Proof of Evolution
- Thread starter Vaiyen
- Start date
Morlock
New member
predz23: "I just find it hard to believe that Singaporeans, in Singapore (which is pretty damn developed as a country and city), in the 21th century, using scientific products everyday, still question the well accepted, well proven theory of evolution."
a few hundreds of years ago people all believed that the world is flat. they also thought that they are a pretty well developed civilization... Majority Vote does not make anything a fact! Observable Evidence does and that is what science is all about.
predz23: "Scientists still argue about evolution, but not about the theory itself. They argue about the evolution of certain things, how things evolved, whether or not whales evolved from mammals etc. But not evolution itself."
This is because scientists who tries to open up thier minds and explore that evolution might be false gets fired/repremanded/expelled.
Einstien: "God does not play dice"
Newton: "“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”"
a few hundreds of years ago people all believed that the world is flat. they also thought that they are a pretty well developed civilization... Majority Vote does not make anything a fact! Observable Evidence does and that is what science is all about.
predz23: "Scientists still argue about evolution, but not about the theory itself. They argue about the evolution of certain things, how things evolved, whether or not whales evolved from mammals etc. But not evolution itself."
This is because scientists who tries to open up thier minds and explore that evolution might be false gets fired/repremanded/expelled.
Einstien: "God does not play dice"
Newton: "“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”"
Last edited:
oh man i found proof of evolution:
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pokémon_by_evolution_family
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pokémon_by_evolution_family
predz23
New member
Maybe they get "fired/repremanded/expelled" because they're idiots who try to disguise their religion as scientific fact. Michael Behe is one, he still has his job. But he claims the bacterial flagellum is so irreducibly complex that it could not have evolved, that it must be designed. He says the bacterial flagellum is like an engine, parts on their own are useless but together they form the flagellum. Design you say?!?! WRONG!!! because if you remove the flagellum itself, what gets left behind is the 'base'. Should be useless right? WRONG!!! it becomes the Type III secretory system
Here's another quote from Einstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
As for Newton, it doesn't say anything. The smartest people in the world don't apply their critical thinking to everything. Newton left "god" in the protective bubble in his mind, free from critical thinking. His quote is jut like any other creationists: "It's complicated, it must be designed"
growlingsoulpup
New member
Look, I really don't know how you can call yourself a proponent of the scientific method and still slam people for questioning "well accepted, well proven" theories. None of us would be anywhere if scientists didn't question theories that were considered well accepted and well proven. That's the whole point of science, to constantly doubt and prove the proven. If evolution is true and stands up to scrutiny why are you so worked up about people proving, or trying to disprove it? Know the truth and the truth will set you free. When it comes to science, the stronger, more logically consistent theory will always win out.
growlingsoulpup
New member
This quote reveals all that is wrong with your logic. If you start with the pre-conception that everyone religious is an idiot, and that anyone who tries to examine religion with the scientific method is out to push a religious agenda, you're obviously gonna end with with a flawed conclusion.
You keep accusing others of derailing this thread by bringing in religion, but really, how many times have you made unprovoked attacks in your own arguments on religion? Your biasedness is patently unscientific.
predz23
New member
Because they question evolution so they can deceive the public to favor creationism (american creationists). Scientists will poke holes in theories, and provide evidence for or against theories. Creationists don't do that because they have religious agenda. They provide no evidence for anything they are for nor against, and rely on lack of evidence, that is NOT scientific. As for your last sentence, that was the whole intention until the debate derailed...
LOL I never had a preconception that everyone religious is an idiot. the ones I called idiots were those that were trying to turn their religions into science using flawed logic and lack of evidence. YOU made that assumption, I didn't.
My intention was never about the religious, it was talking about the flawed creation/creator argument. when I said that thing about aliens worshipping Jesus, the first reply was "hahaha", maybe it was a joke? maybe I already said they were random thoughts I had at the time.
" If you start with the pre-conception that everyone religious is an idiot, and that anyone who tries to examine religion with the scientific method is out to push a religious agenda"
No thats wrong, no creationist examined religion using science, they take apart science and rip it apart for religion. If anything they examined science using religion, not the other way around
Last edited:
Morlock
New member
again using dirty tactics to prove a point.
theliverevolution
New member
Actually, for once I agree with growingsoulpup. It's quite clear where some people stand on this issue, and some people believe in Creation. However, we've been using facts to try to prove and disprove Creation and purposely avoided using religion, you've been taking a few pot shots here and there at religion, and it seems that your agenda is to disprove creation at all will, without proving your case for evolution much
predz23
New member
2.Changing the subject
I didn't change the subject, it got changed by others from one of my comments
14. Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic
nobody here has given me the idea that they are a full blown creationist, there was a question directed at me, why so harsh on creationists? And I said because of Americans. So far I've had the idea of arguing with evolution doubters rather than creationists, thats why I've mentioned the americans
21.Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate
The question I made was to point out their own holes in creationist claims, since they're so keen on lack of evidence. That ended up backfiring and going downhill
I don't remember taking pot shots at religions. I remember saying where the creator came from, then someone said God is defined as being eternal. THEN the conversation went downhill because the argument became religious definitions of God, and how I said the argument talks itself out of it
theliverevolution
New member
Let me bring you back to what you said, Post no. 266:
I'm sorry, but you are that someone who answered the question, and the way you type out your words was quite satirical.
