Falsify evolution

[Smilin]

Today at 11:40 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #14 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658501#post658501)

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.  The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve."

So, what do you think, do individual evolve or not?

Organisms do no evolve?
How do you explain antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria?
How do you explain new breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cattle etc constantly appearing?
How do you explain 77,000 + new species of plants in the horticulture/nursery stock industry?
How do you explain the racial diversification of man?

Can you answer any of these questions without using evolutionary science?

 

[euphoric]

Today at 04:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #15

There you go bubba, you just earned two IQ points, you win the prize you solved the riddle.

Most of the cr*p out there, that they call evolution, even what you find in text books, ain't evolution at all. The true scientist would easily falsify most of what people call evolution.

They would and have falsified the cartoon version of the theory that most creationists spend their time constructing and knocking down.  Perhaps you should speak to a "true scientist" and they could explain the theory and correct your numerous misconceptions.  Oh, wait, several scientists have been trying to do just that on these boards and you've dismissed every one of them.  Perhaps you should listen to them more carefully. 

No, that's silly, just keep on spouting your pet theories and blanket condemnations of everything with which you don't agree.  Your opinion on scientific issues is just as valid as that of those silly "professional scientists."  The fact that they were "educated" in their field at an "accredited institution" and received "degrees" from "knowledgeable professors" and conducted "research" on these topics doesn't mean that their opinions are more valid than yours.  After all you have carefully judged scientific concepts in light of the objective standard known as "what makes sense to you."  And how could that possibly be wrong?  The fact that you don't "understand the concepts involved" doesn't make you less qualified than them!

Today at 04:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #15
I agree, it is senseless to even have a discussion on evolution, if all your going to discuss is all the misconceptions of what it is. Usually in a attempt to simplify things so the average person can understand what they are saying, people so misrepresent evolutionary theory so as to create a false statement.

I'm nominating this for the Great Moments in Irony Hall of Fame.

Today at 04:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #15
That is why so many people say: evolutionary theory is nonsense. Actually what they are refering to is what people call evolutionary theory which really is not evolutionary theory, it really is JUST nonsense being passed off as evolutionary theory.

Then, why not enlighten us as to the "real" theory of evolution?  Dispense thy great wisdom and understanding.  It has remained hidden too long.

-brett

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:58 PM euphoric said this in Post #22 Then, why not enlighten us as to the "real" theory of evolution?  

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:01 PM Smilin said this in Post #20

Making a living distorting the truth, scientific or biblical, is wrong.

Then I guess Darwin was wrong to sell his books, maybe he should have given them away sense you seem to think it is wrong to make a living off of distorting the truth.

 

[notto]

Today at 06:14 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #23 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658694#post658694)

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions

Now, can you address how this has been falsified? (be specific!)

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:27 PM notto said this in Post #25

 successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions 

 Now, can you address how this has been falsified? (be specific!)

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

That is simple, Moses proved it wrong 3500 years ago. Protoorganism's did not "evolve" into snails, bees & giraffes. God created everything after it's kind.

Genesis 1:24
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

God said let the earth bring forth living creatures after his kind. He did not say let them "evolve" from protoorganism's.





 

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 01:17 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #24

Then I guess Darwin was wrong to sell his books, maybe he should have given them away sense [sic] you seem to think it is wrong to make a living off of distorting the truth.

Which truth would that be? "The Gospel according to JohnR7?"

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:45 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #27 Which truth would that be? "The Gospel according to JohnR7?"

Nope, the gospel of John the Apostle. Also known as John the Beloved or Jesus refered to him and his brother James as The Son's of Thunder.

John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:10-13
    He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. [11] He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. [12] But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: [13] who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.





 

 

[wblastyn]

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Ok, so God created everything, where does it say how?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:23 PM wblastyn said this in Post #29

Ok, so God created everything, where does it say how?

We did this already: Uni (as in unicycle) verse (One of the numbered subdivisions of a chapter in the Bible.) Universe, God spoke creation into existance in one verse.

Genesis 1:3  God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass,

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word,

The word, Greek: Logos: something spoken.

