20
   

Is the theory of evolution correct?

 
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 05:15 am
I've never known a religionist to have a strong argument which disputes the theory of evolution. You're just playing idiotic word games now.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 05:30 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.

Only "religionists" with weak arguments say that.
So, there are religionists with strong arguments?

Nice dodge.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 05:33 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I've never known a religionist to have a strong argument which disputes the theory of evolution. You're just playing idiotic word games now.
I can accept it as a theory. . . Well, I would prefer to use the word hypothesis.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 05:35 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.
Only "religionists" with weak arguments say that.
So, there are religionists with strong arguments?
Nice dodge.
I thought it quite clever, actually.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 05:44 am
@neologist,
It's not an hypothesis, despite your preferences. It's a theory, and you're playing another word game. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and you're attempting a dodge, as Roswell points out.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 06:01 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It's not an hypothesis, despite your preferences. It's a theory, and you're playing another word game. Theory has a specific meaning in science, and you're attempting a dodge, as Roswell points out.
OK, it's not worth an argument. Still, there are many who aver evolution to be fully established fact. With these I disagree.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 06:47 am
@neologist,
Theory is as close as science ever comes to asserting fact. No genuine scientist would say that the theory of evolution is an indisputable fact, rather that it has been established through observation and experimentation, has not been falsified, and explains all the known data. (No reputable scientist is averring theory to be indisputable fact.)

For a good definition of a scientific theory, check out Wikipedia:

Quote:
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. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.


I assure you that science and scientists are indifferent to your disagreement.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 07:42 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Macro Evolution- more difficult to grasp and impossible to replicate.



I always wondered where the bounds of this "Macro evolution " begin and end?

All the facts that underpin the Theory of Evolution have never been refuted by any of the religionist "scientists"

They try their damndest to cut away the basis upon which evolutions theory rests.


1 That The earth is very old--Every time they try to shoot this one, they shoot themselves in the foot. Their arguments now rely upon a total arbitrariness in the lengthof a second or the speed of light. Thus giving them an out for a young earth.

2 That Species arent evolutionarily related-genetics shows quite the contrary and also shows how closely genomes reside among species and how minimal genetic changes affetc phenotypes of organisms.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 07:46 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
. . . I assure you that science and scientists are indifferent to your disagreement.
That's OK. I never expected to change their opinions.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 07:53 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Still, there are many who aver evolution to be fully established fact.


Its a game of facts and evidence. Can you name ANY evidence that supports Creationism or ID?
There are many gaps in the theory of evolution but so far, theres no data or evidence to bring it into question and the mass of scientific data in its favor just keeps mounting. In the last 10 years weve seen the location and description of at least two more "transitional fossils" that span biological classes (ie fish to amphibians and proto chordates to fish). Ive always wondered whether a capricious god just happened to place these compelling pieces of data out there in perfect stratigraphic locations just to fool us? That would mean that she still didnt get over being a total narcissistic sociopath as she was in the OT.

A biblical account of the history of the earth and a Creation event is, after all evidence free. Supporting such a worldview based on a total lack of evidence is bad science
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 08:00 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
. . . 1 That The earth is very old--Every time they try to shoot this one, they shoot themselves in the foot. Their arguments now rely upon a total arbitrariness in the lengthof a second or the speed of light. Thus giving them an out for a young earth.
There are many who are wont to interpret the creative days as 24 hours in length. But anyone seriously considering Genesis 2:4 would have to conclude that the days are simply unspecified time periods, as in the expression "my grandfather's day". Add to that the oft unnoticed fact that the 7th creative day has not yet ended provides many years to accomplish a creative work which, BTW, did not start until Genesis 1:2.
farmerman wrote:
2 That Species arent evolutionarily related-genetics shows quite the contrary and also shows how closely genomes reside among species and how minimal genetic changes affetc phenotypes of organisms.
I'm no expert on this, so any cut and paste I may attempt would be just that: acceptance of someone else's opinion. I'll stick with what I know the Bible actually says.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 08:12 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
. . . A biblical account of the history of the earth and a Creation event is, after all evidence free. Supporting such a worldview based on a total lack of evidence is bad science
You all know about my friend, Joe Sixpack, the quintessential common man. The bible was written for him to understand. All he needs to know is that the various plants and animals were created according to their kinds. (Genesis 1: 12,21,25). In fact, that is all anyone needs to know about creation. Everything else is icing.

God created grapes. It didn't take a genius to figure out how to make wine.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 08:19 am
@neologist,
Certainly not, especially as their opinions are based on sound, abundant evidence, and your opinion is based on wishing and hoping.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 08:29 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Certainly not, especially as their opinions are based on sound, abundant evidence, and your opinion is based on wishing and hoping.
What I wish for would no doubt get me in trouble.
What I hope for is probably the same as you would hope for. Stuff like world peace, cures for disease, stuff like that.
What I know is few people have even the slightest idea of what the Bible actually says.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 10:01 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
What I know is few people have even the slightest idea of what the Bible actually says.

It's a subjective document, translated hundreds if not thousands of times. Nobody knows what it actually says (or said).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 10:12 am
@neologist,
What the "bible" actually says is a matter of no consequence in a discussion of the theory of evolution. The subject here is not your favorite fairy tales.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 02:01 pm
@Setanta,
I dont think what we say will have any impact on true believers. Im gonna move on to a Bible-free science discussion
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 02:14 pm
I agree that we're dealing with invincible ignorance. However, it is worth pointing out. You sure gotta give that flood joker credit for persistence . . . i guess . . .
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 03:24 pm
In my opinion, the theory of evolution allows many people to live in close proximity, all espousing the theory of evolution. However, for those that do not believe in the theory of evolution, that allows those people to cluster in certain regions, and not be inundated by those that do believe in the theory of evolution. Interestingly, the two groups correlate along religious and ethnic lines, in my opinion. In effect, I see the theory of evolution functioning as way for different groups to maintain their own turf, so that group clannishness can prevail.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 04:00 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I agree that we're dealing with invincible ignorance. However, it is worth pointing out. You sure gotta give that flood joker credit for persistence . . . i guess . . .
I have to challenge you and Farmer from time to time.
Now don't take this wrong . . . .
I respect your comments and value your input.

'Course, I think you are all wet from that flood and all
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 09:16:50