Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Subduction Zone]

Thats typical of what i am talking about. You barley would have had time to read anything but come back in an instance with a rejection. That in itself shows intolerance and bias. Like i said you have already made up your mind.

Some of the links show definite bias and that a lot of what is put forward is not correct. Like i said you insist on us using peer review backup but you can use a lot of these sites that promote unfounded stories that they have made up to fit the theory.

There have been case where bones have been mixed from sites to ensure they have the right connections to make transitions because they have already decided that it is true and need to make it fit.

I have read more than enough false science form the Discovery Institute to be able to reject any of their articles without having to prove anything. When a paper has lost all authority it cannot regain any until it apologizes for its past errors and lays out a plan to avoid such errors in the future. The DI has none no such thing.

I read part of your first paper and glanced at the last three.

If you cannot explain why you included them I guess my job is done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There have been case where bones have been mixed from sites to ensure they have the right connections to make transitions because they have already decided that it is true and need to make it fit.

Do you have one iota of evidence to support this claim?

Try to use real sources if you can. On the other had, go ahead and quote the DI or any other such sites. It will be a pleasure to show you how they lie.

If creationism is true why do so many sites that disagree with evolution have to use falsehoods to try to dismiss the theory?

 

[Black Akuma]

Thats typical of what i am talking about. You barley would have had time to read anything but come back in an instance with a rejection. That in itself shows intolerance and bias. Like i said you have already made up your mind.

I really cannot put into words how utterly banal I find this line of thinking to be.

It's nothing new. If it's not creationists with this line, it's the Truthers, or the Birthers, or the Alex Jones fanatics, or the climate deniers or the next flavor of the week. Always complaining when nobody takes them seriously, never considering that maybe there's a good reason for that. Always trumpeting the few people who do support their ideas, but ignoring the VAST amount of people who reject them. Always distorting something or ignoring something or outright lying about something, then, as soon as that tidbit is addressed, they throw the smokescreen and move on to the next thing, as if we're supposed to just forget about it and ignore all the times they've been flat out wrong.

Always playing the victim, always crying foul when a critical eye comes their way. Always saying they have more support than they really do, and chalking the silence up to their supporters being afraid of threats from...who? It's never mentioned, exactly. But they're out there. And the people who really support us? They're all afraid of them. All the thousands and thousands and thousands of qualified individuals, so many of them would be on our side, if only they had the courage to state what they actually believe!

Pfft.

I'm sorry if I'm just underwhelmed by your entire argument, man. It's just...I've heard this joke before, and it wasn't funny the last time.

 

[46AND2]

Thats typical of what i am talking about. You barley would have had time to read anything but come back in an instance with a rejection. That in itself shows intolerance and bias. Like i said you have already made up your mind.

Some of the links show definite bias and that a lot of what is put forward is not correct. Like i said you insist on us using peer review backup but you can use a lot of these sites that promote unfounded stories that they have made up to fit the theory.

There have been case where bones have been mixed from sites to ensure they have the right connections to make transitions because they have already decided that it is true and need to make it fit.

Some of us have been debating creation and evolution for a long time. I have personally seen the list of dissenters argument at least a couple dozen times. Must we really re-research it just for you? It was an incredibly weak argument, as well as irrelevant, the first time through. There is a similar list of scientists who accept evolution, just with the name Steve

Project Steve | NCSE

 

[46AND2]

As Iv'e said many times before and keep repeating myself that people who support evolution do not always use peer reviewed support for what they say. I can go and find a 100 posts that will make statements unsupported by peer review. So the criteria has to apply to both sides. Yet when some from your side do present their evidence without peer support no one from your side says a thing because you all accept it because you have already made up your minds.

Give me a break. If someone makes a claim, and you would like to see the data behind it, just ask for it. I'm sure many, if not most of the evolution supporters here are ready to support their claims with documentation, even if they don't include it initially. The problem is, its been my experience that creationists make unreasonable requests when they do this, because they often don't understand what is a claim that needs to be backed up, and what is simply part of the discussion, be it philosophical, anecdotal, opinion, etc.

