Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[RickG]

That would be H2O2. 2H2O is two water molecules.

Yeah, I misread it. Heavy water.

 

[whois]

A well respected journalist, not a science source.

uh, excuse me?
science happens to be one of 2 of the most respected names in science, the other being nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

Information provided by the teacher on the subject matter.

Why isn't H2O as much of a code as ATG?

Close enough +1 for knowing enthalpy

Were you asking for the thermodynamics of the reaction?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Yeah, I misread it. Heavy water.

It happens, if it makes you feel any better I started posting to this thread with a link to Hovind

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Were you asking for the thermodynamics of the reaction?

If you feel so compelled, I will be impressed if you can make the required symbols legible

 

[ArtB]

Let's start right there. What is the fossil evidence against evolution? How are the known fossils inconsistent with evolution?

My answer, read my post, if you do not get it, that would explain your belief in evolution - the Ignorance of the actual facts.


The theory that all species share a common ancestry (which is the "evolution" we are all discussing here) is not a scientific theory. Though science is used at arriving at the some of the data used to support that theory, the interpretation of that data with regard to the origins of the species is itself speculative, as it is bound to be when dealing with the study of past singularities. These speculations, no matter how reasonable they may or may not seem to one, will always remain mere speculation. It is akin to forensic science, e.g. the facts around the assassination of JFK and the many theories (of who shot him)that try to explain those facts.


Let’s compare 'evolution' to a real science the science of physics. physics deals with phenomena that is repetitively observable. It is by persistant observation of a set of events over and over that physicists are able to formulate rules and laws with respect to physical properties and by the same ability of repetitive observations confirm the reliablity of such rules and laws.


On the other hand, 'evolution' depends on slight of hand tricks in order to make it look like a science. One such trick is the circularity of evolutionary scientists interpreting all biological data in strict conformance with their belief that evolution is a fact, then publishing their pro-evolution interpretation of the data in scientific journals, then pointing to these very same articles that are published in a scientific journals that the data is confirms Evolution.

A most erroneous conclusion which more than one scients has pointed out, e.g.:


"Any reasonable graded series of forms can be thought to have a legitimacy. In fact, there is circularity in the approach that first assumes some sort of evolutionary relatedness and then assembles a pattern of relations from which to argue that relatedness must be true. This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel of the second meaning of evolution." Evolutionist L. Thomson,

Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution, 70 Am. Scientists, 1982.



Such trickery is not found in a real science such as physics e.g.:


Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion were published without his saying exactly how he arrived at them. Perhaps he looked at the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and others and he saw patterns that led him to arrive at his laws of motion. But [and this is the main point] once we had his laws of motion, we no longer needed

the data. We could imagine the physical conditions and know what the results would be in terms of location, movement, momentum, acceleration, etc.. And if our imagined physical conditions were instead, actual physical conditions, then we would observe that the actual location, movement, momentum, acceleration, etc. would match that of those we claculated from Newtons Laws of motions. Thus we were able to calculate the necessary accelerations and angles to send a manned space ship from terra firma to the moon and back based on Newtons Laws of

Motion long before we were technologically capable of doing so.


Thus it can be seen that Newton's Laws of Motion had nothing to do with interpreting tha data in light of the theory, physical data itself was subject to the theory, e.g. if we know the relevant data at time T1, we can predict what the data would be (e.g. state, location and/or momentum) at time T2.


However, it turned out that Newton's Laws of motion failed to accurately predict this in a few cases (e.g. the orbit of Mercury). Along came Einstein who modified Newtons Laws of Motion by assuming that light always travels at the same speed regardless of which intertial reference frame it is observed. Making use of the Lorentz transformations, he modified the equations for Newton's Laws of Motion by taking into account the effect that speed has on physical properties

This remedied the discordant data that showed up

under Newtons Laws of Motion for objects traveling at high speed.


While discussing the dual nature of light and scientific theories, Heisenberg suggested to Einstein that surely Einstein based his theory of relatively on the data that preceded it. Einstein replied that such a notion is nonsense. That one cannot see theories from the data. That in reality it is just the opposite, it is the theory that tells you what you may and may not observe. Science Philosopher Karl Popper would independantly reflect this view in his famous treatise of 1932, "What is Science". Heisenberg stated that it was this insight from Einstein that enabled him to formulate his Uncertainty Principle.


Unlike the above, the "Theory of Common Ancestry" (evolution) depends heavily upon the circular interplay of data and interpretation for its legitimacy. It can account for any new data simply by sifting some of its many variables around a little bit. It predicts nothing. It is not a science like physics at all. In fact it is metaphysics.

 

[Loudmouth]

My answer, read my post, if you do not get it, that would explain your belief in evolution - the Ignorance of the actual facts.

I see a lot of assertions, yet no evidence or science to back them up.

