Still Stubbornly Refuse To Believe In Evolution?

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 87
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline View Post


    Wow, not only are you clueless about real science, you aren't even keeping up with trends (one might laughingly call them "advancements") in creation science.







    He clearly didn't get the memo. Everyone knows the formula:



    1. Apply impenetrable and impossible to prove philosophy (materialism!)

    2. When asked for clarification, refer to 10,000 pages of Christian Apologetics.

    3. If all else fails, complain about judges. (A real crowd pleaser!)
  • Reply 62 of 87
    You know.... the best test for a scientific theory is whether it is predictive or not... The theory of evolution predicts much better than the adjoint of creationism and poorly understood science.



    I use evolutionary principles everyday in lab, and every day in lab those principles bear fruit and my science works.



    If what works is truth, than well by god Evolution is truth...
  • Reply 63 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


    You know.... the best test for a scientific theory is whether it is predictive or not... The theory of evolution predicts much better than the adjoint of creationism and poorly understood science.



    I use evolutionary principles everyday in lab, and every day in lab those principles bear fruit and my science works.



    If what works is truth, than well by god Evolution is truth...



    And yet, to the chagrin of its supporters, evolution does not work. We have no evidence that it ever did, nor do we see it now, nor do we have any reason to believe it ever will. Therefore, it is not truth.



    No doubt microevolution is seen every day. If I lift weights, I get stronger, if I live in a colder climate, I develop fat stores slightly different. there are a variety of different elephants and rhinoceri, but they never change from what they are. En elephant is still an elephant, whether it has shorter ears or longer ears...



    What is at issue is macroevolution, otherwise known as the theory of evolutionism.



    this states that actual species can become an entirely different species. This has never happened. Zero proof. Therefore, it can have no claim to truth.



    Now neither Creation nor evolution can be seen happening now. All we have to go on is what currently exists, what is in the fossil record and the various archaeological findings that would support one theory or the other.



    The theory of evolution has put forth the idea that we should see a huge number of 'missing link' subjects - of which we have found none (that have not proven to be blatant frauds by overzealous evolutionists). On the creation side, we see that there would seem to be a purpose for creation as it was intelligently designed. We see that in the example of the eye, the heart, the food that we eat, the relationship of oxygen to carbon dioxide and the intake and export of said molecules from plant life versus human and animal life. etc.



    In fact to look at the history of evolutionism to speak of truth is anything but. The history of this theory is full of lies. Too many examples of bad science and outright lies. It must remain a theory.



    What we need to do is take a look at paleontology, archaeology, and scientific evidence together and see how they match up with the two theories. I am biased toward creation as I see that the science of it would seem to support the idea that things were designed intelligently to not only exist, but to exist together. That simple idea combined with the hard facts of archaelogocial discovery which supports the Bible all the time ("Hittites anyone?)



    by the way... using evolutionary principles in lab is really nonsensical. evolutionism is the idea that things cam eto exist in an arbitrary manner. In lab, you are trying, scientifically and intelligently to put things together and see what happens. To first intelligently put things together and then claim that what happens afterward is appluying evolutionary principles is anything but. You are in fact, creating a situation to have already created elements interact. No evolutionsism to it.
  • Reply 64 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post






    He clearly didn't get the memo. Everyone knows the formula:



    1. Apply impenetrable and impossible to prove philosophy (materialism!)

    2. When asked for clarification, refer to 10,000 pages of Christian Apologetics.

    3. If all else fails, complain about judges. (A real crowd pleaser!)



    or try the evolutionsist version:



    1) Apply a impenetrable and impossible to prove philosphy (whoa! materialism again!)

    2) when asked for clarification, throw in "millions and billions of years" and refer to Darwin (but be sure to back away from that when his theories are proven wrong. Then return when some time has passed)

    3) If all else fails, complain that the adamant person is acting contrary to his stance because he sounds "mean." (and then stand back as the place turns into an old-school Geraldo episode)
  • Reply 65 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shetline View Post


    Theories aren't science now? Oh, this is rich.



    You quote one dictionary definition of "theory" which has nothing to do with the specialized scientific use of the word, and think you've proved something. Well, you have... that you're clueless.



    Many specialties have specialized vocabulary, where words have special meanings either not found in standard dictionaries, or found only among the non-primary dictionary definitions. You're just showing your ignorance now, like someone vehemently insisting that a hockey player couldn't possibly have scored a hat trick because he never performed a trick with a hat.



    Please don't convince yourself that dull-headed literalism using the wrong definitions of words amounts to some sort of victory.





