What proof would you need?

[AV1611VET]

So do you reject the scientific theory that thalidomide causes birth defects?

'Theories' don't do this:

I don't reject the fact that Thalidomide causes birth defects.

 

[RickG]

You need to get out more.

I have been out there. All my old text books only teach on theory of evolution and when I was teaching, I only taught one theory of evolution. I think its only creationists who think there are multiple theories.

Speculations that become a belief.

That would be 100% wrong. Understand I am talking about a "scientific" theory. It is quite different from the layman's dictionary definition.

In science a theory is as good as it gets. There is no hierarchy in science above that of a theory. Gravity is a theory. Theories contain facts, empirical data and observable phenomena that are quantifiable. They are also able to make predictions utilizing the knowledge base of the theory.

Does that help your misunderstanding?

 

[RickG]

Well then you go ahead and explain the human ancestry fossil evidence that all looks the same.

You see you simply and absolutely cannot defend your science. You lot will aside on any point and nit pick as if you may be having something to say. Indeed you do not. The huge sexual dimorphism found in homo erectus as well as teeth erruption being similar to wild chimps is simply additional support and not the point per se.

The point is
1.You cannot explain why the fossil evidence did support ancestry to a chimp-like creature and now ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp.
2. You cannot articulate what an intermediate should look like
3. You cannot explain why Ardi, Homo Habils and Turkana Boy, as well as many other skulls all look the same, with no more variation than we see in race or breed.

You evolutonists woffle on continually about the great fossil evidence you have for human ancestry. When it comes down to it you cannot defend your science.

Stop! You are not addressing what I posted. I caught you in a quote mine misrepresenting a specific study you cited and provided a link. The study did not support any of your accusations. In fact it supported just the opposite. My hope is that you are only unknowingly posting incorrect information because you either do not understand the science behind it, or have not taken the time to examine it thoroughly and unbiased. Conversely, deliberately posting a quote mine is dishonest. I do hope you do not fall in the latter.

 

[Loudmouth]

'Theories' don't do this:

And neither does thalidomide if you reject scientific theories.

I don't reject the fact that Thalidomide causes birth defects.

It isn't a fact. It is a theory.

 

[RickG]

And neither does thalidomide if you reject scientific theories.



It isn't a fact. It is a theory.

Actually I think an hypothesis would be a better description.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually I think an hypothesis would be a better description.

Fair enough -- hypotheses don't do this:

... Thalidomide does.

 

[Tiberius]

And WHY does thalidomide do that, AV? Does it cause that effect using principles explainable by science, or by something else?

 

[Tiberius]

Remember, in science a flawed theory can also be supported by a wealth of evidence.

How so? If something does not accurately describe reality, why would there be evidence supporting it?

It is this so-called ‘intermediate human’ that is disgusting and offensive:

Oh, how thoughtless of nature to not take into account that you don't like the idea that humans evolved.

For shame, science! Reality should take peoples' feelings into consideration!

 

[AV1611VET]

And WHY does thalidomide do that, AV?

Because it is programmed to do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Reality should take peoples' feelings into consideration!

Reality can take a hike.

 

[Tiberius]

Because it is programmed to do that?

Programmed by who?

Anyway, you did not answer the question.

Does Thalidomide accomplish its effects by using scientific means?

 

[Tiberius]

Reality can take a hike.

Yes, I've become aware that you don't pay much attention to it...

 

[AV1611VET]

Does Thalidomide accomplish its effects by using scientific means?

I'll say NO to that, and clarify it by saying BY NATURAL MEANS.

 

[Tiberius]

I'll say NO to that, and clarify it by saying BY NATURAL MEANS.

Please define the difference between "natural means" and "scientific means".

 

[AV1611VET]

Please define the difference between "natural means" and "scientific means".

Make this #4 --

 

[Astridhere]

Stop! You are not addressing what I posted. I caught you in a quote mine misrepresenting a specific study you cited and provided a link. The study did not support any of your accusations. In fact it supported just the opposite. My hope is that you are only unknowingly posting incorrect information because you either do not understand the science behind it, or have not taken the time to examine it thoroughly and unbiased. Conversely, deliberately posting a quote mine is dishonest. I do hope you do not fall in the latter.

The beauty of evolutionary theory is no matter what supportive theory you propose there is always research to challenge and debate it.

Hence what you call science is no more than flavour of the month and just like mankinds knuckle walking ancestry was so 'irrefutable' 10 years ago that only the stupid and ignorant would deny it is now demonstrating exactly whom is stupid and ignorant. That irrefutable evidence now resides in the grand garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

One difference between evos and creationists is that evolutionists in their desperation will falsify a theory and invent another flavour of the month while creationists call the falsification for what it is... a demonstration that evolutionists will believe anything their Gods propose as long as it is evolutionary.

The research I post from evolutionists demonstrates there is debate and contradiction because you are trying to support a false assumption, that being, common ancestry between man and chimps.

 

[selfinflikted]

Actually this is fine as you lot believe a living factory poofed into existence by itself, something evolutionists like to hand wave away.

I'm sure you just had a brain fart and forgot that evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only the origin of species, right?

I believe an almighty God can 'poof'. You believe dead non living matter can 'poof'. I still see myself as having the upper hand.

I don't think anyone knows how life originated. But going one step further and tossing in gods and magic certainly doesn't help. Especially when there's not one shred of proof to corroborate your belief. And especially when your god allegedly poofed everything in its current state. At least abiogenesis says things starting off very small, and very simple.

And here's the thing: G-d "poofing" would look exactly like inorganic matter poofing. Science merely observes the hand of God

But never god himself. Imagine that.

 

[Doveaman]

the Bible says that whales came before the land animals that they evolved from.

The Bible doesn't say that.

Either science or the Bible is wrong

Or science and the Bible are right, and you are wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Make this #4 --

So you can't. Got it. No practical difference between natural and scientific. Of course this is the case, because science is the study of nature.

 

[Doveaman]

I have been out there. All my old text books only teach on theory of evolution and when I was teaching, I only taught one theory of evolution. I think its only creationists who think there are multiple theories.

There's the evolution theory where present lifeforms evolved from prehistoric lifeforms, and there's the evolution theory where present lifeforms did not evolve from prehistoric lifeforms.

I subscribe to the later.

That would be 100% wrong. Understand I am talking about a "scientific" theory. It is quite different from the layman's dictionary definition.

I know that. That's why I said a "scientific" theory is speculations that become a belief.

You make observations and speculate on them. If the speculations are continually supported by new observations, the speculations become a belief.

In science a theory is as good as it gets. There is no hierarchy in science above that of a theory.

That's unfortunate.

Gravity is a theory.

Really? So we fall down because of a theory? :o

Theories contain facts, empirical data and observable phenomena that are quantifiable. They are also able to make predictions utilizing the knowledge base of the theory.

In that case, I reject your theory in favor of my own theory.

Does that help your misunderstanding?

Yes.