Challenging Evolution

The Bellman · #61 26th July 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

According to your opinion, it is false. As we have seen demonstrated by many here and through articles presented for review, it is not the opinion of every evolutionist, including scientists. So would that then make you opinion false as well? What opinion is true? Who desides which opinion is true and which is false?

No, we haven't seen that that is not the opinion of every evolutionist, nor can you demonstrate it.

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

I know of scientists that would disagree with you on that. Because science does not set out to prove another theory, does not equal that science cannot or does not prove one of the other theories. Only that science does not attempt to do so.

No reputable scientist would disagree with me. Neither creationism nor ID are scientific theories. Proponents of both have been struggling to get them accepted as scientific theories for ages, in an effort to get the 'respectability' which comes with being science. Both have failed and will continue to do so.

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

Is this the same arguement you give evolutionist scientists that claim that there is not overwhelming proof, or do you just listen to those that say what you want them to say about science? There are multiple sides to every issue. Unless we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact, there are things in science that question the theory and thus, there is no overwhelming evidence. The result is that we must accept evolution as a theory not fact. The same as c and id, theories not fact.

It is not an argument; it is a statement of fact. We DO have overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact, as any scientist who has studied the theory will tell you. Neither creationism nor ID is a scientific theory, nor is there any supporting scientific evidence for either.

Ron21647 · #62 26th July 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

So what we are saying is that because there are shared genes that make a tree a tree and not a monkey, then we have proof of evolution? Wow is that a streatch!

What is proven is that evolution is possible in a labratory. I have not questioned this nor do I intend to debate whether or not evolution is a possible theory. For it to be a theory, it is possible. What I am saying is that this does not prove fact, or disprove c or Id. Just as old earth, new earth proves possibility, this proves possibility, not probability or truth.

Should be go throgh all 29 since the paper prefaces the article by saying that this is not conclusive evidence? That there is no actual proof?

don't bother, because you didn't understand the little bit that you did read. You are wasting your time and ours. You don't want to learn, you are just playing games, and poor ones at that.

Ron

Tomk80 · #63 27th July 2004, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

And yet the article clearly says that this evidence has not yet been found but when it is found it will be overwhelming proof. Now when I was in school, I was taught that if you can't find something, you have no proof that it is there. Unless that is that you know you lost it. So are you then proposing that the evidence of evolution has been found then lost again? Who lost it? When was it lost? Who found it the first time?

The article does support my opinion, that there is no overwhelming evidence. and that evolution is a theory. In addition, the article further claims that science does go on the assumption that evolution is fact, and as such, uses science to support the theory rather than as you prepose, that it is through observation that we come to a theory of evolution. This article rather assumes evolution to be fact and looks for "EVIDENCE" to prove that it is. Not good scientific method anyway you look at it.

And again, this is not what the article states. It states that there is in fact a lot of evidence in favor of evolution, and goes on to show it. Before you blame others for not reading an article, you should indeed read it yourself, as Arikay was so kind to point out.

Tomk80 · #64 27th July 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

How does my post not show that I understand the difference, because I believe in ID and yet I do not argue strawman arguements like which is truth, evolution or Creationism? Come now, without overwhelming arguement, a debate over evolution and Creationism is strawman, especially when I am a believer of ID. What would you have me debate?

Jet Black had posted that creation was proven, because we are here, therefore we have been created. In answer to his post, you posted that others posted that creationism was falsified. You failed to notice the difference between the two in your post, else you wouldn't have asked that question. This could have two causes, either you didn't read carefully, or you didn't understand the difference between them. Read back, this was what I was responding to. Even if you're a believer of ID, you still know that creation, in 'you have been created' is true. You just differ from both evolutionists and creationists over the way it came about. Comprendre?

Mistermystery · #65 28th July 2004, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

That is most kind of you since before this thread began I told Merle that I did not wish to engage in debate at this time because I simply didn't have the time to do it justice and Merle went ahead and posted false information and asked me to defend my opinions.

1) You keep repeating this.. "information" as if you think we care. But we don't. So if it makes you feel any beter: yes we understand what you said 50 times allready. You can now stop doing it.
2) If you don't have the time/don't want to debate, Don't. But don't go making crazy assumptions without telling anything else.

Now you are saying that you doubt me unless I can take more time that I don't have to prove somthing to you that requires a simple yahoo word search.

From your previous post it seemed like you had direct information to it, so why not cut all the ********, and ask it directly to you? This still is a science forum, and I come here to learn. So yes, if I ask for a source I expect you to have one, no matter how easy it is to find. I've met to many people on this board who can't support their claims that I am doubtfull of most silly claims, this being one of them.

You people are so kind and thoughtful.

Thanks! You are kind of deluded about the theory of evolution, but that is okay, we still like you.

You can start here for the discussion http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Devel...an-air_20solid I am not sure this is the same I saw on the program but it is a place to start, if you are truely that interested, may I suggest you research it yourself in depth.

Thanks, now that wasn't so hard, hasn't it?

I think we're talking about this, right? I must say that it is indeed intresting but I don't see any support that this solid is indeed lighter then air. I see that the solid is composed of air, that it is very light, and is very unusual, but I don't see any claims that this is lighter then air...

I see some other claims on the website (like someone suggesting that argon should be used in production of such a substance, rather then normal air. Of course, if that counts, then balloons would have been the first "lighter then air solid") but none of those are really substantial.

Jet Black · #66 28th July 2004, 05:15 AM

I think calling aerogels "solid" is about as intellectually honest as calling a chickenwire fence "waterproof"

Mistermystery · #67 28th July 2004, 05:42 AM

Hey now, it's a solid, allright? Just like toothpaste is a solid.. or something like that. Anyways, according to the guiness book of record it's the lightest solid in the world, so that's okay in my book. But it isn't lighter then air.

Sopharos · #68 28th July 2004, 05:47 AM

I thought aerogels ARE made mostly of air.

Jet Black · #69 28th July 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Mistermystery

Hey now, it's a solid, allright? Just like toothpaste is a solid.. or something like that. Anyways, according to the guiness book of record it's the lightest solid in the world, so that's okay in my book. But it isn't lighter then air.

is a sponge a solid? is a massive empty cardboard box a solid? arguably all I would have to do to make the world's lightest solid is just create a stiff membrane and not put anything in it.

Jet Black · #70 28th July 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Sopharos

I thought aerogels ARE made mostly of air.

basically yeap. all aerogels are basically, are glass versions of aero chocolates

http://www.candydirect.com/candybars...olate-Bar.html