If you have 1 or 2 of a group of 10 scientists normally the minority is made to feel outcasts and this has been shown in the past. This is a human trait that happens and just because they are scientists doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Its almost a boys club that you have to belong to and they look down on those who rock the boat against the majority of thought.

Wrong. It's a scientists job, in part, to rock the boat. And you don't have one or two in ten, you have one or two in ten thousand. But if you're going to rock the boat, you need to have the data to back it up. And contrary to what you think, you don't come close to meeting that. In large part because instead of providing their own data, through their own research, creationist scientists simply attack the already peer reviewed papers or real scientists, and make gross errors in doing so, to boot. There is a huge difference between an alternate interpretation, and a wrong one.

There is a list of over a 1000 scientists that state “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Major scientists around the world agree with them and many of them have not yet signed on to the dissent although they have gone on record that mutations and natural selection did not produce evolution.

They have been labelled radicals, crackpots, backwoods yokels, even a few snake handlers and flat earthers mixed in) dug up by pushy creationists to promote their cause. So there is disagreement within the very sector and it isn't unanimous as some try to make out.
Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!

Heres some examples of bias and that there are scientists with peer review papers who question evolution.
https://medium.com/lessons-learned/4daaccd38726
Intelligent Design Research Lab Highlighted in <i>New Scientist</i> - Evolution News & Views
Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the <em>Journal of Molecular Biology</em> "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design" - Evolution News & Views
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds

 

[stevevw]

Care to be specific?

There are many examples like Java man and piltdown man where they used a mixture of ape and human bones to make their case. But to me it is also that they misinterperate the finds either by trying to link the bones to other species so they establish a transition when it is hard to tell and it has a fair degree of speculation. But they have also been found out on many occasions trying to make a transitional fossil out of a species that is just a variation of an existing species. The fossil record is often left to the speculation and because evolutionist are already trying to find fossils that fit the links they can try to make it fit when it doesn't. This has been shown time and time again.

Here are some examples.
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones | Science | The Observer

Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond a Doubt: The Most Compelling ... - Josh Greenberger - Google Books

https://medium.com/lessons-learned/4daaccd38726

http://www.paleodirect.com/fakefossils1.htm

The researchers' approach to skull 5 may be similar to other fraudulent or dubious finds. Dutch physician Eugene Dubois, anxious to find proof of human evolution, uncovered the famous Java "man" fossils in 1891. It was not until 30 years later that Dubois revealed the truth behind the find and admitted he had been hiding fully human skulls from the same Javan site. Some later suggested that his Java man skull cap was actually that of a gibbon.6 Could today's scientists be subject to the same eagerness to prove evolution, leading to skewed analyses? Because human origins research can be so subjective, one researcher of the history of paleoanthropology voiced a relevant caution: "We have only to recall the Piltdown adventure to see how easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for."7

The Science authors also wrote that skull 5 looks like the famous KNM-ER 1470 found in Africa. But skull 1470 was pieced together from so many separated fragments that it may not constitute a real, single individual.8 Understandably, its identification has long been difficult. Who knows which pieces were from humans and which were from apes?

Even so, the part of skull 1470 showing a forehead and human-like brow ridges differs from the apish appearance of skull 5. Did the Science authors link skull 5 to Africa's KNM-ER 1470 for evolutionary rather than anatomical reasons?
New 'Human' Fossil Borders on Fraud

Top Ten (Top 10) Fraudulent/Fake Fossil Cases In History | Tumblehome Learning - Science & Engineering Books For Kids & MoreTumblehome Learning &#8211; Science & Engineering Books For Kids & More

http://www.science20.com/between_de...laeontology_hoaxes_all_time_4_irritator-75974

Seven of the greatest scientific hoaxes - science-in-society - 27 October 2008 - New Scientist

 

[biggles53]

Really Steve...? The Piltdown hoax...?

Who do you think uncovered the hoax...?

 

[stevevw]

Give me a break. If someone makes a claim, and you would like to see the data behind it, just ask for it. I'm sure many, if not most of the evolution supporters here are ready to support their claims with documentation, even if they don't include it initially. The problem is, its been my experience that creationists make unreasonable requests when they do this, because they often don't understand what is a claim that needs to be backed up, and what is simply part of the discussion, be it philosophical, anecdotal, opinion, etc.

