1. I did and all of them are refuted, like I refuted them here and you couldn't even answer to them lol

2. I don't know how you think complexity shows any of that, mind explaining?

3. Im stating that there are successful experiments where they have created organic molecules from non living matter.

1.Prove it

2.They always existed like god

3.Abiogenesis

When has religion predicted or been applied to anything? In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple fell from a tree it would be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies. It's not just predicting a war or vague predictions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1917510.msg20244858#msg20244858

You don't study anything of what is said in the bible in your history class.

Throughout recorded history people have sought to understand their environment and to control it. When they could do neither, they invented gods to explain it. That's why the ancients had a god for every conceivable thing they might not understand or might need help with. (Imagine that you are an ancient parent and your child asks you "what causes thunder"? Not wishing to appear ignorant, you say something like "the god of thunder" is doing it or maybe "the angels are bowling!).

Over time, such explanations become cultural elements and people start to believe them (or at least pretend to believe them in order to curry favor). We see remnants of this in concepts like Santa Claus, which our society and culture "accept" and continue to promulgate to our children even though all adults know it is a myth.

Another factor is that these myths enable us to control the behavior of others. By telling the children to behave or Santa Claus will not give them gifts, we are coercing them via a lie. Throughout history, those in charge of tribes, nations, and such have used promulgated religion and exploited it in more or less the same way ("if you join the crusades and fight for Christianity your soul will be saved"; "if you blow yourself up in the marketplace, someone will send you 100 virgins"). Science has slowly chipped away at many religious beliefs, which is one reason why many religions are so antagonistic toward science.

You could basically make people do whatever you wanted, if you were a preacher or maybe the witch who sees the future and consults with the king. You could tell the people that God is angry and he needs this or that and they would obey, that's my definition of control.

Religion appeared because of ignorance. However people were smart enough to take advantage from it. As the other guy said, they would tell other people: Do this or this god will punish you, therefore achieving control over the population at the time.

Every scientific theory is backed up by evidence and proof, I don't know what you mean. Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself.

Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution. To be sure, scientific claims are based on, and tested against, evidence drawn from the natural world, rather than dictated by an authoritarian leadership. Therefore, and nonetheless, the scientists who have gathered and analyzed the data that have shaped the scientific understanding of evolution are surely the most qualified to speak as to the nature and weight of the physical evidence. Likewise, professional practitioners and researchers in science education are naturally best situated to remark on the value and relative importance of a given concept when it comes to the teaching and learning of science.

The scientific consensus it's achieved by looking at the evidence. There is no belief based on faith in science.

I'm not denying that it started like that but today, what evidence is there to support the idea of a god? Do you think religious people today have any sort of evidence or they just believe in what they believe based on faith? I can tell you that the majority of people (close to 100%) believe in their religion because that's what they were told, they didn't chose it.

And neither is religion, you only need your own logic and reasoning. How did religion in egypt make progress in maths? What did religion have to do with that? What understanding of the universe does judaism bring? Christianism did a lot of bad things as well. There is no need for religion specially when any religion definition starts with ''a set of beliefs'' and those set of beliefs aren't based on anything but faith.

You still haven't mentioned what applications. What would you need for someone to prove to you that evolution is real then? If there is something that can be done I'm sure scientists did it already so I still don't see the problem. The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.

If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.

Religion has no real applications for real life, otherwise tell me one. You seem to be stuck at, if it can't explain everything then it's wrong. The theory of evolution tries to explain a lot of things. We have fossils and dna to check what species evolved to what species, it's true that we don't know the exact process, then again you can't really know it unless you time travel. It's like proving a murder. You don't have to be there to prove it, dna + motive + murder weapon = guilty. It's the same here and this is the best we can do, at least right now.

It doesn't matter, you are locked into that. Just because it can't explain everything precisely doesn't mean it's wrong. We may never be able to know exactly how everything happened unless you time travel. It's still the only thing to go by, there is nothing else but evolution that tries to explain that. And so far people are finding useful applications for it. If you know of something better go win your nobel prize.