1 Peter 1:23b the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


 





 

 

[Arikay]

Lol

John, you dont like to listen do you. Based on your uni-verse idea.
Uni means one, verse means to familiarize yourself by study or experience.

So Uni-Verse = one bible verse
just as much as
Uni-Verse = one study or one experience.

 

[Cantuar]

That is simple, Moses proved it wrong 3500 years ago.

OK, so you're saying that the faslification of the scientific theory of evolution is biblical, not scientific. In other words, it hasn't been scientifically falsified, right? Falsification through scripture is what you're referring to.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 02:35 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #30

We did this already: Uni (as in unicycle) verse (One of the numbered subdivisions of a chapter in the Bible.) Universe, God spoke creation into existance in one verse.

Genesis 1:3  God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass,

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word,

The word, Greek: Logos: something spoken.

1 Peter 1:23b the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
 

Yes John, we did go through this already. We proved it was nonsense. Yet you persist.

Let's talk about the word "universe."

You got it partially right. Uni- means "one." The "verse" as "phrase" is a common etymological mistake.

From http://www.takeourword.com/TOW110/page2.html

The -verse part of universe is related to verse "line of poetry", but only in that both derive from the Latin versus, the past participle of vertere "to turn".  A verse of poetry is called thus because one must "turn" to begin a new line.  That word dates back to Old English (at least around the year 900).  On the other hand, universe is, etymologically, "turned into one" or "one whole thing".  It came to English via Old French univers in the 12th century.  Chaucer used it in his Troylus and Cressida in about 1374: "Ye folk a lawe han sette in universe; And this know I by hem that loveres be, that whoso stryveth with thow hath the worse."

So your interpretation is incorrect.

Are we going to see this nonsense again? From you? most likely. But it'll be you repeating it, not us.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 06:14 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #23

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions

You have half of it, the other half is selection.  The concept that those individuals within a population that are well adapted to their environment will survive and reproduce. 

Now, using those parameters, and confining the discussion to biological evolution, provide a scientific argument for falsification of evolutionary theory.  Handwaving and dismissal based on a particular interpretation of a holy book is not grounds for falsification of a scientific theory no matter how much you might want it to be.

-brett

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Here John, I'll narrow it down for you:

Falsify modern biological evolutionary theory.

Stop spouting rhetoric, word definitions, scripture, etc.

Provide a single piece of evidence that falisifies modern biological evolution.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 01:17 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658700#post658700)

Then I guess Darwin was wrong to sell his books, maybe he should have given them away sense you seem to think it is wrong to make a living off of distorting the truth.

In what sense was Darwin wrong? Examples please. Here you go again... typical JohnR7, making statements without proving your case....

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yesterday at 07:03 PM lucaspa said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=657162#post657162)

I predict that this thread will not go far.

I figured I'd at least issue a "put up or shut up" challenge to John, to see what he actually brings to the table. If the theory of evolution really has been falsified, then he should have no trouble presenting evidence for this. But so far, all I see are bible quotes and word definitions. I guess his claim that the theory of evolution has been falisified was, I dunno, a little bit untruthful?

 

[Smilin]

Today at 12:05 PM Smilin said this in Post #21 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658552#post658552)

Organisms do no evolve?
How do you explain antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria?
How do you explain new breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cattle etc constantly appearing?
How do you explain 77,000 + new species of plants in the horticulture/nursery stock industry?
How do you explain the racial diversification of man?

Can you answer any of these questions without using evolutionary science?

Still waiting for you to answer these questions as well John....
You won't find the answers in any religious text either. You'll have to break out your science books... eerrrr do you have any of those?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yesterday at 10:50 PM Smilin said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=657570#post657570)
errr... you've morphed from a short Mouse dude to an evil Siamese cat... what's up with that?

I just figured a demon-possessed cat would be an appropriate avatar for a Christian message board.

That, and I like cats.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 05:50 PM Smilin said this in Post #36

In what sense was Darwin wrong? Examples please. Here you go again... typical JohnR7, making statements without proving your case....

Actually, typical JohnR7 is making statements without any intention of proving his case.