proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

LOL!

lol indeed.

 

[gaara4158]

i showed it empirically with minnich experiments on the flagellum. so the burden of proof is in your side actually since it contradict what we know. can you do that?

Lol! No, you posted one article and one guy’s Wikipedia entry. In response, I posted a technical paper detailing the possible evolutionary path of the flagellum’s development, neutralizing your claim that its evolution was impossible. The burden is still on you.

 

[rjs330]

An idea is tested by science by examining the empirical evidence, the logic used, and the results of testing. Belief in the existence in G-d has none of these features, so it has no scientific meaning. As such, no matter whether a scientist believes in the existence`G-d or not, it does not affect the science.

That is such nonsense and proves my point. If all you have is one method then you are bound to that method and blind to any other alternatives. To limit the possibilities is to limit you mind and real discovery.

 

[Speedwell]

That is such nonsense and proves my point. If all you have is one method then you are bound to that method and blind to any other alternatives. To limit the possibilities is to limit you mind and real discovery.

So what other than the scientific method do you have in mind?

 

[Aman777]

Um... NO...

You made a mere assertion premised on your idiosyncratic belief that bible is 100% true.

Amen....and it also AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. That means that it is empirical (testable) evidence of God which was written more than 3k years ago by God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, IF you have the proper interpretation, which you don't. Amen?

 

[bhsmte]

Amen....and it also AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. That means that it is empirical (testable) evidence of God which was written more than 3k years ago by God the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, IF you have the proper interpretation, which you don't. Amen?

LOL

 

[xianghua]

Lol! No, you posted one article and one guy’s Wikipedia entry. In response, I posted a technical paper detailing the possible evolutionary path of the flagellum’s development, neutralizing your claim that its evolution was impossible. The burden is still on you.

his model was theoretical, when the experiment is empirical. so the claim that flagellum is ic is batter then the claim that it isnt.

 

[Aman777]

LOL

Thanks. I love it when I make someone happy, especially those with such a terrible future ahead of them. God Bless you

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What great evidence against evolution and for common design! We all have the gulo Gene. Evidence of common design. Apes and gunea pigs have broken ones. No one knows why. But they are broken differerently. Know one knows why or how. If we all came from a common ancestor the gene would have been broken the same. But the fact it was broken differerently shows a lack of common ancestry. But it does show common design. You assume it means common ancestry but it doesn't. It means common design with an unknown reason why the gene was broken.

Did you even read the article I referenced? Of course we know why they're broken and we even know how and where too. All of us great apes have a broken GULO gene that's broken in exactly the same way. The Guinea Pig has a broken GULO gene too, but it's broken in a different way to how our GULO gene is broken. This is the only way this could be for evolution to be correct. Created Kinds on the other hand would dictate that we wouldn't even have the GULO gene because it serves no purpose - or at the very least, it would be broken in a different way to indicate our unique creation apart from the other great apes... You should go and at least read that article. if you're having difficulty then ask for help, I'll answer any questions you might have if you want.

 

[gaara4158]

his model was theoretical, when the experiment is empirical. so the claim that flagellum is ic is batter then the claim that it isnt.

A theoretical model disproves the assertion that it’s impossible for a theoretical model to exist, which is the claim of IC.

 

[ruthiesea]

creation can explain how the eye created too (just replace the word "evolution" by the word "creation"). so what is the different?

With evolution is based on empirical evidence. Logic resulted in an explanation that makes predictions. Those predictions have been, and are continuously tested, with the goal of invalidating the explanation. Evolution is scientifically useful and leads to further paths of inquiry.

Creationism is based on reading a book and believing that it is historically and scientifically valid. It is based on no empirical evidence or logic, makes no testable predictions, it is scientifically useless, and does not lead to further paths of inquiry because it does not allow for unanswered questions.

That is the difference.

 

[Aman777]

Creationism is based on reading a book and believing that it is historically and scientifically valid. It is based on no empirical evidence or logic, makes no testable predictions, it is scientifically useless, and does not lead to further paths of inquiry because it does not allow for unanswered questions.

