proving evolution as just a "theory"

[HitchSlap]

In respect to the disclaimer statement made by the preposed Evolution Theory experts in the field, to that of your statement....

"people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that."

It really shows that the Evolution experts who make claims and have a disclaimer of "hard to understand" emperically through mathematics, is another way of saying it is over our heads or that we know absolutely something (pun intended) about it. So go figure, pseudo scientists or should I say sciencetologists.

Well if you know something about "Speciation, and the origin of novel species" of cichlids, just say so. No need to mock the rest of us who don't.

 

[The Times]

Well if you know something about "Speciation, and the origin of novel species" of cichlids, just say so. No need to mock the rest of us who don't.

On the contrary, I respect people enough that I can use persuasive words to convey the futile acts of theorists who cannot even grapple with their own theory, yet expect the whole world to believe them at their word.

I can inform you that I have learnt and gained alot of insight into evolution theory from the posters on this thread, which has allowed me to scrutinise it by rationale and logical standards expected in the harmonising of Science, Mathematics and English.

I go back to my original supporting point, that the Fibonacci Pattern is inherent within all lifeforms, which is highly suggestive of a single intelligent designer.

If we had intermediate lifeform states from sea to land based and vice versa, we would expect to observe and measure a different sequence of patterns, which are non recursive in emperical mathematical modeling. However since we can only model fully formed lifeforms, we can observe the many speciated paths are indicative of the same pattern for every independent speciated path. This argument would on its own merit disprove the succession theory of the Evolution Theory, because all mammals could not have the same ancestral parent (singular), yet the same Fibonacci pattern exists which highly suggests a single intelligent designer who engineered those fully formed lifeforms simultaneously and in tandem, after their own kind/species, therefore there are no successions based on ancestral parents from other species, linking them to the fully formed species of observable ones, throughout history.

The evolution theory collapses. With more scientific data emerging, the theory becomes untenable as an empirically viable and scientific solution to the origins of life and therefore must be rejected as nothing more than psuedo science at best, just like alchemy was in its days.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In respect to the disclaimer statement made by the preposed Evolution Theory experts in the field, to that of your statement....

"people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that."

It really shows that the Evolution experts who make claims and have a disclaimer of "hard to understand" emperically through mathematics, is another way of saying it is over our heads or that we know absolutely something (pun intended) about it. So go figure, pseudo scientists or should I say sciencetologists.

Uh... Scientologists have nothing to do with science, despite their name. They are people that follow a sci-fi novel as their religion.

Evolution isn't super hard to understand, but it is difficult to explain it to people properly who were exposed to misinformation first. I have no issue going through a detailed explanation of evolution with you or anyone else, but I do take issue with people that constantly say I am lying, misinformed, or part of some conspiracy, and don't provide any evidence for any of those things.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution isn't super hard to understand, but it is difficult to explain it to people properly who were exposed to misinformation first.

It's even more difficult to explain to people who not only have no interest in learning, but a vested interest in not learning.

 

[The Times]

Like any religion, one must like sciencetology to embrace sciencetology.

 

[HitchSlap]

The evolution theory collapses. With more scientific data emerging, the theory becomes untenable as an empirically viable and scientific solution to the origins of life and therefore must be rejected as nothing more than psuedo science at best, just like alchemy was in its days.

Time will tell.

 

[Aman777]

Not likely. The oldest human remains found to date are from Morocco and they're 300,000 years old. How do you reconcile that?

The classification of the sons of God (prehistoric people) as Humans, is in error. The FIRST Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in Lake Van, Turkey some 11,000 years ago according to the History of the FIRST Human farming on planet Earth. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE The history of Human civilization began in the Cradle of Civilization, Northern Mesopotamia.

IOW, we did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes as the False ToE assumes. Amen? Amen.

 

[rjs330]

I gave you the example of a broken vitanim c gene and you claim it is common design. The creator designed us with a broken vitamin c gene? That doesn't make sense.

The creator made us perfect. We screwed up nature by sinning and letting death and destruction into nature. It's not evidence of common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

Forget the evidence for a moment. What I would suggest starting with is understanding the scientific method. You keep claiming that evolution/common ancestry can't be tested. First you need to understand how science works, then you'll have a better baseline for understanding how things like common ancestry can and are tested.

