I'm not gonna lie

[GhostAnime 50]

psuedo science? how?

 

and what do you mean it hasn't been tested? there are other ways of testing it than just seeing it happen (you can't actually see it happen.. because that would disprove it!).

 

an example of a 'test' would be looking at vestigial structures. the best example of this would be looking at a whale and dolphin fin. their bones are much more homologous with mammals, and thus, they aren't truly 'fish'. why would a whale have hooves or paws? we can't say somebody just put it there, and it obviously has no use in swimming, and the only possible explanation for something like that is that it USED to have a use and just remained the same as it did not affect the ability of survival in the ocean. macro evolution is the only explanation for vestigial bone structures and organs.

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

psuedo science? how?

 

and what do you mean it hasn't been tested? there are other ways of testing it than just seeing it happen (you can't actually see it happen.. because that would disprove it!).

 

an example of a 'test' would be looking at vestigial structures. the best example of this would be looking at a whale and dolphin fin. their bones are much more homologous with mammals, and thus, they aren't truly 'fish'. why would a whale have hooves or paws? we can't say somebody just put it there, and it obviously has no use in swimming, and the only possible explanation for something like that is that it USED to have a use and just remained the same as it did not affect the ability of survival in the ocean.

 

Looking at things and seeing similarities is not an experiment. What you just wrote was a hypothesis, the first part of scientific method, now, you need to test the hypothesis.

[jec 427]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Actually, jec, it depends on what you are saying is part of the theory.

 

If you are saying evolutionary theory is "change over time" then yes, I agree with that.

 

But if you are using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which includes, random mutations and natural selection in order to create new species, then no, it is not fact, nor is it a theory, as it is impossible to create an experiment which tests the theory. Darwinism is a non-disprovable pseudo-science.

 

"Darwinism" isn't even a scientific term; it's a word that creationists use.

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Actually, jec, it depends on what you are saying is part of the theory.

 

If you are saying evolutionary theory is "change over time" then yes, I agree with that.

 

But if you are using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which includes, random mutations and natural selection in order to create new species, then no, it is not fact, nor is it a theory, as it is impossible to create an experiment which tests the theory. Darwinism is a non-disprovable pseudo-science.

 

"Darwinism" isn't even a scientific term; it's a word that creationists use.

 

Ok, let me change that to "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is a non-disprovable theory, and in that aspect, makes it a pseudo-science. Better? Are you going to address my points?

[Mr.Dwight Howard 0]

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

That definition can easily be summed up as what I just said. it doesn't say anything you just said at all. you kinda added some emotion to it. evolution does not tell you that you are random, or that i am an 'amazing creature'.

 

quote:

wouldn't it stand to reason that you are not starting from square one either? If you do not take the book seriously then how can you for a realistic unbiased view. you have dismissed it. u have made up your mind.

when i say starting from square one, i mean everything has to show fruit. i've read a good part of the bible (mainly the new testament), and i don't believe a word of it. it is merely a book that is 2,000 years old. i have no reason to trust it. how is that biased? your book is no different from the quran or any other holy book. in order for me to accept it, i want to know what's true about it, and why it is a reliable source of information. i think that's pretty fair. anybody who wants to be convinced something is true wants a reason to believe it, or wants a reason to consider it reliable, right? this is no different for me.

 

the book THE CASE FOR CHRIST has alot of historical facts to prove that existence of the Bible and more importantly the new testament

[GhostAnime 50]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

psuedo science? how?

 

and what do you mean it hasn't been tested? there are other ways of testing it than just seeing it happen (you can't actually see it happen.. because that would disprove it!).

 

an example of a 'test' would be looking at vestigial structures. the best example of this would be looking at a whale and dolphin fin. their bones are much more homologous with mammals, and thus, they aren't truly 'fish'. why would a whale have hooves or paws? we can't say somebody just put it there, and it obviously has no use in swimming, and the only possible explanation for something like that is that it USED to have a use and just remained the same as it did not affect the ability of survival in the ocean.

 

Looking at things and seeing similarities is not an experiment. What you just wrote was a hypothesis, the first part of scientific method, now, you need to test the hypothesis.

what do you think an experiment is? being in a lab coat and looking at mice run around? an experiment is anything done that tests the validity of something. it could be as simple as looking and researching.

 

the simple fact is that it is the only explanation for it, and it is just an example; there are hundreds of others, but currently, evolution is the only explanation for why all living beings are related, and it is also the only explanation why there are useless things in our bodies.

