Evolution is a lie

[JoeyArnold]

Wow - this thread moved fast in a day. Did we finally conclude that evolution was a lie while all the other discoveries of science (germ theory, electromagnetism, aerodynamics, etc...) were ok because they didn't contradict our sacred book?

Your sarcasm reminds me of Bernie Mac.

 

[BondiHarry]

What I really find ironic is that all the other fruits of science are accepted as truth and are used to better our lives by the same people who say that evolution is a lie. The same scientific method that brought us modern medicine, air travel, electricity into our homes, and the internet is the same method that says evolution is true. The only reason that people reject evolution, but accept all the other fruits of science, is that this particular finding appears to go against an ancient manuscript written a bronze age people. It's actually kinda fascinating to watch. It's like the "God Blinders" flip on and reason takes a back seat. Only to return when the topic doesn't interfere with the God Belief.

Too funny Grizzly. I reject macro-evolution because it is BAD science. The scientific method back in my day required that a theory could be tested under uniform conditions and that there would be a consistant, DEMONSTRABLE result (like the boiling temperature of water at sea level). Macro-evolution has never been observed (the explanation is that it is micro-evolution over a longer period of time) and the physical evidence doesn't indicate that species evolve gradually over time into different species but that a species type comes into existence not gradually but suddenly (as in the Cambrian age) with the traits of the species already evident. THAT is far more consistant with the explanation we find in the Bible than with the theory that Darwin proposed but of course that is sooooo inconvenient for those who wish to deny that there is a Creator and that He is way smarter and wiser than we are. Another aspect of the scientific theory in my day is that facts would be examined and the theory would be altered to match the facts, NOT that evidence would be cherry picked and evidence that doesn't support the theory would be ignored and only the evidence that supports the theory would be considered.

 

[USincognito]

"Christa McAuliffe would."

Wow. AV is still sickly dancing on the graves of dead astronauts?

And you guys still think he's funny and fun to interact with? :o

 

[Cabal]

Too funny Grizzly. I reject macro-evolution because it is BAD science. The scientific method back in my day required that a theory could be tested under uniform conditions and that there would be a consistant, DEMONSTRABLE result (like the boiling temperature of water at sea level). Macro-evolution has never been observed (the explanation is that it is micro-evolution over a longer period of time) and the physical evidence doesn't indicate that species evolve gradually over time into different species but that a species type comes into existence not gradually but suddenly (as in the Cambrian age) with the traits of the species already evident. THAT is far more consistant with the explanation we find in the Bible than with the theory that Darwin proposed but of course that is sooooo inconvenient for those who wish to deny that there is a Creator and that He is way smarter and wiser than we are. Another aspect of the scientific theory in my day is that facts would be examined and the theory would be altered to match the facts, NOT that evidence would be cherry picked and evidence that doesn't support the theory would be ignored and only the evidence that supports the theory would be considered.

Serious accusations.

Got proof?

Oh, and if you reject the use of science being applied to the past, do you also reject forensic science?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Oh, and if you reject the use of science being applied to the past, do you also reject forensic science?

You reject evidence when it goes against certain things.

 

[Cabal]

You reject evidence when it goes against certain things.

Oh, this'll be good, we have a psychic among us.

Such as? I can't say I reject anything.

 

[Freodin]

God's in control like Michael Jordan is in control. Wait, what did John actually say?

Jazer (John for those who know him) said that God is in control of everything. You said that Micheal Jordan does not control everything [in a basketball game].

Now if God is in control like Michael Jordan (that is: not in control of everything) that contradicts what Jazer said.

q.e.d.

 

[BondiHarry]

Serious accusations.

Got proof?

Oh, and if you reject the use of science being applied to the past, do you also reject forensic science?

