Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by Fundie


Thanks, I'm glad you came along. I'm getting tired of this debate.
I mentioned micro and macro evolution somewhere on this thread. I think.
I tried to put things in simple terms:
1. The same evidence is used (and explained) by Creation scientists.
2. Creation science makes no secondary assumptions with respect to the evidence.
3. Creation model is more reasonable.
4. Neither side can prove their position.
5. Both belief systems are faith based.

And I posted some Interesting links to pages that offer evidence for a much youger earth.

reply to post by John Matrix


Your welcome Ive enjoyed reading your posts.

I too have drawn the same conclusions as you have presented. Fundie by name, Fundie by nature

reply to post by John Matrix


JM.....'growing earth' is just ridiculous!!!!!

It is the stupidest thing I've seen!!!!

Please, give ONE example, from science, why a planet would 'expand'!

And, I mean a rocky planet....not a gas giant.

NOTHING in that YT video takes into account the passage of millenia....and varying ocean levels....and erosion....not to mention, plate tectonics!!!

I'll entertain some wild theories.....but this one??? Just ridiculous, unscientific and unsubstantiated in any way.

reply to post by John Matrix


www.stephenjaygould.org...

According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest.

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well the Earth does indeed grow by about 250 tons per day. A lot of the added mass is in the form of water. NASA discovered about 10 years ago that the earth is being pelted by ice balls on a daily basis. Some of these ice balls are quite large.

Most astrophysicists agree that the water on the earth's surface came from space, sometime around 4 billion years ago. This is around the same time that a huge Mars sized chunk of rock is supposed to have hit the Earth and formed the Moon. A large portion of that impact would have remained part of the Earth. I figure that the Earth is about 50 percent larger now than when it first formed about 5 billion years ago.

The current thinking is that the impact that resulted in the formation of the Moon was a single catastrophic event. What if it wasn't? What if the Earth/Moon system has been steadily growing over the past 4 billion years?

I am not saying that the growing Earth crowd is right. I am saying that we really don't know.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
JM.....'growing earth' is just ridiculous!!!!!

It is the stupidest thing I've seen!!!!

Please, give ONE example, from science, why a planet would 'expand'!

And, I mean a rocky planet....not a gas giant.

NOTHING in that YT video takes into account the passage of millenia....and varying ocean levels....and erosion....not to mention, plate tectonics!!!

I'll entertain some wild theories.....but this one??? Just ridiculous, unscientific and unsubstantiated in any way.

You got me laughing now and I can't sop Sorry about that. I thought you might have enjoyed that show.

Oh....centrifugal force. Earth spins, expanding outward forming a hollow earth, which leads to another theory.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by andre18


I realize some people have a need to prove something and a lot of energy behind them to do it. But really.... can't you find something better to do with your time than trying to prove to us that your ancestors crawled out of a slime pit, had knuckles that dragged on the ground when they walked or that they swung by their tails from trees?

Why do you insult yourself and your family tree like that? You were created to one day assist in the ruling of the Universe, both spiritual and material realms. Such power and authority must be tempered by a peace loving, humble and incorruptable spirit. Perhaps it's time to evolve spiritually and leave the animal ways behind you.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix


John Matrix.....you are really, incredibily showing an ignorance about, not only the Earth, but about how centripetal forces work.

THIS is why I think the School System is failing.....

reply to post by John Matrix


What exactly is reasonable about believing that an invisible sky wizard created life?

Science is not based on faith. Theories are made to be broken and evolution is too stong over a theory to break. Because our lives are too short to see what time has done and will do with the universe we will always be left theories that can't be proofed into laws.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by atlasastro

Yes, I think it is more appropriate that ANDRE abandon this thread as he has a poor understanding of the topic

Actually he's shown a very good understanding of the topic. Your failure to recognize this shows your lack of understanding.

If you actually go back and look at the link Andre used to argue my second post on the thread you will see that he does not understand the flaws in the topic. He actually posted a link that supported my arguement. Andre also linked a source in reply to BAC that I talk about a few posts back, once again it highlights a flaw in ET, but Andre was posting the source as a support for his own beliefs.
If you accept this as demonstrating Andre's understanding of the discussion, OK.
If you believe I do not understand the topic, by all means read my posts and highlight the misunderstandings or false beliefs I have. I will only be too happy to discuss these issue with you.

Almost nobody here has attacked religion in any way. Your perception of the attack is your problem. This isn't about religion, this is about science. There is a difference.