 

it has been consistent with all data found from all parts of science and most importantly biology, which rests on the foundation of all living things being related.

[jec 427]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Actually, jec, it depends on what you are saying is part of the theory.

 

If you are saying evolutionary theory is "change over time" then yes, I agree with that.

 

But if you are using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which includes, random mutations and natural selection in order to create new species, then no, it is not fact, nor is it a theory, as it is impossible to create an experiment which tests the theory. Darwinism is a non-disprovable pseudo-science.

 

"Darwinism" isn't even a scientific term; it's a word that creationists use.

 

Ok, let me change that to "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is a non-disprovable theory, and in that aspect, makes it a pseudo-science. Better? Are you going to address my points?

 

No, because I don't care enough. I got tired of this when I was 17. Let Ghost argue with you, because I don't find it fun to argue with people anymore.

 

Spread the love and cancer.

[Darthmagic 0]

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

quote:

Originally posted by jecMagicMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

Actually, jec, it depends on what you are saying is part of the theory.

 

If you are saying evolutionary theory is "change over time" then yes, I agree with that.

 

But if you are using Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which includes, random mutations and natural selection in order to create new species, then no, it is not fact, nor is it a theory, as it is impossible to create an experiment which tests the theory. Darwinism is a non-disprovable pseudo-science.

 

"Darwinism" isn't even a scientific term; it's a word that creationists use.

 

Ok, let me change that to "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is a non-disprovable theory, and in that aspect, makes it a pseudo-science. Better? Are you going to address my points?

 

 

Spread the love and cancer.

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

psuedo science? how?

 

and what do you mean it hasn't been tested? there are other ways of testing it than just seeing it happen (you can't actually see it happen.. because that would disprove it!).

 

an example of a 'test' would be looking at vestigial structures. the best example of this would be looking at a whale and dolphin fin. their bones are much more homologous with mammals, and thus, they aren't truly 'fish'. why would a whale have hooves or paws? we can't say somebody just put it there, and it obviously has no use in swimming, and the only possible explanation for something like that is that it USED to have a use and just remained the same as it did not affect the ability of survival in the ocean.

 

Looking at things and seeing similarities is not an experiment. What you just wrote was a hypothesis, the first part of scientific method, now, you need to test the hypothesis.

what do you think an experiment is? being in a lab coat and looking at mice run around? an experiment is anything done that tests the validity of something. it could be as simple as looking and researching.

 

the simple fact is that it is the only explanation for it, and it is just an example; there are hundreds of others, but currently, evolution is the only explanation for why all living beings are related, and it is also the only explanation why there are useless things in our bodies.

 

it has been consistent with all data found from all parts of science and most importantly biology, which rests on the foundation of all living things being related.

 

Are you familiar with the scientific method?

 

And no, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that every living being on Earth came from the same organism. None.

 

Let me pose a hypothetical argument, evolution is supposed to rid of us traits that are not critical to survival, correct? Why then, do we feel empathy for other human beings across the globe? You would think a massacre of people or a natural disaster killing others off would remove competition for resources necessary for survival.

 

Why do we strive to keep people alive? Especially the old and mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we kill them off or let them die off? They consume and are competition for resources necessary to survive. Animal communities often let the weak and old die off, or cast them off, so why did human beings add this trait if it is obviously not necessary for survival in any other species?

[Darthmagic 0]

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

quote:

Originally posted by Osprey23:

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

psuedo science? how?

 

and what do you mean it hasn't been tested? there are other ways of testing it than just seeing it happen (you can't actually see it happen.. because that would disprove it!).

 

an example of a 'test' would be looking at vestigial structures. the best example of this would be looking at a whale and dolphin fin. their bones are much more homologous with mammals, and thus, they aren't truly 'fish'. why would a whale have hooves or paws? we can't say somebody just put it there, and it obviously has no use in swimming, and the only possible explanation for something like that is that it USED to have a use and just remained the same as it did not affect the ability of survival in the ocean.

 

Looking at things and seeing similarities is not an experiment. What you just wrote was a hypothesis, the first part of scientific method, now, you need to test the hypothesis.

what do you think an experiment is? being in a lab coat and looking at mice run around? an experiment is anything done that tests the validity of something. it could be as simple as looking and researching.

 

the simple fact is that it is the only explanation for it, and it is just an example; there are hundreds of others, but currently, evolution is the only explanation for why all living beings are related, and it is also the only explanation why there are useless things in our bodies.

 

it has been consistent with all data found from all parts of science and most importantly biology, which rests on the foundation of all living things being related.

