Evolution is not science

[Loudmouth]

Most definitely their is and you are a representative.

False allegations are pathetic arguments. You can't handle the evidence, so you have to call people names.

 

[Loudmouth]

The "facts of men" verses the "Voice of God" in light of True with a capital "T" verses true with a small "t".

The "Voice of God" is always the voice of men pretending to be God.

 

[Doveaman]

You've never heard of something being 'disconfirmed?'

DISCONFIRM

: to deny or refute the validity of

Okay, evolution theory has been DISCONFIRMED; I’ve seen it being denied or refuted many times.

For instance, a witness might confirm that a suspect was with them on a particular night. If this witness is shown to be lying, however, this is disconfirmed.

In other words, the confirmation of evolution theory may very well be a lie.

Got it.

Maybe this can help you - it's an excerpt from Richard Feynman, who, I think, excellently explains the concept.

Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong.

Evolution theory is not right; it simply has not been proven wrong.

Got it.

During all that time, the theory had been failed to be proved wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right. But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succeed in proving what you thought was right wrong.

Evolution theory is wrong until proven right.

Got it.

Does this help?

It sure does: Evolution theory can take a hike.

 

[Strathos]

It has certainly been denied many times, but never refuted.

 

[lasthero]

Twisting words and ignorance. Classic creationist.

 

[Gene2memE]

Okay, evolution theory has been DISCONFIRMED; I’ve seen it being denied or refuted many times.
In other words, the confirmation of evolution theory may very well be a lie.

Do you know the scientific definition of a theory?

I'll save time and answer my own question: A theory in science is a framework that has the best explantory power for the available evidence and observations.

The colloquial definition is distinct from the scientific definition.

Evolution theory is not right; it simply has not been proven wrong.

Evolution theory is wrong until proven right.

Those two statements are contradictory. A scientific theory is considered to be correct until it can be proven wrong, not the other way around.

All knowledge in science is tentative, nothing is absolute. We know a lot of stuff with sufficent confidence that there is almost no difference, but there is always space in science to be more correct.

You can test whether evolutionary theory is correct by using it to make predictions (falsifiability principle). Examples include: the positioning and types of fossils in the geological column; the mutation of viruses to adapt to antibiotics; the existence of various transitional forms between known fossils; changes in predator-prey population dynamics (Stickleback and algae examples are pretty well known); adaptation to new energy sources (Lenski E. coli experiment, nylonase), and so on.

To disprove evolution - ie make it a "lie" - you'd need to come up with a better theory. That is, you'd need to provide a better explanation for the science of biology, diversity of life and the changes in organisms that we have seen up to today.

The alternative 'explantions' - special creation and intelligent design - have neither the power to explain observable evidence or make predictions.

Evolution is like Gulliver in Lilliput - Gulliver was tied to the ground by the Lilliputians by thousands of thin strands of rope. Some of these may break, but its still enough to hold Gulliver fast to the ground.

The evidence for evolution is the same. There are thousands of pieces of evidence, not just from biology but from other branches of science as well, that support evolution. Even if some of these are proved incorrect - and they have been in the past, some due to deliberate falsehoods - the preponderance of the facts is such that evolutionary theory is still correct.

Thus, evolution is both a theory and a fact. As it is the existing paradigm in all of biological science it is considered correct until it is proven wrong. When someone can prove that evolution is not the best basis for biological science, to the satisfaction of the scientific community, only then will it be overturned as the prevailing norm. So far, no-one, not the ID guys and not the groups referencing thier religious creation stories, has been able to do this.

 

[Heissonear]

False allegations are pathetic arguments. You can't handle the evidence, so you have to call people names.

Apparently understanding Scientism went over your head. You walk, talk and live this way of life and physical existence. You must not want to be exposed as a Scientismist?

.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you know the scientific definition of a theory?

An invented guess that can never be proven right:

Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong.

...During all that time, the theory had been failed to be proved wrong and could be taken to be temporarily right. But it can never be proved right because tomorrow's experiment may succeed in proving what you thought was right wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The "facts of men" verses the "Voice of God" in light of True with a capital "T" verses true with a small "t".

When God writes His Word upon our heart through His Spirit, what we hear in heart is capital "T". The facts of men does not compare in being conclusive, absolute, and the like in how things are.

.

And we should believe you because...?

 

[TLK Valentine]

An invented guess that can never be proven right:

Kind of like the existence of God.

 

[Meshakhad]

Claiming that evolution is not science because no one has seen one species turn into another is rather disingenuous. Humans have observed - and often caused - major changes within species. There are moths in Britain that used to have light coloring to camouflage themselves against light-colored trees, but are now dark colored because those trees have been darkened by soot. On a more extreme level, compare wild wolves with all the myriad breeds of dogs we have created. We didn't do it with genetic engineering - we did it by becoming a selective force, controlling which animals reproduced.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Claiming that evolution is not science because no one has seen one species turn into another is rather disingenuous. Humans have observed - and often caused - major changes within species. There are moths in Britain that used to have light coloring to camouflage themselves against light-colored trees, but are now dark colored because those trees have been darkened by soot. On a more extreme level, compare wild wolves with all the myriad breeds of dogs we have created. We didn't do it with genetic engineering - we did it by becoming a selective force, controlling which animals reproduced.