You're not paying attention to what I said. It is the responsibility of the macro-evolutionists to PROVE that their theory is correct by the use of science and they cannot. They cannot DEMONSTRATE that macro-evolution occurs and the fossil record far more strongly indicates that species arise not gradually (ie one species evolving into intermediate forms and finally into a new species) but quickly with the unique traits of the species in place. It is the macro-evolutionists who are rejecting science in order to hold onto a theory which objective science is demonstrating is sadly lacking in validity. Just as man's science indicates that life ONLY comes from life which makes abiogenesis another laughable theory, devoid of evidence and indeed, considering all the things that must happen not only for life to arise but sustain itself is literally like a tornado going through a junk yard and making a fully functional Boeing 747 as a result. One does not have to rely on a religious explanation to reject macro-evolution, all one has to do is to apply true science to it to reject it (is it demonstrable, is it consistant with the facts etc.).

 

[Cabal]

You're not paying attention to what I said. It is the responsibility of the macro-evolutionists to PROVE that their theory is correct by the use of science and they cannot.

Nope.

YOU accused the field of cherry-picking evidence.

What evidence have we missed?

Please, back up your claim, or retract it.

They cannot DEMONSTRATE that macro-evolution occurs and the fossil record far more strongly indicates that species arise not gradually (ie one species evolving into intermediate forms and finally into a new species) but quickly with the unique traits of the species in place.

Yawnorama.

Let me guess, someone read a paragraph on the Cambrian Explosion?

It is the macro-evolutionists who are rejecting science in order to hold onto a theory which objective science is demonstrating is sadly lacking in validity. Just as man's science indicates that life ONLY comes from life which makes abiogenesis another laughable theory, devoid of evidence and indeed, considering all the things that must happen not only for life to arise but sustain itself is literally like a tornado going through a junk yard and making a fully functional Boeing 747 as a result.

The definition of life is actually pretty debatable. Certain micro-organisms don't meet the most widely presented criteria for life, e.g. viroids and prions. Ultimately given that life is chemistry, it's not an unreasonable concept to consider that chemical reactions gave rise to self-replicators of some kind.

And no, it is not literally like a 747 - I have yet to see a probability argument made against abiogenesis that (a) actually provides a calculation (b) puts the number in the context of the likelihood of alternative outcomes (c) isn't based on a laughable ignorance of both chemistry and probability theory.

One does not have to rely on a religious explanation to reject macro-evolution, all one has to do is to apply true science to it to reject it (is it demonstrable, is it consistant with the facts etc.).

No, but conveniently it ties in with your religion anyway. How unexpected.

I suggest you stop learning "science" in soundbite form from creationist websites and read some actual science instead.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is the responsibility of the macro-evolutionists to PROVE that their theory is correct by the use of science and they cannot.

Nope.

I find this surprising.

Then whose responsibility is it?

Do macro-evolutionists' obligations end after they espouse their theories?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread had a small clean up. If your post is missing, it is because it was a violation or you were responding to our repetitive troll.

This has also gone off topic. The topic is evolution. Debates about the existence of God are off topic to this thread and forum.

 

[Cabal]

I find this surprising.

Then whose responsibility is it?

Do macro-evolutionists' obligations end after they espouse their theories?

Ok, I'll bite - I admit I wasn't clear.

It is up to those proposing a theory to defend it.

My point was - BH made an accusation that evolutionary science selects evidence.

That's his claim, and I want him to back it up by stating what evidence he feels the field has actively discarded.

Going "no, defend your claim!" is dodging the question. Merely making a vague reference to the Cambrian explosion isn't justification of the claim either - I've read frequent explanation of it in scientific sources, and it's not a problem for us.

Take issue with that if you want, but don't make empty accusations that we're actively ignoring these things. We aren't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I'll bite - I admit I wasn't clear.

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to pick or anything, I was just caught off-guard there for a sec.

Thanks for the clarification --

 

[Cabal]

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to pick or anything, I was just caught off-guard there for a sec.

Thanks for the clarification --

No bother

 

[BondiHarry]

Ok, I'll bite - I admit I wasn't clear.

