For those who don't believe evolution....

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;61557 wrote:

It is no more testable than to say that evolution happened by chance.

A. Genetic mutation is random, evolution is not. Evolution is guided by natural pressures.

and...

B. Evolution is testable, as i've already covered this is another thread, you can test it by testing predictions made based on the theory and by recreating it in the lab with bacteria, which is what they are doing right now.

Quote:

Evolution by chance has no control group and no way to make accurate predictions.

The theory of evolution by chance can not be falsified.

Is that your greatest object to evolution....chance? Because whether you like it or not your life is guided by chance.

Quote:

So far, all science has really been able to do in genetics is to prove that "Intelligent Design" is necessary to advance genetics in any meaningful way
since it has been fairly well documented that positive genetic change is far more likely with the aid of intelligence in a laboratory than by itself in nature.

there is a 100% chance that a beneficial mutation will occur, the issue here is how long it will take, given the age of the earth we know this process took a long time, so we can conclude it was a long process that diversified life on this planet, that rules out ID.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

:backtotopic:

:backtotopic:

:backtotopic:

:backtotopic:

This topic is about ERVs!

If you don't want to comment about ERVs then don't comment. There are plenty of threads to discuss the falsifiability of evolution compared to Intelligent Design so we are not going to discuss that here...

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Quote:

If you don't want to comment about ERVs then don't comment. There are plenty of threads to discuss the falsifiability of evolution compared to Intelligent Design so we are not going to discuss that here..

Great word...

0 Replies

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;61568 wrote:

Or confirmed.

Two sides of the same coin.

When you use a theory to test something, you are in effect attempting to falsify it. There's a chance that the facts could invalidate some of the current data, there's a chance it could fly in the face of everything you know.

With ID/Creationism, all you need to say is "DESIGNERDIDIT". This is not scientific, nor is it evidence.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;61784 wrote:

Two sides of the same coin.

When you use a theory to test something, you are in effect attempting to falsify it. There's a chance that the facts could invalidate some of the current data, there's a chance it could fly in the face of everything you know.

With ID/Creationism, all you need to say is "DESIGNERDIDIT". This is not scientific, nor is it evidence.

This is no more or less scientific than the "DESIGNERDIDNOTDOIT" school of thought.

2 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62337 wrote:

This is no more or less scientific than the "DESIGNERDIDNOTDOIT" school of thought.

Incorrect. You need solid, peer reviewed evidence in order to challenge a standing theory. Your tests must be able to be reproduced several times over and subsequently validated through peer review. The data must be conclusive.

For creationism/ID, there is no data. None whatsoever. The general line is "Science cannot explain it, so there must be a designer!" That doesn't work. You need to show evidence of this designer before you attribute acts to it.

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62337 wrote:

This is no more or less scientific than the "DESIGNERDIDNOTDOIT" school of thought.

Yes, because the whole purpose of science is to disprove your mythologies.

and yes i am being sarcastic.

0 Replies

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;62339 wrote:

Incorrect. You need solid, peer reviewed evidence in order to challenge a standing theory. Your tests must be able to be reproduced several times over and subsequently validated through peer review. The data must be conclusive.

For creationism/ID, there is no data. None whatsoever. The general line is "Science cannot explain it, so there must be a designer!" That doesn't work. You need to show evidence of this designer before you attribute acts to it.

You also need to show evidence of no designer before you can definitely attribute acts to have not come from that source.

Oh yes, and please, please, please show me the multiple reproducible tests showing macro-evolution.

1 Reply

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;61568 wrote:

Or confirmed.

Exactly

0 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62355 wrote:

You also need to show evidence of no designer before you can definitely attribute acts to have not come from that source.

Oh yes, and please, please, please show me the multiple reproducible tests showing macro-evolution.

You are incorrect yet again!

You cannot prove a negative, i.e. you cannot say "prove that (thing) does not exist". It doesn't work that way. Watch:

The center of the earth is creamy nougat and almonds. Prove that it isn't.

Now, for your reproducible tests of so-called "macro-evolution".

Lonicera fly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primula Kewensis is also a directly observed instance of speciation, what the creationists call "macro-evolution". Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

Also research the Culex pipiens, known as the London Underground Mosquito.

Read my quote to understand why I am still laughing.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

"You cannot prove a negative"

Exactly.

Thank you.

2 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62364 wrote:

"You cannot prove a negative"

Exactly.

Thank you.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :rofl:

You just don't understand, stop trying to pretend you do. Ask for help and yee shall have it. I am sure if you ask nicely and are willing to learn Sabz can walk you through some of it and the rest you can learn for yourself.