Or for a more observable and recent example, look at "silver foxes" - which were selectively bred to the point of domesticity within the last 60 years or so. All while being able to show genetic changes in the animal leading to a physical trait alteration - changes in tail morphology, bone changes, fur changes, etc.

 

[Heissonear]

Claiming that evolution is not science because no one has seen one species turn into another is rather disingenuous. Humans have observed - and often caused - major changes within species. There are moths in Britain that used to have light coloring to camouflage themselves against light-colored trees, but are now dark colored because those trees have been darkened by soot. On a more extreme level, compare wild wolves with all the myriad breeds of dogs we have created. We didn't do it with genetic engineering - we did it by becoming a selective force, controlling which animals reproduced.

What?

You just stated evidence for species variation from the same gene pool. Variation is not mutation, adaptation for select environment, and natural selection in that environment (survival of the fittest).

You are not a help to the evolution community!

.

 

[Heissonear]

Or for a more observable and recent example, look at "silver foxes" - which were selectively bred to the point of domesticity within the last 60 years or so. All while being able to show genetic changes in the animal leading to a physical trait alteration - changes in tail morphology, bone changes, fur changes, etc.

Once again, What?

Do you understand the difference in variation from the species gene poll and evolution (which is mutation based genetic change, the adaptation and natural selection components)?

Is this subject over your head?

.

 

[Heissonear]

You can test whether evolutionary theory is correct by using it to make predictions (falsifiability principle). Examples include: the positioning and types of fossils in the geological column; the mutation of viruses to adapt to antibiotics; the existence of various transitional forms between known fossils; changes in predator-prey population dynamics (Stickleback and algae examples are pretty well known); adaptation to new energy sources (Lenski E. coli experiment, nylonase), and so on.

Are you trying to deceive by stating the above?

The only correct item listed - in general - is position of more primitive to more complex fossil in the stratigraphic column.

However this does not suggest evolution. Why? There are no transition fossils.

Did you hear that? With so called over a half a billion years of Cambrian to Pliestocene deposition all groups we should see hundreds if not thousands of transitions from Ancestral to Dependent fossil sequences in the same stratigraphic group - but we have none. Yes, none.

The evolutionists best presentation is a remains from here to a so called descendent there, in a mix and match of geographically different fossils. That's the paleontologist best.

The other items you list is simple gene expression, as they inherently already possess in their existing genes.

Do you understand "mutation" as the requirement to obtain a new species?

Do you want to try again?

.

 

[bhsmte]

What?

You just stated evidence for species variation from the same gene pool. Variation is not mutation, adaptation for select environment, and natural selection in that environment (survival of the fittest).

You are not a help to the evolution community!

.

Heiss,

You aren't much help to the YEC community yourself!

 

[Gene2memE]

Are you trying to deceive by stating the above?

The only correct item listed - in general - is position of more primitive to more complex fossil in the stratigraphic column.

However this does not suggest evolution. Why? There are no transition fossils.

Did you hear that? With so called over a half a billion years of Cambrian to Pliestocene deposition all groups we should see hundreds if not thousands of transitions from Ancestral to Dependent fossil sequences in the same stratigraphic group - but we have none. Yes, none.

The evolutionists best presentation is a remains from here to a so called descendent there, in a mix and match of geographically different fossils. That's the paleontologist best.

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.

There are thousands of 'transitional' forms (technically all organisms are transitioning, but that's another argument for another time) that have been identified.

I would direct you to Donald Prothero's book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007) for a thorough de-bunking of the "there are no transitional forms" argument.

The other items you list is simple gene expression, as they inherently already possess in their existing genes.

Do you understand "mutation" as the requirement to obtain a new species?

Do you want to try again?

.

Huh?

Frameshift mutation and mobilome adjustments are not mutations?

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population. How are changes in gene expression not evolution then?

 

[Heissonear]

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.

There are thousands of 'transitional' forms (technically all organisms are transitioning, but that's another argument for another time) that have been identified.

I would direct you to Donald Prothero's book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007) for a thorough de-bunking of the "there are no transitional forms" argument.

Huh?

Frameshift mutation and mobilome adjustments are not mutations?

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population. How are changes in gene expression not evolution then?

It may take time but you will see the "proof evolutionist promote" is Scientism bias. Once again, to start with godless perspective what is the "interpretated" is godless and natural physical processes bias.

So Donald's book has Scientism bias. My college background pegs your foundation. Unbelief rules in geo departments. Humm, and they over promote Scientism. Guess what the testbook results will be?

I learned these things as a Naturalist, and had no interest or knowledge of the religions of the world. They were not needed. Everything could be explained without God in the picture, simply understanding and learning about natural properties, processes and conditions.