 

Are you familiar with the scientific method?

 

And no, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that every living being on Earth came from the same organism. None.

 

Let me pose a hypothetical argument, evolution is supposed to rid of us traits that are not critical to survival, correct? Why then, do we feel empathy for other human beings across the globe? You would think a massacre of people or a natural disaster killing others off would remove competition for resources necessary for survival.

 

Why do we strive to keep people alive? Especially the old and mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we kill them off or let them die off? They consume and are competition for resources necessary to survive. Animal communities often let the weak and old die off, or cast them off, so why did human beings add this trait if it is obviously not necessary for survival in any other species?

 

I don't think things like that are measurable under evolutionists microscopes.

[GhostAnime 50]

quote:

Are you familiar with the scientific method?

of course. you want example of the scientific method being applied to evolution? mind you it won't be professional but..

 

Hypothesis: vestigial organs further support the idea of all living things being related and having a common ancestor. vestigial organs tell us tat the only way a useless organ or bone is in a body is because it was useful in the past to a similar organism that is related.

 

Experiment: the procedure to validate this is simply by testing opposing hypothesizes, and to also test to see if vestigial organs have to do with evolution. the way you do the latter is by simply looking at other fields of science, which is pretty lengthy to go through.

 

Data: these are simply the results of testing other ideas, and so far, no idea has been presented to explain this, and vestigial organs and bones also fall in line where they're found (fossils), the animals and organisms are probably likely related through DNA (biology), etc and so forth.

 

quote:

Let me pose a hypothetical argument, evolution is supposed to rid of us traits that are not critical to survival, correct? Why then, do we feel empathy for other human beings across the globe? You would think a massacre of people or a natural disaster killing others off would remove competition for resources necessary for survival.

 

Why do we strive to keep people alive? Especially the old and mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we kill them off or let them die off? They consume and are competition for resources necessary to survive. Animal communities often let the weak and old die off, or cast them off, so why did human beings add this trait if it is obviously not necessary for survival in any other species?

you seem to be misunderstanding evolution. you are grabbing an ought from an is. you cannot do that and it is a logical fallacy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy for more information on that besides my dumbass lol

 

Evolution says nothing about what we should actually do with ourselves or other animals. Evolution only tells us history; it doesn't tell us how we should run our lives you know..

[Osprey 199]

quote:

Originally posted by GhostAnime:

quote:

Are you familiar with the scientific method?

of course. you want example of the scientific method being applied to evolution? mind you it won't be professional but..

 

Hypothesis: vestigial organs further support the idea of all living things being related and having a common ancestor. vestigial organs tell us tat the only way a useless organ or bone is in a body is because it was useful in the past to a similar organism that is related.

 

Experiment: the procedure to validate this is simply by testing opposing hypothesizes, and to also test to see if vestigial organs have to do with evolution. the way you do the latter is by simply looking at other fields of science, which is pretty lengthy to go through.

 

Data: these are simply the results of testing other ideas, and so far, no idea has been presented to explain this, and vestigial organs and bones also fall in line where they're found (fossils), the animals and organisms are probably likely related through DNA (biology), etc and so forth.

 

quote:

Let me pose a hypothetical argument, evolution is supposed to rid of us traits that are not critical to survival, correct? Why then, do we feel empathy for other human beings across the globe? You would think a massacre of people or a natural disaster killing others off would remove competition for resources necessary for survival.

 

Why do we strive to keep people alive? Especially the old and mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we kill them off or let them die off? They consume and are competition for resources necessary to survive. Animal communities often let the weak and old die off, or cast them off, so why did human beings add this trait if it is obviously not necessary for survival in any other species?

you seem to be misunderstanding evolution. you are grabbing an ought from an is. you cannot do that and it is a logical fallacy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy for more information on that besides my dumbass lol

 

Evolution says nothing about what we should actually do with ourselves or other animals. Evolution only tells us history; it doesn't tell us how we should run our lives you know..

 

I have a strong grasp on Darwin's Theory.

 

Nothing I asked was in competition to what he has proposed. Survival of the fittest through natural selection and random mutation. That is his "theory". Its untestable. Completely. That is the point of a theory. You can test it. Show me how you can test or OBSERVE natural selection? or random mutation?

 

And speaking of logical fallacies, Darwin's Theory in itself is a circular argument (ie. a logical fallacy)

 

Why did they survive?

Because they are the fittest.

 

How do we know they are the fittest?

Because they survived.

 

etc etc