    There are both a theory and a law of gravity, actually. And curiously enough (curious only if you're laboring under common misconceptions), Newton's Law of Gravity proved to be less accurate than Einstein's Theory of Gravity.



    A "law" is not greater, nor lesser, that a "theory". A "fact" is not greater, nor lesser, than a "theory". Each of those words applies to different conceptual domains, not to some linear scale of certainty vs. doubt.



    A law is a descriptive. A fact is evidentiary. A theory is explanatory.



    A theory is just what the dictionary says it is. Any scholar would tell you that we define our terms - that is what the dictionary is for. There is not a 'secret evolution dictionary' that has the same words with alternate meanings in it. Just because it is a theory that has been thought up to try to explain a scientific conundrum, does not make it any less a theory. it is simply a theory applied to science. therefore, it is a theory and yes, a few folks here still need to invest in a good dictionary. it remains a theory becuase it has not and cannot be proven and is ot repeatable.



    A law will always be repeatable. that is why it is a law. A fact is proven and indesputable evidence. evolutinism in neither.



    As far as your 'specialized terms' they are defined in the theory itself and then explained. All of these terms have been in the mainstream vernacluar for some time now (You can even hear it on animal planet or a second grade classrom for cryin out loud) However the broad term of theory applies. You cannot redefine your terms as you please and then claim that you have done so because they are 'special'. A theory is a theory. Evolutionism is a theory.



    A Webster or Oxord Dictionary will do fine. You may also want to keep up on the various science journals that abound.



    Oh, and just because it is interesting, but has nothing to do with this thread, check this out. Pretty interesting.



    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/mir....ap/index.html



    And that is with a flawed heart.
  • Reply 66 of 87
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    9secondko,



    Someone has to explain this slowly to you.



    Read this.



    Quote:

    In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.



  • Reply 67 of 87
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    I am aware that Catholicism has embraced evolution. i am also aware that Catholicism elevates Mary to the postiion of Jesus and that they teach that Mary was a virgin forever, somehow leaving the explanation of Jesus' brothers left to the pondereances of confusions everywhere. Only Jesus was virgin born. Then she went on to have a normal married life with Joseph and bore children the way all women do.



    i am also aware that catholicism teaches that the bread and wine at communion actually somehow transform into real blood and flesh when you eat it. that in spite of the fact that it still looks, feels, smells and tastes the same and that the actualy ingredients of it never change.



    in other words, I am aware that the catholic church says some interesting things that do not have any measureable basis in truth. embracing evolution is just a step of trying to look like they are relevant. Martin Luther made a break with the Catholic Church a long time ago. Most smart people do the same. No mainline christian denomination recognizes the catholic church as correct. Maybe the Episcopal church and possibly the methodists, but that is all.



    I could care less what any denomination says. If I did, I could bring up Calvary Chapel, The Baptists, the Assemblies of God, and many more who share my view. I am not interested in who is right. I am interested in what is right. And so should you be.



    I'm not surprised that you have such virulent anti-Catholic attitudes, but as you know, Catholicism was only one of the churches that I named. In fact, just yesterday was Evolution Sunday in Protestant churches across America: Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Baptists, and on and on. Hundreds and hundreds of them. They all believe that the study of biological evolution is the study of God's world.



    Look, the logical consequence of your belief that evolution has ZERO scientific evidence is that all the scientists are committing fraud. People like my brother-in-law the botanist, no atheist crusader, for whom biological evolution is the basis of absolutely everything he does in his field - he's in classification and does DNA tests on plants, and classifies them according to lineage and history. It's the same for legions of researchers in all of the life and earth sciences.



    The simple fact is, if you, 9secondko on the internet, find it so obvious that evolution is false, they certainly must know it's false too, given that they work in the field every day. But they all accept it. It's only people outside those fields who post on the internet that say it's a fraud. The only explanation is that it's a massive conspiracy - they know the truth that it's a fraud, but they perpetrate it on the public in order to move them away from God.



    But now, we have all these churches who have looked at it and accept it too. So they must be in on the conspiracy! That's really the only conclusion from your position - if it's so obvious to anyone with the internet that evolution is utterly ridiculous and without merit, surely those churches and those scientists must know it too, but have decided to back it anyway.
  • Reply 68 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    by the way... using evolutionary principles in lab is really nonsensical. evolutionism is the idea that things cam eto exist in an arbitrary manner. In lab, you are trying, scientifically and intelligently to put things together and see what happens. To first intelligently put things together and then claim that what happens afterward is appluying evolutionary principles is anything but. You are in fact, creating a situation to have already created elements interact. No evolutionsism to it.



