Evolutionism is not science but fool hypothesis

[Non-Sequitur]

Your question includes incorrect definitions and a misunderstanding of how science works. Your question does not apply.

 

[webboffin]

It is a direct question. Can evolution be proven or always remain a theory. Anyone else who can answer it directly please. Or is it too taboo to ask?

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Here is the correct definition of a scientific theory from wikipedia.

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Do you see what is wrong with your question now?

 

[webboffin]

Nope, I think someone with knowledge would be able to answer me to satisfaction you obviously don't know the answer by avoiding to answer. So I lay the question to someone else more enlightened.

 

[ryfso]

Okay I will ask someone else who may answer directly instead of circling around it.

Can the theory of evolution be proven or will it always remain a theory?

You are using the laymans definition of "theory". This is how scientists use the word when they say "Theory of Evolution"

"
Theory
The´o`ry

Noun 1. theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory""

Here:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

Furthermore:

Q: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?


A: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.

So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

See http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

For information about what you are getting wrong about "theory".

As for evidence that evolution is the correct description of the process life has been undergoing for ages, here:

From your very own CF's
http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

Retroviruses that are common to both Humans and non-human primates. Viruses that alter DNA, if my understanding is correct.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html For more general info.

 

[webboffin]

ryfso thank you very much

 

[ryfso]

ryfso thank you very much

Glad to be of service.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Have you actually been reading any of my posts? I keep telling you what is wrong with your question and why people won't answer it, but you just keep saying that it is because I can't answer it. I am not answering your question for the same reason you didn't answer mine. It is not a valid question.

 

[webboffin]

ryfso answered me thank you - you didn't

 

[Non-Sequitur]

I told you the same thing that he did. We both had to correct you definition of a theory.

I will no longer respond to you because you simply ignore what I post.

 

[ryfso]

ryfso answered me thank you - you didn't

Everyone answered you, Webboffin. We wanted to make clear that you understood how you were using the term incorrectly before continuing.

They did the same things I did. I get no special credit.

 

[webboffin]

I already have my answer and looking into it. Sorry you said it was an invalid question so you had no answer for it. Next time don't dig a hole you can't get out of. Bye!

 

[ryfso]

I already have my answer and looking into it. Sorry you said it was an invalid question so you had no answer for it. Next time don't dig a hole you can't get out of. Bye!

You were asking a question that didn't make sense


Is Germ theory ever going to be proven or will it always be just a theory?


get it? It doesn't make sense.

Sweet Mother of Iggy, you just don't get it.

 

[michabo]

It almost sounds like people either refuse to take the evidence as evidence, or else think its faked.

Some of it is faked or grossly misleading. Your nonsense about a changing speed of light, for example. Some of it is potentially an honest misunderstanding, like why Io has volcanos. Some is absurd, like quoting an astronomer on issues of biology.

For your idea to qualify as a theory, it must be well stated and explain all observations. To cherrypick a few and claim that they aren't inconsistent with your ideas is not enough. To disprove evolution (which you have certainly not done) is not to prove creationism.

I looked briefly through your site and couldn't find a single description of what this creationism stuff is that you believe in. Can you give a clear, unambiguous timeline with predictions? How does it account for stratigraphy, fossils and trace fossils, radiographic dating, genetic similarities and the Linnean system, stellar red-shifts, and continental drift?

 

[Starcrystal]

looked briefly through your site and couldn't find a single description of what this creationism stuff is that you believe in. Can you give a clear, unambiguous timeline with predictions? How does it account for stratigraphy, fossils and trace fossils, radiographic dating, genetic similarities and the Linnean system, stellar red-shifts, and continental drift?

Stratigraphy, fossiles & trace fossils: cataclysicmic deluge, sedimentary deposits, fossils layed down in order that creatures perished based on varying degrees of survival skills (Invertabrates & other simple life forms at bottom, amphibians & repiles in middle, mammals, including man at top...with some slight intermingling, giving APPEARANGE of age due to sedimenatary stratification.)

Radiographic dating: an inacurate, unreliable method. Does not apply.

Genetic similarities: Everything on earth was created from the elements of earth. Life is life, and based on certain compounds. Mammals will have closer genetic similarities than reptiles or amphibians. Does anyone ever discuss the DISsimilarities, even those between humans and chimpanzees?

I don't see what the Linnean classification system has to do with evolution. It classifies species of animals into varying groups based on similarities or lack thereof. It doesn't support evolution or creation to any worthwhile degree.

I had to read up on stellar red shifts and am dismissing them as being any basis for evolution or age of the universe. Upon reading through 4 or 5 separate papers on the subject, the conclusion is: NO ONE EVEN IS SURE WHAT CAUSES IT! Doppler effect, gravitational waves, cosmic strings, varying speeds of decay, photon half-life, double photons, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Can anyone even agree on the subject? Its all hypothesis! And for those who hold to a universe age of 12 - 15 billion years, some red shifters theorize its actually 17 - 18 billion years, and the number 100 BILLION was even brought up as speculation in one document!
I think the degrading speed of light probably has something to do with what we observe, and therefore red shifts must be dismissed due to lack of any one solid conclusive and viable theory.

Continental drift: we have some by tectonic plate activity, and large scale movement of land masses during cataclysmic events. Both the deluge and the subsequent division of the earth, most likely caused by the close proximity of Venus or Mars, or both over 4,000 years ago.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Exactly what are these survival skills that you speak of?

 

[Starcrystal]

You are more likely to survive than invertabrates. In a global flood scenario the smaller invertabrates and creepy crawly things were squashed and inundated. They didn't even see disaster coming. Their fossils are at the bottom of the fossil strata. Intermediate life forms, dinosaurs, other reptiles, etc were next to go. They lived mainly by instinct and were thrown into chaos. naturally we find those next in the fossil record. They survived a bit longer than the lower life forms. mammals could sense disaster coming and made for the hills, some climbing trees, etc. Though they didn't survive long, they did live a bit longer than the reptilian species, for the most part. Man, having the greatest intelligence could go to highest ground and was the last to perish when the waters flooded the earth. Thats why man is mainly at the top of the fossil record. For the most part, the fossil record is based on intelligence/brain capacity level.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Then why are there creatures with wings below hominids in the fossil record?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Continental drift: we have some by tectonic plate activity, and large scale movement of land masses during cataclysmic events. Both the deluge and the subsequent division of the earth, most likely caused by the close proximity of Venus or Mars, or both over 4,000 years ago.

This is hilarious except I think you mean it.

Could you please show me some celestial mechanics calculations as to how this happened.

Feel free to use the impulse approximation, Tisserands relation, Hill's equations, potential theory and any other tools of solar system dynamics to educate me. Thanks, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[Hydra009]

And how come there is no fossil evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? In fact, we seem to have missed each other by millions of years.

If God created all species in the same 6 day period, there would be trilobite fossils in the same-age sediment as humans, along with dinosaurs, alongside stromatolites. This clearly is not the case.