Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

Evolution is change over time. Of course things change over time. And, sometimes, these changes occur in such a way that a species becomes more adaptable to it's surroundings. So what? Trying to falsify this is a waste of time.

USING evolution as a means to explain the ORIGIN of species...that too is a waste of time.

reply to post by abecedarian


No, falsification is providing facts to show that a given statement is false.

An example would be if you told me that all apples are red. If I then produced a yellow apple I would have falsified your statement.

All off-topic discussion of alternative cures for cancer and all other topics no related to the OP should stop now. This is not a thread that relates to that sort of thing. You're even in the wrong part of ATS.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
All off-topic discussion of alternative cures for cancer and all other topics no related to the OP should stop now. This is not a thread that relates to that sort of thing. You're even in the wrong part of ATS.

My apologies... I am a proponent of evolutionary theory so I won't attempt to dispute it. However, I am one who believes that God did indeed create the Universe. I do not think that a belief in evolution and a belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive.

~peace.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Well, that's your choice at the end of the day. And nobody (except creationists) says that the two are mutually exclusive. Evolution and theism can coexist. Ken Miller is a biologist who defended evolution in the Dover trial, he is also a devout Catholic.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Well, that's your choice at the end of the day. And nobody (except creationists) says that the two are mutually exclusive. Evolution and theism can coexist. Ken Miller is a biologist who defended evolution in the Dover trial, he is also a devout Catholic.

Well... I suppose it really depends on how you are defining "Creationist" because I am one who believes in creation yet I still believe in evolution. I think it would be more accurate to say that fundamentalists believe that divine creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Just doing my part to add to the confusion...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So ".., abiogenesis is the realm of speaking of the formation of life. Evolution deals with diversity". OK I got it.

In other words what you are saying - life originated from nothing/inamimate matter (exobiology to some) through the process of what evolutionist call abiogenisis (ala UREY-MILLER) where a simple organism (lifeform) randomly (inexpecably) formed from an 'organic soup' then climbed up/out from the 'soup' of life through a bilological 'evolution ladder' then branchced out into different lifeforrms, then punctuated then branched out then evolved into different species (diversity). From there came the 'great apes' from which the modern man and monkeys/apes eventualy evolved from (common ancestor). Came out also from this (main) branch was the dinos, insects, bugs, bacteria, crabgrass, coconuts and other nuts -- then speciation occured to form new species or sub-species then evolved further without/within, followed by natural selection or vise versa,,,,yadi-yada...all of these occured without an intelligent guiding force (creator).

All of these in one form of explenation or another are blindly accepted as facts from which you want us to falsify. So how do you falsify something that is false?

For example, the fossil record does not support evolution - even now there's no solid evidence from the fossil records where an amphebian turning into a mammal gradually or through 'punctuated equilibrium'.

Can I say 'lucy'?
Can I say Piltdown man?

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

In other words what you are saying - life originated from nothing/inamimate matter (exobiology to some) through the process of what evolutionist call abiogenisis (ala UREY-MILLER) where a simple organism (lifeform) randomly (inexpecably) formed from an 'organic soup'

What an excellent misrepresentation of abiogenesis. Is anything in this post not going to be a straw man argument? Or should I stop reading now and abandon hope?

then climbed up/out from the 'soup' of life through a bilological 'evolution ladder' then branchced out into different lifeforrms, then punctuated then branched out then evolved into different species (diversity). From there came the 'great apes' from which the modern man and monkeys/apes eventualy evolved from (common ancestor). Came out also from this (main) branch was the dinos, insects, bugs, bacteria, crabgrass, coconuts and other nuts -- then speciation occured to form new species or sub-species then evolved further without/within, followed by natural selection or vise versa,,,,yadi-yada...all of these occured without an intelligent guiding force (creator).

Straw man... straw man... straw man... straw man... straw man... straw man... straw man...

You almost have enough for a baseball team!

For example, the fossil record does not support evolution - even now there's no solid evidence from the fossil records where an amphebian turning into a mammal gradually or through 'punctuated equilibrium'.

And another straw man. Seriously? Is this what all of your falsifications of evolution are going to be?

Can I say 'lucy'?

I don't know... can you? If not, I know an excellent speech therapist to whom I can refer you.

Or are you referring to the A. afarensis fossil? Apparently you feel that Lucy contradicts or falsifies evolution. How so?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

So ".., abiogenesis is the realm of speaking of the formation of life. Evolution deals with diversity". OK I got it.

