|
Astargath
|
 |
May 30, 2017, 01:47:54 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming. So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 02:19:19 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 30, 2017, 02:35:09 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. My points were clear, everything was taken in count and both your ''theories'' have been debunked, not by me but by any scientist that knows about evolution. What other reasoning a part from evolution theory can explain the same concepts, I would like to know. ''inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form'' Ok? So? There are billions of planets, sure it wasn't waiting around but it happened, obviously. ''Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts''. Yes it has because it's not random. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed, then maybe we are actually programmed, we are just a simulation, how can we tell? You obviously believe it's God for some reason, it might just as easily be a simulation. All of this by the way has nothing to do with evolution, the origin of the universe is another deal. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 02:50:33 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. My points were clear, everything was taken in count and both your ''theories'' have been debunked, not by me but by any scientist that knows about evolution. What other reasoning a part from evolution theory can explain the same concepts, I would like to know. ''inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form'' Ok? So? There are billions of planets, sure it wasn't waiting around but it happened, obviously. ''Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts''. Yes it has because it's not random. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed, then maybe we are actually programmed, we are just a simulation, how can we tell? You obviously believe it's God for some reason, it might just as easily be a simulation. All of this by the way has nothing to do with evolution, the origin of the universe is another deal. Oh, chuckle de chuckle. Your clearest point was all the limiting words used. There wasn't a single thing in what you said that was positive. It all had limiting words. After all, the moon "could have" been made of green cheese that converted to rock shortly after the first modern telescopes were invented.  The limiting words were used by the scientists. Such wording shows that they are designing a guesswork idea in evolution. Our usage of the word "random" is different from the meaning of pure random. We use the word random regarding things we are ignorant about and can't determined directly, because of our weakness. There isn't any pure random. Cause and effect isn't maybe. Your "then maybe" is simply you trying to find something to take the place of your flawed evolution ideals. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 30, 2017, 03:00:32 PM |
|
Show the the scientific investigation specifically that shows the records in the bible are honest and true. What you said there was a bunch of words but no evidence whatsoever. This would be fun. But it would take way too long. And the result would be at best uncertain, because you can't even understand that science proves that God exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. These sites and similar ones simply show apparent contradictions. They don't take into account the many explanations that rebut them.
The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Thank you for the second, last sentence. Since the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges, this shows that theories are not certain. Just because gravity is a fact, doesn't mean the theory of gravity has anything to do with the reality of why and how gravity acts as it does. The fact that there are numerous scientific laws and principles that prove evolution is impossible, shows us that theories are at best unknowns. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean the theory itself is unknown. Obviously, a theory is written down, and even contains some laws and facts in it, and might even contain basic principles listed in its pages. The thing that is the unknown is the thing that the theory is trying to prove. This is shown in the evolution idea, which has been proven to be impossible for many reasons, while at the same time, evolution theory ignores the proofs, and continues on its merry way as a theory. So, theories can exist without any relevance to the thing that they are trying to prove. Entropy shows us that there was a beginning to everything. Cause and effect show us that the start was completely different from whatever there was "before" it. Science doesn't tell us how the start was effected. So, through science we don't know anything about the start. The fact that there is complexity in the form of mind, emotion, intelligence, and especially cause and effect, in addition to much other great complexity, shows that the beginning was set in place by something fantastically more complex, even though we don't have a direct clue about that greater complexity. The closest we can come is that it matches the definition of "God" as we have "God" listed in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. In fact, our descriptions of God fall way short of the Greatness that He is. The biggest misconception that we have about evolution is, we don't consider that no matter the evolution theory, no matter what we include in the term evolution, no matter what millions of scientists say about evolution, whatever evolution is, it was all programmed into place through cause and effect. There is no random, even in the so-called mutations, of which we have never isolated a beneficial one, btw. It's all programming.So the answer is no, you don't have any scientific evidence showing the records in the bible are accurate. Moving on, evolution is not about the beginning of time nor about how mutations come in place, evolution theory does not say why exactly any mutation happens. It wouldn't even matter if everything was programmed to be like that because evolution would still exist, as I said you clearly do not understand what evolution tries to explain and you keep rambling about the beginning of the universe or life or how things are not random all of which are meaningless because evolution