Evolution is one of those wierd spots on our historical record. It can't be proven, it is dis-proven agiain and again and is still taught as fact in schools, and for some reason people belive it.
It's been disproven? Quick, someone tell the biologists!
Methinks your bark is worse than your bite.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
How does beliving in evolution say that you don't believe in Adam and Eve? Assuming that Adam and Eve were the first humans, which most people accept, then saying that believing in evolution means that you don't believe in them is paradox that disproves evolution in and of itself. If evolution states that we evolved from them over time into who we are today then saying that beliving evolution disproves them brings the whole shaky theory down.
Well, seeing as Evolution is one of the single most well-evidenced theories ever produced by science, I'm inclined to believe that it disproves Adam & Eve.
But, y'know, I'm still waiting on the disproof...
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
By the way did you know that evolution cannot even be proven to be a theory?
Do you know what a theory is? I doubt it, because otherwise you'd know that no theory is proven: Germ, Atomic, and Gravitational theory, are all unproven theory. But I bet you'd still get antibiotics and x-rays when you needed them.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
A scientific theory is a "theory that explains scinentific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable." (Evolution- Facts, fallacies, and Implications p.4) Since there is no evidence For Evolution then it cannot be proven true or false.
Can you tell me how evolution is "well-evidenced" ?
Okay I guess I jumped too far originally, MACRO evolution has not been proven which is the one we argue about. Microevolution and natural selection both occur and can be observed and proven, but it is a hasty generalization to apply them to the theory of MACRO evolution.
Natural selection is what is known as a truism meaning it states the obvious, like saying water is wet, or fire is hot to touch. Weak creatures die is a truism by all means. This proves nothing yet this is what seems to be used most to "prove" evolution. I think Hugo DeVries put it best when he said "Natural selection may explain survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain [i]arrival[i]of the fittest."
Evolution is based on many logical fallacies, there is no proof for Macro evolution.
A scientific theory is a "theory that explains scinentific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable." (Evolution- Facts, fallacies, and Implications p.4) Since there is no evidence For Evolution then it cannot be proven true or false.
Scientific theories do not have to be falsifiable; it's a big bonus to the theory if it is falsifiable, but it doesn't have to be.
That said, the ToE is falsifiable.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
Can you tell me how evolution is "well-evidenced" ?
Okay I guess I jumped too far originally, MACRO evolution has not been proven which is the one we argue about. Microevolution and natural selection both occur and can be observed and proven, but it is a hasty generalization to apply them to the theory of MACRO evolution.
The 'micro- / macro-' distinction is one devised by anti-evolutionists to say, 'Oi, you haven't shown us speciation! Therefore...'. And when we did show you speciation? You just shifted the definition one taxon higher.
So please, tell me how this distinction is relevant.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
Natural selection is what is known as a truism meaning it states the obvious, like saying water is wet, or fire is hot to touch.
Natural selection? Hardly. It is an observed statistical trend.
Besides, even if it is a truism, how does this make it any less true?
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
Weak creatures die is a truism by all means. This proves nothing yet this is what seems to be used most to "prove" evolution. I think Hugo DeVries put it best when he said "Natural selection may explain survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain [i]arrival[i]of the fittest."
Natural selection (summed up by Darwin as 'Survival of the Fittest') is not a tautology (or even a truism), since the fittest are not defined as those who survive; rather, the fittest are those who are best at producing grandchildren. Those who are best at this will have a greater change at proliferating their genes (hence Dawkin's 'selfish gene').
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
Evolution is based on many logical fallacies,
By all means, demonstrate these fallicies. I'm sure the tens of hundreds of biologists would like to know that the theory that unites the entire field is, in fact, fallacious.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
there is no proof for Macro evolution.
Whoever mentioned proof? Proof is for alcohol and mathematics, not biology.
Have you ever recieved modern medical treatment? That's based on the unproven Germ Theory.
Have you ever watched television? Satellites are integral to their function, and were put their by scientists using the unproven Theory of Gravity.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
"unproven Germ Theory." "unproven Theory of Gravity." Unprovable but very observable. Two words, transitional forms. Until these appear, evolution will continue to die out. And for those who are quick to tell how we will EVENTUALLY find them, right there is the fallacy of chronological snobbery, trying to prove something with evidence yet to be seen, saying that something can be proven once something is found. That something that we don't even know if it exists or not.
There has been no observation for MACRO evolution, I'll have to do my research but I'll bet that the distinction between MACRO and MICRO evolution was from the evolutionists once they realized that they don't have enough evidence to support their claims. Once this is realized evolutionists change the hypothesis or the theory of evolution itself, and just make "smoke and mirrors" so to speak, to hide what they don't know and can't prove.
"survival of the fittest" = "the fittest survive and the survivors are the fittest" that is circular logic, begging the question fallacy. We have yet to see natural selection produce a more intelligent form, once again saying that it will happen EVENTUALLY is chronological snobbery, a fallacy.
"Whoever mentioned proof? Proof is for alcohol and mathematics, not biology." What does this mean?
"unproven Germ Theory." "unproven Theory of Gravity." Unprovable but very observable.
As is the unproven ToE. New species have been observed to form.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
Two words, transitional forms. Until these appear, evolution will continue to die out. And for those who are quick to tell how we will EVENTUALLY find them, right there is the fallacy of chronological snobbery, trying to prove something with evidence yet to be seen, saying that something can be proven once something is found. That something that we don't even know if it exists or not.