ymmak
New member
Isnt that changing the topic? Didnt I mention you dont have to answer the questions I asked?
predz23 said:
How convenient to simply ask a rhetorical question, refute the responses given, then downplay the impact of your comments on religion, and then emphasize the ambiguity of religion, just to prove your point.
All those scientific articles and your evaluation of them are itself quite substantial in supporting evolution. But every now and then, you have resorted to discrediting creation, villainizing creationists, and asking rhetorical questions like "who created the creator?". Sigh. Since evolution still has many "lacks of evidences" , it is inevitable that others (so happen they are the creationists) will challenge the theory. Instead of trying to reconcile those evidence, once in a while, you turned to picking the ambiguities of creationisms, in order to have the final say. How convenient. If nobody here, as you have mentioned, falls under your category of full-blown creationist, then why attack creationism? So what if creationism turns out to be untrue at the end of the day, does that make evolution "truer"?
Look, I see a good discussion on the age of the earth. As the theory of evolution works well with the "Earth is millions of years old", a good debate on the age of the earth will certainly contribute to discussion on evolution. I regret that I am not an expert in carbon-dating and stuff, thus I did not contribute. But if you could, you should concentrate on that discussion, rather than going around villainizing creationism.
Last edited:
predz23
New member
Thats what I meant with talking himself out, because I've heard this before. Where did the creator come from? the answer is God is eternal?! I say creator needs a creator, then the religious say "god" is eternal.
I said creator because its about creationism, but then I said God because thats what I thought the pastor would say. Because with creationism, when does Creator end and God begin? I was trying to show the religious agenda behind creationism. I bash creationism because it has religious agenda, but that doesn't mean I'm bashing religion
growlingsoulpup
New member
And how do you know that their intent is to deceive the public to favour creationism? You ass.u.me. You can't prove their agenda, no one can unless you read their minds.
That entire statement is unfounded and cannot be proven. How many more unfounded statements are you gonna make in the name of science?
growlingsoulpup
New member
Look, everyone will have an agenda. EVERYONE. Pharmaceutical companies do their research with a commercial agenda. What's wrong with having a motivation? What should be important is the rigours and logic of the thinking behind a particular study. Are you gonna discount a study adhering to the scientific method simply because of the motivation? That's biasedness right there. How much more unscientific can you get? If I were to use your logic, I would discount every single one of your posts right now because you have an anti-religion agenda.
Last edited:
predz23
New member
Doesnt "hahaha" clarify that it was a joke?
In creationism there is a creator, so I ask that question, I derailed the discussion, but not into a religious one. Yeah I discredit creation, because of creatioNISM, not the allmighty. I told you, the creationist I villanize are the american ones, I never had the idea on this thread that I was talking to a real creationist
Because it becomes obvious, after watching a lot of debates turn unscientific, words being twisted and using pure faith
in the name of science? is it my religion? I posted a cartoon ages ago, where the creationist has the conclusion first and looks for the facts later. Their tactics are to discredit evolution and get creationism taught in schools. And the statement isn't really unfounded. They talk about lack of evidence in evolution, and suddenly they've the answer to life, how life came about, how the universe came about etc. They suddenly have all the answers that evolution was never suppose to answer. It tells you they're unscientific
Theres nothing wrong with having an agenda, but what the agenda is, is important. American creationists, even though they have a religious motivation, are still not using the scientific rigours and logic behind science.
Pharmaceutical companies want to make money, but they use science to create the right drug. All they want is money, but they use proper science to create the proper drug.
Creationists (again american ones) want people to teach creationism in schools and pretend its a real science. They spend more time trying to get creationism taught in their schools then they do trying to prove it
Last edited:
predz23
New member
Thats the only thing that made absolutely sense to me in the last five pages. I understand now. But on a bonus note now you understand, the problem with creationists, because they only talk about holes in evolution. What if evolution is to be false tomorrow? it doesn't make creationism any truer. I've said that before, but nobody said anything
I already stopped villanizing creationists. The only thing I remember from the last 5000 words I wrote were about explaining myself
But as I recall radiocarbon dating is a lot more accurate than what others have claimed, because the rate of particles that leave the nucleus, which is used to measure decay is quite consistent, because the nucleus itself insulates them from external factors like pressure and temperature
hifi_killer
New member
i guess both sides have run out of arguments to attack each other..
instead of arguing about how 'scientific' evolution or creationism is, well lets look at it from the process of 'natural selection'?