The theory that all species share a common ancestry (which is the "evolution" we are all discussing here) is not a scientific theory. Though science is used at arriving at the some of the data used to support that theory, the interpretation of that data with regard to the origins of the species is itself speculative, as it is bound to be when dealing with the study of past singularities. These speculations, no matter how reasonable they may or may not seem to one, will always remain mere speculation. It is akin to forensic science, e.g. the facts around the assassination of JFK and the many theories (of who shot him)that try to explain those facts.

Let's stop right there. It isn't speculation that all life shares a common ancestor. It is a conclusion drawn from very real evidence. All life shares the same basic genetic and metabolic systems which is evidence of shared ancestry.

Let’s compare 'evolution' to a real science the science of physics. physics deals with phenomena that is repetitively observable.

The shared genetic and metabolic systems are repeatedly observed. The theory of evolution is based on repeatable evidence just like physics is.

On the other hand, 'evolution' depends on slight of hand tricks in order to make it look like a science. One such trick is the circularity of evolutionary scientists interpreting all biological data in strict conformance with their belief that evolution is a fact, then publishing their pro-evolution interpretation of the data in scientific journals, then pointing to these very same articles that are published in a scientific journals that the data is confirms Evolution.

A most erroneous conclusion which more than one scients has pointed out, e.g.:


"Any reasonable graded series of forms can be thought to have a legitimacy. In fact, there is circularity in the approach that first assumes some sort of evolutionary relatedness and then assembles a pattern of relations from which to argue that relatedness must be true. This interplay of data and interpretation is the achilles heel of the second meaning of evolution." Evolutionist L. Thomson,

Marginalia: The Meanings of Evolution, 70 Am. Scientists, 1982.

It is the nested hierarchy which evidences evolution, and a nested hierarchy is easily falsifiable.

As soon as you clear up these mistakes, we can get to the rest of your post.

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Let's stop right there. It isn't speculation that all life shares a common ancestor.

Really? (em) sarcasm

It is a conclusion drawn from very real evidence. All life shares the same basic genetic and metabolic systems which is evidence of shared ancestry.

Again, really? (em) sarcasm

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? (em) sarcasm



Again, really? (em) sarcasm

When you have a theory backed by mountains of evidence, is that theory just speculation?

 

[ArtB]

How does the timeline of the fossil record show special creation?

Well, there are body plans. No one will mistake a fly with a mosquito, they have separate body plans, "Bauplan" in German. The fossil record is rich with Billions of Fossils by which we able to visable see species generations over long times observed. If evolution was true scientists ought to establish the evolutions of many phylogenies, but to date, they have not established even one. The timeline of the fossil record only shows each body plan of a species, appears suddenly, and un-evolved.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, there are body plans. No one will mistake a fly with a mosquito, they have separate body plans,

They both have the insect body plan.

The fossil record is rich with Billions of Fossils by which we ably visable species generations over long times observed. If evolution was true scientists ought to establish the evolutions of many phylogenies, but to date, they have not established even one.

Found it for you:

The timeline of the fossil record only shows each body plan of a species, appears suddenly, and un-evolved.

How do you determine if a body plan is un-evolved?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

When you have a theory backed by mountains of evidence, is that theory just speculation?

I would call it proof; unfortunately, this does not meet the given criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would call it proof; unfortunately, this does not meet the given criteria.

Why not?

 

[FollowerOfJesus]

Found it for you:

As I understand it from my son who has taught anthropology at the university level, these skull are not as exciting as some would be inclined to believe.

As my friend liked to quote "there is no business like the bone business"

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I understand it from my son who has taught anthropology at the university level, these skull are not as exciting as some would be inclined to believe.

As my friend liked to quote "there is no business like the bone business"

Right, they shift all around and change their minds about where they reside in the linage and there are disagreements about that too.

 

[whois]

I would call it proof; unfortunately, this does not meet the given criteria.

i wouldn't.
i would call it a consensus.
there is little doubt that evolution is the most rational, logical, and sane, explanation for life, and the overwhelming majority of people will agree to that ( a consensus).
however, there is very little in the way of actual lab results that support that consensus.
for example, there is none, as in zero, evidence that inanimate matter can become alive.
science has yet to transform one animal into a different kind.
consensus and proof are not the same things.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I understand it from my son who has taught anthropology at the university level, these skull are not as exciting as some would be inclined to believe.

As my friend liked to quote "there is no business like the bone business"

Why aren't they "not as exciting as some would be inclined to believe"? How do we know that your son isn't just making it up?

 

[Loudmouth]

however, there is very little in the way of actual lab results that support that consensus.
for example, there is none, as in zero, evidence that inanimate matter can become alive.

Abiogenesis is not evolution. How many times has this been explained?

science has yet to transform one animal into a different kind.

That shouldn't ever happen if evolution is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

That shouldn't ever happen if evolution is true.

What if the Antichrist does it?

 

[Loudmouth]

What if the Antichrist does it?

Go back to the counting threads.