Unfortunately its not as simple as that. I have asked for that sort of proof on occasions but it doesn't get that far normally. Its often the other way round. We may make a statement and the support is rejected on the basis of it having some religious connection. Thats regardless of some being scientific sites but one of the scientist is a christian. As soon as there any tiny link to religion its gone. So then we are asked to jump through all sorts of hoops to prove a point.

Quite often i include science links as well all saying the same thing but because there is a religious one everything is rejected. Then i see others when they present their evidence not having peer reviewed support when debating and they may use a site that is not substantiated but it is overlooked and all OK.

The fact is evolutionist will misrepresent the evidence as well but they seem to think its OK because basically they are right. But if we do it its typical of a lunatic creationist.

Wrong. It's a scientists job, in part, to rock the boat. And you don't have one or two in ten, you have one or two in ten thousand. But if you're going to rock the boat, you need to have the data to back it up. And contrary to what you think, you don't come close to meeting that. In large part because instead of providing their own data, through their own research, creationist scientists simply attack the already peer reviewed papers or real scientists, and make gross errors in doing so, to boot. There is a huge difference between an alternate interpretation, and a wrong one.

Thats an ideal position to take but it doesn't work that way in real life. Yes science wants to ask questions and challenge the data to test their theories. But i think it is controlled a fair bit and doesn't want to go outside certain boundaries.

I'm not just talking about the theory as a whole. I also mean on individual programs and aspects of evolution. There will be some that question the consensus but they are made to feel the odd one out. It happens in all walks of life it is human nature but i think it happens with evolution more as it can be a passionate divisive subject. There are other examples of coverups and coercion or just trying to make out that they are all in agreement and there is no conflict. This is well know you only have to see the way they react when someone makes a statement that challenges their long held beliefs. You only have to see when some ridicule some that challenge their views.

If they all believe that the theory is correct then their minds are already made up. If their minds are already made up then there will be bias its only natural. You've got to remember that the theory is just a theory and it is not proven definitely. So they dont like it when people question it to much.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"'Evolution' fails to inform viewers of the disagreements that exist among scientists trying to account for human origins," says biologist Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow who holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley. "Instead, 'Evolution' uncritically presents speculative ideas as if they were uncontroverted science, and does not bother to interview those with conflicting scientific viewpoints."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to Wells, an example of "Evolution's" one-sided approach comes in episode two ("Great Transformations"), which purports to tell viewers the story of the "crucial turning-point" in human evolution that is supposed to have taken place "about seven million years ago, when our ancestors left the trees and began to walk on two legs." The episode suggests that human beings evolved from lemur-type animals and presents the speculative ideas of paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson about how the ancestors of human beings began to walk on two legs. [/FONT]
A Critique of PBS's Evolution

Like i said its a theory and sometimes evolutionist take artistic licence and paint a picture that hasnt been proven. They turn fragments of bones into amzing detailed creatures that have all the nessecary parts to link them together. They overstep the mark and many go on to believe it all the details they have created as gospel. They teach it in schools and have it on the front covers of their books and magazine with pictures. They add they own slant to it to suit the theory and if anyone questions it they are shot down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many examples like Java man and piltdown man where they used a mixture of ape and human bones to make their case. But to me it is also that they misinterperate the finds either by trying to link the bones to other species so they establish a transition when it is hard to tell and it has a fair degree of speculation. But they have also been found out on many occasions trying to make a transitional fossil out of a species that is just a variation of an existing species. The fossil record is often left to the speculation and because evolutionist are already trying to find fossils that fit the links they can try to make it fit when it doesn't. This has been shown time and time again.

Wrong. You are mixing two very different cases. Piltdown man was a well known fraud perpetrated on evolution. You have to be very careful when claiming that a fraud perpetrated on something is evidence against that idea. There have been countless Christian frauds so by the logic you are trying to use here Christianity is wrong. You have not seen any evolutionists make that mistakes.

