Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[PostmodernProphet]

You said "amoeba." You did not say "single-celled organism," did you? I respond to what you write, not what you imagine that you wrote. That is what us scientifically-educated fuckwits do. Try it.

how many cells did you think an amoeba had?.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Please look up the scientific definition of "evolution," and then we'll have a common basis, a common language, to continue the conversation.

look it up yourself......then tell me which parts you've decided to deny........I'll wait.....

 

[BidenPresident]

Not allowing any competition helps with that lol.

huh?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not allowing any competition helps with that lol.

Survival of the Fittest usually means to kill off any competition and eat them.

 

[Cypress]

any claim that complex evolution has been tested in a laboratory needs to be linked....do it....if the best you can do is prove that fruit flies reproduce fruit flies, we will just agree that you have conceded my point.....

Oh, I see now. You actually were not aware that evolution by natural selection has been observed experimentally and in the field.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly observed in real time under labotatory conditions and in the field.

If you are demanding to see the evolution of fins into legs in real time, you put an impossibly high burden of proof on science. And you only do that for emotional reasons, because you are an evolution denying young earth creationist

 

[Cypress]

Oh, I see now. You actually were not aware that evolution by natural selection has been observed experimentally and in the field.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly observed in real time under labotatory conditions and in the field.

If you are demanding to see the evolution of fins into legs in real time, you put an impossibly high burden of proof on science. And you only do that for emotional reasons, because you are an evolution denying young earth creationist

In a classic evolutionary field study, it was observed that white colored Brtitsh peppered moths evolved by natural selection into a dominantly dark-colored variety because of changing environmental conditions over the course of just a few decades.

In a classic paleontological field study, a transitional fossil called tiktaalik showed morphological features intermediate between fish and four-legged amphibians.

 

[Into the Night]

Just stay in the dark. You look comfortable there. Dude, you proved to me you were either crazy or a liar when you couldn't back up your false accusations against me. It's your own posts that cause me to believe you are delusional and clinically insane, enough to require medical assistance.

]

Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks.

The sin the Fundies are committing is that they are limiting God to a book instead of using a book to achieve a better understanding of God.

If God created the Universe, then studying the Universe is to better understand God. It'd be a sin not to do so.

If God created the Universe, where was God when he created it? The universe?? Did God create Himself??

 

[Into the Night]

No it isn’t lol.

Evolution has to do with origins. Evolutionary biology is its own study and has nothing to do with what goes on inside living organisms and etc.

The Theory of Evolution does not explain how life arrived on Earth. There are no origins of anything in the Theory of Evolution except something you might decide at some point to call a new species.

 

[Into the Night]

I shall stick up for Bishop Ussher by saying it is easy in hindsight to use modern knowlege to point and laugh at somebody from the distant past and from a very different time.

I am sure to physicists 400 years from now, some of our scientific hypotheses will look utterly laughable.

Bishop Ussher made a commendable attempt using accepted methods of his time. He was not a stupid man, but was part of an intellectual tradition which tried to establish answers about the natural world using conventional method of scholarship of the day.

The problem is this: the fact the anyone would believe his estimate today, in light of scientific advances, highlights who the real idiots among us are.


Sidebar: I recall that the ancient Hindus thought the Earth was around 4 billion years old, so at least they were on the right track of conceptualizing an ancient earth.

Science isn't hypothesis. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That means they can be tested against the null hypothesis. Hypothesis come out of a theory, not the other way around.

 

[Into the Night]

Paul was an Apostle!

I agree. The mistake you made was using the term 'True Christian', and using Wikipedia as a reference.

 

[Into the Night]

Those are not credible links to reputable scientific organizations or journals.

Correct, for there is no such thing as a 'scientific' organization or journal. Science is not an organization. It is not a journal, magazine, book, paper, pamphlet, or website. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

 

[Into the Night]

*Origin* of the species. The title to Darwin’s book is “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

Maybe the wokies should cancel Darwin lol. Actually, they wouldn’t dare do that. Darwin is off limits.

And correct, it doesn’t start from lifeless matter; and in fact, evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. That’s a totally different subject.

Darwin didn't create the Theory of Evolution. The Greeks did. Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, but that theory does not meet the internal consistency check. It's falsified since it builds a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not saying the left isn't the one making the same mistake Darwin did......I'm just pointing out that there is in fact no origin in the science of evolution......

The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

they think that scientifically observed minor changes, like subtle color changes in butterflies, prove that major changes happened.....thus they claim it is scientifically proven that over time human beings "evolved" from amoeba........

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It is not possible to prove any theory True.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

The funny thing on this thread is when conservatives howl in protest that they are not anti science, but then post young earth creationist rhetoric.

The Theory of Creation is indeed a nonscientific theory.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most firmly established and verified theories in the history of science.

Science has no proofs. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is a nonscientific theory, and just another religion. The Theory of Natural Selection is falsified due to an internal consistency check failure. It creates a paradox.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

It is on a par with general relativity and quantum mechanics.

WRONG.

The Theory of General Relativity is a theory that simply states there is no such thing as a zero speed. It is a theory. It is not a proof. It can be falsified at any time, just as Newton's Law of Motion can be.
Quantum Mechanics is a set of theories concerning how atoms and subatomic particles behave. It is mathematically based. None of them are proofs.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Any one of them could be falsified tomorrow. None of them are proofs or are proven True.

 

[Into the Night]

Not sure about that since experiments with those are repeatable.

You can’t repeat the past. Evolution is part historical account so the ‘story’ analogy is inevitable regardless of who makes it. It’s a biological historical narrative. Btw, I’ve never said I reject it. Though I am skeptical of some it’s more broader claims.

You have it basically right. It is not possible to go back into the past to see what actually happened. The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of Creation are all nonscientific theories. They are all also religions.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, some would say that and believe it too, whether or not there is any evidence for it.

The evidence is the thing itself, and the complex structure required to keep that thing alive.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolutionary science has practical and profound applications in medical science and pharmaceuticals.

I suppose only intellectuals, research scientists, liberals, and people of boundless curiosity are interested in the deep questions about ultimate reality - simply for it's own sake.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It is a religion. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

You actually *can* do experiments that show evolution happening in real time. Ask any microbiologist.

Evolution does occur, the Theory of Evolution, however, states that life as we see it today evolved from more primitive life. This theory is not a theory of science.