There is more evidence of Evolution than nearly any scientific theory. Saying otherwise is completely stupid. It has held up to all the new technologies, carbon dating and increased fossil record, knowledge of heredity and genomic sequencing that maps out the history of evolution.
There is no evidence against it. That's just religious people being dishonest because it flies in the face of what they believe, ironically, void of any evidence what so ever.. There really is no point in trying to debate this with people who believe in things with absolutely no evidence and then make dishonest claims about evolution not having evidence
I am not trying to replace science. I like science.
Again, I am not trying to replace science. I like science.
Evolution is NOT science; it is a religion. It too requires faith. It too is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.
Claims being the operative words. Evidence, no. ID consists of one sentence. A god did and does it.
Cells do not think, they do not decide. (There is also zero evidence that there is an undetectable force which decides for them.) We describe them as having a "purpose" for our own convenience, but cells don't have any sort of inherent sense of "purpose." Cells are more like tiny organic robots, doing what they do.My claim? I said that your claim has no evidence. And there is evidence, which I already mentioned several times, that cells modify their DNA purposefully. Therefore, it is INCORRECT to state that all genetic mutations are accidents.
No, it has not...
...no science nor religion can ever be proven....
...there is evidence both for AND against Evolution....
...religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it....science doesn't make use of supporting evidence; only CONFLICTING evidence....
...science is a set of falsifiable theories....
...correct. One deals with falsifiable theories while the other deals with non-falsifiable theories...
...I'm not going to watch a video...
There is more evidence of Evolution than nearly any scientific theory. Saying otherwise is completely stupid. It has held up to all the new technologies, carbon dating and increased fossil record, knowledge of heredity and genomic sequencing that maps out the history of evolution.
There is no evidence against it. That's just religious people being dishonest because it flies in the face of what they believe, ironically, void of any evidence what so ever.. There really is no point in trying to debate this with people who believe in things with absolutely no evidence and then make dishonest claims about evolution not having evidence
You see no reason why it can't. But you have never seen it happen. No one has. I see all kinds of reasons why it can't. This is a matter of opinion, not science. If science ever shows evidence of a new more complex species being created by a long series of accidents, that would be different. But it hasn't.
This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?
This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?
To be clear, are you saying that Intelligent Design is a factor in evolution ?
Correct.Ok so you say that you are not trying to replace science. Yet in the same post you assert that evolution is not science.
Philosophy, since it is what defines Science and Religion.What is the basis of that assertion?
Nothing. It can still exist as is, but the theory is not falsifiable, so it is religion instead of science.What do you propose to replace evolutionary theory with?
It doesn't matter how I feel.And how do you feel about The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis?
This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?
There are many people posting in this thread , and many idiots making stupid claims about evolution. you are no the only person who posted here
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all Science is...
Correct. One deals with falsifiable theories while the other deals with non-falsifiable theories...
Many people providing evidence of evolution and natural selection. Get your facts right please.
My original post said there is evidence for evolution, and that natural selection has to be true.
My disagreement is with the false assertion that all genetic mutations are accidents.
Yeah, thing is? It's not a false assertion. We've had evidence of random genetic mutations for decades.My original post said there is evidence for evolution, and that natural selection has to be true.
My disagreement is with the false assertion that all genetic mutations are accidents.
Yeah, thing is? It's not a false assertion. We've had evidence of random genetic mutations for decades.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
In turn, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations are directed. For example, any sort of supernatural force that would cause a mutation in a string of DNA, but has no physical properties (i.e. has no physical extent, and cannot be observed using any physical methods) is a violation of conservation laws -- because in order to do something as simple as "change a DNA replication" needs to be physical.
And, of course, no one has even the tiniest bit of evidence of genuinely non-random DNA.
We should note, by the way, that if DNA is controlled by some supernatural entity, then that entity apparently doomed millions upon millions of children to incalculable suffering and death via genetic diseases. There is no ethical excuse for doing so, either. You sure that's the road you want to go down...?
So what is the purpose behind non-accidental mutations? ID? Or are you suggesting that cells can think? What are you suggesting?