The theory of evolution is the only theory right now and it is backed up by a lot of evidence. Maybe there are parts of it that are wrong but there is no other theory that explains what evolution explains. In all these years people have tried to dismiss the evolution theory but no one has ever come up with something else. So far the theory of evolution is the best we have and it's working, as I previously said, it already has been applied to numerous things. It's useful.

Well it is true that we don't know exactly how every organ formed. For example there is good research on how the human eye evolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye) Even if we don't know specifically how everything formed that doesn't disprove evolution. We also don't know what gravity is exactly, we know how it works or how to calculate it but we don't really know why is there. The problem with this thread is that is called evolution is a hoax which would mean something like scientists deliberately made up this theory to lie to people for some reason. I know you don't believe that and it's always good to be skeptical about anything but most people here are uneducated about this matter and simply believe in god instead.

But that doesn't mean anything. It took a long time to get where we are. Every animal started as simple cells and eventually became more and more complex to the point of what we are now.

Well that's your opinion, however most scientists accept evolution as a fact. There is really no other theory proposed a part from crazy creationists. It is the best scientific theory right now and it works. If it works, it's good. Yes, obviously there are a lot of things we don't know but that doesn't mean evolution is false. I see that you are not a religious nut and you do accept the basics of the theory. As I said, there really is nothing else proposed to explain how animals or plants got to where they are.

Fair enough. Here is the problem with what you want. We cannot always have experiments or recreate anything. Scientifically we know how planets are formed or what a black hole is however we can't recreate any of it. We can however make predictions about evolution. Disproving evolution first requires to look at what the theory predicts and see where it can be shown to make incorrect predictions. It is easy to be side-tracked by specifics of the theory, such as individual evolutionary pathways of certain features, and confuse these with what would falsify the overall theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, many creationists do this whenever a new discovery is made in biology that causes scientists to rethink some pieces of evolution. To avoid this problem, it is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[3] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Cosmologists make precise predictions about what will happen to the universe in 20 billion years’ time. Biologists struggle to predict how a few bacteria in a dish might evolve over 20 hours. Some claim that this lack of precise predictive power means evolution is not scientific.

However, what matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right. Meteorologists don’t reject chaos theory because it tells them it is impossible to predict the weather 100% accurately – on the contrary, they accept it because weather follows the broad patterns predicted by chaos theory.

The difficulty in predicting the course of evolution arises partly because organisms are free to evolve in quite different directions. The descendants of a single species of ape living in Africa around 6 million years ago, for instance, ended up taking rather different paths; those that eventually led to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Such splits in populations might stem from tiny initial variations.

The evolutionary paths these apes took might also have been influenced by changes in the climate. As this shows, the history of life on this planet has been partly shaped by chance events. If an asteroid hadn’t wiped out the dinosaurs, the first intelligent life form might have been very different, if indeed human-like intelligence had evolved at all. If we could wind the clock back 4 billion years and let life evolve all over again, its course might be very different.

Perhaps the most striking prediction in biology was made in 1975 by entomologist Richard Alexander. After studying the evolution of eusocial insects such as termites, he predicted that some burrowing rodents in the tropics might have evolved the same eusocial system – as later proved to be the case with the naked mole-rat.

Evolutionary theory can and increasingly is being put to more practical use. For instance, if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, it is clear that resistant insect strains are likely to evolve. What is less obvious is that you can slow this process by growing regular plants alongside the GM ones, as was predicted and has turned out to be the case.

Many researchers developing treatments for infectious diseases now try to consider how resistance could evolve and find ways to prevent it, for instance by giving certain drugs in combination. This slows the evolution of resistance because pathogens have to acquire several mutations to survive the treatment.

You can see that evolution has many practical applications which really to me proves the truth of evolution

Im curious tho, are you the typical creationist or what? If you dismiss evolution what do you propose instead. I'm 99% sure that you will say god but maybe you surprise me.

Where is the experimental protocol to prove god? Or to make another universe? First of all, evolution is not about the origin of life. Second of all evolution has been observed in many ways. You can actually experiment with it if you wanted. Your claim is :

Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.


It's also obvious that you haven't studied evolution, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such stupid things like, make a human from a monkey... http://friendsofdarwin.com/misc/faq/why-still-monkeys/ I suggest you to read a bit before making stupid comments, otherwise you look stupid.