    First of all, you don't actually understand microevolution. It isn't simply the changing of external features. The easiest example of microevolution would be HIV, whereby the selection pressure of drug treatment selects for resistant virii which have a higher fecundity. Similarly, the best examples of macroevolution is the HIV family of viruses ranging from SIV to FIV, all of which are highly related but distinguishable in that they CANNOT reproduce in differing environments -- you cannot be infected by FIV, they are different species of viruses if you will. We have direct evidence of this sort of evolution with the influenza virus from 1918. We are watching the same evolutionary steps being taken by the bird flu. So to be honest, your claim of no evidence of evolution from one species to another is quite frankly bullshit. We have observed, directly, the transformation of species of viruses into NEW species of virus, we have observed, directly, the transformation of species of bacteria into NEW species of bacteria, we have seen incremental changes of the genome of certain rapidly reproducing animals that strongly support evolutionary theory.



    Second. You have no idea what I do in a laboratory. And your problem with the setup of experimentation reveals a misunderstanding of where selection pressure arises from. There needs to be no intelligence involved. Bacteria have the means to adapt and change their genome to meet a selection pressure. This ability is built in, I didn't need to give it to them, no one needed to give it to them. Some do it better than others, some can have it eliminated (but they don't survive as well)... Let me give you an example:



    I am trying to express a gene in a bacterial strain that is under selection pressure of an antibiotic whose resistance is coupled to gene expression. The gene product, a protein, has a specific function but is very very toxic. The cells have responded by excizing a part of the gene which reduces its toxicity, but it didn't happen rationally. The cells which expressed the full length protein were sicker than the cells which had randomly modified the gene. Those with the modified gene grew faster, eventually coming to dominate the culture. Now this is microevolution, the selection pressure was partially internal (toxicity of expressed protein) and external (antibiotic), the bacterium which happened to have cut out part of the gene had its progeny better survive these pressures...
  • Reply 69 of 87
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    A little off topic but today is Darwin's 198th birthday! Here's a digg article that was submitted and I think it would be great to have it land on the front page. The back and forth in the comments (blog) section is great.



    http://digg.com/general_sciences/Happy_Darwin_Day_2



    http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02...estivities.php
  • Reply 70 of 87
    btw, 9secondko, no matter how many times you say there is no evidence for evolution, it doesn't become true.



    Edit: I could have gone on and replaced all of the words in my post, but really... there is no point. ONE piece of evidence for evolution proves you wrong... so... you are wrong...
  • Reply 71 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    9secondko,



    Someone has to explain this slowly to you.



    Read this.



    And yet, that does nothing to differ from the term.



    it is still a theory. A possible explanation for the evidence. It is not fact. It is not law. That is the point. Score one for the dictionary. wikipedia...
  • Reply 72 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    I'm not surprised that you have such virulent anti-Catholic attitudes, but as you know, Catholicism was only one of the churches that I named. In fact, just yesterday was Evolution Sunday in Protestant churches across America: Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Baptists, and on and on. Hundreds and hundreds of them. They all believe that the study of biological evolution is the study of God's world.



    Look, the logical consequence of your belief that evolution has ZERO scientific evidence is that all the scientists are committing fraud. People like my brother-in-law the botanist, no atheist crusader, for whom biological evolution is the basis of absolutely everything he does in his field - he's in classification and does DNA tests on plants, and classifies them according to lineage and history. It's the same for legions of researchers in all of the life and earth sciences.



    The simple fact is, if you, 9secondko on the internet, find it so obvious that evolution is false, they certainly must know it's false too, given that they work in the field every day. But they all accept it. It's only people outside those fields who post on the internet that say it's a fraud. The only explanation is that it's a massive conspiracy - they know the truth that it's a fraud, but they perpetrate it on the public in order to move them away from God.



    But now, we have all these churches who have looked at it and accept it too. So they must be in on the conspiracy! That's really the only conclusion from your position - if it's so obvious to anyone with the internet that evolution is utterly ridiculous and without merit, surely those churches and those scientists must know it too, but have decided to back it anyway.



    Virulent. Wow. That sounds more like you toward any mention of creation or [*GASP*] God Himself.



    I will say that I totally reject the Catholic belief system because it is so steeped in tradition that it disregards the authority of the bible and makes man (the pope) greater than God (in terms of altering the Word of God - which God says never to do) and has to change its beleifs to fit the times. IT is a religion of compromise, where the facts of science fly in direct contrast. I gave some examples earlier. that is why I and many other thinking people take what the pope says with a grain of salt. I am not here to defend the various denominations with their various problems. In fact, i will point out those problems where they exist. I am here in the defense of the Bible and the science of creation. And that is because I think it is the truth. I am a christian and I make no apologies for that. I am not bound to defend the pope, nor am I bound to remain silent when he says something so totally contrary to the Bible and to science (referring to evolution and the eucharist).





