Rejecting evolution with science...

Swa said:
Well they don't seem to want to. It's always: this is how it could have happened, this may be what happened, if this happened then...

I'll be happy to enroll in any course where someone can confidently state facts but there aren't any in the whole world. :erm:
Click to expand...

So as far as I can understand is that you will never accept anything that anybody teaches you and will continue to only live by what you think is correct in your head. It's perfectly clear now why you are never wrong about anything, how could you be if you cannot accept any new information.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
So as far as I can understand is that you will never accept anything that anybody teaches you and will continue to only live by what you think is correct in your head. It's perfectly clear now why you are never wrong about anything, how could you be if you cannot accept any new information.
Click to expand...
I am perfectly willing to accept any information someone can teach me. Key being information and not speculation. :)
 
The theory of evolution is speculation in the same way that the theory of gravity is speculation. If you do not understand the concept of a scientific theory, then maybe it's high time you enrolled in an educational institution.
 
Yes, Swa, you would say it's BS. You don't even understand what you're arguing because if you understood it you wouldn't be arguing against it in the first place.

That's the most ironic part of this whole thing. Religious people often neglect to read about and/or make an effort to understand evolution, simply because they know that in the face of evolution their religious beliefs cannot hold up. It would be funny if it wasn't so downright pitiful.

Edit: I'm placing you on ignore, btw. I don't have time to waste arguing with someone who does not even have the courtesy of ensuring he understands that which he argues against. You're just wasting my time.
 
Not that evotard argument again... :rolleyes:
 
DJ... said:
Post your science, people!

Many have claimed that science disproves evolution. I'd like to see this scientific evidence, please...

Swa?
Click to expand...
If you are talking about:
1) Evolution as merely meaning "change" then science is not a way to accept or reject it. Common sense and logic are.
2) Neo-Darwinian evolution then evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics is challenging such a view.

I suspect, however, that Swa's major issues with evolution are common descent AND macro-evolution or biological change at the species level. And his main motivation for rejecting these aspects is that it somehow are arguments against creation (special or otherwise) and/r original sin and/or the soul etc. It of course is not.
 
Last edited:
alloytoo said:
I see christians every day, that doesn't mean what they believe is real.
Click to expand...

Not all Christians reject evolution. Be not so quick to judge and classify lest you become no better than Galileo's Catholic Church.
 
The mainstream scientific consensus is in support of ToE. No scientific articles to the contrary exists in any peer reviewed scientific journals. This however does not mean it can't still be refuted.

Having said that, I'm not sure about the scientific method used in proving the full theory. With this I mean the evolutionary path as laid out in the tree of evolution. Common ancestry from a single cell can hardly be replicated in a lab? Observation in that respect? It's here where the speculation comes in (what Swa referred to).

Personally I know evolution is fact, the evidence is compelling. However, common ancestry from a single cell to the diverse forms of life today? Nobody can prove that, doesn't matter how many science degrees you have. It's easy to start with an idea and then manipulate your "evidence" to support the idea.
 
You are all allowing Swa to derail this thread. Stop responding to any of his comments that aren't him demonstrating how science proves evolution to be false.
 
Ekstasis said:
Thank you, glad you brought this up. A scientific theory is the best possible explanation of ...../pls complete
Click to expand...
A scientific theory is a possible explanation of observations. It doesn't need to be the best to qualify as a theory.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
A scientific theory is a possible explanation of observations. It doesn't need to be the best to qualify as a theory.
Click to expand...
No, it's the "best" possible explanation of observations. However you left out a crucial part - observation AND experiment.

Replicating common ancestral evolution is impossible. Yet, the scientific community is convinced that this is fact.
 
Ekstasis said:
No, it's the "best" possible explanation of observations.
Click to expand...
No this is simply wrong. Look it up if you don't believe me. As a quick example we have more than 1 theory of gravitation. That would not be possible if something could only qualify as a theory if it were the best explanation.

If your explanation fits the evidence and can be falsified then chances are it is a theory. It doesn't have to be "the best" (whatever that means) relative to all other possible explanations in order ot qualify as a theory.

Here is what Wiki has to say: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

See, no mention of it having to be the best explanation. Sorry mate but you are wrong here. At least you have learnt something.


However you left out a crucial part - observation AND experiment.
Click to expand...
All experiments are performed for the sole purpose of obtaining one or more observations in a controlled environment. So no, you are wrong again.

An experiment with no observation is entirely useless. Even pilot studies have an observation: the methodology works.

The reason you would perhaps mention experimentation with regards to a definition of theories is that you can't get reliable observations without some sort of experiment. So a theory RESULTS FROM observation, experimentation and a dash of creative thinking to put all the pieces we have together to form a coherent picture, but what it explains is the evidence, the observations.


Replicating common ancestral evolution is impossible. Yet, the scientific community is convinced that this is fact.
Click to expand...
That view merely explains the evidence mate. It is the theory, not the fact.


EDIT: anyway we are wandering off topic here. I hope this has helped you to better understand what constitutes a valid scientific theory. If not please research it as it is something I feel all human beings should understand.
 
Last edited:
DrJohnZoidberg said:
He cannot give answers for questions for which he say he does, instead he spurts out nonsense.
Click to expand...
Like I said we need to stop entertaining it. The guy keeps arguing that the scientific evidence is against the theory of evolution. He is being given an opportunity to support that claim now and instead he is trolling the lot of us and we are letting him get away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X