In other words what you are saying - life originated from nothing/inamimate matter (exobiology to some) through the process of what evolutionist call abiogenisis (ala UREY-MILLER) where a simple organism (lifeform) randomly (inexpecably) formed from an 'organic soup' then climbed up/out from the 'soup' of life through a bilological 'evolution ladder' then branchced out into different lifeforrms, then punctuated then branched out then evolved into different species (diversity). From there came the 'great apes' from which the modern man and monkeys/apes eventualy evolved from (common ancestor). Came out also from this (main) branch was the dinos, insects, bugs, bacteria, crabgrass, coconuts and other nuts -- then speciation occured to form new species or sub-species then evolved further without/within, followed by natural selection or vise versa,,,,yadi-yada...all of these occured without an intelligent guiding force (creator).

All of these in one form of explenation or another are blindly accepted as facts from which you want us to falsify. So how do you falsify something that is false?

For example, the fossil record does not support evolution - even now there's no solid evidence from the fossil records where an amphebian turning into a mammal gradually or through 'punctuated equilibrium'.

Can I say 'lucy'?
Can I say Piltdown man?

ty,
edmc2

edit on 15-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: ...

I laughed so hard when I read that. Truer words were never spoken. But trust me. 'They' will never get it. I've given up hope on trying to reach them.

reply to post by iterationzero


Ahh - the famous 'straw man' counter argument. Is that all you can say? I know it's easy to say it but to disporved what I just said must be difficult thus the straw man response.

If there's something untrue in what I said then correct me please and explain away how life came to be in support of evolution. I'm listening.

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


What do you mean get it? What do you want us to get here? I don't see the picture you're trying to mention to us.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Ahh - the famous 'straw man' counter argument. Is that all you can say? I know it's easy to say it but to disporved what I just said must be difficult thus the straw man response.

If there's something untrue in what I said then correct me please and explain away how life came to be in support of evolution. I'm listening.

ty,
edmc2

You are too good.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


I'm still waiting for a reply from you? I don't see you offering any support to your comment from earlier.
What do you want us to get?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by abecedarian

 

No, falsification is providing facts to show that a given statement is false.

An example would be if you told me that all apples are red. If I then produced a yellow apple I would have falsified your statement.

I wouldn't tell you that all apples are red; I know better than that.
However, were you to produce a yellow apple and then tell me that red apples aren't really apples due to speciation would be falsifying the truth.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Thanks.

Hopefully - zero can desprove that evolution is true or is it false, no, I think it's a fact or is it a myth?

OK, i better stop now before I get stuck in the 'pit of evolution' and become a fossil.

edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Ahh - the famous 'straw man' counter argument. Is that all you can say? I know it's easy to say it but to disporved what I just said must be difficult thus the straw man response.

If there's something untrue in what I said then correct me please and explain away how life came to be in support of evolution. I'm listening.

Yes, it's all I can say when that's all you've done. Literally every single argument you made in that post is a straw man argument, each consisting of a misrepresentation of a key point of the theory of evolution. If all you have to falsify evolution is a series of fallacies, then you've effectively said nothing.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

I laughed so hard when I read that. Truer words were never spoken. But trust me. 'They' will never get it. I've given up hope on trying to reach them.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

You are too good.

Just what we needed. Another thread of mrvdreamknight cheerleading without saying anything themselves. Bravo.

reply to post by iterationzero


So you mean that abiogenesis never occured? That according to evolution theory - man did not evolved from the "great apes"? That there's no punctauted equilibrium? So what gives?

Exxplain please how it's a strawman - I'm just using the evolution argument.

Enlighten me please.

edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


I have several links I would like to share and have you and anyone else to go over. I would like to see what you believe and the proof you have to offer to support that belief.
Seven Evolutionary left over in the human body
10 signs of evolution in modern man
Early humans used brain power
Darwin Today Question and Answers
Evolution @ At
Who's your daddy?
What does it mean to be human?
Human evolution in 3d
Human Evolution
Human Evolution [2]
Funny article
Family issues lol
Top ten myths about evolution
Introduction to Evolution
15 answers to Creationist
The Bio Code
Understanding Evolution
Evolution PBS
The Evolution psychology to human sex and gender
Evolution 101 natural selection
Exploring life's origins
Not just a theroy
HIV not so ancient history
Top ten mysths about evolution (and one extra)

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


woweee... that's a lot of reading. Be back later - much later.

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Hey! I try my best! I'm still reading my sources. I believe in evolution and see all the evidence presented to me as fact. Which I believe happened in the past. Evolution is a difficult word to define.