Second Java man was not a case of bones from different animals. The first example of Java man was determined by a skull cap and a femur. That may not seem to be too much for the amateur, but an expert can identify many species from one bone only. Also there were more complete examples found at the same place later. So you are wrong on that claim too;

Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only that. Java man was the first example of Homo erectus and countless examples, some of them very complete, have been found in many parts of the world:


Homo erectus

Here are some examples.
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones | Science | The Observer

You are not being totally honest in this one. They are arguing about the age of the fossils more than anything else. Also the debate is about them being two possibly slightly different human species. Homo heidlebergensis and Homo neanderthal. Personally I am not an expert so I cannot make a comment on this possible controversy. It would be better if the paper had given links to the scientific work that they base this article upon. The first commentator clearly knows more than you or I do and he points out that The Guardian distorted the story a bit to make it more sensational.

Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond a Doubt: The Most Compelling ... - Josh Greenberger - Google Books

This example is laughable. It is a book. It is not a scientifically peer reviewed paper. The link did not quite work so the page you were on did not show up. At any rate the title alone is laughable. It is true that a fossil could give the theory of evolution an exceedingly difficult time and even refute it. The mythical "Cambrian Bunny Rabbit" for example. And if you want to try again here is a link to a Google version of the book that seems like it is free to view, unlike your Amazon.com one where you would have to buy it:

Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt - Josh Greenberger - Google Books

https://medium.com/lessons-learned/4daaccd38726

All this article is about mostly is how some medical papers can go wrong. It has nothing to do with evolution. Next.

FAKE FOSSILS

So what? You can buy fake fossils. You used to be able to, and probably still can, but pieces of "the True Cross", and nails from it to. Didn't Mark Twain comment on one of his Tramps Abroad that he had seen enough pieces of the true cross and nails from it too so that Noah's Ark could have been built? Frauds do not disprove an idea. Which is lucky for Christianity.

The researchers' approach to skull 5 may be similar to other fraudulent or dubious finds. Dutch physician Eugene Dubois, anxious to find proof of human evolution, uncovered the famous Java "man" fossils in 1891. It was not until 30 years later that Dubois revealed the truth behind the find and admitted he had been hiding fully human skulls from the same Javan site. Some later suggested that his Java man skull cap was actually that of a gibbon.6 Could today's scientists be subject to the same eagerness to prove evolution, leading to skewed analyses? Because human origins research can be so subjective, one researcher of the history of paleoanthropology voiced a relevant caution: "We have only to recall the Piltdown adventure to see how easily susceptible researchers can be manipulated into believing that they have actually found just what they had been looking for."7

I don't know your source about DuBois, but that was a clear lie.

And the rest of your examples are all nonscientific, most of them are openly spreading lies. DuBois never admitted anything like one of your articles claimed.

There is a reason that we demand that articles have to be ideas that are traceable to peer reviewed science. There are too many creationist sites that will openly lie to try to fight evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"'Evolution' fails to inform viewers of the disagreements that exist among scientists trying to account for human origins," says biologist Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow who holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from the University of California at Berkeley. "Instead, 'Evolution' uncritically presents speculative ideas as if they were uncontroverted science, and does not bother to interview those with conflicting scientific viewpoints."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to Wells, an example of "Evolution's" one-sided approach comes in episode two ("Great Transformations"), which purports to tell viewers the story of the "crucial turning-point" in human evolution that is supposed to have taken place "about seven million years ago, when our ancestors left the trees and began to walk on two legs." The episode suggests that human beings evolved from lemur-type animals and presents the speculative ideas of paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson about how the ancestors of human beings began to walk on two legs. [/FONT]
A Critique of PBS's Evolution

Like i said its a theory and sometimes evolutionist take artistic licence and paint a picture that hasnt been proven. They turn fragments of bones into amzing detailed creatures that have all the nessecary parts to link them together. They overstep the mark and many go on to believe it all the details they have created as gospel. They teach it in schools and have it on the front covers of their books and magazine with pictures. They add they own slant to it to suit the theory and if anyone questions it they are shot down.

The Discovery Institute?

Are you trying to make us laugh?

 

[stevevw]

I really cannot put into words how utterly banal I find this line of thinking to be.

