Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution

Ahhhhhh, a huge dragon is attcking me and spitting fire at me. Heeeelllppp!!!!

LOL, did you used be a comedian IAC?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain to me again why a lizard is less able to find higher ground then a dinosaur?

Also, why did God rest on the seventh day? Was he tired?

He doesn't have to. You, and everyone else, can simply read the articles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, you don't think he likes rebuttal?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure he loves laying the smack down on ignorant folk like you.

 

We'll see.

 

I see your doing well in the other thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64512&page=7

It's good to see people laying the smack down on you from all angles.

 

Sure.

 

That however is an admittance that evolution is a fact. Now we just need to argue details. Out of interest, how different is a dog from a cat?

 

To the extent that they can breed.

 

Dogs and cats can breed?

 

IceAgeCivilizations:

Punctuated equillibrium usually requires tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of years itself.

It took well over a billion years for bacteria to morph into fish, by the way.

 

Prince James

until that evidence enables repeatability it is a theory - is that not the general principle that the integrity of science operates on?

again this is tentative theory - like for instance if I insist on using a screw driver as a lever to open a paint tin and also as a chisel it also contains some "junk" properties not suited to either application - in other word if I use the same design for two or more applications, you would expect some "junk" elements of the design to be apparent

the foundation for evolution is abiogenisis, or perhaps in a more general sense, that matter is the essential property of life.
Regardless on one's thoughts on the matter, speciation is not evidence of evolution, since transitions between genus is not evidenced by it

therefore inquiry into the origins of life is another aspect of knowledge that is impenetrable by empiricism. I don't think it is reasonable for science to say "Since we cannot know it our ideas on how it might be real must be accepted as the truth" (unless of course one wants to talk about scientific theory)

 

that is not why most monotheists do not believe it. The arguments are put forward to justify their beliefs. (this is of course true of believers of all kinds, scientists to). To say that monotheists in general have made this decision after sitting down and analyzing various studies, research findings, etc. is absurd. The vast majority either made a gut decision or listened to authority. This is not necessarily wrong, especially the former, but to assert it comes from some sort of carefully thought out analysis is pure fantasy.

the question then becomes, why feel the need to assert such a fantasy?

 

most monotheists educated in science?

thats the point - if the claim of evolution was not tentative there would be no scope whatsoever for suggesting otherwise

are you denying that they do?
Or are you saying that just because some religious minded persons postulate on emotional/sentimental grounds they are all condemned?

given that there are practically a handful of persons at the level of directly perceiving the evidence for evolution in science, most people argue from the point of evolution - like for instance when was the last time you were involved in carbon dating anything?

and its not ironic that in the absence of repeatability, the tentative claims of evolution as fact could also be similarly defined?

will the irony never end?

 

Evolution has been repeatedly observed.
Unfortunately evolution is not as simple as C + O2 --> CO2, in that it doesn't follow the same path each time - due to the vast array of environmental and genetic factors involved.
But evolution has been observed repeatedly.

Bollox. Evolution makes NO attempt to state that life = matter / matter = life, or deal with abiogenesis at all.
It merely requires the existence of an adapting / mutating medium.

That is all.

Excuse me? Are you now changing the world's understanding of evolution, redefining it to suit your argument?
If evolution is not evidenced by speciation, what is evolution???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No one disagrees, I think.

Strawman logical fallacy, LG.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Noone in the scientific community says this!

All we can provide, regarding the origin of life on this planet, is theories of how it happened - and try and recreate that in the lab.
If we manage to do so then it certainly adds weight to the theory (pushing it beyond mere hypothesis) but it can NOT claim to have solved how life on earth started, merely claim to be a possibility.

Your ideas of science and what it claims are warped, LG.
And while they continue to be warped you will continue to argue out of your depth in the matter.

 

Let's get this straight, LG....
Evolution IS fact.
Evolution happens.
Evolution has been observed.

What you might argue is that it is not applicable to the macro- point of view, but that does not detract from the point that EVOLUTION IS FACT.


Let's use an analogy - as you are so fond of doing...

Waves are a fact, yes?
You agree that there are waves on the oceans?

You might not agree that "super-waves" (100+m waves) can exist without some major catastrophe (e.g. tsunami) - but you can surely not deny the existence of waves.

Or do you?

What is stopping you from getting past the understanding, and thus accepting, that EVOLUTION IS FACT?

 

lightgigantic:

Or at least observability. Which one could say is found in the fossil record all ready.

But then again, I do believe eugenical research can produce new species in theory at the very least. I'd like to try to find some evidence of simple sexually producing organisms doing so.

I am not so sure this could be applied to the evolutionary issue. For assuming a designer of some intelligence, the superfluous elements (I.E. junk DNA) would simply be removed and not kept. Presuming junk DNA serves no purpose, mind you.

Isn't it rather a logical progression that once you have speciation, you also have genus-ication? For presuming breeding advantages in natural selection can differentiate a duck from a loon, then said duck could go one route, said loon another, and end up radically different from one another.

Well theoretically, the ideas behind abiogenesis could be proven if we understood the composition. For instance, the famous amino acid experiments that showed that complex molecules can result from a super heated soup with no rhyme or reason. It seems only a matter of time before real abiogenesis is shown.

 

Not true. [ENC]syngameon[/ENC]s are defined as species that interbreed in nature. [ENC]syngameon[/ENC]s are rather rare.

 

As always, you're missing the point, only about 20,000 kinds (syngameons) of animals need have been on the Ark because within those respective gene pools were the genes for all the "species" (meaningless term) of animals, such as llamas, alpacas, and camels of that syngameon.

Very simple, and obvious, to those not joined at the hip to Darwin and his minions.

 

You are missing the point IAC. Science has defined syngameon and you are raping the definition for the purpose of religious propaganda.