. Oh please. Also look at the links i supplied, this is one of many threads Andre has started against religion, vieled as it is. From these observations I made a statement. Purely for humour of course. You obviously missed.
Early on in the thread the arguements of BAC against the Theory itself were labled creationist.
Andre himself declared he need to start a thread against creationism, in this thread.
I can keep going if you like. Andre has continuously ignored, as you have, my arguement against the theory, instaed prefering to argue with those that are not purely argueing the theory itself. Those are most posters inspired b religion. I can only conclude that Andre is not here to discuss the obvious scientific flaws in ET and is ratehr intent on bashing, as it seem you are too. Good work.

From what I've read, he isn't posting his beliefs but just factual information based on scientific observation

. He believe that ET is fact. Based on observations. The observations that I have contradict ET. Andre, nor you, will discuss these. Instead quoting dogma to support you beliefs. Religion anyone.

And, you've decided that evolution is contrary to that of religion. That's your problem but it still doesn't change that the theory of evolution is real and is supported by scientific evidence.

Are you saying that a theory that is supported by evidence is fact. There are currently hundreds of different theories explaining the same mechanisms of life, DNA, photosynthesis, abiogenesis. All believe they have supporting evidence. Are they all fact too. Like ET. LOL. What about the existence of the universe, do you know how many theories are there too, with evidence. LOL. I can keep going you know. If you are willing to accept it as fact and form your beliefs around that, fine.
Please save me the preaching and fanatical rhetoric, I have serious valid questions that ET cannot answer. The theory is flawed. Fact. Andre has ignored these. Fact.
So have you. Fact.
I do not state that evolution is contrary to religion but that Andre uses it to support his own beliefs that are.

But this is just a theory I have made from observations......

funny irony
Exactly, as intended. About time you actually understood and comprehended something I wrote. Perhaps it was my attempt at lowering the intellectual level of the debate that I finally reached you. LOL.
Cheers.

p.s.
Next time, how about you add something significant to the discussion. Like say some valid observations of brand new genetic code being generated and added via random mutation and selection that is in line with ET progression of beneficial complex advancement.
See if you can find one observation.
Just one.
Thats all.

Also, we will start this easy. For an organism of 200 mutations, given that the mutation would be 50/50 to be good(beneficial) or Bad. Find out the probability of just one organism going through 200 random mutations that would have a beneficial outcome. Just for laughs.

Lets see who understands.

If you actually go back and look at the link Andre used to argue my second post on the thread you will see that he does not understand the flaws in the topic. He actually posted a link that supported my arguement.

Ok now it's just getting personal. What you're talking about is the link i gave about Photosynthesis right?. I still don't know what your problem is with that, i said so what if we don't know about that specific aspect of evolution, that doesn't mean evolution ingeneral is not a fact. It means we're still learning. There is something you'll never grasp, do you expect evolution to not have gaps? Do you expect it to be perfect? it wont be, it wont ever be - nothing in science is. You seem to fail to grasp this simple fact. A question: Do you expect science to find out every thing about evolution straight away?

Early on in the thread the arguements of BAC against the Theory itself were labled creationist.

That's because they are, no one tries to attack evolution calling it 'only a theory' unless they're creationists.

Andre himself declared he need to start a thread against creationism

This thread's intended towards anyone who is misguided enough to believe the word 'theory' in the 'theory' of evolution, means only a guess like creationism is.

Andre has continuously ignored, as you have, my arguement against the theory

Look i don't mind debating evolution with you but if you're going to say it's not a fact and is proven wrong, it's all fake evidence etc, then that's 50 pages of waisted time.

Instead quoting dogma to support you beliefs. Religion anyone.

Again, how is science a beleif system? A religion lol, are you serious?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


The mere FACT of 'photosynthesis' seems to immediately break down all of the 'bricks' of the so-called Creationists' so-called theories!

Not to mention....(but of course I will mention) the 'extremophiles'.....organisms....not just a few cells, but actual multi-cellular organisms, that live, and thrive, in conditions that would KILL a Human Being.....

This is not science fiction....these are ACTUAL organisms....observed, and catalogued.

Creationists love to takeon challenges......well, take this on!!!!!

Ok now it's just getting personal.

Well as they were your personal quotes, yes, it is personal. LOL. I didn't realise it was a formal debate Andre.

What you're talking about is the link i gave about Photosynthesis right?. I still don't know what your problem is with that, i said so what if we don't know about that specific aspect of evolution, that doesn't mean evolution ingeneral is not a fact.

