Rejecting evolution with science...

[OrbitalDawn]

I don't understand why you defend people calling other people "insert whatever"-tards. Doesn't matter who is on the receiving side, i just think any discussion can do without that nonsense. Simple really.

When you've had the same discussion with the same kinds of people who are almost always dishonest and disingenuous, never mind likes to hurl abuse and insults themselves, then I don't mind having a specific word that would immediately identify that group.

 

[DJ...]

I don't understand why you defend people calling other people "insert whatever"-tards. Doesn't matter who is on the receiving side, i just think any discussion can do without that nonsense. Simple really.

If I state 'creationists' you bitch and moan. Look up and see your post. Ergo I made the distinction. I was more than happy to keep it out of the discussion until you required clarity of what kind of creationist. Creotards - that's which subset of creationist I was referring to. You asked...

 

[Techne]

When you've had the same discussion with the same kinds of people who are almost always dishonest and disingenuous, never mind likes to hurl abuse and insults themselves, then I don't mind having a specific word that would immediately identify that group.

Sorry, by doing that nonsense you are opening the door for other derogatory words to become colloquialised and then someone might even try and then justify that nonsense.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Sorry, by doing that nonsense you are opening the door for other derogatory words to become colloquialised and then someone might even try and then justify that nonsense.

They already are. Just like evolutionists or Darwinists is used pejoratively.

 

[Techne]

They already are. Just like evolutionists or Darwinists is used pejoratively.

So now that makes it ok to stoop to their level?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So now that makes it ok to stoop to their level?

It's a pretty useful term. Let's everyone know exactly what we're dealing with.

I'm not particularly bothered if people call me names, dunno why it bothers you so much, specifically since it doesn't apply to you.

 

[DJ...]

Moral relativists, anyone?

 

[Swa]

Nope. That's what they thought in the days of Lamarck. Evolution doesn't have to always increase complexity. An example is parasites that lose certain traits because their hosts perform it and they piggyback on it.

If there is no increase in complexity then the initial complexity was designed.

No, it isn't. Even if the ToE gets falsified, that wouldn't automatically mean creation is true.

Errr, it was the only other horse in the race last time I checked.

Lol

That still wouldn't disprove evolution, again, a scientific theory has never been about proving or disproving.

If they found a poodle in the precrambrian era, it would blow scientists minds but it wouldn't disprove anything, it would just mean a few steps backwards in the understanding of the theory and it's back to the drawing board.

Thanks for admitting that. We can then safely discard it as unfalsifiable.

Creation, from a scientific view never was / will be on the table because we're still waiting for evidence, there isn't any after 2000 years. Evolution after only 200 years has more evidence and facts probably than all other theories combined. And I don't think I'm exaggerating.

Only if your standard for evidence is set very low. Where it is very high for creation. The double standard as usual.

I've thought of an analogy that might be ridiculous but still valid.
If there is an explanation of how to ride a bike, can it ever be disproved? I don't think so, the explanation could always be expanded and changed but it's never about proofs it's just an explanation.

All scientists are trying to do with these theories is explain to us what they've observed through observations, research and experiments.

Maybe I'm confused about what an explanation is.

I think you're confused over what science is.

Unless people believe that God steps in every few hundred years and tweaks say a thousand species slightly. Ever so slightly that they are close to their parent species but not quite. This is done to test our faith to fool us into believing that the process is natural and not through his magic. He must be real busy though with all the millions of types of bacteria given that they can evolve in a matter of days. Maybe that is why bacteria kept God busy for 3 billion years before he decided to create something more complex.

There is no evidence of any tweaking, either by God or evolution. All major phyla appear abruptly. Plants, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals appear suddenly in the fossil record without any indication of slight changes leading up to it.

 

[copacetic]

It's a pretty useful term. Let's everyone know exactly what we're dealing with.

I'm not particularly bothered if people call me names, dunno why it bothers you so much, specifically since it doesn't apply to you.

Because techne loves to play the superior moral ground, especially when it comes to any possible insult that might be directed at some poor sensitive soul.

He's just looking out for everyone, and for the good of a just, informed and polite society.

 

[RiaX]

There is no evidence of any tweaking, either by God or evolution. All major phyla appear abruptly. Plants, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals appear suddenly in the fossil record without any indication of slight changes leading up to it.

.... birds come from dinosaurs ...... clearly you havent seen a phylogenetic tree >.<

 

[Swa]

I haven't seen a phylogenetic tree constructed from actual evidence showing that. Only the ones constructed from imagination.

 

[Ekstasis]

I haven't seen a phylogenetic tree constructed from actual evidence showing that. Only the ones constructed from imagination.

reminds me of James Cameron and George Lucas. You have to have one hell of an imagination to come up with this nonsense.

