Challenging Evolution

[The Bellman]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/Develop_20a_20lighter-than-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]

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

 

[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.

 

[Sopharos]

I thought aerogels ARE made mostly of air.

 

[Jet Black]

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]

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/Nestle-Aero-Chocolate-Bar.html

 

[Mistermystery]

is a sponge a solid? is a massive empty cardboard box a solid?

Yes. What else would you call it? Liquid? Gas? It are both solids, with lots of air in it.

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.

That gell thing is dirrent then what you are suggesting. Balloons aren't considered to be a solid lighter then air just because there's gas in them, right? No, this gel is something diffrent then just air.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Bravo! Bravo! Great stuff, guys.

It grieves me to see how too many Americans have fallen for Creationism, ID, astrology, and a host of other pseudosciences. You folks are to be commended for taking time out of your busy schedules to shine a light in this one corner of the vast scientific darkness. Thank you for what you do.

---------

I hope you do not mind if I take a minute to defend something much less significant than the integrity of science. I wish to defend something that, for some odd reason, is of great importance to me--my reputation. I have watched as razzleflabben has taken it upon herself to deliver an attack on my reputation. May I please take a minute to set the record straight?

Now Merle, let us start by explaining some things to the others here. I asked you some questions about what you believe based on the questions you were asking me. The questions were not about evolution but how evolution relates to our world.

Uh, wouldn't that be a nitpick? Besides, everybody seems to agree with me that your questions are indeed about evolution. But if your questions are not about evolution, please forgive me for misunderstanding you.

Secondly, after telling you repeatedly that I have no interest in discussing evolution with you, you insist I come here and debate.

As I have already explained, this is a total fabrication. I never insisted that you come here.

When I tell you that I do not accept scienc as having overwhelming proof of evolution because science is an interpretation of the data and as such, can have more than one interpretation, you take my post on the other thread, out of context, and bring it here then expect me to run because you want me to.

Huh? All I did was repond to what you have written. I put the response here because the other thread was totally unrelated to evolution, and putting my response there would have hijacked my own thread. I explained the context and gave a link back to the original thread.

Guess what? This is a public forum. If you write something here, folks just might respond. So please don't vent your fury at me because I responded to one of your posts.

When I tell you I will get to it, you accuse me of several things that I won't even bring up.

This is absolute flapdoodle. Where did I ever accuse you of anything because you did not respond immediately? If I accused you because of this, please repond to the post where I made the accusation, and show the world what I have said. But if you have no evidence, than drop the claim please.

Now, since my name was brought into this thread by someone else, we are up to speed with the thread and that false pretense that Merle brought you here.

False pretnese? What false pretense? You wrote. I responded. Where is the false pretense?

None the less, I never hide from a challenge so lets go at it, please remember however, that I have some serious time constraints do to the other thread Merle is debateing with me and since I don't have as much time as he does, I could be slow getting back to this thread. No Merle, that doesn't mean I forfeit anything, just that I am a busy mother of 5.

Huh? You have serious time constraints? Pray tell me, than why have you littered the tornadoes threads with reams of junk? There are dozens of posts on that thread that you have written to me that I have not yet had time to respond to. The reason your writings stand unrefuted is because I simply do not have time to write at your pace. And now you seem to be complaining when I actually do find time to respond? Guess what? If you fill this forum up with posts, people just might respond.

Your responses on the other thread, show arrogance, skill at changing the subject, and skill at avoiding questions, I take this to mean that you see yourself as knowing everything.

Okay, now I find that I am arrogant and that I see myself as knowing everything. I take it you don't like me very much?

I invite anybody to browse the tornadoes thread and respond to me on that thread showing me what I have done wrong. I am serious. If I have said anything wrong, I want to fix it up.

Oh how dense are you,

Okay, so I am not only arrogant, but also dense? You sure ain't doing much for my self-esteem.

Dear Christain lurker, I have a question for you. Is this the way Christians treat people? If I became a Christian, would I start treating Christians the way razzleflabben treats me?

In the meantime, Merle has all my times used on this and the other thread,

I am using all your time? Huh? How is it that you have written dozens of posts to me that I simply have not had time to respond to, and yet you complain that you are the one not able to keep up with me on that thread? Hello?

I am going to assume that some of your [Sophares's] arguements are based on the misconceptions Merle intended to present about my opinions and as such, I have nothing to say to this post.

Okay, now you inform me what my intentions are. And you inform me that I intend to present misconceptions? Excuse me. Why are you here judging other people's character? Does it not seem unethical to you to judge another's intentions?

I invite anybody to read the OP and the thread it was spawned from and show me where I am trying to present a misconception.

I do not give anti-evolution rhetoric,

Well, then you have us all fooled. For your writings sure looks like anti-evolution rhetoric to most of us here.

and you claim you did not insist on me coming here? What do you call it when someone says, I am going to twist you words to make you look like a fool and then tease you with what I have done so that you will come. Then I am going to assurt that I did none of that. Interesting, very interesting.