It is up to those proposing a theory to defend it.

My point was - BH made an accusation that evolutionary science selects evidence.

That's his claim, and I want him to back it up by stating what evidence he feels the field has actively discarded.

Going "no, defend your claim!" is dodging the question. Merely making a vague reference to the Cambrian explosion isn't justification of the claim either - I've read frequent explanation of it in scientific sources, and it's not a problem for us.

Take issue with that if you want, but don't make empty accusations that we're actively ignoring these things. We aren't.

What evidence has evolutionary science been selective with? The theory holds that species A over time will give rise to species B and that there will intermediary forms between the two. The intermediary forms are sadly lacking and, ONCE AGAIN, it has never been demonstrated that macro-evolution occurs and to dismiss that problem with 'it just takes longer' than micro-evolution so we don't have to demonstrate that it occurs is not science.

There is also, AGAIN, the problem of the origins of life on Earth. Even the simplest form of life needs to not only be 'alive' but also to have a means to sustain itself and replicate itself. There is NO evidence that chemicals, given the right pressure, temperature and combinations will give rise to 'life' (again, theory can be proposed but there is that bugaboo in the scientific method of being able to demonstrate the truth of the theory and no experiment involving chemicals and conditions conducted by men has ever given rise to what we would consider life). Human science demands that the proponents of a theory be able to demonstrate the truth of the theory to be considered 'fact' and yet you want me to 'prove' evolutionists wrong when they cannot prove they are right ... not how science works (at least not science as I was taught it).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"I cannot believe my eyes, perhaps I ought to wear blinkers."

 

[artybloke]

What evidence has evolutionary science been selective with? The theory holds that species A over time will give rise to species B and that there will intermediary forms between the two. The intermediary forms are sadly lacking and, ONCE AGAIN, it has never been demonstrated that macro-evolution occurs and to dismiss that problem with 'it just takes longer' than micro-evolution so we don't have to demonstrate that it occurs is not science.

There is also, AGAIN, the problem of the origins of life on Earth. Even the simplest form of life needs to not only be 'alive' but also to have a means to sustain itself and replicate itself. There is NO evidence that chemicals, given the right pressure, temperature and combinations will give rise to 'life' (again, theory can be proposed but there is that bugaboo in the scientific method of being able to demonstrate the truth of the theory and no experiment involving chemicals and conditions conducted by men has ever given rise to what we would consider life). Human science demands that the proponents of a theory be able to demonstrate the truth of the theory to be considered 'fact' and yet you want me to 'prove' evolutionists wrong when they cannot prove they are right ... not how science works (at least not science as I was taught it).

Sorry to blow your mind, but there is evidence for all these thingss.

 

[BondiHarry]

Sorry to blow your mind, but there is evidence for all these thingss.

Then provide the evidence.

 

[Cabal]

What evidence has evolutionary science been selective with? The theory holds that species A over time will give rise to species B and that there will intermediary forms between the two. The intermediary forms are sadly lacking

Nope.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and, ONCE AGAIN, it has never been demonstrated that macro-evolution occurs and to dismiss that problem with 'it just takes longer' than micro-evolution so we don't have to demonstrate that it occurs is not science.

No, that's not why that argument is made.

It's made to question a seemingly arbitrary distinction made by creationists between certain degrees of evolution. This doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy to not provide evidence. There is evidence, as can be found in the link above.

There is also, AGAIN, the problem of the origins of life on Earth. Even the simplest form of life needs to not only be 'alive' but also to have a means to sustain itself and replicate itself. There is NO evidence that chemicals, given the right pressure, temperature and combinations will give rise to 'life' (again, theory can be proposed but there is that bugaboo in the scientific method of being able to demonstrate the truth of the theory and no experiment involving chemicals and conditions conducted by men has ever given rise to what we would consider life).

I see.

