scientists against evolution | Evolution is not science
https://evolutionisntscience.wordpre...nst-evolution/
Not that it really means anything, but you posted a video with just over 6000 views and has a like rate of about 33%.
Basically, most people understand the guy who made this video doesn't know what the he is talking about... and I agree with them. The moment he mentions "observational science" his gets put in the flusher.... Evolution is not "observational" at all except in the context of fossil records...... The time frames we are talking about exceeds millenniums, not decades..... At least not in the context of what we are discussing.
Last edited by phyzik; 08-19-2015 at 01:43 AM.
You missed my point.
This latter fact reveals another point about evolution that is frequently misunderstood, especially by Fundamentalist Christians. Such people are used to having a rigidly defined dogma, in which there is only black or white, and all facts are either true or false, with very little room for error or debate. Thus*****they see scientists arguing among themselves about the finer points of evolution**************, and come to the conclusion that the theory is on the verge of collapse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists realize that no theory, be it gravitation, quantum physics or electrodynamics, can be completely proven. All we can do is say that a particular theory is probably true, based on all available evidence. This leaves open the possibility that further information might require a modification of some of the details of the theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have mentioned I'm 6-2 275 pounds. Now according to one of those charts I'm a fatso. If we just go with the numbers, yep, a porker.
More numbers....5-6 200 pounds....once again accordingb to that chart, another porker. I;ve been lifting for 50 years, in a word...thick. The 5-6 200 pounds is Mr.Olympia Franco Columbo. So things aren't always what sdience says they are.
Last edited by Avante; 08-19-2015 at 01:49 AM.
Do I REALLY have to explain how a scientific theory works again? The theory of evolution has been around for over 100 years.... there has been ample time to debunk it..... Every time a fossil is found, the "theory" of evolution is tested.... EVERY ING TIME A FOSSIL IS FOUND EVOLUTION IS PUT TO THE TEST.....
If just ONE... ONE SINGLE FOSSIL.... was found out of the predictive model of evolution, evolution would be debunked.... It is really that simple.
People don't like to think about it, but the theory of evolution is the MOST ROBUST theory we have in almost any science, including the theory of gravity. I don't see you guys attacking that "theory".
Then ya wonder why you sre considered a joke. Look at yourself little guy, who the you talking to, it certainly isn;t me with that tone. Now ya wanna drop your punk ass bull and try it again er?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YA ING MORON...well?
ummm.... honestly, no, I don't understand what you are saying... What was your argument against my post again? That I need to watch my back because of some e-thug? Ok...
That doesn't invalidate my points..... but OK. You are the bigger e-thug when you lose an argument I guess.... Congrats???
Come on Mouse, even you have to be cringing at this response from your ally....
Last edited by phyzik; 08-19-2015 at 02:07 AM.
You really this ing stupid? You want to play teacher acting like a ing jerk, good luck with that ya ing asshole. What argument are you talking about? Yes scientists still argue evolution, yes it is not a proven fact it all went down like that. So I lost nothing, now go suck a ok er?
RAGE MOOORE!!!! It will validate your argument!!!!!!!!
Whatever "scientist" you are talking about that "argue" evolution, I would like to see some names.... The FACT is that the THEORY of EVOLUTION has been tested time and time again.... in fact, EVERY SINGLE TIME a fossil has been found, it has passed the test... until we find a fossil that defeats the predictive model of evolution, it is the correct model to follow regardless of what you, or even I, want to believe. Keep raging for your unicorn ed sky daddy with a 4 leaf clover for a bush and a pot of gold in his ass crack..... or whatever insane nonsense you want to believe...
Last edited by phyzik; 08-19-2015 at 02:24 AM.
What are you re ed? Didn't I just show you where....THE ARGUE AMONG THEMSELVES...well? Are you paying any attention at all?RAGE MOOORE!!!! It will validate your argument!!!!!!!!
Whatever "scientist" you are talking about that "argue" evolution, I would like to see some names.... The FACT is that the THEORY of EVOLUTION has been tested time and time again.... in fact, EVERY SINGLE TIME a fossil has been found, and has passed the test... until then, it is the correct model to follow regardless of what you, or even I, want to believe. Keep raging for your unicorn ed sky daddy with a 4 leaf clover for a bush and a pot of gold in his ass crack.
You wanna talk to me er you be cool , got it?
No stupid we didn't evolve rom fish and if you think we did then stop wasting my tine. got it?
wow, raging so much you are forgetting how to type.... you are almost incoherent now.... I'll let you sleep a bit before I continue to break you down.... You are correct though, we didn't evolve from fish directly.... we evolved from amoeba which predate fish and eventually evolved into them.... but I digress... Get some rest so I don't hurt your little brain with all this complicated stuff.