has nothing to do with them. Well, thank you. You are finally admitting that changes occur, and that you want to call them "evolution," and that nobody knows why or how it all works. Good work. Now, at least, you have a base from which to widen your knowledge and understanding. Which everyone calls evolution because that's what it is, the theory of evolution. I don't really understand what you mean by admitting that changes occur when I said it first that evolution is change, maybe you have a short memory. You are the one who has to admit that you were wrong, that evolution exists and you simply didn't know what it was. Multitudes of people consider that inanimate to human is what evolution is. Evolution theory is the whys and hows of the way it happened. There isn't any inanimate to human. There are many proofs that show that this couldn't happen, including probability math and Irreducible Complexity. Go ahead and play with the idea some call the theory of evolution. Lots of people play with all kinds of science fiction. Who are these people that you keep talking about?? Evolution theory as I said 10 times and you can search it's definition does not include the origin of life, do you have memory problems? We all have memory problems. Just because you say or write something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You can find people all over the Internet who include abiogenesis in evolution. By implication, evolution includes inanimate to life, even if it is not spoken directly. The evolutionary tree of Darwin and many others supposedly takes us back the original life form. That living form didn't exist forever and ever into the past, and all of a sudden decide to change a few million years ago. If not stated directly, by implication evolution suggests that the form started somewhere along the line. That makes abiogenesis part of evolution. You even state this at the bottom of your post.
Your proof is meaningless because there are already many experiments done showing that you can in fact create life from nonliving matter:
In 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested that hypothesis. They combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in sealed vials in attempt to replicate Earth’s original atmosphere. They bombarded the vials with heat and continuous electrode sparks to simulate volcanic activity and lightening. Eventually, the reaction produced a number of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins and, by extension, life itself.
And that was in 1952, there are many more experiments of this.
Yet it is not life. It is simply some amino acids^^^. And they weren't found forming in nature. People had to go to great lengths to manufacture them. All of the talk in evolution about life forms changing from one to another, can be explained by the idea that there always were multitudes of species that never changed, but always existed as their own species. In fact, this is the case, with multitudes of species dying out over thousands of years. This indicates devolution and entropy rather than evolution, with creation at the beginning. The whole idea of evolution as fact is sweet fiction, but it is fiction because it has never been proven. Probability math and Irreducible Complexity are just two of the things that show that evolution is impossible with regard to life. Probability math has been debunked many times already. http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.htmlThe calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have? If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-way-to-debunk-irreducible-complexity-to-an-evolution-denierhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails. You want systems that are robust (Steele 2000). Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001) change of function addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004) gradual modification of parts All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939). Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example: The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist. In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references). The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system. Posting flawed ''things'' that show evolution is impossible is not going to get you anywhere. Abiogenesis is self-destructive. Rust only gets worse with time. Any supposed life form would only be destroyed by age. It certainly would not wait around long enough to have the next atom or molecule added to take it the next step towards life. The whole abiogenesis/evolution idea works exactly backwards from anything seen in nature, from this simple fact alone. Regarding probability math, any debunking of it has not taken into account the complexity of nature as it really is. Before there was a first living cell, inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form. Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts. All of the genetic changes in life can be explained by other reasoning as well as the evolution story. Most of these changes fit either built in self-protection, or else the failure of that protection. On the outside it might look like evolution, but at the level of clarity, it is simply success or failure of protection mechanisms that are fighting the natural breakdown that occurs... from entropy if not some other chemical breakdown process. Cause and effect show that this is what is happening to all complexity, via entropy if nothing else. But, even if entropy were not happening, cause and effect all the way down to the subatomic level and beyond, show that the whole universe is programmed to happen just the way it "happens." There is no accidental happenings so that something like evolution might exist. No evolution. Simply built in protection mechanisms. At best, no change at all. Otherwise, devolution. My points were clear, everything was taken in count and both your ''theories'' have been debunked, not by me but by any scientist that knows about evolution. What other reasoning a part from evolution theory can explain the same concepts, I would like to know. ''inanimate material was not simply waiting around with the hopes that somehow life would form'' Ok? So? There are billions of planets, sure it wasn't waiting around but it happened, obviously. ''Probability math rebuttal has not taken into account the multitudes of things that would destroy every every molecular formation that moved towards the complexity of life... faster than iron rusts''. Yes it has because it's not random. Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed, then maybe we are actually programmed, we are just a simulation, how can we tell? You obviously believe it's God for some reason, it might just as easily be a simulation. All of this by the way has nothing to do with evolution, the origin of the universe is another deal. Oh, chuckle de chuckle. Your clearest point was all the limiting words used. There wasn't a single thing in what you said that was positive. It all had limiting words. After all, the moon "could have" been made of green cheese that converted to rock shortly after the first modern telescopes were invented. The limiting words were used by the scientists. Such wording shows that they are designing a guesswork idea in evolution. Our usage of the word "random" is different from the meaning of pure random. We use the word random regarding things we are ignorant about and can't determined directly, because of our weakness. There isn't any pure random. Cause and effect isn't maybe. Your "then maybe" is simply you trying to find something to take the place of your flawed evolution ideals. My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont. Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 03:08:54 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? |
|
|
|
af_newbie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2688
Merit: 1468
|
|
May 30, 2017, 03:18:36 PM
Last edit: May 30, 2017, 07:48:48 PM by af_newbie |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible for the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 03:35:57 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? |
|
|
|
af_newbie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2688
Merit: 1468
|
|
May 30, 2017, 03:48:35 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? You are smart, just not smart enough to understand why you are wrong. Religious brainwashing is clouding your reasoning. You want to defend your belief system because you don't want to be wrong. This behavior is no different from Flat Earther defending his 'proofs' of flat Earth, or a Muslim defending Islamism or Jihadism. You cannot objectively look at your predicament because you are too emotionally involved. Knowing that you could be wrong is a sign of intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 30, 2017, 03:51:35 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 04:05:46 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. |
|
|
|
af_newbie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2688
Merit: 1468
|
|
May 30, 2017, 04:17:04 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, or programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Evolution ' Theory' is as real as ' Theory of Gravity' or 'General Theory of Relativity'. It is not to say there is any doubt about what these theories describe. The theories describe what has been validated by observations. The term 'theory' used in this context is not the same as a colloquial use of that term as in "That stuff is theoretical we need concrete evidence". All scientific theories start as hypothesis, then become theories that go through review, validation and re-validation countless times, some are accepted as fact, some are rejected. Evolution, gravity and relativity are facts today. Not some wild guesses. Every scientist in the world was trying to disprove the above theories (some are still trying), with no luck. |
|
|
|
|
mostkey
|
|
May 30, 2017, 04:27:14 PM |
|
evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection,That means monkeys are a species that can survive to this day
Because of the complexity involved in the change, if it is natural selection, it means that nature is intelligent enough to select the right thing. I mean, it is attributing free will to nature to suggest that nature is selecting at all! More than likely, there is a God controlling the change. God above is in charge of the natural selection and we here can’i do anything about it, Without his permission we it's nothing, Looks like you are smart enough and understand a lot |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 04:36:48 PM |
|
evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection,That means monkeys are a species that can survive to this day
Because of the complexity involved in the change, if it is natural selection, it means that nature is intelligent enough to select the right thing. I mean, it is attributing free will to nature to suggest that nature is selecting at all! More than likely, there is a God controlling the change. God above is in charge of the natural selection and we here can’i do anything about it, Without his permission we it's nothing, Looks like you are smart enough and understand a lot Right. There isn't any natural selection. It is all God selection. |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 30, 2017, 05:07:36 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.” Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.” Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.” Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth. Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required. In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors. In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge. Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun" Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 30, 2017, 06:36:55 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.” Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.” Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.” Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth. Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required. In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors. In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge. Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun" Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try "So everything you wrote has been debunked easily." If you really want to go this chaotic route, this covers not only the things that I wrote, but all the things that everyone wrote. Especially it covers your writing of it, itself. So, we are back to where we were before you wrote it. Of course, if you would rather stick with this idea that you wrote, you might as well admit evolution is a hoax, or at least, science fiction. |
