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

[Dragon]

THAT'S A THEORY.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here. Educate yourself.

 

[Cammmpbell]

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?

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 height 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 hung 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

 

[Flopper]

there are holes the evolutionary theories

The Theory of Evolution is well accepted as scientific fact among scientists because of the preponderance of evidence that exists. However, much of the general public will continue to consider it just another scientific theory. For the layman to accept evolution as anything more than just a theory requires that he put aside certainly religious beliefs. The same can be said of cosmology theories.

The Church was at odds with Copernican theory for over a hundred years. The Church had a hard time accepting the idea that the sun and stars did not revolve around God's great creation, the Earth. When the theory of evolution proclaimed that man was not created by God but evolved from other lower creatures, that was just too much but eventually as the evidence piles up, it will be accepted by even by the most religious.

 

[Foxfyre]

All who find Campbell's post intentionally offensive raise their hands.

And then lets move on with the debate that has so far not had any complications by pulling the Bible into it.

 

[Dragon]

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.

 

[Gadawg73]

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

Hate to inform you, but I believe you know it already but your religion will not allow you to admit it, but the facts are all against you.
Fact is only fools do not ACCEPT evolution as fact.
You already know it as fact.

 

[Gadawg73]

there are holes the evolutionary theories

The Theory of Evolution is well accepted as scientific fact among scientists because of the preponderance of evidence that exists. However, much of the general public will continue to consider it just another scientific theory. For the layman to accept evolution as anything more than just a theory requires that he put aside certainly religious beliefs. The same can be said of cosmology theories.

The Church was at odds with Copernican theory for over a hundred years. The Church had a hard time accepting the idea that the sun and stars did not revolve around God's great creation, the Earth. When the theory of evolution proclaimed that man was not created by God but evolved from other lower creatures, that was just too much but eventually as the evidence piles up, it will be accepted by even by the most religious.

Please, quit. You are talking facts and science.
Only those that question the strength of their own faith have a hard time ACCEPTING evolution as fact.
They know it is fact but their insecurity will not allow them to accept it.

 

[Sunni Man]

When you take so called theory of evolution and work it exponentianlly in reverse back the the beginning of time.

That leads you to the question of how did life begin?

Science has another even more far out theory called "abiogenesis" to help explain the how life started.

Abiogenesis can be translated as, "we ain't got a clue"

 

[Flopper]

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

 

[Gadawg73]

When you take so called theory of evolution and work it exponentianlly in reverse back the the beginning of time.

That leads you to the question of how did life begin?

Science has another even more far out theory called "abiogenesis" to help explain the how life started.

Abiogenesis can be translated as, "we ain't got a clue"

No, all the attacks on abiogenesis such as Borels Law and a zillion others have all been found to be fraud.
Most of these so called scientific findings such as Borels Law are not science in any way and in that particular case the law in question does not even exist as a mathematical theorem which would be required.

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[alan1]

All who find Campbell's post intentionally offensive raise their hands.

And then lets move on with the debate that has so far not had any complications by pulling the Bible into it.

The above post is atheist approved.

 

[JoeB131]

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

 

[koshergrl]

THAT'S A THEORY.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here. Educate yourself.

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

 

[koshergrl]

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

Thank you. Now please share that with your retarded brethren who seem to think that the THEORY of evolution explains away the existence of God and his creation...

 

[Dragon]

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.

 

[Mr Liberty]

That is funny.The evolutionist doesnt believe in capitalism and the capitalist dosent belive in evolution.Common now thats funny!!!

Untrue. I believe in evolution and I believe in capitalism, meaning a free market. I wish the latter existed in the United States.

 

[Dragon]

Thank you. Now please share that with your retarded brethren who seem to think that the THEORY of evolution explains away the existence of God and his creation...

I doubt that anyone would claim that the theory of evolution refutes the existence of God. As for "his creation," one thing that the FACT of evolution (see below) definitely DOES refute, categorically and beyond dispute, is the idea of a single one-time creation of all living things. We know that, because that idea is completely incompatible with what we see in the fossil record.

Since you chose to put the word "theory" in all caps, and are thereby misrepresenting this important scientific term as being equivalent to "unproven hypothesis," and further misrepresenting the term "theory of evolution" as referring to the idea that life evolves, I'll restate once more in new words what I said above.

A "theory" in science is not an unproven hypothesis. It is a model that is sufficiently broad and encompassing that it is impossible to finally "prove," and so no "proof" is ever to be looked for. This describes not only the theory of evolution but also the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the theory of genetic transmission of hereditable characteristics, and many other similarly broad models in science.

Evolution is a fact. It is the only possible interpretation of the fossil record. We know that the species of animal and plant on Earth have changed over time, which means that the descendants of one species have become another species over the generations. Without any presumptions of exactly how this occurred, the mere statement that it DID occur is a statement of fact, with as much proof behind it as the claim that if you throw a rock up in the air it will fall down.

So, evolution (in that sense) being a FACT, why do we speak of the "theory" of evolution? Because there is one. It is a model of HOW evolution happens, not a claim THAT it does.

Current biology holds that evolution happens because, in transmission of genetic information, change occurs sometimes on a random basis in the genetic code -- mutations, in other words. Most mutations are harmful, occasionally a mutation is helpful -- that is, it improves the organism's chance of surviving and/or reproducing. The other part of the theory of evolution is natural selection, which culls the harmful mutations and preserves the helpful ones, as well as creating changes over the generations by itself through a process called "genetic drift."

Now: like all scientific "theories" properly so called, this one remains unproven. It could be -- in fact, probably is -- the case that a better theory of evolution can and someday will be devised, one that explains more, or more perfectly models the process that we observe in the fossil record to have happened. The current theory is a modification of Darwin's original, as it happens. Darwin knew nothing of genetics.

But the FACT of evolution, the bare fact THAT new species of life have evolved over time, IS proven, even though the biological theory explaining HOW it occurred is not.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol.

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

 

[Dragon]

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.