    And to take your view (you, person on the internet), then all scientists that see the evidence points to intelligent design also must have a conspiracy theory. The fact of the matter is, all people are biased. Even the scientists that you would like to beleive are correct. They have committed to a theory and will try to see it in what is before them. The problem with that is that there is ZERO evidence. The theory itself demands that there be many transitional forms, but there is not one. Not even ONE. thus, the search continues in the hope that something, anything, would validate evolutionism. Many of these supposedly unbiased scientists livelihoods depend on it, because they would no longer get paychecks if it was admitted to be wrong. I know personally a few scientists in various fields and this is how the industry works. If you want funding, you must come up with a compelling reason to secure it.



    the scientists of the world once thought Earth was flat. Interesting that the Bible held the knowledge all along that it was round.



    After checking the link you give, it only proves my point of the denominations I said that back evolutionism. Catholics of course, episcopalians (read catholic) and methodist. Church of Christ. but I don't see any Baptists. And if there were, they would not remain such. again, that list is not surprise. it only proves my point who I said backs this stuff. So I don't really understand your point here. also, the web site is one that pushes this idea of Evolution Sunday and then shows the churches to show how successful it is. Kind of lame actually. The number of churches on that page is not even as many churches in my city and the next two cities, so I don't see how this is taking the world by storm. Just a few whose denominations were already known for this.
  • Reply 73 of 87
    Scientists of the world since written language was developed have realized the world is round. They knew this based upon shadows on the surface and the fact that sun set isn't the same time all around the world. So your lies continue. But grouping all scientists together is about as absurd as grouping all Christians together.



    Do you really believe there is no contention in science and it isn't vetted publicly? Ever hear of Relativity? or quantum theory? or DNA as genetic material? These are scientific theories that effectively replaced the scientific theories that came before. So the scientists you know are either lying or strongly misrepresenting the truth.



    Evolution does not require small incremental changes -- just changes that can be explained by physical phenomena like the doubling of an entire chromosome. If you followed any of the links I provided, you would understand that. Not only does it not require small changes, it doesn't require that the geological record has fossil evidence of slow change. Formation of fossils is rare, especially on dry earth. It is amazing that we have found ANY ancestral human forms let alone a fairly complete lineage. This is true of a number of fossil records for a number of different higher order species. Did you see the report of the discovery of a fossil of a semiaquatic mammal that existed before sea-bound mammals that has features similar to terrestrial animals of the same era and some of later sea-bound mammals? Transitional proof, as it were.



    You can continue to BELIEVE there is no geologic evidence, but that won't make it true.
  • Reply 74 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


    btw, 9secondko, no matter how many times you say there is no evidence for evolution, it doesn't become true.



    Edit: I could have gone on and replaced all of the words in my post, but really... there is no point. ONE piece of evidence for evolution proves you wrong... so... you are wrong...



    Wow. The last link refers to Hybrids. kind of like the wrinkle dog. that is hardly evolution my freind. A bluegill fish is still a fish. A wrinkle dog or a poodle is still a dog. Wow. Overwhelming evidence for sure.



    The second to last link talks about something I already have mentioned. microevolution. Teh ability of intelligently designed beings to adapt. When I lift weights I get stronger, etc. But here it is more complex. More along the lines of a study done athletes who have demonstrated hyperplasia (which is usually only seen in cancerouse situations) in their muscles where they actually develop more muscle cells. We are each born with only so many and they grow in size but not number. this is an adaptive trait.



    Regarding the Peppered mothe, see here (a link for a link)



    Again no proof of molecules to man evolution, just more proof that what we all know as changing to meet the needs inherent to living wherever we find ourselves. Everyone agrees on these things. Plants do it, people do it, and animals do it. It never changes what the subject is. We are still people, the moth is still a moth and the flower is still a flower. Again no evidence for evolutionism (the theory that is used to explain origins)



    The wikipedia description of evidence is chick full of more theory. Read it. it's pretty funny. it even goes on to cite the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Wow. score one for evolutionism there! So don't try to weasel out and say the evolutionism does not need to have fossil evidence. It DOES and its pioneers knew it. You are out on that one.
  • Reply 75 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


    Did you see the report of the discovery of a fossil of a semiaquatic mammal that existed before sea-bound mammals that has features similar to terrestrial animals of the same era and some of later sea-bound mammals? Transitional proof, as it were.



    You can continue to BELIEVE there is no geologic evidence, but that won't make it true.