It's nothing new. If it's not creationists with this line, it's the Truthers, or the Birthers, or the Alex Jones fanatics, or the climate deniers or the next flavor of the week. Always complaining when nobody takes them seriously, never considering that maybe there's a good reason for that. Always trumpeting the few people who do support their ideas, but ignoring the VAST amount of people who reject them. Always distorting something or ignoring something or outright lying about something, then, as soon as that tidbit is addressed, they throw the smokescreen and move on to the next thing, as if we're supposed to just forget about it and ignore all the times they've been flat out wrong.

Always playing the victim, always crying foul when a critical eye comes their way. Always saying they have more support than they really do, and chalking the silence up to their supporters being afraid of threats from...who? It's never mentioned, exactly. But they're out there. And the people who really support us? They're all afraid of them. All the thousands and thousands and thousands of qualified individuals, so many of them would be on our side, if only they had the courage to state what they actually believe!

Pfft.

I'm sorry if I'm just underwhelmed by your entire argument, man. It's just...I've heard this joke before, and it wasn't funny the last time.

The climate topic is a good example. I believe in climate change but there has been proof that some scientist have exaggerated or even misrepresented evidence to suit their agenda. It has happened here and in Australia. Suddenly every event that happens now is because of climate change when we know that is not the case. They blamed our bush fires on climate change and our PM as being the cause. What they didn't say was that most are started by vandals and accidents from camp fires and industry.

No I am merely trying to point out that evolutionists do it as well. They distort the truth and add a bit here and a bit there and ignore certain things or better still they call people names to deflect any challenge to what they say. To label all those groups as loony is a good example as they are not all wrong and some of what they say is supported by science. This comes across as dismissive and judgmental.

The point is its a theory and it hasn't been proved 100% especially some of the detail that evolutionist put forward as fact. Lately some of those have been brought into question so its not all fact but they seem to find another way of getting around it to still make it fit somehow. I have just linked many sites that have shown this if you care to read.

I am not even necessarily saying that they are wrong. What i am saying is that they can act in the same way as you are always accusing us of doing and this has been proved by evolutionists who work within the establishment themselves.

But once again the way you deal with that is to name call and class everyone as stupid and loony which is not true. If you take all those people you mentioned plus the scientists and evolutionist who also question some of the long held sacred beliefs of evolution then they cant all be as wrong as your making out.

 

[mzungu]

The point is its a theory and it hasn't been proved 100% especially some of the detail that evolutionist put forward as fact.

Oh please! Not another "its just a theory" comment. Do you even know what is meant by a scientific theory?

Excerpt from LIVE SCIENCE:


What is a Scientific Theory?
Kim Ann Zimmerman, LiveScience Contributor

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step&#8212;known as a theory&#8212;in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

When used in non-scientific context, the word &#8220;theory&#8221; implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists&#8217; explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton&#8217;s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The climate topic is a good example. I believe in climate change but there has been proof that some scientist have exaggerated or even misrepresented evidence to suit their agenda. It has happened here and in Australia. Suddenly every event that happens now is because of climate change when we know that is not the case. They blamed our bush fires on climate change and our PM as being the cause. What they didn't say was that most are started by vandals and accidents from camp fires and industry.

I will grant that some people do abuse the problem of AGW. That does not make it a real problem.

No I am merely trying to point out that evolutionists do it as well. They distort the truth and add a bit here and a bit there and ignore certain things or better still they call people names to deflect any challenge to what they say. To label all those groups as loony is a good example as they are not all wrong and some of what they say is supported by science. This comes across as dismissive and judgmental.

You have not been able to show that yet. In fact your constant use of dishonest creationist sites indicates that you cannot show it either. We have encountered the nonsense that creationists try to spread for years, so yes, we are rather dismissive of it.

The point is its a theory and it hasn't been proved 100% especially some of the detail that evolutionist put forward as fact. Lately some of those have been brought into question so its not all fact but they seem to find another way of getting around it to still make it fit somehow. I have just linked many sites that have shown this if you care to read.

No theory is ever proven 100%. Gravity is a theory too. It is about as well "proven" as the theory of evolution. Do you doubt that gravity exists?

I am not even necessarily saying that they are wrong. What i am saying is that they can act in the same way as you are always accusing us of doing and this has been proved by evolutionists who work within the establishment themselves.