That won't work half pint, you trying to break somebody down, hahahaha!!!!!!!!! You're getting broke down idiot. Too dumb to see it.
Look at where I have you, yep....OWNED!
Well yeah, I've finished wasting time talking evolution facts with you. It's all here in this thread for you to read
It's true, I'm just here to call you lazy, stupid and fat to watch you blow a fuse. Maybe say something hilarious again like how there are no hillbillies in Arkansas.
Still entertaining imo tbh.
Your original statement, "I just don't believe that natural evolution could produce a human" implied the [therefore natural evolution could not produce the human species]. If that is not the case, then you will need to clarify. Until then:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
P1: One can't imagine how X could be true.
[your direct quote]"I just don't believe that natural evolution would have taken us to this point."
C1: X is false.
[your implied conclusion] [Therefore natural evolution producing humans is false]
QED
Whether you believe it or not, has no bearing on the ultimate truth of the matter, especially for anyone else. If you want to be butthurt over someone pointing out your flawed thinking, that is also your prerogative, that butthurt will not make the flawed thinking magically valid.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 08-19-2015 at 09:24 AM.
Well, it is hard to tell if he is stupid AND lazy. Lazy would be practically indistinguishable from stupid in this case:
Repeating the same failed arguments over and over again could easily be caused by sheer laziness. It is also consistent with real stupidity.
The data are inconclusive, IMO. , Avante could be, as you suggest, stupid AND lazy.
One bit against absolute laziness, is him sticking around in this thread.
Hard to tell, hard to tell.
His lazy attempts to understand evolution result in continued ignorance, ergo he's staying stupid.....imo.
Then maybe it was my fault. I meant humans as we are today.
Not butthurt. But everyone including you is to dismiss the possibility of alien influence. There have been accounts going thousands of years back about visitors from other worlds. It's natural to assume that a race so advanced would interfere on some level with life on earth.
Meteorite Impacts on Ancient Oceans --"May Have Created the Genetic Molecules That Led to Life"
A new study shown that meteorite impacts on ancient oceans may have created nucleobases and amino acids. Researchers from Tohoku University, National Ins ute for Materials Science and Hiroshima University discovered this after conducting impact experiments simulating a meteorite hitting an ancient ocean.
With precise analysis of the products recovered after impacts, the team found the formation of nucleobases and amino acids from inorganic compounds. The research is reported this week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
All the genetic information of modern life is stored in DNA as sequences of nucleobases. However, formation of nucleobases from inorganic compounds available on prebiotic Earth had been considered to be difficult.
In 2009, this team reported the formation of the simplest amino acid, glycine, by simulating meteorite impacts. This time, they replaced the carbon source with bicarbonate and conducted hypervelocity impact experiments at 1 km/s using a single stage propellant gun (Figure 2).
They found the formation of a far larger variety of life's building blocks, including two kinds of nucleobases and nine kinds of proteinogenic amino acids. The results suggest a new route for how genetic molecules may have first formed on Earth.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ce%2C+Tech.%29
So how did the aliens reach their advanced state of being?
No idea. And I don't discount the possibility that the aliens are ourselves in the future coming back and tinkering. But that opens up another can of worms.
In any event, it's interesting to think about but in reality right now, isn't significant to what I do on a day to day basis. Whether it's straight evolution or part alien design, it doesn't matter.
I spend some time thinking about it but I don't do any significant research other than reading about ideas here or there. I'm obviously too busy for that.
Well your alien thoughts fall flat because of that conundrum
I don't dismiss it as impossible. I just don't see any evidence of alien influence sufficient to prove such a large assertion.
There have been accounts going back thousands of years that the sun is a flaming chariot, being driven by a magic man. That doesn't mean the nearest star is a flaming chariot.
You have taken some vague evidence, and used cognitive bias to see "visitors from other worlds".
Basically, the same logical flaw that shows "visitors from other worlds", is used to prove "God did it", i.e. the argument from ignorance.
The bigger the claim, the better the evidence required to accept that claim as true, for any rational person.
I have seen the evidence presented for this ancient alien theory, and it is about as weak as it gets, in terms of actually supporting the theory it is supposed to back.
Let's see what else we can prove with "there have been accounts going back thousands of years, therefore X is true".
There have been accounts of pixies going back thousands of years, therefore, pixies bring blessings on humans that are kind to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie
There have been accounts of witches for thousands of years, so therefore, some women can cast magic spells.
There have been accounts of misshapen greedy goblins for thousands of years, so therefore goblins are mining under the earth for gold.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