Luckily for us, there are literally thousands of fossils of 'transitional fossils'. Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are my favourites, since they are the most obviously 'transitional' ones.
Indeed, we have the entire species record for the evolution of the horse from a small, fox-like mammal.
Since you obviously missed my seven catagories of evidence, you must have missed the first catagory:
There has been no observation for MACRO evolution,
Define 'macroevolution'.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
I'll have to do my research but I'll bet that the distinction between MACRO and MICRO evolution was from the evolutionists
Something tells me that this is the only research you will ever do concerning evolution.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
"survival of the fittest" = "the fittest survive and the survivors are the fittest" that is circular logic, begging the question fallacy.
First, no scientist described 'survival of the fittest' in such a fallacious way. As I stated before: Natural selection (summed up by Darwin as 'Survival of the Fittest') is not a tautology (or even a truism), since the fittest are not defined as those who survive; rather, the fittest are those who are best at producing grandchildren. Those who are best at this will have a greater change at proliferating their genes (hence Dawkin's 'selfish gene'). The notion of grandparents belies any circular logic.
Second, how on Earth is it begging the question? There is no question, nor no hidden presumption.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
We have yet to see natural selection produce a more intelligent form, once again saying that it will happen EVENTUALLY is chronological snobbery, a fallacy.
A more intelligent form? No, I don't believe it has. But whoever mentioned intelligence?
Natual selection is what is causing the superbugs in our modern age: those bacteria who just so happen to have the immunity to our drugs are the only ones who survive and breed; thus, that bacteria species very quickly only contains bacterium with that immunity. This is natural selection.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
"Whoever mentioned proof? Proof is for alcohol and mathematics, not biology." What does this mean?
Things are proven in mathematics, not in biology. You keep mentioning the lack of proof as if this some kind of detriment to the ToE.
avdrummerboy, I have to ask: if you do not believe in the ToE, how do you explain the modern biodiversity of Earth? Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Bacteria becoming resistant is micro- evolution. It is Still a BACTERIA, it doesn't EVOLVE into another, more advanced form (a better term, intelligence is to relevant.)
In terms of biodiversity, a lot of creatures just appeared at once, since we can't go back into time (yet) then who knows what really happened.
Now for me personally, I am not for or against anything, I am a skeptic of hard to prove ideas, so if convincing enough, evolution may be part of the answer. There is too much intelligent design to say that this is all one accident. There is way too much evidence to say that there is no creator. For me it is more of there may be some combination of the many theories. How do we know that God didn't create the universe? And perhaps he had designed scientific laws into it (laws even governing genetics and how genetically things change over time?) Even though Macro evolution supposedly hasn't happened for many millions of years, micro evolution happens all the time, though we have yet to see it form a new species.
This is the best way I have heard the accidental mutation theory analyzed. To say that all intelligent (advanced) life formed by accident is comparable to saying that a tornado blows through a junkyard and by happenstance once it leaves a brand new ready-to-go Boeing 747 is sitting there.
Bacteria becoming resistant is micro- evolution. It is Still a BACTERIA, it doesn't EVOLVE into another, more advanced form (a better term, intelligence is to relevant.)
Advanced form? Intelligence? Please, define this terms.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
In terms of biodiversity, a lot of creatures just appeared at once, since we can't go back into time (yet) then who knows what really happened.
What is your evidence for such an event?
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
There is too much intelligent design to say that this is all one accident.
There is no design in the universe. Amorphous systems can generate systems with apparent complexity: the method is evolution by natural selection.
Make no mistake, our brains have evolved to recognise patterns. That we see faces in clouds, or link mechanical tools to biological systems, is not unexpected.
Moreover, there is the paradox of intelligent design itself: if the universe's apparent requires a Creator, then said Creator must be of sufficient complexity to create the universe. By the same logic, if the Creator must be so complex, then the Creator itself must have a Creator. And so on.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
There is way too much evidence to say that there is no creator.
What evidence is this?
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
For me it is more of there may be some combination of the many theories. How do we know that God didn't create the universe? And perhaps he had designed scientific laws into it (laws even governing genetics and how genetically things change over time?)
The origin of the universe is for cosmology, and the origin of the physical laws for philosophy and physics. Evolution is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
Even though Macro evolution supposedly hasn't happened for many millions of years,
Who says this?
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
micro evolution happens all the time, though we have yet to see it form a new species.
If you had bothered to review my evidence, you would know that we have seen thousands of new species form, exactly as evolution predicts.
Originally Posted by avdrummerboy
This is the best way I have heard the accidental mutation theory analyzed. To say that all intelligent (advanced) life formed by accident is comparable to saying that a tornado blows through a junkyard and by happenstance once it leaves a brand new ready-to-go Boeing 747 is sitting there.
That is not a comparable argument, since no evolutionary theory posits the random and sudden formation of modern biodiversity. try again.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Evolution is one of those wierd spots on our historical record. It can't be proven, it is dis-proven agiain and again and is still taught as fact in schools, and for some reason people belive it. How does beliving in evolution say that you don't believe in Adam and Eve? Assuming that Adam and Eve were the first humans, which most people accept, then saying that believing in evolution means that you don't believe in them is paradox that disproves evolution in and of itself. If evolution states that we evolved from them over time into who we are today then saying that beliving evolution disproves them brings the whole shaky theory down.
By the way did you know that evolution cannot even be proven to be a theory?
*Eric Cartman voice*
How has evolution been disproved?
__________________ "There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed." Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, 1890-MAR-18.
£5 says the crux of his disbelief is semantical... 
Linear Mode