I said, several times, that James Shapiro's research on natural genetic engineering shows that cells can modify their DNA. Very little is known about this, and most of what goes on within cells is still too complicated for scientists to understand.
Is The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis falsifiable?Correct.
Philosophy, since it is what defines Science and Religion.
Nothing. It can still exist as is, but the theory is not falsifiable, so it is religion instead of science.
It doesn't matter how I feel.
Is The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis falsifiable?
How is evolutionary theory not falsifiable? I mean evolutionary theory is a sceintific theory; do you know what a sceintific theory is?
Ill help: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
In other words evolution has already been established through scientific method and yes evolution is falsifiable. Quit living in Darwins age and come to 2018 where we can actually observe evolution in its process. But hey you probably have a lot of catching up to do so ill wait.
No it hasn't.Yes it has
Correct.and we have evidence for it
No, we haven't... It is a past unobserved event. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened... It remains a religion.and we have seen it work.
No, we don't "know"... We have evidence for it. That's it.We know evolution exists. What is not clear is how evolution works.
Gravity is a fundamental force, not a theory.Similarly we know gravity exists...what physicists seek if how gravity works
Correct.Evolution is not science.
Wrong. It is a religion.It is a process.
Wrong. Stop trying to make religion into science...The science is understanding how it works
Yes, there is.There is NO evidence against evolution (no scientific evidence that is)
Not a fact, a religion... And gravity is not a fact nor a religion, it is a fundamental force.Evolution is a fact, like gravity
Wrong. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.Religion is a belief system with no evidence
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.Science is not a belief system.
Wrong. It is based on falsifiable theories. Conflicting evidence is used in Science, NOT supporting evidence.It is based entirely on evidence.
Wrong. Only conflicting evidence is used.Science uses supporting and conflicting evidence.
Mutations and adaptations of life forms? I'm not bashing the theory. I'm just being precise in correctly recognizing it as a religion instead of attempting to masquerade it as being scientific.But to entertain anyone reading, what do YOU think would be an example of supporting evidence with regard to the theory of evolution.
Because supporting evidence is not proof of anything.And why would a scientist not use it ?
Yes, I know more about what constitutes the role of SCOTUS than SCOTUS does, and I know more about what constitutes science than scientists do...Then again you're not a justice of the US Supreme Court but you claim to know more about the USSC than the justices of the Supreme Court do so why would anyone be surprised that you claim to know more about science than scientists do ?
No, science is not based on evidence. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.Based on evidence
Ummmm, yes, it does... It has many theories...Religion doesn't have any theories
Based on supporting evidence for religious theories.Religion claims knowledge
WRONG. That is what RELIGION does... Scientists, rather, believe something to be correct/true based on the NON-EXISTENCE of CONFLICTING evidence... That is how a theory of science remains standing (by continuing to withstand null hypothesis testing).A scientist will claim he/she believes something to be correct/true based on evidence...
Theists faithfully believe in particular non-falsifiable theories based on supporting evidence for those theories.a theist will state that he/she KNOWS something to be correct/true.
No, they are not.Religious beliefs ARE falsifiable
No, it has not. There are no functional time machines in existence today...For example Noah's flood has been disproved.
I thought that I wasn't a source, according to you... Paradox noted...No surprise there, you never listen to any evidence except your own opinion.
I don't care how long or short the video is; I'm interested in your arguments, not the arguments of some video...It's not exactly a long video and I've even given you the time to pay attention to.
Then articulate the positions of the video, as you understand them...It states exactly how the theory of evolution could be disproved or falsified. You say the theory evolution can't be falsified...that video shows how it could be. But you won't watch it.
I've many times admitted my errors on these boards...You just don't want to admit you're wrong....but go ahead, remain ignorant.
I know more about the role (powers) of SCOTUS than SCOTUS does.After all you're convinced you know more about the US Constitution that the USSC does
False Authority Fallacy. SCOTUS is not an authority over the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the proper authority, and nowhere in Article 3 does it state anything about SCOTUS having interpretive powers...and refuse to believe the USSC own web page that refuted your opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?