That is perhaps because all that is ever brought against evolution by creationists is distortion, misunderstandings, and as we have pointed out many times, outright lies. When that is all you ever face wouldn't you be tend to develop an attitude too?

But once again the way you deal with that is to name call and class everyone as stupid and loony which is not true. If you take all those people you mentioned plus the scientists and evolutionist who also question some of the long held sacred beliefs of evolution then they cant all be as wrong as your making out.

There are very very very few scientists that dispute the theory of evolution. Of those that could possibly dispute it the percentage is much less than 1%. In any group you will have kooks and lunatics. What would you call them? They have yet to ever produce any useful science. No work has been done by these people that harms the theory of evolution in any meaningful way.

 

[stevevw]

Oh please! Not another "its just a theory" comment. Do you even know whgat is meant by a scientific theory?

Excerpt from LIVE SCIENCE:


What is a Scientific Theory?
Kim Ann Zimmerman, LiveScience Contributor

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step&#8212;known as a theory&#8212;in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

When used in non-scientific context, the word &#8220;theory&#8221; implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists&#8217; explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton&#8217;s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

Not another one ah, well i think you will find that most people regardless of religious belief have this simple understanding of a theory. In fact many would not really know what is meant be a theory. They will think that it is something that hasn't been proved. Im afraid this is the way the average person will understand this. Maybe thats because of what they've been taught or the impression they have been given by the experts. Not everyone is a scientist you know.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. What are the tests they have done again to prove this again. I thought that a lot of the fossil records and the speculation that some have made about it is untested. You cant test it. Like i said the conclusions that evolutionist come to with the fossil records is up for debate. A lot is based on speculation and a vivid imagination.

There are many gaps and there are no real proof of transitional fossils in the records. There are gaps before the Cambrian explosion. Not just a small gap of one or two intermediate forms but a truly massive gap of intermediates for at least 19 different phyla.

Now that genetics are being used more we are starting to see more questions being asked about the theory. Some evolutionary lines are losing species and others are having species place in them where they shouldn't belong. There are no real satisfactory answers to how complex life can evolved from simple life. Evolution fails to explain how small continual changes from chance mutations that are an error in a process that has many checks and balances to get it right can produce many changes so that a creature can turn into another.

There is no evidence either way to say that the differences we do see isnt great variation within species. Evolutionists have made new species out of variation withing species ie the skulls at Georgia and many other examples.

Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? What about he Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a "half-scale/half-wing". A reptile breathes using an "in and out" lung (like humans have), but a bird has a "flow-through" lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place?

Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

There is more evidence within genetics that is bringing parts of the theory undone. In some case questioning the logic of evolution itself. It is just not making sense.

To date no breeding experiments have ever resulted in major , new traits resulting in a completely new species. Some evolutions like to refer to speciation via breeding in plants as a proof of evolution. Though breeding experiments in animal and humans has always run into limitation s and has NEVER been shown to produce a brand new species .So breeding cannot be used as a proof for evolution.

There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one. Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic2 distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic3 sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus,4 not Darwin.
Professor of Genetics Says ''No!'' to Evolution - Answers in Genesis

The rearrangement has triggered protests from evolutionary biologists, who are alarmed that they may lose their key example of that crucial intermediate stage of animal evolution. Some researchers complain that the evidence is not strong enough to warrant such a dramatic rearrangement of the evolutionary tree, and claim that the report leaves out key data. In any case, the vehemence of the debate shows just how important these worms have become in evolutionary biology.
"I will say, diplomatically, this is the most politically fraught paper I've ever written," says Max Telford, a zoologist at University College London and last author on the paper.
Evolution: A can of worms : Nature News


http://www.newswise.com/articles/untangling-the-tree-of-life
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Phylogeny as population history

So is all this just ramblings of loonies or is there some truth in it. For me the theory is not so strong and for some to say it is beyond doubt dont look at all the evidence. So you can say evolution is supported by most but there are questions that are coming out especially with genetics that may say otherwise. But when someone brings some of these up which are also put forward by evolutionists and scientists they are shot down right away.