|
|
|
popcorn1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1027
|
|
May 30, 2017, 07:15:03 PM |
|
It's not |
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
May 30, 2017, 07:59:36 PM |
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed (by all-pervading cause and effect) evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.” Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.” Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.” Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Scientific laws are not considered absolute truths. In fact, the core philosophy of the scientific method is that no scientific fact is to be considered an absolute truth. Scientific laws and facts are either (1) derived directly from empirical results (eg: Ohm's law) or (2) theoretical constructions which help explain empirical facts (eg: Maxwell's electromagnetic theory). In either case, the validity of the fact/law is not absolute. Every such fact/law will have conditions in which it is valid, outside which the validity of the law is either unverified or disproved by empirical evidence. For example, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is valid for macroscopic scales, but fails when applied to subatomic scales. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a theory which is valid both in macroscopic as well as subatomic scales, and Maxwell's theory is a special case of QED. The validity of QED when applied to very high temperatures and pressures as in the Big Bang is limited, where a more general theory is required. In the same light, Ohm's law is not valid for all materials. For example, it does not work for semiconductors. In general, the scientific community attaches a confidence level to each scientific law/fact based on empirical evidence, experience and its consistency with the rest of the knowledge. Some theories are accepted to near-absolute status. Eg: "The earth is near-spherical", "The earth revolves around the sun" Some are accepted to such a degree that all other facts must be consistent with them. Eg: Theory of evolution, Atomic theory, Chromosome theory So everything you wrote has been debunked easily. Good luck with your next try "So everything you wrote has been debunked easily." If you really want to go this chaotic route, this covers not only the things that I wrote, but all the things that everyone wrote. Especially it covers your writing of it, itself. So, we are back to where we were before you wrote it. Of course, if you would rather stick with this idea that you wrote, you might as well admit evolution is a hoax, or at least, science fiction. You said that scientific laws can't be refuted and scientific theories are not laws therefore are bad and can be changed. I showed you that neither scientific laws or scientific theories are absolute. Science and scientists agree that nothing can really be proved 100% but we can definitely get close to it and as long as it works it's accepted. That's the most we can do. Evolution as I said previously has been used in many applications, maybe our understanding of evolution is not 100% accurate but it definitely works and can be applied to different areas, just like gravity, we can calculate gravity and apply it on different areas, maybe our understanding of it its not 100% accurate either but it works. Creationism does NOT, not a single application for it. |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
May 31, 2017, 12:44:34 AM |
|
You said that scientific laws can't be refuted and scientific theories are not laws therefore are bad and can be changed. I showed you that neither scientific laws or scientific theories are absolute. Science and scientists agree that nothing can really be proved 100% but we can definitely get close to it and as long as it works it's accepted. That's the most we can do. Evolution as I said previously has been used in many applications, maybe our understanding of evolution is not 100% accurate but it definitely works and can be applied to different areas, just like gravity, we can calculate gravity and apply it on different areas, maybe our understanding of it its not 100% accurate either but it works. Creationism does NOT, not a single application for it.
In the forum, and in life, we assume some basic standards. If we are going to be talking from the standpoint that nothing is absolute, our whole base of the way we talk about things has to change. If we are going to change to that kind of a base, it is something that we have to agree on in order to converse clearly. With regard to evolution, cause and effect show that it is a impossible, the way that science suggests it. There are many other things that show that it is impossible, such as probability math. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough. Depending on the definition of evolution that you are using, you can say anything about evolution that you want, and it might be true... depending on the definition. But that holds for anything. The standard definition of evolution that includes change that goes from inanimate material to life that we see today, and especially human life, is scientifically impossible. Some of the scientific principles that scientists say apply to evolution, are absolutely true. Not all evolution principles hold true for this (^^^) definition of evolution. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.Gravity works. Gravity theory is not known to properly fit or match working gravity, even though aspects of gravity theory might work with real gravity very well. Gravity theory might be the way that gravity works. We just don't know. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.Cause and effect, universal entropy, complex universe: are scientific laws and principles that, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that everything came into existence by Him... by the process of elimination... because that is the only way something like God (or even big bang) can be proven. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.Evolution is a hoax. At best, it is a religion among those who want to make fiction be stronger than reality. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