    Oh, so a plane has wings and a bird has wings. they must be related right. No, they both just fly. The plane was designed with the knowledge that this is how birds stay aloft. Really more evidence for intelligent design. when a designer makes many things, some traits are passed on to a variety of other designs.



    Also, no one disputes the existence of dinosaurs, (they are even in the Bible)

    but again, there is no evidence that they became anything else. they died as dinosaurs. A crocodile is long and slender like a shark and has a long nose and sharp teeth and it is a semiaquatic animal, but does that make me think it became a shark? nope. I remember seeing a show that had a theory about how dolphins used to be somehting else and they had these really cool CG graphics, but yet again, not evidence.
  • Reply 76 of 87
    What are you talking about?



    Evidence in the fossil record.



    Wait. Because we designed an airfoil based upon studies of forces in flowing water (it wasn't by observing birds), birds wings are intelligently designed. That makes no sense. There isn't a flow of logic connecting these events. Not only that, but the way various insects fly is COMPLETELY different than the ways birds fly, are they stupidly designed?



    You do understand that we assign species not on their behavioral features alone, but on genetics, and in the case of fossils the bone arrangement and imprints of soft tissue... bats fly, so do flies, but we realize they are different species. How stupid do YOU have to be to prove your point?
  • Reply 77 of 87
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    And yet, that does nothing to differ from the term.



    it is still a theory. A possible explanation for the evidence. It is not fact. It is not law. That is the point. Score one for the dictionary. wikipedia...



    Well if you can't see the plain difference between the colloquial (dictionary) and scientific uses of the term then there's obviously no point in continuing any sort of discussion with you. But here's hoping: This further explains the difference, and also gets into how evolution *is* both fact and theory.
  • Reply 78 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    Wow. The last link refers to Hybrids. kind of like the wrinkle dog. that is hardly evolution my freind. A bluegill fish is still a fish. A wrinkle dog or a poodle is still a dog. Wow. Overwhelming evidence for sure.



    Do you even understand what genetic hybrids are (hint: they have nothing to do with breeds)?



    In other words, you split the world into dogs, fish, and not dogs or fish?
  • Reply 79 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


    Speaking of more data, faster-than-light travel to neighbouring stars and galaxies will be cool, particularly meeting/ discovering other life-forms, then we can study *their* evolution. Or creation, whatevs.



    ...and that reminds me... really looking forward to James Cameron's "Avatar".
  • Reply 80 of 87
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    I can't believe I'm still wasting time with this (I'm beginning to have to wonder if you're only pretending not to understand at this point), but having nothing else better to do at the moment...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    A theory is just what the dictionary says it is.



    Then get a better dictionary. The scientific meaning of the word might not be definition number 1, but it's not that obscure either.



    Quote:

    Any scholar would tell you that we define our terms - that is what the dictionary is for.



    Any scholar worth being called a scholar would laugh at your slavish insistence on one dictionary definition in the face of very obviously different usage of a word by people in the relevant field.



    Quote:

    There is not a 'secret evolution dictionary' that has the same words with alternate meanings in it. Just because it is a theory that has been thought up to try to explain a scientific conundrum, does not make it any less a theory. it is simply a theory applied to science. therefore, it is a theory and yes, a few folks here still need to invest in a good dictionary. it remains a theory becuase it has not and cannot be proven and is ot repeatable.



    Don't you see you're only playing a word game? There are only two real possibilities here:



    (1) You're wrong about the meaning of the word "theory" in the context "theory of evolution".



    (2) Scientists the world over are guilty merely of bad word usage, and should have referred to the results of their studies as the "[fill in new word here] of evolution", where "[fill in new word here]" means precisely what we're telling you "theory" means.



    What else is left? Are you telling us that scientists studying evolution from Darwin on actually meant nothing more than "hunch" or "educated guess", when you can easily find plenty written by scientists in the field of evolution to the contrary?



    Quote:

    A law will always be repeatable. that is why it is a law.



    There's nothing "repeatable" about many laws, except that maybe you can repeatedly declare a law, repeatedly break it, repeated change it. Laws change all the time. Laws are broken all of the time... that's why we have police and a judicial system.



    Damn, those stupid policemen and judges and lawyers better get a better dictionary!



    Oh, wait! Perhaps you're referring to your own screwed-up version of the scientific sense of the word "law", instead of the legal sense of the word. But we all know now that different senses of words in different contexts aren't allowed. Shame on you!



    Or perhaps we have to delve into the meaning of "repeatable"...



    The theory of evolution.

    The theory of evolution.

    The theory of evolution.



    Look... it's repeatable! I've repeated it three times!



    If you want to play stupid word games, this is what it comes down to.
Sign In or Register to comment.