 

[mzungu]

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. What are the tests they have done again to prove this again. I thought that a lot of the fossil records and the speculation that some have made about it is untested. You cant test it. Like i said the conclusions that evolutionist come to with the fossil records is up for debate. A lot is based on speculation and a vivid imagination.

There are many gaps and there are no real proof of transitional fossils in the records. There are gaps before the cambrian explosion. Not just a small gap of one or two intermediate forms but a truly massive gap of intermediates for at least 19 different phyla.

Now that genetics are being used more we are starting to see more questions being asked about the theory. Some evolutionary lines are losing species and others are having species place in them where they shouldn't belong. There are no real satisfactory answers to how complex life can evolved from simple life. Evolution fails to explain how small continual changes from chance mutations that are an error in a process that has many checks and balances to get it right can produce many changes so that a creature can turn into another.

There is no evidence either way to say that the differences we do see isnt great variation within species. Evolutionists have made new species out of variation withing species ie the skulls at Georgia and many other examples.

Doesn't matching male and female reproductive machinery need to exist at the same time, fully-functioning if any reproduction is to take place? What about he Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Birds are said to have evolved from reptiles but no fossil has ever been found having a "half-scale/half-wing". A reptile breathes using an "in and out" lung (like humans have), but a bird has a "flow-through" lung suitable for moving through the air. Can you even imagine how such a transition of the lung could have taken place?

Chemicals alone cannot explain self-awareness, creativity, reasoning, emotions of love and hate, sensations of pleasure and pain, possessing and remembering experiences, and free will. Reason itself cannot be relied upon if it is based only on blind neurological events.

For sexual reproduction to have evolved complimentary male and female sex organs, sperm and eggs, and all the associated machinery in tandem defies the imagination.

There is more evidence within genetics that is bringing parts of the theory undone. In some case questioning the logic of evolution itself. It is just not making sense.

To date no breeding experiments have ever resulted in major , new traits resulting in a completely new species. Some evolutions like to refer to speciation via breeding in plants as a proof of evolution. Though breeding experiments in animal and humans has always run into limitation s and has NEVER been shown to produce a brand new species .So breeding cannot be used as a proof for evolution.

There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one. Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic2 distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic3 sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus,4 not Darwin.
Professor of Genetics Says ''No!'' to Evolution - Answers in Genesis

The rearrangement has triggered protests from evolutionary biologists, who are alarmed that they may lose their key example of that crucial intermediate stage of animal evolution. Some researchers complain that the evidence is not strong enough to warrant such a dramatic rearrangement of the evolutionary tree, and claim that the report leaves out key data. In any case, the vehemence of the debate shows just how important these worms have become in evolutionary biology.
"I will say, diplomatically, this is the most politically fraught paper I've ever written," says Max Telford, a zoologist at University College London and last author on the paper.
Evolution: A can of worms : Nature News


http://www.newswise.com/articles/untangling-the-tree-of-life
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
Phylogeny as population history

So is all this just ramblings of loonies or is there some truth in it. For me the theory is not so strong and for some to say it is beyond doubt dont look at all the evidence. So you can say evolution is supported by most but there are questions that are coming out especially with genetics that may say otherwise. But when someone brings some of these up which are also put forward by evolutionists and scientists they are shot down right away.

Yes not another one. Science does not care what the majority of people think. It is not a popularity contest. As for your attempts at trying to pass creationism as science; you have failed miserably. We have grown used to cry wolf! Try giving us proper evidence and don't think that by attacking ToE you are proving creationism right.

 

[stevevw]

Yes not another one. Science does not care what the majority of people think. It is not a popularity contest. As for your attempts at trying to pass creationism as science; you have failed miserably. We have grown used to cry wolf! Try giving us proper evidence and don't think that by attacking ToE you are proving creationism right.

Once again you are displaying a prejudgement and being dismissive. This only shows what i am talking about. You have prejudged that all my references are religious without bothering to check them out. By the fact you respond in minutes shows you didn't bother to investigate so you have already made your mind up that everything i am saying, that others are saying including biologist, scientists, evolutionists and religious people.

