I do agree trying to disprove God is a huge waste of time.
*side eye*Well...no. This is not true when using the word "theory" in the context of science, nor is it true just using the definition of theory. The ability for a theory or a framework to exist harmoniously with the phenomena you are examining absolutely allows for it to continue to be called a theory.
“Pie in the sky” foolishness pretending to be science is rarely considered “harmonious,” especially while its guardians are cheating to uphold it as ‘real.’
In fact, it's the only qualifying factor, if you're using theory as it's defined. How useful a theory will be beyond that varies, but, regardless, a theory simply in line with the observations you have already collected is very much a valid one.
This is actually my primary contention with evolutionary theory, as it does no such a thing.
I wonder again if you misunderstood me. I said--or at least I thought I was saying--that in order to consider the theory "disproved," you would need to provide substantial and significant evidence to show that the theory is simply not compatible with reality.
1.) Speciation proceeds in both the presence and absence of geographic barriers, while evolutionary theory says that just such barriers are needed for it to function.
2.) The concept that species slowly evolve into different species, leaving behind a fossil record of numerous, partially transformed species growing more and more complex or specialized, is a fiction promoted as a blind faith doctrine unsupported by any facts. Experimentations on millions of fruit flies, as well as over 6,000 years of barnyard artificial selections have never left any trace of any of these organisms ever transforming into a new species. Ever.
3.) The molecular level mutations that appear in biological organisms do so as a matter of 100% pure chance, and do not happen automatically as a kind of ‘speciation factory’ requiring the concept of natural selection to guide the process along.
You seem to be mistaking not obtaining a result after any number of experiments (and let me remind you that I still do not agree that there is no evidence for evolution) for that result not being possible. This simply is not how we conduct scientific experiments. The absence of particular results may push the likelihood of an idea down the totem pole a bit, but this alone is not enough to obliterate it, and to suggest otherwise is to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process and the scientific method.
So after another 100,000,000,000 experiments with fruit flies, in which it is revealed they are still quite fruit flies and nothing more nor less, will it then be time to throw the evolutionary model away finally and stop wasting resources on fake science? Or will it have to be 200,000,000,000?
You'd actually be quite surprised with how many scientific theories were at the forefront of then-current thought and believed to be inviolate for a great deal of time, and then replaced by a better model. Since I mentioned Galileo last, I may as well point out heliocentrism as a good example of this. To have a model accepted by the majority of the scientific community as the best current model to explain physical observations is not a lie, no more than it was a lie for the greatest minds who were simply mistaken with the geocentric model to have been champions of geocentrism. Eventually, however, a great deal of evidence--not a lack of evidence for geocentrism, this is not the same thing--had to come along to demonstrate that this theory is simply not compatible with nature, and at this point the heliocentric model replaced it in the minds of (most) modern scientists.
The difference here is that the mathematics and telescope observations supported the facts of the heliocentrism model, while nothing is supporting evolutionary theory except double talk and cheating. The pro-heliocentrists actually had a leg to stand on and weren’t pretending a pagan religion was science.
If you are correct, and if there is a better model than evolution, it will need to undergo this same process. Just because evolution is such a highly politicized issue due to religious conflicts doesn't mean that it deserves to be obliterated in a way that no other such model with the capacity to exist alongside our observations ever was in scientific history. Again, to demand that it is is evidence of a severe misunderstanding of the scientific process. Barring this huge conspiracy to keep any whispers of viable competing theories silenced, trust that, if there is a better model, it will emerge, and if it ever does I hope we're both alive to see it!
I hope to see it, too. New technological devices popping up every two weeks has spoiled me. I want new, innovative and correct theories right NOW!
Yes, I'm aware that this is your contention, and trust me, I am no more eager to hear you say it than you are to repeat it…
hahahahaha
…but I will ask again that you provide some kind of actual argument with points that we can discuss. Vaguely accusing it of being a fiction is not something we can discuss. What precisely about the claims of evolution do you think are unsubstantiated?
1.) Speciation proceeds in both the presence and absence of geographic barriers, while evolutionary theory says that just such barriers are needed for it to function.
i) SME:
“While that model fits for many parts of the natural world, it doesn’t explain why some species appear to have evolved separately, within the same location, where there are no geographic barriers to gene flow.” ~Vicki Friesen, professor of biology (Science daily article, 20 Nov 2007) Doctor Friesen’s own research indicated that the band-rumped storm petrel shares its nesting sites in sequence with other petrels, with this conflicting with the standard view of evolutionary theory.