 

[Ekstasis]

@Swa, what these people don't get is that we're not against the fact of evolutionary change in the form of mutations.
It's the common ancestry BS that they somehow proved. Where? If Darwin knew what was actually going on in a cell he wouldn't have come up with this drivel.

What also boggles me is that Richard Dawkins with his brilliant mind, knowing very well the complexity and accuracy of DNA encoding, cannot infer design in it (let alone the rest of the cell)

 

[porchrat]

@Swa, what these people don't get is that we're not against the fact of evolutionary change in the form of mutations.
It's the common ancestry BS that they somehow proved. Where? If Darwin knew what was actually going on in a cell he wouldn't have come up with this drivel.

Dude you have already demonstrated a tremendous ignorance of the way science operates at a fundamental level. You are ignorant of the sort of stuff they teach you in early high school. At this point you have no business calling anything to do with science "drivel".

 

[Ekstasis]

Dude you have already demonstrated a tremendous ignorance of the way science operates at a fundamental level. You are ignorant of the sort of stuff they teach you in early high school. At this point you have no business calling anything to do with science "drivel".

When it's clearly imaginary construction of a theory, yes I do. Science cannot claim common ancestry as fact - you know it and I know it.

 

[porchrat]

When it's clearly imaginary construction of a theory, yes I do. Science cannot claim common ancestry as fact - you know it and I know it.

The idea of common ancestry is part of the theory of evolution. The evidence seen fits a model based on common ancestry. You know it and I know it. Admit it and move on with your life.

Or just keep making mistake after mistake when discussing scientific matters like you have done throughout this thread embarrassing yourself evermore and making creationists like yourself look more and more foolish. No skin off my nose.

 

[Ekstasis]

The idea of common ancestry is part of the theory of evolution. The evidence seen fits a model based on common ancestry. You know it and I know it. Admit it and move on with your life.

the evidence of my lawn being wet this morning clearly fits the theory that it rained. Behold, the sprayers was on this morning

 

[porchrat]

the evidence of my lawn being wet this morning clearly fits the theory that it rained. Behold, the sprayers was on this morning

Nah rain water has a different composition to the stuff coming out of your taps. When the analysis comes back on the water composition one of those 2 theories will be discarded and science will move on.

I believe the word they use on the Internet is "pwned"

Seriously just read up on this stuff. You will see that the evidence fits. Educate yourself. Start with how science works at a fundamental level because man you know next to nothing about that and it makes you look like a fool when we discuss science.

If after having taken a look at the evidence out there, if you think you have a valid alternative theory or if you think you can falsify the entirety of modern evolutionary theory then I beg you to publish. It would be thrilling to be there watching it happen as the theory of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biology, comes crashing down.

 

[RiaX]

Nah rain water has a different composition to the stuff coming out of your taps. When the analysis comes back on the water composition one of those 2 theories will be discarded and science will move on.

LOL pwnt ...

 

[Swa]

@Swa, what these people don't get is that we're not against the fact of evolutionary change in the form of mutations.
It's the common ancestry BS that they somehow proved. Where? If Darwin knew what was actually going on in a cell he wouldn't have come up with this drivel.

What also boggles me is that Richard Dawkins with his brilliant mind, knowing very well the complexity and accuracy of DNA encoding, cannot infer design in it (let alone the rest of the cell)

The problem I have with it is that they lump it all together and then call it a fact. What really gets on my nerve though is that they are then dishonest and claim that when someone rejects common ancestry they reject mutations. If evolution is just change then fine but change is not a scientific study or even meaningful. It's like saying schit happens. The commonly understood meaning of evolution is not merely change but common ancestry from a single organism (with the cop-out that it doesn't have to deal with this organism).

Richard Dawkins may know a lot about biology but it's all learned knowledge. It doesn't mean he really understands it so to describe him as brilliant seems a bit of a stretch. He's either an idiot or just flat out dishonest. In either case he's not an individual I would have any regard for.

But the public is actually seeing through all this garbage called "science." That's why so many people are turning to things like astronomy and crystal healing as real science has gotten a bad name from all this pseudo carp. You and me just have to be there to pick up the pieces and educate people on what real science is. Destroy this evolution mumbo jumbo.

The idea of common ancestry is part of the theory of evolution. The evidence seen fits a model based on common ancestry. You know it and I know it. Admit it and move on with your life.

The fossils STILL say NO.

Seriously just read up on this stuff. You will see that the evidence fits. Educate yourself. Start with how science works at a fundamental level because man you know next to nothing about that and it makes you look like a fool when we discuss science.

Yes please read up on this stuff and educate yourself, you will see the evidence doesn't fit.

If after having taken a look at the evidence out there, if you think you have a valid alternative theory or if you think you can falsify the entirety of modern evolutionary theory then I beg you to publish. It would be thrilling to be there watching it happen as the theory of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biology, comes crashing down.

The hypothesis is crashing down as we speak. Less and less scientists that have actually examined the evidence believe it.