Once again i will say isn't it better to read the information 1st rather than dismissing straight away. Just shows your lack of fairness and bias. I have included peer reviewed references as well but i guess you threw the baby out with the bath water didn't you. In fact there is only on reference to a religious site and the actual article is from a biologist professor who teaches talking about the theory. But then you dont look at content you just dismiss it out of hand because it had a link to religion. So you judge the vessel and not the content, thats not a good way to conduct research.

 

[mzungu]

Once again you are displaying a prejudgement and being dismissive. This only shows what i am talking about. You have prejudged that all my references are religious without bothering to check them out. By the fact you respond in minutes shows you didn't bother to investigate so you have already made your mind up that everything i am saying, that others are saying including biologist, scientists, evolutionists and religious people.

Once again i will say isn't it better to read the information 1st rather than dismissing straight away. Just shows your lack of fairness and bias. I have included peer reviewed references as well but i guess you threw the baby out with the bath water didn't you.

Your post is full of creationist talk. Cry wolf all you want we can see right through you. Bias? you have to be joking right?

Stick to the rules pertaining to science and maybe we will take your posts seriously. Science does not allow for the unfalsifiable. Otherwise it will spend all its time trying to prove or disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins, hollow earth, fairies, gods of Olympus, the Minotaur, the flood, genesis, etc. ad infinitum.

Write your paper and have it peer reviewed by accredited peers of the same field (biologists, geneticists, etc.) then go collect your Nobel Prize and become the most famous person in history.

 

[Black Akuma]

First off, Steve, I think you're being a bit hypocritical - you call out others for not reading into your side more, but how much time have you actually spent reading literature on evolution by the people who actually work in the field? I distinctly remember in another topic repeatedly giving you a reference to look up the evolution of squirrel flight on Google Scholar, and to the best of my knowledge, you never checked it out, even though I pointed you towards it . times.

Now, I don't have time to really address everything you posted - have to get to work. But I would like to add one thing.

I thought that a lot of the fossil records and the speculation that some have made about it is untested. You cant test it.

You can test it. I'll give you an example.

Extant snakes have these bones around their pelvis that seem to indicate that there was once an ancestor with hind limbs. Some snakes, like pythons and boas, even have nubby legs under their skin and small claws that protrude, sometimes called 'spurs'. Snakes are also most closely related to lizards

Based on this, evolutionary theory predicts that the earliest snakes we find should have hind limbs. If the earliest snakes we find don't have this trait, that's a big problem. Guess what the earliest found snake has?

A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum : Abstract : Nature

It had hind limbs. So how is that not a 'test'? We made a prediction, and the prediction turned out to be true. And I could show you some other examples if I wasn't pressed for time.

 

[stevevw]

Your post is full of creationist talk. Cry wolf all you want we can see right through you. Bias? you have to be joking right?

Stick to the rules pertaining to science and maybe we will take your posts seriously. Science does not allow for the unfalsifiable. Otherwise it will spend all its time trying to prove or disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins, hollow earth, fairies, gods of Olympus, the Minotaur, the flood, genesis, etc. ad infinitum.

Write your paper and have it peer reviewed by accredited peers of the same field (biologists, geneticists, etc.) then go collect your Nobel Prize and become the most famous person in history.

How do you know you haven't had time to check them. Thats right you looked at the headings and made your judgements. Since when is nature.com a religious site.
Philosophy & Theory in Biology (P&TB) is a peer-reviewed open-access online journal.
But then you choose what you want to read. Like i said your mind is already made up.

Actually the topics have nothing to do with religion. They are about genetics if you read them such as microRNAs and phylogenetics.

 

[mzungu]

How do you know you haven't had time to check them. Thats right you looked at the headings and made your judgements. Since when is nature.com a religious site.
Philosophy & Theory in Biology (P&TB) is a peer-reviewed open-access online journal.
But then you choose what you want to read. Like i said your mind is already made up.

Since you like me to remind you that you are using the same arguments as all creationists and their sites then here is a direct quote from one of your posts:

"There are many gaps and there are no real proof of transitional fossils in the records. There are gaps before the cambrian explosion. Not just a small gap of one or two intermediate forms but a truly massive gap of intermediates for at least 19 different phyla.".

And this is a direct quote from Scientific creationism:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.


You just shot yourself in the foot. Cry wolf as much as you want.