Just like living organisms, theories are subjected to "natural selection" too
Evolution theory has demonstrated its "adaptation" to not just biology, but also in behavioural science, cognitive science, sociology, anthropological and neurology. Its very well 'adapted' in general
Creationism on the other hand, is unable to 'adapt' well within biological boundaries. As mention previously, its lack of ability to account for environmental influences is one such weakness.
As of now, 'natural selection' would favour evolution theory much more than creationism.
also the very same process of 'natural selection' could spur creationist to 'evolve' their theories to better 'adapt' to the real world, also 'adapt' to other disciplines of science. Ultimately, if 'adaption' fails, creationism would share the same fate as the dodo bird.
Ymmak: i'm guessing your exams ended already.
instead of arguing about how 'scientific' evolution or creationism is, well lets look at it from the process of 'natural selection'?
Just like living organisms, theories are subjected to "natural selection" too
Evolution theory has demonstrated its "adaptation" to not just biology, but also in behavioural science, cognitive science, sociology, anthropological and neurology. Its very well 'adapted' in general
Creationism on the other hand, is unable to 'adapt' well within biological boundaries. As mention previously, its lack of ability to account for environmental influences is one such weakness.
As of now, 'natural selection' would favour evolution theory much more than creationism.
also the very same process of 'natural selection' could spur creationist to 'evolve' their theories to better 'adapt' to the real world, also 'adapt' to other disciplines of science. Ultimately, if 'adaption' fails, creationism would share the same fate as the dodo bird.
Ymmak: i'm guessing your exams ended already.
Evolution is not science. science is something you can:
1. Test
2. Observe
3. Repeat
let's go through them one by one, shall we?
1. You can't test evolution because it's not happening now. we don't see humans evolving, growing wings so that we can better adapt to our environment. we all know that it is better for our survival that we are able to fly. and since lizards evolved into birds, why aren't we growing wings? i'll find myself more adapted to the environment if i could fly above floods and get to places i want to go without walking or taking the bus.
2. Similar to above post. You can't observe because it's not happening now. You said evolution happened millions of years ago, and then say that it happens over a period of time, which is contradicting. when you say that it happened a long time ago, it's basically to explain why it's not happening now. but time doesn't occur in blocks, time is a continuous flow. and don't use adaptation as proof for evolution because they are total opposites, as i've mentioned before. doesn't mean that something works one way, means the reverse is therefore true. it isn't doesn't mean something can LOSE an arm, doesn't mean that you can grow wings. it's like you're stuck in a room and i give you a packet of masrhmellows and ask you to build a wooden chair. you can't.
3. you can't repeat it either. because "scientists" don't know enough to be able to create an environment to encourage evolution. how hard is it really? i mean come on, we've had how many years now? and no one's doing it, or even starting. to breed dogs until they get dogs that have characteristics of other animals, without using genetic modification of course. just purely from breeding and controlling environmental factors. and since these guys are experts, shouldn't they at least look into how to speed up this process? you can't repeat it.
so tell me, is evolution science? gravity is a theory that i can test, observe and repeat. but not evolution. so don't put them on the same pedestal. it's as much a belief as creationism is. we can't test, observe and repeat creation because we're not God.
1. Test
2. Observe
3. Repeat
let's go through them one by one, shall we?
1. You can't test evolution because it's not happening now. we don't see humans evolving, growing wings so that we can better adapt to our environment. we all know that it is better for our survival that we are able to fly. and since lizards evolved into birds, why aren't we growing wings? i'll find myself more adapted to the environment if i could fly above floods and get to places i want to go without walking or taking the bus.
2. Similar to above post. You can't observe because it's not happening now. You said evolution happened millions of years ago, and then say that it happens over a period of time, which is contradicting. when you say that it happened a long time ago, it's basically to explain why it's not happening now. but time doesn't occur in blocks, time is a continuous flow. and don't use adaptation as proof for evolution because they are total opposites, as i've mentioned before. doesn't mean that something works one way, means the reverse is therefore true. it isn't doesn't mean something can LOSE an arm, doesn't mean that you can grow wings. it's like you're stuck in a room and i give you a packet of masrhmellows and ask you to build a wooden chair. you can't.
3. you can't repeat it either. because "scientists" don't know enough to be able to create an environment to encourage evolution. how hard is it really? i mean come on, we've had how many years now? and no one's doing it, or even starting. to breed dogs until they get dogs that have characteristics of other animals, without using genetic modification of course. just purely from breeding and controlling environmental factors. and since these guys are experts, shouldn't they at least look into how to speed up this process? you can't repeat it.
so tell me, is evolution science? gravity is a theory that i can test, observe and repeat. but not evolution. so don't put them on the same pedestal. it's as much a belief as creationism is. we can't test, observe and repeat creation because we're not God.
