Why we shouldn't believe in evolution.

neologist wrote:

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

we can see the speciation of finches in the Galapogos ISlands , The Allegheny Cave rat, the Kaibab Squirrels, and the EThiopean wolves. These we can see from happenings in one or a few human generations and recorded data from several centuries past.
"Not being able to see" evolution has always been a coput for the Fundamentalists who try to insert their worldview into science.

I suppose we'll need" coal miners" for a few more centuries but I don't think an uneducated coal miner is a capable spokesman for evolution denial .

Seeing fossils in subsequent and adjacent strata of rock leads us to a "Conclusion" of evolutionary change over time. So far the Creationists haven't been able to cobble a compelling argument against these data. They've tried, but they've chosen their wordlview, POORLY.

Im always a bit skeptical over Brits who state that you dint have the same problems with a resurgent Creationist batch of religions in your country, yet most of th really wacky ID and Creation pushers seem to be Brit.

The Brits have a problem in their own education system if such science denial becomes mainstream, especially with all the Orthodox Muslim immigrants.

This clown represents a major problem in educating our kids . Kids are like sponges and will take up any cockamaymee silliness if presented with enough cartoons and simple minded explanations where thinking can be avoided and there is no "math requirement"
You need to enshrine the scientific method as a cornerstone of your science programs .
In the US we have a minor "flight to private parochial schools" that don't have any rigorous science requirements. Many of these and some Charter schools teach biology from the BIBLE and then wonder why kids have IQs lower than their pets. Then, to add to the sadness, they have their own "Higher Education" establishments that teach biology as a non accredited " pseudoscience" full of Biblical superstition and lies.

Its no wonder we have clowns like tho guy on board. We are allowing education to avoid excellence and , instead, become steeped in intolerance, superstition, and fraud.

Don't say I didn't warn you, You've gotta get involved in yur local ed boards and demand oversight in your science (and history) requirements

We never see a form evolving

but because forms don't evolve, they die out

So you see I'm not arguing against the fossil record.

I'm also not the slightest bit interested in religious or biblical texts and interpretations of that record, nor am I interested in the battle between religion and science in schools and text-books.

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I dare the original poster to state the theory of evolution. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponent's position correctly.

There is no definition.

So, you're asserting that a belief which you cannot state is false. You lose. Go ahead with the allegedly witty comebacks. You've lost the argument.

Quite right. A logical observation, one that I was aware of from the start. That is why I indicated that I cannot believe in evolution because nothing coherent has been presented for me to believe in.

You cannot state your debating opponent's position, but you assert that it is wrong. The theory of evolution has long been stated clearly in many, many places, free for you to look at, but you haven't bothered. You've skipped right to "it's wrong." Someone who cannot even state his debating opponent's position loses. You lose.

In order for you to have won, you would have had to know what the theory of evolution is and then given an argument that it is incorrect. You don't know what the theory is and merely repeat over and over that it's wrong. By any standard of logic or debate, you lose the argument.

I'm not saying that evolution is factually wrong, or right for that matter. I'm saying that there is no single, coherent topic that is called "evolution".

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

Yes, we can see the arising of new forms and the death of old forms. But we never see a form "evolving" - forms don't evolve. They die out and others take their place.

Nonsense. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution. Too bad you never bothered to acquaint yourself with the theory.

Evolution, yes. Speciation, no. They are still variations of the same bacteria. To avoid confusion, I prefer to use the word 'adaptation'.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Nonsense. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution. Too bad you never bothered to acquaint yourself with the theory.

Evolution, yes. Speciation, no. They are still variations of the same bacteria. To avoid confusion, I prefer to use the word 'adaptation'.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

Well, you have a point about different types of creatures. But, of course, you refer to them as creatures and have not yet shown any examples of speciation.

So how do you subject the Bible to scientific method which involves testing? Part of the challenge is that the Bible was not written as a scientific treatise to be understood only by intellectuals.

This is one method I use:
Regarding prophecy, many have objected that Biblical prophecies are merely history disguised as prophecy by subsequent writers. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus is taken as an example. But additional prophecy about Babylon tells that the city would be permanently destroyed, never to be rebuilt. The city was still in existence in the first century, long after the writings could have been subject to tampering. It's gone now. To be fair, I don't submit this example as certainty, rather as a touchstone for Bible examination.

There are many bible passages which present themselves as conundrums to a student. Each may and should be subject to similar scrutiny by any who search for the true God. Of course, one must first allow there may be a true God for whom to search. The study of evolution denies that approach upfront.

. . . . Show me evidence that anything in the Bible really happened (much less all of it).

Brandon9000 wrote:

. . . . Show me evidence that anything in the Bible really happened (much less all of it).

Well, the earth is here. Sorry for the facetiousness. I'll be back for more fun after the game.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

Yes, we can see the arising of new forms and the death of old forms. But we never see a form "evolving" - forms don't evolve. They die out and others take their place.

Nonsense. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution. Too bad you never bothered to acquaint yourself with the theory.

Brandon9000 wrote:

. . . . Show me evidence that anything in the Bible really happened (much less all of it).

Well, the earth is here. Sorry for the facetiousness. I'll be back for more fun after the game.

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

Yes, we can see the arising of new forms and the death of old forms. But we never see a form "evolving" - forms don't evolve. They die out and others take their place.

Nonsense. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution. Too bad you never bothered to acquaint yourself with the theory.

Forms don't evolve - they die and others take their place. That's the first obvious truth that is dropped in evolution debates.

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

Yes, we can see the arising of new forms and the death of old forms. But we never see a form "evolving" - forms don't evolve. They die out and others take their place.

Nonsense. The adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution. Too bad you never bothered to acquaint yourself with the theory.

Forms don't evolve - they die and others take their place. That's the first obvious truth that is dropped in evolution debates.

Then why is there always movement by bacteria in the direction of resistance to medicine, as opposed to, say, greater vulnerability?

Since you are utterly unable to state what evolution claims, I will state it. Living creatures which are better adapted to their environment tend statistically to survive more often. Therefore, traits which help a life form survive tend to spread through the gene pool, whereas bad traits tend to be edited out over time. Combining this with the occasional introduction of new traits by genetic accidents, the result is that over time, creatures become more and more suited to survival. This is how all existing species got to be what they are today. That's the theory of evolution.

When bacterial infections are treated with medicine, the first thing that happens is that some bacteria die before others do. The ones that last longer do so because of some combination of luck and a greater constitutional capacity to resist the drug. If some of them spread to other hosts before the sick person has killed all of them, statistically, it tends to be the ones that are hard to kill. Over time, the bacteria that are highly vulnerable to existing medicines die out and the ones that can resist more spread through the world. Combine this with the occasional introduction of a new trait by genetic mistake, and you have the bacteria in the world getting better and better at resisting the meds we have. This is exactly what is meant by evolution and is the exact same mechanism responsible for the development of the species we see in the world today.

All you seem able to do is repeat "no, no, no."