2.) The concept that species slowly evolve into different species, leaving behind a fossil record of numerous, partially transformed species growing more and more complex or specialized, is a fiction promoted as a blind faith doctrine unsupported by any facts. Experimentations on millions of fruit flies, as well as over 6,000 years of barnyard artificial selections have never left any trace of any of these organisms ever transforming into a new species. Ever.
i) SME:
"In sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection remain unresolved.” ~Joel Kingsolver, The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations (2001)
ii) SME:
“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds’ major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” ~Eugene Koonin, The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution (2007)
iii) SME:
“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” Emile Zuckerkandl, Neutral and nonneutral mutations: the creative mix--evolution of complexity in gene interaction systems (1997)
3.) The molecular level mutations that appear in biological organisms do so as a matter of 100% pure chance, and do not happen automatically as a kind of ‘speciation factory’ requiring the concept of natural selection to guide the process along.
i) SME:
“The great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations.” ~Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Biology (1983)
...Flight? Like the airplane? I'd consider that more in the realm of technology, and not exactly what I was thinking. I'm thinking cell theory, the atomic model, the shapes and structure of DNA, so on and so forth. The final answer was not obtained by going back to the drawing board each and every time, but by adding, modifying, reshaping the original theories until they got the working answer. Are you familiar with the history behind these discoveries that I just mentioned? They're interesting stories, are they not?
They are, and again the difference between them and evolutionary theory is that they actually had facts/data/truths to work with that actually supported them, so that if the researchers veered off in the wrong direction based on wrong assumptions (“The universe didn’t have a beginning; the theists are stupid”), they could always go back to the facts that they did have and rebuild from that point up. Evolution, by contrast, is a house of cards, with all of the main points needed to prove it true lacking any kind of factual support. All efforts of the pro-evolutionists to prove otherwise – like TheRationalizer’s first major post in this thread – are a big mess of babbling, over-wordy misdirection designed to make you regret even inquiring into the topic in the first place by virtue of purest tedium.
I am certain that, if you are sincere about having done your research on evolution, you are familiar with the claims that are presented as evidence for the theory. So if you wish to tell me that all of these pieces of evidence are not accurate, which is what you are claiming, it is on you to show me the opposing evidence for each and every claim that seems to support the theory of evolution in order for me to agree that the claims of evolutionists are fabricated. How much time do you have, my friend?
lol For that challenge I would have to play my
“I’m a very busy cartoonist” card. But let the record show that if definitive evidence for the emergence of a brand new species was indeed discovered within all of these experiments (as opposed to merely a blind faith optimism that the small scale changes within species is actually evolution in action that will eventually lead to the development of a whole new species) that the true believers wouldn't have any trouble shouting it from the roof tops and broadcasting it on television every few seconds to make SURE we all know about it. The available evidence demonstrates instead that small scale changes within species is nothing more than routine small scale changes within species, and that the emergence of new complex organisms happen suddenly with a conspicuous lack of a gradualist process as needed for the evolutionary theory model to be accurate.
That's too bad, you would make out like a bandit.
Obviously you’re trying to get me lynched. They’ve destroyed the careers of actual scientists for daring to challenge their thought monopolies, so what chance would a Black American cartoonist have in coming out any better? I’m content in satisfying my own thirst for knowledge with self-study, and testing my theories against knuckleheads like you lot in spirited debate. I have little interest in getting my forehead branded.
Can you show me some examples of this? Credible news stories? Anything? Interesting. My understanding of evolution is largely in molecular biology and the biology to the extent of my research and experiments, so I will not pretend to be an expert in whatever is going on with dinosaur bones and radiocarbon dating. Since you are more familiar, would you mind showing me a credible resource from which you took your information? I tried searching for it just now, and I was unable to find any original source work not originating from creationist websites. Where did you find them?
Here’s a perfect example:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019445If you will notice the meticulous, highly-professional nature of the testing, which actually involved several different testing methods to ensure the thoroughness needed in actual science, compared to the patently false claims that they performed less than such meticulous professionalism the field demands by your CEMB colleagues who’ve been quoting the mainstream critics all the way to the end of this thread, you’ll see the conspiracy, cheating and lies manifested. Again serpentofeden’s attitude and vitriol is actually perfectly representative of supposed scientists towards the work of other scientists, which to me, further demonstrates how evolutionary theory is not a science at all, but a pagan religion with savage radicals whose enthusiasm for killing careers of rivals is almost as abominable as the terrorists’ violent attacks on innocent people.
Topic: TheRationalizer Vs MRasheed - Facts of evolution Vs Facts of the Quran