to do with evolution.

and that lifeform, with no brain or other intelligence yet developed made choices to eventualy evolve into a giraffe or aardvark or human being.

This has almost nothing to do with evolution. The current theory of how it operates does not include organisms making choices to evolve.

We can find incomplete correlation for that theory but correlation that is sufficient to qualify it as scientific theory suitable for teaching in classrooms.

But nobody has ever proved it. Have they.

Nobody has ever proven ANY scientific theory. The theory of gravity is unproven. In fact, that's a good example to show the difference between the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of evolution.

When you say "the theory of evolution," what you are properly referring to is not the idea that species evolve over the generations (that's the FACT of evolution), but rather the current biological model about how this happens: through mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection.

Similarly, when you say "the theory of gravity," what you are properly referring to is not the idea that when you drop a rock it will fall, but rather Einstein's mathematical description of massive bodies creating warps in space-time so as to alter the motion of objects.

Einstein's theory has never been proven. It's too large, and too complex to be proven in any final way. It survives because it's the best theory of gravity we have so far, because it explains more things better than Newton's theory which preceded it, and because it has never been DISproven -- which Newton's theory has been.

Similarly, the current theory of evolution in biology has never been proven. It's too large, and too complex to ever be proven in any final way. It survives because it's the best theory of evolution we have so far, because it explains more things better than Darwin's original theory of evolution (which relied on natural selection alone), and because it has never been DISproven.

If someday it IS disproven, what will replace it is another theory of evolution, another and better way to explain the FACT that species evolve over the generations.

Because that, unlike the theory of evolution, is indeed a fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

..........................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.

How is evolution a science? Why is it called the Theory of Evolution if it is not 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.

Yeah, it is a theory, never been proven. Only fools believe that evolution is fact.

Actually only fools believe that:

1) The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago.

2) Two naked teens and a snake in garden determined the fate of the whole human race

3) There was a flood in which the water level reached a hight of 29.000 ft and evaporated in a few weeks

4) Big fish puked up live men

5) Walls came tumbling at the sound of a trumpet

6) A virgin gave birth to the god of the universe

7) A man was able to walk on water

8) People were healed of leprosy by laying hands on them

9) Water was turned into fine wine

10) 5000 hungry people were fed with two fish and five loaves then 12 baskets of leftovers were collected

11) A man was hiung on a cross and bled like a hog only to show up two days later fit as a fiddle


C'mon people...test your intelligence. That is such a major crock of shit that only a fool or somebody who was brainwased as a child could possibly believe it...especially if the story was told by a few of the man's close friends 2000 years ago and never verified by anobody else. There were basically six acknowledged historians in the world at that time. Not a one of them documented any part of this. It would be like somebody down the street telling you that they were taken to the planet Visarouis and examined by aliens. It would be like Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris never being mentioned in the NY Times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and in the case of evolution its a theory

The idea that organisms evolve into new species is a fact. There is no other way to interpret the information from the fossil record.

The idea that this occurs through a process involving mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection is a theory, that is, a model which accounts for the FACT of evolution and which is the best developed so far, and has not been falsified by any new data.

However there is absolutely no evidence that one mammal species has EVER evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and in the case of evolution its a theory

Your statement proves that you absolutely deny all the anthropological reaserch which has been conducted by scientists over the last century. Congratulations

That does not even make sense. What does anthropology, which is the study of human society and development, have anything to do with evolution?

 

[Foxfyre]

And theoretically somehow the Godless universe was somehow able to organize itself out of stuff for which nobody can explain an origin and was able to all by inself produce an organic soup with enough stuff of life for a primitive single cell lifeform to appear in the soup and that lifeform, with no brain or other intelligence yet developed made choices to eventualy evolve into a giraffe or aardvark or human being.

We can find incomplete correlation for that theory but correlation that is sufficient to qualify it as scientific theory suitable for teaching in classrooms.

But nobody has ever proved it. Have they.

