toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
taikoo

taikoo

New member
Selaphiel said:
The trees are inferences of the core principles of the ToE + the available fossil and molecular evidence. The fossil and molecular evidence is incomplete, so there are certain disagreements among biologists when it comes to the exact historical process. No one however is questioning that the shared ancestry of all biological organisms. The fact that species are interrelated is hard science, demonstrable with both fossil, embryological and molecular data.



But there is no question about whether the species are interrelated with each other through common ancestry.



That is a rather strange distinction that I have never seen before. The history of the diversification of species is an inference from the core facts of the ToE and the data we have. Of course we can not observe dinosaurs evolving into birds, but we can infer that it happened based on fossil data even if we do not have the complete story.



They make it a separate issue because it is a separate question.

ToE = Origin of species as in explaining the mechanisms of how new species arise through genetic mutation and natural selection. This theory presumes the existence of life, it does not care how life originated. Life may have fallen from the heaven as far as the ToE is concerned since it is merely concerned by how speciation occur through genetic mutation and natural selection which are pretty much laws of nature.

Abiogenesis = Asking the question how life may have originated through chemical processes in the environment of the early earth. This is a question of how organic molecules may have formed in certain chemical molecules which form the building blocks for proteins



Wrong. Refute the molecular evidence of common ancestry in living species and you wreck the theory of evolution. Find a rabbit or any other complex animal in the precambrian strata and you refute all evolutionary models for the history of diversification of species.
Click to expand...

One the creo mind is made up it sets like concrete. No longer can fit any new idea.

"ToE" is not a theory / not falsifiable is one of the ridiculous ideas that they get, then it sets in and nothing can budge it. Because a creo by its very nature is incapable of admitting they are wrong. That is my theory; any creo is welcome to come along and falsify it.
 
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
Stripe said:
Typical. Forget the evidence and make an appeal to popularity.
Click to expand...
No Stripey. That's no appeal to popularity, it is a reference to the scientific process. If there is evidence that is readily available for something, the truth will eventually prevail.

And of course you ignore the fact that there is more to the explanation than just this set of observations.
Click to expand...
The "explanation" is incorrect in many places. I chose one as an example.

Don't be a moron, Alate. I follow an evolutionist who is struggling to get published because he has an explanation for what he sees that overthrows a couple of traditional ideas.
Click to expand...
Oh yes you "follow" that guy that you posted the videos from? The one that thinks DNA magically changes itself and comes pre-programmed to change itself for every possible situation? That "evolutionist"?

You're part of the problem, Alate. You're entirely sold out to the idea that evolution must have happened and single-mindedly determined that no creationist be allowed to appear in any way correct. You're no scientist.
Click to expand...
Stripe, get a mirror out, look in it think about what you are saying here and then wonder if it applies to you.

I can make predictions and test them using available evidence. You do no tests at all, you just believe whatever Walt Brown says no matter what the evidence tells you OR what the Bible actually says. His "liquefaction" crap can be tested on a small scale very easily. Why haven't you done that test?
 
N

no avatar

New member
taikoo said:
This is of course utter bs, as anyone with at least two active brain cells should be able to tell. You think that at the u of Tokyo, U of Beijing, in Berlin, south africa, Finland.... they are all part of this conspiracy to suppress any science that doesnt fit some ideology?

Even the christians couldnt manage that during the dark ages.

Part of the humour and utter cluelessness of this idea is that some seeming innocuous bit of research would get published in some obscure journal... as it so often does, like with the first laser...and its only later that people learn the full implications, long long after the genii is out of the bottle... not that anyone was trying to keep it in anyway.


As for your people who have 'problems" with evolution that is about as vague as you could possibly get.

Nobody on gods green earth has a problem consisting of a so much as one single data point to back up any opinion that evolution isnt valid.

let us know when you have a data point, not just vague notions and gibberish about people in a world wide conspiracy to suppress Knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just claim it is all rubbish and you can go on believing that nobody stands against it. Meanwhile, if you actually read more things than just what happens to agree with what you want to hear, you'd know that what you are saying is a bunch of rubbish, itself.
 
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
no avatar said:
Yeah, just claim it is all rubbish and you can go on believing that nobody stands against it. Meanwhile, if you actually read more things than just what happens to agree with what you want to hear, you'd know that what you are saying is a bunch of rubbish, itself.
Click to expand...
Get specific please. Name something for us that supports modern evolutionary theory that is "rubbish".
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
chrysostom said:
what are they?
Click to expand...

There are a couple verses where Jesus seems to take the Genesis story literally.

I've seen people use Romans 5 to present some trouble for evolution. How all sin spread from Adam.

Those are the 2 that come to my mind right now.
 
taikoo

taikoo

New member
kmoney said:
There are a couple verses where Jesus seems to take the Genesis story literally.

I've seen people use Romans 5 to present some trouble for evolution. How all sin spread from Adam.

Those are the 2 that come to my mind right now.
Click to expand...

seems to me that its impossible that anyone could have written his exact words many years later anyway.

Jesus or anyone else should be intelligent enough to understand that when the facts on the ground contradict what is written, its not the facts that are wrong.
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
chrysostom said:
how is that a problem for evolution?
Click to expand...

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

I think the argument I've heard is more about the death part. This says death came after sin. But if evolution is true death would have happened prior to sin.
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
taikoo said:
seems to me that its impossible that anyone could have written his exact words many years later anyway.

Jesus or anyone else should be intelligent enough to understand that when the facts on the ground contradict what is written, its not the facts that are wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously speaking from a certain theological viewpoint that trusts that the bible contains the actual words of Jesus.
 
V

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
What do you think is
the single strongest
argument against
evolution?------- The complexities of even the simplest bacteria cannot form from existing materials and even the optimum temperature. Even a microbe or virus is too complex to form even under optimal conditions.
 
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
voltaire said:
What do you think is
the single strongest
argument against
evolution?------- The complexities of even the simplest bacteria cannot form from existing materials and even the optimum temperature. Even a microbe or virus is too complex to form even under optimal conditions.
Click to expand...
Bacteria, virsuses or other microbes are not thought to have formed spontaneously in evolutionary theory. (But actually you can assemble viral particles in the lab pretty easily)

So you might want to pick something that actually has to do with evolution. The origin of life is not part of the Theory of Evolution.
 
Alate_One

Alate_One

Well-known member
Yorzhik said:
If it were true that scientists love to upend the apple cart, then they would have continued to look for human footprints in Paluxy. But no one wants to look. Why? Because scientists don't really like upending the apple cart, they like being rich/powerful/famous like everyone else. And proving evolution wrong would only get one fired.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait . . . you think *scientists* are rich, powerful and famous?

You're serious?!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You sir, are clueless. Ask anyone on the street to name five current (living) scientists. Then ask them how many football players they can name, then singers, then politicians.

How many *living* scientists can *you* name off the top of your head? How many women scientists of any era?

Politicians rarely if ever listen to scientists. Otherwise we would have proper fishing regulations rather than depleted oceans, as well as climate regulations, plenty more investment in science and technology.

Scientists are not remotely rich either. I was in a restaurant the other day and overheard two ladies next to my family talking about getting a professional degree. The salary she said she could get was the same as mine (granted my college is relatively low paid). I've known more "famous" and respected scientists than myself and while they had reasonably nice houses, they were certainly not *rich* on par with doctors, lawyers and business professionals I have known.

In short, you're living in a dream world if you think scientists are remotely famous, powerful or rich.
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Y'all realize that medicine relies on evolution, right? That's why certain antibiotics eventually become ineffective. We see it in bacteria all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top