Proof that evolution is the only answer

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

Read and learn:

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: AshFan

I'm lost. Your post isn't well formatted and I'm not understanding how you provided a solid argument in favor of evolution, even though I do myself believe it's the answer.

Also there is a jokes forum

Happy trails.

I also believe in evolution.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: AshFan

I'm lost. Your post isn't well formatted and I'm not understanding how you provided a solid argument in favor of evolution, even though I do myself believe it's the answer.

Also there is a jokes forum

Happy trails.

Fixed

I dont ge it?

a reply to: Kapusta

This is just a base of reference for the loonies. We also need one that defines "Logic" and "Proof"

a reply to: AshFan

"Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking."

"If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million years."

a reply to: AshFan

Thanks! And thanks for the link - This stuff fascinates me as I used to be creationism only and 6000 year old earth type of person.

Here's the rub, it depends on the universe.

if we live in a hologram, then the theory of evolution gets blown out of the water like a single cell organism in the theory of evolution

The issue is, people make evolution into a religion and that's not good science.

There is proof that organisms evolve and adapt. Pray tell, how does that automatically disprove a creator or designer?
The anti-creation scientists get so haughty it's ridiculous. The fact is, they don't have all the answers they'd like you to believe they do. A large percentage of them are pompous windbags. Egomaniacs of the highest order.

When the genome scientists proclaimed that they "now fully understand life", becuase they understood gene coding, Terrence McKenna said: "That's like saying you understand Los Angeles because I gave you a Los Angeles phone directory."

originally posted by: ColeYounger
There is proof that organisms evolve and adapt. Pray tell, how does that automatically disprove a creator or designer?
The anti-creation scientists get so haughty it's ridiculous. The fact is, they don't have all the answers they'd like you to believe they do. A large percentage of them are pompous windbags. Egomaniacs of the highest order.

When the genome scientists proclaimed that they "now fully understand life", becuase they understood gene coding, Terrence McKenna said: "That's like saying you understand Los Angeles because I gave you a Los Angeles phone directory."

There was a great TED talk about this. A map provides information, but only if you can decode it. A dictionary is full of real data, but unless you can use it, it remains unknown.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Stop conflating the two: abiogenesis =!= evolution

Although there is a very good article about how the energy (and information complexity) is a driving force for life - in that life, and complex systems evolve as a result of there being enough energy in a system...

originally posted by: ColeYounger
The fact is, they don't have all the answers they'd like you to believe they do.

Who does? God Right?

You understand anti-creationism isn't even a thing. It's a responce to creationists that spread disinformation and non-facts as truth. If there weren't creationists they wouldn't even argue about it, and they also don't "disbelieve ". Science is about having PROOF first. They don't have PROOF, so they disagree. That doesn't make them stupid, or close minded. Many CONSIDER IT, and that's more effort than the vomit responses they normally get about Jesus.

originally posted by: thinline
Here's the rub, it depends on the universe.

if we live in a hologram, then the theory of evolution gets blown out of the water like a single cell organism in the theory of evolution

The issue is, people make evolution into a religion and that's not good science.

Hell we could all be in a dream Cthulhu is having. But lets pursue real data that we can test and move forward.

And yes, I am aware of the hologram idea, and I encourage them to keep testing any data for evidence.

a reply to: imjack


Both creationists AND scientists spread disinformation. All the time. Science SHOULD be about having proof first, but that's not always the case.

Scientists

a reply to: thinline

The issue is, people make evolution into a religion and that's not good science.

No.

The issue is, religion trying to pretend it's science.

Science is the exact opposite of religion.

a reply to: flyingfish

Science is the exact opposite of religion.

It should be. No dogma. All facts and certitude.
Science should be about the scientific method, first and foremost. It should be totally honest.
Sadly, this is what is happening, more and more:

Science fraud

Lying scientists

a reply to: AshFan

Good luck with this thread. I agree with what you are posting. However you are going to shake that tree and find a bunch of nuts falling on your head

a reply to: windword

What were those quotes for again?

originally posted by: ColeYounger
There is proof that organisms evolve and adapt. Pray tell, how does that automatically disprove a creator or designer?
The anti-creation scientists get so haughty it's ridiculous. The fact is, they don't have all the answers they'd like you to believe they do. A large percentage of them are pompous windbags. Egomaniacs of the highest order.

When the genome scientists proclaimed that they "now fully understand life", becuase they understood gene coding, Terrence McKenna said: "That's like saying you understand Los Angeles because I gave you a Los Angeles phone directory."

Agreed, it doesn't "prove much." It only proves that things do evolve and that natural selection does exist.

I find the false and extreme dichotomy between science versus religion to be troublesome.

Religious people do need to realize that scientific data does call into question certain things, such as a "6000 year old Earth" or the feasibility of all animals fitting and surviving on Noah's Ark.

However, scientists need to realize that the scientific method nor accumulated evidence do not "prove" that there isn't something more to life, meaning, maybe a 'spiritual' dimension, etc. Our tech and knowledge of the universe is still very limited.