Make me an evolutionist

[Shadowseldil]

I have seen this thread many times, yet going the other way, i.e. "Make me a christian", "make me a creationist" ect.
Well, evolutionist, now it's your chance. If you are willing to calmly, and peacefully discuss this, I will listen to you, rebut you if I do not like your point, and agree if you can prove something to me.
There are three things I am looking for. First, you must tell me why evolution is right. Second, you must back up your claims with proof. Thrid, you must convince me as to why I should want to become an evolutionist.
The floor is yours.

 

[charlesseamanj]

The problem is, scientists have tryed for years to do that and have not been able to.
That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

The same must be true for the THEORY of gravity.

 

[Shadowseldil]

Stay on topic! This is MY thread, and I will not suffer arguement!

Now, explain your point, Drunken Wrestler, or leave!

 

[charlesseamanj]

Gravity can be demonstrated to a degree. Evolution is a hypothisis to explain events.
This hypothisis has no real suporting evedence. Everything is speculitive.

It is not science. Can any of you tell me the defintion of science?

 

[Bushido216]

Make me an evolutionist

*POOF!* You are now an evolutionist.

 

[random_guy]

Gravity can be demonstrated to a degree. Evolution is a hypothisis to explain events.
This hypothisis has no real suporting evedence. Everything is speculitive.

It is not science. Can any of you tell me the defintion of science?

I'll be brutually frank, you know nothing about the ToG or the ToE or what science is in general.

We see gravity (things fall down) and explain it with the ToG. We see allele frequency changes over time (evolution) and explain it with the ToE. They are both theories and both have evidence to support it. However, ToE has more supporting evidence than ToG since we've never seen a graviton or seen the "bending" of space-time.

Anyway, back on topic, I guess a question to ask is are you a gravist, heliocentrist, or germist yet?

 

[Bushido216]

Gravity can be demonstrated to a degree. Evolution is a hypothisis to explain events.
This hypothisis has no real suporting evedence. Everything is speculitive.

It is not science. Can any of you tell me the defintion of science?

So, if say, I posted this link:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses

You'd have a thorough understanding of the material and an ability to refute it based on the aforementioned thorough understanding?

 

[Bushido216]

Stay on topic! This is MY thread, and I will not suffer arguement!

Now, explain your point, Drunken Wrestler, or leave!

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Theory is his point. A theory in science is different than a theory in your average, day-to-day diction. Read yon link for a more thorough explaination.

 

[charlesseamanj]

So this is my laymens deffinition of science.
ie: Something that can be demonstrated in a controlled enviroment; something that can be repeted; something that can be tested; ect

 

[charlesseamanj]

The origional question is , can you make him an evolutionist by any means using real science?

 

[Shadowseldil]

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think me your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor. And all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.
By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

Random-guy, you sound more like a creationist than an evolutionist. For I cannot see God, yet I can see the effects of a God. No, not creation, as you may be thinking(even though I think it is proof of God), but morality. Good and evil are proofs for God, not evolution.
Anyway, you say I should believe in evolution because I believe in gravity, even though I cannot "see" gravity. This is more reason for me to believe in God.
And you claim there is more proof for evolution than gravity? Whence the proof?

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof of macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution. You can have the first without the last. I want you to prove to me the last, and tell me why I should become an evolutionist.

(Small note, I am dislexic, so forgive my grammer and spelling mistakes.)

 

[random_guy]

So this is my laymens deffinition of science.
ie: Something that can be demonstrated in a controlled enviroment; something that can be repeted; something that can be tested; ect

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know laymen definitions were the ones to use when conducting science.

 

[random_guy]

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think me your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor. And all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.
By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

Random-guy, you sound more like a creationist than an evolutionist. For I cannot see God, yet I can see the effects of a God. No, not creation, as you may be thinking(even though I think it is proof of God), but morality. Good and evil are proofs for God, not evolution.
Anyway, you say I should believe in evolution because I believe in gravity, even though I cannot "see" gravity. This is more reason for me to believe in God.
And you claim there is more proof for evolution than gravity? Whence the proof?