That is where I would start: learn how hypotheses are formed and tested. Learn what "testing" and "observation" actually means (note: it doesn't mean necessarily recreating an event; it can be looking at outcomes from a past event). Then go from there.

What Is Science?
The Scientific Method
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Just the hypothesis of evolution is false. It claims a common ancestor and yet it was never an observed phenomenon. It remains an assumption and all testing only shows is similarities. It never shows an actual evolution from one thing into another.

 

[pitabread]

The creator made us perfect. We screwed up nature by sinning and letting death and destruction into nature.

I guess the creator didn't make us "perfect" then.

 

[pitabread]

It claims a common ancestor and yet it was never an observed phenomenon.

Sure it is. We see common ancestry all the time. Do you have cousins? If you do, do you not share a common ancestor with them (i.e. grandparents)?

Exact same concept, just extrapolated over billions of years instead of a few decades.

It remains an assumption and all testing only shows is similarities.

What testing shows (particularly phylogenetic reconstructions) is specific patterns that have to hold if common ancestry is true due to the constraints under which common ancestry functions. It's why claiming the same evidence points to "common design" doesn't really hold any water, because a designer wouldn't be operating under the same constraints.

But go back and read up on the scientific method first. It helps to understand how science works before trying to delve into how hypotheses are tested, particularly something like common ancestry. Otherwise, it's just going to go over your head.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess the creator didn't make us "perfect" then.

Was Jesus perfect?

Wouldn't science say He was a mutant, full of copy-errors?

 

[HitchSlap]

The classification of the sons of God (prehistoric people) as Humans, is in error. The FIRST Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in Lake Van, Turkey some 11,000 years ago according to the History of the FIRST Human farming on planet Earth. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE The history of Human civilization began in the Cradle of Civilization, Northern Mesopotamia.

IOW, we did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes as the False ToE assumes. Amen? Amen.

Are you a disinformation agent?

 

[HitchSlap]

Was Jesus perfect?

Wouldn't science say He was a mutant, full of copy-errors?

“Science” says he was man, if he existed at all.

 

[rjs330]

That's a conversation you'll have to have with your fellow Christians, since clearly they don't all share your opinion.

Regardless, the fact that Christians can hold their beliefs and accept the Theory of Evolution as valid science shows that the theory of Evolution is clearly not about denial of God or faith.

It is a denial of the biblical account. The Christians that don't believe the Genesis account and believe in evolution do all kinds of explaining away even though the account is confirmed throughout scripture. The explanation gymnastics is pretty amazing to watch.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is a denial of the biblical account. The Christians that don't believe the Genesis account and believe in evolution do all kinds of explaining away even though the account is confirmed throughout scripture. The explanation gymnastics is pretty amazing to watch.

All depends on one’s interpretation, I guess.

 

[bhsmte]

Like any religion, one must like sciencetology to embrace sciencetology.

LOL

 

[Speedwell]

It is a denial of the biblical account. The Christians that don't believe the Genesis account and believe in evolution do all kinds of explaining away even though the account is confirmed throughout scripture. The explanation gymnastics is pretty amazing to watch.

It's not a denial of anything. It's an unwillingness to abandon a well-supported interpretation of the biblical account in favor of literalism. Once you take that position, no "explaining away" is required.

 

[gaara4158]

The classification of the sons of God (prehistoric people) as Humans, is in error. The FIRST Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in Lake Van, Turkey some 11,000 years ago according to the History of the FIRST Human farming on planet Earth. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE The history of Human civilization began in the Cradle of Civilization, Northern Mesopotamia.

IOW, we did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes as the False ToE assumes. Amen? Amen.

It’s true the first signs of civilization are dated around then; this is already known. It does not follow that because the earliest human remains found predate the earliest known civilization we did not evolve from a common ancestor with apes. That’s a complete non sequitur. Nonetheless, anotomically modern humans first showed up no later than 300,000 years ago.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

These are not fictitious terms,

Since neomorph and xenomorph appear nowhere else except outside of the Aliens fanwiki and appear nowhere in the scientific literature, then YES, THEY ARE FICTITIOUS TERMS.