Well. I explain my problems with the link you provide. I also explain the flaws used in the methods that are based on asumptions, cherrypicked data etc. This is a trend within the theory itself. They are establishing taxanomic lines of organisms and stating that this shows evolution as true. This is not science. If you had even took the time to read and explore that, you would have to concede that using statistcs to provide evidence of progression in organisms that is based on assumptions of direct genetic decendancy when there is no evidence to support that, is plainly misleading. We are talking about the very methods used to draw conclusions. This is why science is constantly reviewed. These are crucial arguements against results when methods are flawed. You don't understand this so you are not willing to accept that I am actually argueing from a scientific principle. Science. You quoted that source because you are ignorant of the topic. You quoted that source because you don't understand the concepts that are built in to support the very theory you accept as fact.
You ignored my response to your use of that quote because it questions your belief, you won't allow that belief to be questioned because, inherently, you have a hatred for another belief(creationists and religion or whatever it is) and so you cling to ET because it supports a fundamental hatred you have.
I will not play your game Andre. Its time you grew up.

It means we're still learning. There is something you'll never grasp, do you expect evolution to not have gaps? Do you expect it to be perfect? it wont be, it wont ever be - nothing in science is. You seem to fail to grasp this simple fact.

I know we are still learning Andre. You believe that ET is fact yet concede that we still have much to learn. The fact is that science is obliged to question itself consistently to make sure its theories are sound. I have scientific questions ET cannot answers. That are not trivial. They are conerstones, essential answers in understanding and PROVING ET. When you grasp that, then we can have an open and honest discussion about what is fact and what is just theory derived from observation(please spare me the wiki quotes on science fact and theory, I learnt them at university).
My attack is not on science, science gives us the framework, ET is working outside of this given the examples I have discussed. If you choose to ignore this, so be it, but using science, I will not.

A question: Do you expect science to find out every thing about evolution straight away?

. No. It is a process, I expect science to be cautious about what it claims as fact, science actually behaves this way which is why questioning all theory is par for the course and expected, why you believe ET is beyond that is mind boggling and boardering on religious fanatacism. I know Science is fully aware that the complexity of life and existence may be beyond our potential to realise but never the less endeavours to explore, describe and document specific elements of that nature in the hope of understanding the bigger picture.

That's because they are, no one tries to attack evolution calling it 'only a theory' unless they're creationists.

Thanks for proving my point. In fact ET is being tested all the time in the scientific and intellectual community, that you would debase this as creationism reeks of the psuedo-intellectual dogma of "believers". Believers not interested in the truth but destroying any opposition to that which they claim as the truth.
Science is everything you are not, the fact you would abuse it for your own ends sickens me a relegates theory work like ET in to the realms of bigotry.
It is a theory, and it will be questioned. Science is the guide by which theory survives, not those that believe it.
I have questions, like many others, that ET cannot explain.
Scientific observations are argueing against ET.
Scientific method in extrapolating tree lines is outside of the scientific method, support for ET is built on these. You ask question on perfection, Yes I want perfect answers, as that is what the truth is. That is what fact is. That is what science strives for. Anything else is just theory. I again appologize for having higher standards than you and not accepting the imperfection of the current answers because it is all we have at the moment. I'll leave that to the schools of dogma and indoctrination that you seem to defer to.
Science is independant at all times. My view is independant, yours is inspire by a hatred of an opposing arguement. The results should stand on their own. ET does not.
The results need to be argued for because thay have many flaws. They don't speak for themselves.

Here is a question.
How is it a Fact when you have no explanation via evolution for all the most essential componants that control, generate and sustain life. How is that a Fact. Its not. Its just a discription of what you think happened based on what you are seeing.
ET is not just specific to LIFE. We have similar problems with other forms of evolution, chemical, cosmological.

You need to look intensely at the theory on its own Andre. It alone. As a discription. Look at methods used, data etc. Not just the conclusions drawn because they support your beliefs.
I don't feel you have done that aside from googling support and quote mining wiki whilst preparing yourself to attack creationists or religious posters.
Give up your hate, and start using that which you seem to champion from your own pulpit, science.
Because Science itself is argueing against ET, as it should.

Anyway, its been amusing having this little chat, but I have some suggested reading on Theodor Adorno to get through.

Its obvious you don't want me impeding the continuation of your ignorance.

I'm betting in a couple of weeks there will be another lame thread started by You. I'll catch up with you there, Ok.
Take Care.

p.s. LOL.