So first you say:

"The scientific method back in my day required that a theory could be tested under uniform conditions and that there would be a consistant, DEMONSTRABLE result (like the boiling temperature of water at sea level). "

And then you call demonstrable experimental results "bugaboo".

Are you even planning on being consistent here, BH?

Personally, I'd call the fact that we managed to make aminos, the building blocks of life as we know it, from a very rough approximation of the chemical environment on Earth billions of year ago a coup.

I'd call the fact that we've managed to make several forms of self-replicators in the lab a coup. E.g. Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience , and far from the only one.

So the concept is hardly far from unevidenced as you allege. Given that we're trying to nail down one reaction out of, not to put too fine a point on it, A LOT, those are incredible results to have found.

Have you come up with a mathematical argument for your 747 claim yet, or were you just repeating cliched remarks from a creationist website?

Human science demands that the proponents of a theory be able to demonstrate the truth of the theory to be considered 'fact' and yet you want me to 'prove' evolutionists wrong when they cannot prove they are right ... not how science works (at least not science as I was taught it).

No, I wanted you to back up your claims when you make sweeping statements about an entire field. A separate claim that you made, and is not connected to backing up the argument for evolution.

And given that many posters on this board are evolutionary scientists, when you slander an entire field, you'd better have something good to back it up.

As it turns out, you hadn't.

 

[BondiHarry]

Nope.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since you went to Wikipedia for your proof, I went there to refute it.

Transitional form - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

No, that's not why that argument is made.

It's made to question a seemingly arbitrary distinction made by creationists between certain degrees of evolution. This doesn't mean that there's some conspiracy to not provide evidence. There is evidence, as can be found in the link above.

In micro-evolution although there are distinct changes that occur, if you start with a cat you still have a cat at the end, start with an elephant you have an elephant at the end etc.. In macro-evolution you start with a cat and end up with something that is not a cat but this cannot be demonstrated and remains an article of FAITH that is is true.

I see.

So first you say:

"The scientific method back in my day required that a theory could be tested under uniform conditions and that there would be a consistant, DEMONSTRABLE result (like the boiling temperature of water at sea level). "

And then you call demonstrable experimental results "bugaboo".

Are you even planning on being consistent here, BH?

Personally, I'd call the fact that we managed to make aminos, the building blocks of life as we know it, from a very rough approximation of the chemical environment on Earth billions of year ago a coup.

I'd call the fact that we've managed to make several forms of self-replicators in the lab a coup. E.g. Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab | LiveScience , and far from the only one.

So the concept is hardly far from unevidenced as you allege. Given that we're trying to nail down one reaction out of, not to put too fine a point on it, A LOT, those are incredible results to have found.

Have you come up with a mathematical argument for your 747 claim yet, or were you just repeating cliched remarks from a creationist website?

I didn't call demonstrated results a bugaboo, I called having to DEMONSTRATE the truth of a theory a bugaboo. Abiogenesis would have us believe that we went from non-life, non-sustaining, non-replicating matter to living, self-sustaining and self-replicating orgnanisms in one felled swoop ... and yes the probability of this has been examined by mathematicians and is quite, shall we say, unlikely.

No, I wanted you to back up your claims when you make sweeping statements about an entire field. A separate claim that you made, and is not connected to backing up the argument for evolution.

And given that many posters on this board are evolutionary scientists, when you slander an entire field, you'd better have something good to back it up.

As it turns out, you hadn't.

Oh, so many posters on this board are evolutionary scientists and they may be feeling slandered ... too bad. True science can be demonstrated to be true and this is where macro-evolution fails badly. Abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated by physical evidence or laboratory demonstration yet we are expected to believe it happened. Macro-evolution cannot be demonsrated yet we are expected to believe it is true ... the scientific burden of proof of a theory is on its proponents, not the skeptics. As for your Wiki link 'proving' evolution, one can demonstrate the evolution of computers or cars in much the same way yet we know (I hope) that computers and cars are the result of intelligent design and not random selection.