But then came the realization of Scientism is based on faith, and there was no proof God did not exist. What a dilemma for a based on science Naturalist.

Through openess I started learning the limitations of Naturalism. Things hard to "accept" as factually occurring by the "community".

Dare I say I don't follow men anymore, and have found many errors among Naturalists. Many.

Now tell me there is no God. And secondly tell me He did not reveal Himself plainly to me in 1978' and other times since.

.

 

[bhsmte]

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.

Or, people who see things that aren't there.

There are thousands of 'transitional' forms (technically all organisms are transitioning, but that's another argument for another time) that have been identified.

I would direct you to Donald Prothero's book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007) for a thorough de-bunking of the "there are no transitional forms" argument.



Huh?

Frameshift mutation and mobilome adjustments are not mutations?

Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population. How are changes in gene expression not evolution then?

Well said.

 

[Doveaman]

A theory in science is a framework that has the best explantory power for the available evidence and observations.

It was said that three men were found alive after being thrown into a burning incinerator.

Given the opportunity for a scientific examination of the evidence discovered following the event, what would the scientific conclusion be regarding that claim – is it likely to be true, or likely to be false?

Here's the evidence that was discovered:

"The fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." - (Dan 3:27).

The colloquial definition is distinct from the scientific definition.

Scientific definitions exist in a bubble and can only define what is in that bubble. Reality is defined differently.

Those two statements are contradictory. A scientific theory is considered to be correct until it can be proven wrong, not the other way around.

All knowledge in science is tentative, nothing is absolute.

In other words, it is tentatively correct. Which means you are not sure if it is correct, but you consider it to be correct.

We know a lot of stuff with sufficent confidence that there is almost no difference, but there is always space in science to be more correct.

If the scientific answer is correct, why does it need to be more correct? And if it needs to be more correct, was it really correct in the first place?

You can test whether evolutionary theory is correct by using it to make predictions (falsifiability principle).

Christians test the Bible that way too.

The Bible makes predictions and we test those predictions by following biblical instructions (the theological method), and the results we experience are always exactly as were predicted.

So? Is the Bible correct?

Examples include: the positioning and types of fossils in the geological column; the mutation of viruses to adapt to antibiotics; the existence of various transitional forms between known fossils; changes in predator-prey population dynamics (Stickleback and algae examples are pretty well known); adaptation to new energy sources (Lenski E. coli experiment, nylonase), and so on.

The existence of “various transitional forms between known fossils” is not exactly a known fact.

Clearly you are making up some of your facts.

To disprove evolution - ie make it a "lie" - you'd need to come up with a better theory.

That is, you'd need to provide a better explanation for the science of biology, diversity of life and the changes in organisms that we have seen up to today.

Who determines what is a "better theory”? Is it the same people whose livelihood is dependent upon the old theory? Are human beings going to give up their livelihood for a "better theory"? I don't think so.

Is the Big Bang a "better theory", or an old theory? Why are so many legitimate scientists rejecting it (and for good reasons) if it's a "better theory"? Why is it not being overturned even though the the arguments against it are legitimate?

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Is it because people don't just abandon the means to their livelihood even though the means may not be legitimate?

The alternative 'explantions' - special creation and intelligent design - have neither the power to explain observable evidence or make predictions.

Reality is based on what is true. It is not based on a mere human explanation/interpretation.

Miraculous Creation need not to be explained or make predictions in order to be true. The virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus have no scientific explanation, but billions of people, including many scientists and evolutionists alike, hold them to be true. Reality is not restricted by a myopic scientific method. A scientific explanation may be the best scientific explanation, but it is not necessarily the best explanation of truth. The virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus are both true despite having no scientific explanation.

Evolution is like Gulliver in Lilliput - Gulliver was tied to the ground by the Lilliputians by thousands of thin strands of rope. Some of these may break, but its still enough to hold Gulliver fast to the ground.

The evidence for evolution is the same. There are thousands of pieces of evidence, not just from biology but from other branches of science as well, that support evolution. Even if some of these are proved incorrect - and they have been in the past, some due to deliberate falsehoods - the preponderance of the facts is such that evolutionary theory is still correct.

Yes, I'm aware that natural selection and speciation will still occur even though the theory of human evolution is false.

Thus, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Only if we are gullible. Theories explain facts. The theory can be wrong, but the facts are never wrong. And there can be more than one theory explaining the same facts.

As it is the existing paradigm in all of biological science it is considered correct until it is proven wrong.

If you consider it to be correct there is a flip side, you also consider it to be not incorrect. You are not leaving any room for it to be wrong.

When someone can prove that evolution is not the best basis for biological science, to the satisfaction of the scientific community,

We creationists do not have to prove anything to the satisfaction of the scientific community. We only have to prove it to our own satisfaction.

only then will it be overturned as the prevailing norm. So far, no-one, not the ID guys and not the groups referencing thier religious creation stories, has been able to do this.

Again, we creationists are not trying to overturn evolution theory since we don't recognize it in the first place, and we have no need of it to explain anything at all.