Remember when you U2U'd me in a desperate attempt to get me to see a reply you made on one of your other religious bashing threads. Man you were so desperate to get me to see your reply after I totally smoked your a$$.
What was that thread again, I still haven't looked at the reply. Man that was so funny.
Can you U2U me a link. LOL.

reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf

Would you please stop calling evolution a religion? A religion and a scientific theory are NOT THE SAME THING!

Who said anything about a scientific theory? I was talking about Darwits evolution. Gee I bet ID scientists would trade their feelings for yours any day with you Darwits always callin ID a religion when if anyone acts as zealous and as pious and as dogmatic as religion, it's Evolutionists.

You have. Frequently, calling evolution a 'State Religion'. Also I never called ID a religion, I just said I find it less convincing than evolution. Nowhere have I called ID a religion, and I dare you to quote when I have. Secondly, what, exacrly, is the difference between Darwins evolution and evolution???

GuFaW!!!! Lo and Behold! What does the Darwit have to show me but yet another decendent from a another feathered FRAUD!

HA HA HA HA I guess when you can't discover the mountan of evidence to support your Religion Science,,

There you go again, calling it a religion.

You'll make one. Seriously, is THIS all Darwits know how to do is lie cheat and fabricate. They call this SCIENCE????

Thanks, just what we need in this thread. Personal insults.

However if you have brought reasonable doubt on Archaeopteryx then maybe you'd like to read about some other feathered dinosaurs?

Avimimus
Sinosauropteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Rahonavis
Shuvuuia
Sinornithosaurus
Beipiaosaurus
Microraptor
Nomingia
Cryptovolans
Scansoripteryx
Epidendrosaurus
Yixianosaurus
Dilong
Pedopenna
Jinfengopteryx
Sinocalliopteryx
Velociraptor
Epidexipteryx
Anchiornis

Quite a lot for them all to be fakes, wouldn't you say? And not all of them rely on fossilized feather imprints, either.

Can I just make one thing clear to everybody. I do happen to believe in a something, just not the same something written about in holy books. I can't fathom the idea of a god that could be so cruel and jealous and yet say he's humble and merciful. I choose to look outside the realms of man-made literature for my spirituality. And I don't need to believe humanity is the be all and end all of creation to know that there is something up there, too infinite for any religion or anyone to fully grasp. Evolution never said it can explain the origins of life, and as yet no-one can explain the origins of the universe ( or multiverse). They can try and explain how it started, but not where it came from before.

However the idea that we are somehow unique in the entire universe, the earth was 'given' to us and we can do whatever we want with it, just smacks of arrogance.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf
Yes, and yet in my debates with BAC I've shown that evolution makes more sense when compared to current, living animals than Creationism or ID does.

I personally have not ignored your posts

Well thanks for not ignoring my post, but evolution making more sense than creationism (in your opinion) in not the point of the thread.


You're right, but I was simply replying to what other people had messaged and talking with BAC.

And while we're on this, neither was arguing for the sake of arguing or trying to prove one theory over the other. Which was kind of inevitable when you read the first few messages.

reply to post by andre18


This thread taught me something very valuable. Something that was smacking me over the head. I couldn't see it. And then there it was.

You speak of Evolution as a Theory AND a FACT. This isn't right (you can show me all the quotes from scientists you want).

The Theory of Evolution explains the fact of Evolution. Evolution isn't the theory, it is the fact, it isn't both.

Evolutionary Theory isn't Evolution. It is the THEORY about Evolution.

Evolution is what these theories explain.

Theory will never be fact. Facts don't change.

Does the fact of Evolution change? NO

Does the Theory of Evolution change? YES. Everytime you add a new fact to it.

"Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution" are two different things.

So the next time we are talking about "Evolution" lets be clear if we are talking "Theory" or "Fact". (It'll save everyone a headache).

Just trying to clear that up.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

I u2'd you thinking you were right and then you edited your post and now you're wrong.

You speak of Evolution as a Theory AND a FACT.This isn't right

Do i speak of evolution as a theory and a fact - yes.

you can show me all the quotes from scientists you want

Ok i will !!

bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...

www.actionbioscience.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.abarnett.demon.co.uk...

atheism.about.com...

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is “just a theory” rather than a fact, as if this demonstrated that it shouldn’t be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.

In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature

Evolutionary Theory isn't Evolution. It is the THEORY about Evolution.

Yep

Theory will never be fact.

The theory of evolution will never be fact - yep

Does the Theory of Evolution change? YES. Everytime you add a new fact to it. .

Yep

Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution" are two different things.

Yep

[edit on 8-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Two words, Meteoroid Impact.

reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf


You forgot T-Rex. They have been found to have down when young.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]