There is substantial genetic and fossil evidence that has been subjected to extensive scientific hypothesis testing and peer reviewed evaluation

There is no scientific evidence supporting the theory of god

Except by pure reason, as Einstein reasoned it. The genetic and fossil evidence that we have cannot explain away the implausibility of the intricate, beautiful symmetry and asymmetry and incredible diversity that has come out of presumed chaos or how the stuff of the universe came to be in the first place or how it was able to organize itself into the chaos leading to the big bang.

To assume that all that happened without benefit of some sort of intelligent design--I'm not saying that has to be God as Christians or Jews understand God because Einstein certainly didn't understand it that way--but to assume all that happened by accident requires far more faith than believing that some sort of intelligent design was behind it.

Science can be as much logic and reason re what we cannot test or falsify as it is based on what we can test or falsify. Some of the greatest scientific minds in the known universe--Einstein being one--understood that. If he did not dismiss the idea of intelligent design, I wonder why some modern folks are so desperate to dismiss it as a myth instead of at least a possibility?

 

[Sunni Man]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution.

Than to believe in religion.

 

[Dragon]

However there is absolutely no evidence that one mammal species has EVER evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

Yes, there is. Quite solid evidence, actually.

The first mammals appeared near the end of the Triassic period, the earliest of the three dinosaur epochs. Mammals thus coexisted with the dinosaurs through most of the latter's time on the planet.

None of the species of mammal that are alive today were also alive during the Triassic.

None of the species of mammal that were alive during the Triassic are still alive today.

Therefore, the species of mammal that lived later in the Triassic, including all mammal species that are alive today, MUST have evolved from those earliest mammals. There is no other reasonable explanation for what we find in the fossil record.

 

[Foxfyre]

However there is absolutely no evidence that one mammal species has EVER evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

Yes, there is. Quite solid evidence, actually.

The first mammals appeared near the end of the Triassic period, the earliest of the three dinosaur epochs. Mammals thus coexisted with the dinosaurs through most of the latter's time on the planet.

None of the species of mammal that are alive today were also alive during the Triassic.

None of the species of mammal that were alive during the Triassic are still alive today.

Therefore, the species of mammal that lived later in the Triassic, including all mammal species that are alive today, MUST have evolved from those earliest mammals. There is no other reasonable explanation for what we find in the fossil record.

But we have only been able to study that on Planet Earth too. We are a teensy Class M planet in a teensy solar system with a teensy insignificant sun that is just a microscopic dot in an huge enormous universe. What if we find it worked entirely differently somewhere else in another solar system? Or even on a moon of some larger planet in our own solar system?

So much of what we believe and teach scientifically is based on such a tiny sample of the universe that there is no way to know for sure how the universe works anywhere else. We have only our reason and logic to guide us.

And I think any science teacher worth his/her salt knows that and fully explains to the students that as much as we know and are learning all the time, we have only a teensy fraction of all the science there is yet to learn.

And to assume that scientific theory of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang or even within components of the big bang are any better or more testable or falsifiable than is a theory of intelligent design is maybe one of the hugest leaps of faith humankind could make.

 

[Dragon]

Except by pure reason, as Einstein reasoned it.

First of all, Einstein, although a spiritual person in many ways, was still an atheist. Secondly, he never operated by "pure reason." He operated by intuition via mathematics.

However, I will agree to this extent: asking for a scientific proof of God is nonsensical. God is not a statement of fact about the observable world; he is therefore outside the purview of science. But by the same token, we do not and should not include God as a hypothesis within scientific models.

The genetic and fossil evidence that we have cannot explain away the implausibility of the intricate, beautiful symmetry and asymmetry and incredible diversity that has come out of presumed chaos or how the stuff of the universe came to be in the first place or how it was able to organize itself into the chaos leading to the big bang.

First, "how the stuff of the universe came to be in the first place" is not a scientific question, and therefore the failure of science to answer it is not an appropriate criticism. Secondly, however much you may FEEL that the "intricate, beautiful symmetry and incredible diversity" of life or of the cosmos defies explanation by evolution, that is not in fact the case. Given the existence of living organisms (again, don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis or the study of life's origins; that's a different branch of biology), evolution suffices to account for what we see in terms of speciation and the development of biological complexity.

You must remember that we are dealing with very long time scales here. What may seem highly improbable on first glance can become very high-probability indeed given a sequence of many trials for each step over many millions of years.