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof of macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution. You can have the first without the last. I want you to prove to me the last, and tell me why I should become an evolutionist.

(Small note, I am dislexic, so forgive my grammer and spelling mistakes.)

I'm slightly confused. You claim to be a genuis with an understanding of evolution but you continue to post molecules to man. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. You continue to confuse scietific terms like theory and law (do you even understand either definitions) and yet you state you understand science? Theories are not evolved into laws, contridictory to what pokemon might have you believe.

Is there a doctor in the house to save the OP?

 

[Shadowseldil]

Charles, I am going to ask you to sit on the sidelines for this one. You are not helping, and you are only stirring up anger. I appreciate your efforts, but you have your own thread. Please, you may watch, but stop commenting.

 

[revolutio]

By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

You missed his point. There is a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. The law would be that things move downwards without another force acting on them. The theory is that this "falling" is caused by the bending of spacetime around matter.

The law of evolution (though this term is rarely used) is that allelle frequencies in populations change over time. The theory of evolution explains how this happens (natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, etc.).

By the way, have your read the evolution related parts of the Quiet Thread yet? Those are very thorough arguments presented in a (usually) scientific manner. If you think that evidence points towards special creation I'd recommend reading some of those and explaining your view on them first rather than asking evolutionists to repeat the same points. They are getting tired of copying and pasting.
Plus it would show you have an honest interest in dialogue with them, alot of creationists make Post-and-runs here hence the pessimistic and sarcastic remarks.

 

[charlesseamanj]

The past can only be known by using hystoricial methods.
We must look at what can be demonstrated with scientific method to come to a more solid explanation of what is more possible.

 

[Self Improvement]

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think me your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor. And all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.
By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

I didn't know theories graduated to laws. Oh yeah, because they don't.

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof of macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution. You can have the first without the last. I want you to prove to me the last, and tell me why I should become an evolutionist.

Speciation is macroevolution.

 

[Grengor]

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think you your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor. And all the evidence I have seen points to special creation, not evolution.
By-the-by, the "theory" of gravity was elavated to "law" status long ago. Keep up, or get left behind .

Sorry man, there hasn't been a graviton particle observed, so it's not a law, even though it's referred to because so far, it's never been wrong. I thought you had a genius IQ?[edit] I just remembered, Theories don't graduate to laws, so, with the evidence on hand, I can formulate the theory that you're lying about a genius IQ. Now all we have to do is test it with your further responses.

Random-guy, you sound more like a creationist than an evolutionist. For I cannot see God, yet I can see the effects of a God. No, not creation, as you may be thinking(even though I think it is proof of God), but morality. Good and evil are proofs for God, not evolution.

Again, sorry, but morality has nothing to do with Evolution.

Anyway, you say I should believe in evolution because I believe in gravity, even though I cannot "see" gravity.

Actually, he was refuting the used-too-much argument of "It's only a theory".

And you claim there is more proof for evolution than gravity? Whence the proof?

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution. You can have the first without the last. I want you to prove to me the last, and tell me why I should become an evolutionist.

(Small note, I am dislexic, so fogive my grammer and spelling mistakes.)

The onle difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. Micro=Macro times 100?1000?1000000000000? It doesn't matter, its just the culmulative of the previos mutations. Then comes the genetic barrier argument, well, I haven't seen any evidence of a genetic barrier, in fact, when presented with "evidence", it turned out it had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, the provided just googled it and assumed it supported his/her position. No one can "make you become an evolutionist" unless you're willing to, it's like that with everything. Oh yea, and this isn't "your thread".

 

[charlesseamanj]

Charles, I am going to ask you to sit on the sidelines for this one. You are not helping, and you are only stirring up anger. I appreciate your efforts, but you have your own thread. Please, you may watch, but stop commenting.

Sure. I'll do that for you.