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;62371 wrote:

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :rofl:

You just don't understand, stop trying to pretend you do. Ask for help and yee shall have it. I am sure if you ask nicely and are willing to learn Sabz can walk you through some of it and the rest you can learn for yourself.

You don't understand. I believe without a doubt that microevolution is real. I suspect that macroevolution is true, as well. I strongly believe that the Earth is millions, if not billions, of years old and that the universe is billions of years old.

I have no problem with any of that.

My problem is with the arrogance with which these well researched theories are taught, the arrogance and power play involved in trying to minimize or silence the voice of any oppositional viewpoint and the conclusion that we not only know how (which we can not really know but can make some really good educated guesses about) the universe, the Earth, and life on Earth happened but also what was or was not the driving force behind how they happened.

Science does not answer the question of what did or did not set these somewhat provable and studiable events into motion and you would have much greater validity, in my mind, if you did not try to make it.

0 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62364 wrote:

"You cannot prove a negative"

Exactly.

Thank you.

So what negative exactly am I trying to prove? Remember, you're the one asking for proof something does not exist.

Per your quote: You also need to show evidence of no designer

Again, you are talking out of your backside.

The "arrogance" you speak of does not come from the science side of the playing field. It comes from the religious side, wanting their "intelligent design" taught in schools. They want their ideas put on the same level as scientific theory, yet refuse to go through the same avenues as scientific research. They instead use political pressure and attempt to circumvent the processes that all scientific research (this includes evolutionary biology) must pass through in order to be considered scientific theory and fact. They do no research, bring forth no data, never attempt once to show credible evidence for their claims, have no falsifiable claims, no testable claims...

yet they want their views taught alongside scientific theory.

That is arrogance.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;62373 wrote:

So what negative exactly am I trying to prove? Remember, you're the one asking for proof something does not exist.
.

No. I am asking you to acknowledge that you have no proof that something does not exist or to give me the proof that it does not. Big difference.

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62378 wrote:

No. I am asking you to acknowledge that you have no proof that something does not exist or to give me the proof that it does not. Big difference.

Incorrect yet again! Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.

Proving something does not exist is a logical fallacy. It simply does not work that way. Never is something proven not to exist. In order to acknowledge the existence of something, you must have evidence of it. If there is no evidence of its existence, then it does not exist. Plain and simple.

It's not for me to prove something doesn't exist... it's for you to prove that it does. I can use your logic to say that pink unicorns exist or that there's an invisible pterodactyl on your chair and say that because you cannot prove that they don't exist, that they must exist.

So, acknowledge that you have no proof that there isn't an invisible pterodactyl perched on your chair (I call him Charlie) or prove that it doesn't exist.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;62379 wrote:

Incorrect yet again! Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.

Proving something does not exist is a logical fallacy. It simply does not work that way. Never is something proven not to exist. In order to acknowledge the existence of something, you must have evidence of it. If there is no evidence of its existence, then it does not exist. Plain and simple.

It's not for me to prove something doesn't exist... it's for you to prove that it does. I can use your logic to say that pink unicorns exist or that there's an invisible pterodactyl on your chair and say that because you cannot prove that they don't exist, that they must exist.

So, acknowledge that you have no proof that there isn't an invisible pterodactyl perched on your chair (I call him Charlie) or prove that it doesn't exist.

Thank you for admitting that you can not prove an absence of God.

2 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62380 wrote:

Thank you for admitting that you can not prove an absence of God.

Thanks for not being able to prove the existence of God.

Oh, by the way, Charlie the Invisible Pterodactyl says to feed him.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;62381 wrote:

Thanks for not being able to prove the existence of God.

Oh, by the way, Charlie the Invisible Pterodactyl says to feed him.

I was not trying to prove the existence of God. Rather, I was showing that you could not show Gods non-existence.

As for Charlie the Pterodactyl, feed him then, if you feel so inclined. Afterall, you are the one that heard him (and Darwin) speak.

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62383 wrote:

I was not trying to prove the existence of God. Rather, I was showing that you could not show Gods non-existence.

As for Charlie the Pterodactyl, feed him then, if you feel so inclined. Afterall, you are the one that heard him (and Darwin) speak.

The complete lack of evidence is enough to show that he does not exist. In order for something to exist, there must be observable evidence of such. If there's no evidence, there's no existence. I need nothing more than that.

The default is always non-existence. Evidence shows existence. Do you have any evidence of the existence of God?

The fact that the only way you can keep up this debate is to use flawed arguments and logical misstatements speaks loudly as well.

How can I feed Charlie? He's over there with you. He's perched on your monitor now.

2 Replies

For those who don't believe evolution....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know