I never said I was going to twist your words. I have never intentionally twisted anybody's words. If I misunderstood, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify so I can understand. So exactly how is it that I twisted your words?

BTW, most of my replys in the OP were in the form of questions. How can that be "twisting your words"?

By all means, anyone doubting my words, read the forum, but dont' just start or stop at post 344, see how Merle has been debating his own opinions throughout the thread, it is interesting read.

Yes, indeed. Interested lurkers should read that thread for themselves, to see is razzleflabben's claims are true.

Then why did you not manage your time better and save this thread for when you did have more time? An am anxious to see your next debate tactic. I am learning a lot.

Huh? I am completely overloaded, with dozens of posts to me--some containing personal insults about me--that I simply have not responded to because I am too busy. I found time to write a post to respond to your evolution rhetoric. And you accuse me of bad debate tactics because I responded when I was busy? Huh?

I will ignore this post since your actions prove my claims

I stand by the words that I have written on this forum. If anybody has any complaint about anything I have said on this forum, please go to the offending post and respond to that post in the thread it occurred. (Or better yet, write me a private message so I can clean it up without making a big deal of it.) Isn't it better simply to resolve these things in private rather than blow up to other people in another thread?

This is one of the reasons that Merle started this thread, because I said that it didn't matter to my theory whether the earth was young or old and therefore he felt compelled to argue evolution with me.

Huh? Anybody who will take the time to look at post 344 of the tornadoes thread will see it was razz, not I, who brought up the topic of evolution.

As I read your post I am not sure if you understand what I purpose or if you are still judging my opinions on what Merle has said, COMMENTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

How have I taken your comments out of context? For you have made many of the same claims right here on this thread that I quote you as saying in the OP.

That is most kind of you [Mistermystery] 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.

What false information?

razzelflabben, this forum is not here so that foks have an opportunity to lie about and insult each other. Now could you please stop publishing insults, and move on with the debate?


-------------------

Okay, folks, sorry for the interrruption, but I do feel much better now.

Let's get back to something more important--the debate about true science and evolution. Pseudoscience needs to be debunked, and you guys are doing just great! Go get em', tigers!

 

[Jet Black]

Yes. What else would you call it? Liquid? Gas? It are both solids, with lots of air in it.

I would call it a porous block.

That gell thing is dirrent then what you are suggesting. Balloons aren't considered to be a solid lighter then air just because there's gas in them, right? No, this gel is something diffrent then just air.

I know, but it isn't really a solid either, because it is just a series of holes held together with little bits of glass.

 

[Mistermystery]

I would call it a porous block.

Oh come on. That's just silly.

I know, but it isn't really a solid either, because it is just a series of holes held together with little bits of glass.

So? It's being recognised as a solid, it's being clasified as a solid, just because it has many features of a gas, doesn't mean it automatically is one. In any case the original query still is that this is not lighter then air.

 

[Jet Black]

In any case the original query still is that this is not lighter then air.

that's true. I wonder whether it would be in vacuum though.

 

[razzelflabben]

Don't waste your time, since you don't appear to understand them. If you want to pick a couple, like the Cytochrome C and Endogenous Retrovirus ones and show how they're not evidence, I would appreciate you attempting to do so.

I would seem that you miss understand my point. I am not saying that there is nothing to support the theory of evolution, or that evolution cannot be possible. I am only saying that the "evidences" are not conclusive and that to present them as such crosses a line of belief that opens the door for further discussion based on belief system rather than evidence. This was the point I made to Merle that started this whole thread.

And to the other posters, her user ID is razzleflabben, not riboflavin.

Thanks, it feels good to know that one is respected enough to get one's name correct.

 

[Mistermystery]

that's true. I wonder whether it would be in vacuum though.

Uh......



You're joking... right?

 

[razzelflabben]

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


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.


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.

So let me get this right, your opinion is that the only possible explaination for the creation of the world is a scientific one so it I then refuse to accept another position as scientific then I know truth by default? This is truely confusing logic. So then is it okay for a Creationist or and Intellectual design (ist) to say, I refuse to accept science, therefore I know the truth?

Now I am sure that some here will take this as rhetoric, but I really am confused by this logic. Science is part of the answer, but only part. It cannot provide all the answers we as people have about the world we live in. I do not nor have I ever dismissed science as causually as you have just dismissing all other aspects of man's existance. This disturbs me more than you can know. For anyone to have this narrow of a mindset disturbs me, for life is so much bigger than that. You must be missing a whole lot of life, I hope someday you find the parts you are missing.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Is your theory so weak it cannot bear other explainations? So weak that you resort to this arguement when you are confronted not with an arguement that your theory is wrong but rather that it has no irrifuable proof? That is further evidence that my opinion is truth, not fiction.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

And yet the article quotes otherwise. Are you reading into it what is not there? I do not purpose to you that evolution is false, or that there is no evidence that might suggest that it is valid, only that the evidence is not conclusive and for this I get accusations? This idea, that the article itself states? For this I am told I did not read the article in question? I did not realize before this thread, how far off evolutionists are in their belief system.