To assume that all that happened without benefit of some sort of intelligent design--I'm not saying that has to be God as Christians or Jews understand God because Einstein certainly didn't understand it that way--but to assume all that happened by accident requires far more faith than believing that some sort of intelligent design was behind it.

I disagree, and I say that as a spiritual person. But God, whatever he/she/it may ultimately be, is not something that can be found through objective evidence from observation of the world around us. God is found in another way altogether, having nothing to do with science.

God is found through direct personal experience of oneness with all-that-is, by listening to the still small voice within, by opening the heart to wonder. That is what faith really is all about. There is no conflict between God and anything in science -- including evolution. But nor can we assert that science should or must include God as a hypothesis, saying that the universe must have been designed by intelligence. We have no objective evidence that this is so.

Science can be as much logic and reason re what we cannot test or falsify as it is based on what we can test or falsify. Some of the greatest scientific minds in the known universe--Einstein being one--understood that

Again, you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting Einstein. Every statement Einstein ever made as a scientist was falsifiable. Do not confuse the technical inability at the moment to conduct an experiment with true non-falsifiability, which requires a logical inability to perform an experiment with any technical equipment ever possible to be devised.

 

[Dragon]

But we have only been able to study that on Planet Earth too. We are a teensy Class M planet in a teensy solar system with a teensy insignificant sun that is just a microscopic dot in an huge enormous universe. What if we find it worked entirely differently somewhere else in another solar system? Or even on a moon of some larger planet in our own solar system?

Well, in that case we will see a revolution in biology and great excitement indeed.

However, the claim made above was that there was no evidence mammals had evolved, and that is simply untrue.

And to assume that scientific theory of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang or even within components of the big bang are any better or more testable or falsifiable than is a theory of intelligent design is maybe one of the hugest leaps of faith humankind could make.

There are no scientific theories of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang. In fact, that branch of physics/astronomy begins a very short time after the big bang.

 

[koshergrl]

and in the case of evolution its a theory

The idea that organisms evolve into new species is a fact. There is no other way to interpret the information from the fossil record.

The idea that this occurs through a process involving mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection is a theory, that is, a model which accounts for the FACT of evolution and which is the best developed so far, and has not been falsified by any new data.

It may or may not be a fact...but it's still a THEORY because it has never been proven.

I love these threads with yahoos claiming the science backs them up...and yet they NEVER REFERENCE THE SCIENCE.

Ignorant twits.

 

[koshergrl]

However there is absolutely no evidence that one mammal species has EVER evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

Yes, there is. Quite solid evidence, actually.

The first mammals appeared near the end of the Triassic period, the earliest of the three dinosaur epochs. Mammals thus coexisted with the dinosaurs through most of the latter's time on the planet.

None of the species of mammal that are alive today were also alive during the Triassic.

None of the species of mammal that were alive during the Triassic are still alive today.

Therefore, the species of mammal that lived later in the Triassic, including all mammal species that are alive today, MUST have evolved from those earliest mammals. There is no other reasonable explanation for what we find in the fossil record.

THAT'S A THEORY, you fucking idiot. You are THEORIZING on events because there's no DIRECT EVIDENCE of what happened.

You are *surmising*.

Jaysus.

 

[Sunni Man]

Evolution is a pseudo science that is taught as fact in schools.

 

[Foxfyre]

But we have only been able to study that on Planet Earth too. We are a teensy Class M planet in a teensy solar system with a teensy insignificant sun that is just a microscopic dot in an huge enormous universe. What if we find it worked entirely differently somewhere else in another solar system? Or even on a moon of some larger planet in our own solar system?

Well, in that case we will see a revolution in biology and great excitement indeed.

However, the claim made above was that there was no evidence mammals had evolved, and that is simply untrue.

And to assume that scientific theory of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang or even within components of the big bang are any better or more testable or falsifiable than is a theory of intelligent design is maybe one of the hugest leaps of faith humankind could make.

There are no scientific theories of the origins of the universe prior to the big bang. In fact, that branch of physics/astronomy begins a very short time after the big bang.

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.

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.

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.