False since Gen 1:21 agrees with last year's discovery that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from water. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things

It's proof of God UNLESS you can explain How ancient men knew and correctly wrote this and other scientific Truths, thousands of years before Science. It also defines the difference between Humans and Apes and totally destroys the false ToE. Amen?

 

[HitchSlap]

Thanks. I love it when I make someone happy, especially those with such a terrible future ahead of them. God Bless you

Lol

 

[Aman777]

With evolution is based on empirical evidence.

False UNLESS you can tell us how mindless nature installed God's superior intelligence in Apes. Otherwise, you must accept that the ToE is incomplete and it's untrue assumptions are false. Please don't claim that magical mutations over eons of time changed us into Humans. Evidence please.

 

[Aman777]

Don't know the difference between His and Their kinds, I see. No wonder you are so confused. God Bless you

 

[pitabread]

So how do you know that evolution from a common ancestor is true if you can't observe it? It's so nice to have a theory that says "we can't actually observe this, but we believe it any way.". Which is not actually science. Since science must be testable and observable.

Haven't we been over this a half-dozen times already?

As had been explained, hypotheses and theories in science are tested by making predictions based on what one would expect to find if the hypothesis/theory is true. These hypotheses/theories are based on an understanding and constraints of whatever physical processes are involved and the predicted outcome of said processes. Then we look at the physical evidence and see what agrees or does not agree with said predictions.

This is why you don't need a time machine to investigate the past, since processes that occurred in the past leave evidence in the present. It is that present evidence that we observe.

Consequently something like phylogenetic reconstructions based on ERV insertions is evidence of common descent, based both on our understanding of how ERV insertions occur and the predicted outcome based the organisms originating via common ancestral genomes and diverging based on hereditary reproduction. Effectively, the pattern found as a result of phylogenetic reconstruction becomes the evidence for common descent, since it is based on constraints that would occur if common descent were true.

This is also why when you keep saying that all these same things are really evidence for "common design", you're effectively suggesting that the designer was operating under the exact same contraints as biological evolution. Which means the designer either created everything with the appearance of evolution or it just naturally evolved that way.

Either way, life still bears the hallmark of an evolutionary process.

 

[pitabread]

again: if you think the analogy is wrong then you should explain why its wrong.

Dude, people have been explaining what is wrong with your analogies for months. You either don't understand what the problem is, or you just don't care.

Either way, these discussions have gone absolutely nowhere.

 

[HitchSlap]

False UNLESS you can tell us how mindless nature installed God's superior intelligence in Apes. Otherwise, you must accept that the ToE is incomplete and it's untrue assumptions are false. Please don't claim that magical mutations over eons of time changed us into Humans. Evidence please.

Smaller jaw muscles allowed modern humans to have bigger brains. Mystery solved.
Amen?!

 

[pitabread]

I think that all "real" science is good, as long as it avoids things along the lines of eugenics, but it is when it is used to push a political agenda that I start bristling.

Well, I'm not going to get into a climate change debate. That's a whole 'nother topic.

But with respect to evolution, the only time politics comes up is either when creationists are trying to restrict the teaching of biological evolution and/or trying to insert their own brand of pseudoscience into public schools.

If creationists just left the science classroom alone, there wouldn't be nearly the drama over any of this.

 

[rjs330]

Provide evidence for these claims. Describe the falsifiable test you ran to come to this conclusion.



Your argument goes in circles.

I believe that an invisible unicorn created the entire universe. The proof is the universe itself. The proof of this invisible unicorn creator is the creation itself See? I can make the same claim you did. Equally absurd.

Falsifiable tests only limit your mind. If science is the only thing in the universe then your universe is terribly limited. Science has said many many things and have come up with many theories that have been proven wrong. Yet evolutionists will buy it lock stock and barrel even to the point of saying "see these things are similar therefore it is evolution. And these things are not similar therefore it is evolution.".

Remember evolution, the changing of a creature to adapt to survive, is not the same as evolution from a common ancestor. One is observable, even testable. The other is not. But once you utterly dismiss a designer you are left only with evolution. Very narrow thinking.