UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2012, 10:05 PM   #1
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Evolution

Nearly every source about evolution is here.

If you think evolution is not a thing: please provide evidence that evolution is a false theory(and by the way, look up exactly what a "scientific theory" means, because lots of people don't know this), like the evidence in the BRANCHING-sourced page I linked(and by the way, it's semi-protected on wikipedia, so none of that "anyone can edit it" nonsense).

Thank you.

(please refer to the middle to last posts of this page.)
__________________
Spoiler: show

Last edited by Rangeet; 08-04-2012 at 10:09 PM.
Rangeet is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:19 AM   #2
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Oh, perfect, I didn't have to make this thread myself.

As for my position, A theory is specifically that, a Theory, a hypothesis, an educated guess, nothing more, nothing less. The very fact that it is a theory necessitates that it can not be considered Absolute Fact. And yet, it's the only approved theory to teach in public schools (deliberately suppressing opposition), and it's taken as Science Fact by nearly everyone in the mainstream science and the laymen like you parroting what the big Authority Figures in Science told you and your teacher.

Science, in theory, is perfectly impartial and unbiased. Scientists make observations, theorize about possible causes, then test those theories, make observations based on the results, and throw out the theories that don't fit.

Unfortunately, science, just like everything else human, is entirely corruptible, subject to the whims, ulterior motives, pride, prejudices and greed of the scientist performing the experiments. It's no different than politics, except that Science maintains it's "clean visage" due to the perfection of the theory that shapes it.
Never in human history has Science been entirely divorced from the corruptible human nature, which is why it always takes a generation or more to actually alter the mainstream scientific perception and accept new discoveries, no matter how much proof was discovered during the first generation.

The Reputation and Legitimacy of Prominent Scientists is called into question if a different viewpoint seeks to disprove the scientific understandings they've built their life upon. Grants and Funding often come attached with conditions that the scientist prove the Financier's personal point of view, as opposed to simply observing the facts. Oftentimes it's more profitable for a group to perpetuate a falsehood than report the facts. And many times a Scientist just doesn't want to believe that everything they've known up till that experiment was incorrect, so they ignore the facts staring them in the face and report their "ideal world" instead. And so scientists, controlled by their nature, actively try to put down, hide, and descredit any findings that do not conform with their view, often crying "Hoax!" or labeling it "unknown" and tucking it away in a tiny corner where only those Looking for it, could find it.

In the case of Evolution, this is no different. I can think of many reasons why any particular group would prefer to perpetuate the myth that humanity is nothing more and the fluke of nature than to accept an alternative theory. For one, Atheism would quickly become obsolete if it could be substantively proven that Evolution could never have happened. And I'm sure they would confirm how repulsive such an idea as the existence of a God is to them. Repulsive enough to perpetuate a Lie? I think so, but you'll have to ask them.

Regardless, because of these corruptions in science, scientists go into the experimental process with their own preconceived notions of how the world should work, and then seek, through their experiments, to prove their own world view. This leads to (either consciously or unconsciously), improperly designed experiments, and the omitting of data that does not conform to their preconceived notions. The same holds true for evolution, in fact, I'd say it occurs overwhelmingly often in the mainstream science world.

Because they look to support their theories with evidence, instead of supporting evidence with theories, the science is backwards. It's no longer "Science" anymore, it's become something of a "Religion" to those people. It can not be trusted as an Authority.



Now, most religions try to play nice with the evolution crowd now-a-days. I myself, have once tried to reconcile my faith with the Theory of Evolution, but I later uncovered a bit too much of the suppressed findings that can not be reconciled with the Theory of Evolution. I can not accept the Theory of Evolution as even a plausible explanation any longer based on what I now know and understand.

You bought up the topic and challenged me. I accept your challenge, and shall thus systematically Destroy the Theory of Evolution.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:23 AM   #3
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Oh, perfect, I didn't have to make this thread myself.

As for my position, A theory is specifically that, a Theory, a hypothesis,
"and by the way, look up exactly what a "scientific theory" means,"

Please and thank you.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:27 AM   #4
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
>As for my position, A theory is specifically that, a Theory, a hypothesis, an educated guess, nothing more, nothing less

Gravity is a theory.

Also despite my belief in evolution I severely can't be arsed to get into this shitstorm - I am not good at debating and I'm pretty sure that even if I was I wouldn't be able to sway um in any way. I will, however, step in if I see any complete bullshit that is blatantly wrong.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:31 AM   #5
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
I can't be the only one who's on the fence about this, can I? I believe in the same God that UM does, and I believe that when he saw that things weren't working out for a particular species, he zapped them with an upgrade. No joke. Anyone else?
__________________
phoopes is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:32 AM   #6
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
I can't be the only one who's on the fence about this, can I? I believe in the same God that UM does, and I believe that when he saw that things weren't working out for a particular species, he zapped them with an upgrade. No joke. Anyone else?
The name of the thread is "Evolution", not "Abiogenesis."
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:33 AM   #7
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
I can't be the only one who's on the fence about this, can I? I believe in the same God that UM does, and I believe that when he saw that things weren't working out for a particular species, he zapped them with an upgrade. No joke. Anyone else?
Basically what I believe but a bit more blatant. I just believe that God created life a couple bya and then influenced it through things like causing extinction events and such.

I'm a Christian, it's just that when evolution was explained to me it made so much sense that I had to go away and have a long think as to how this could work with God's influence. I really can't see how people can deny evolution is ongoing, but they do.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:36 AM   #8
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
There are two fun facts about the evolution debate. One is that it is not a theory. It's been conclusively proved to happen with bacteria. No rebuttal, no question, absolutely proven to be something that occurs. It's a fact.

The other is that it in no way precludes creationism or intelligent design as beliefs or ideas. In fact when it was first proposed most religions were pretty happen that people had proven that God(s) had set up the world so that it could do this.

But then we used to think that the atom was the tiniest thing in existence and we still haven't got a bloody clue how gravity works, but hey. That's the point.
Mercutio is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:41 AM   #9
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Wikipedia singlehandedly counters anything unownmew just posted.
Jerichi is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:43 AM   #10
JustAnotherUser
Only Mostly Lurking
 
JustAnotherUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England, UK
Posts: 2,297
Send a message via Skype™ to JustAnotherUser
Not getting involved, but I'm just going to leave this here to see people's thoughts.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ence-pictures/
__________________
[JAU]
Spoiler: show

Last edited by JustAnotherUser; 08-05-2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason: Missed off the end of the link
JustAnotherUser is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 10:47 AM   #11
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Aha, thank you for the link Jeri. Theistic evolution, or wvolytionary creation... That's the term I'm looking for. So yeah, it's a nice little compromise, and I really think that's what happened.
__________________
phoopes is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 11:22 AM   #12
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
As for my position, A theory is specifically that, a Theory, a hypothesis, an educated guess, nothing more, nothing less. The very fact that it is a theory necessitates that it can not be considered Absolute Fact. And yet, it's the only approved theory to teach in public schools (deliberately suppressing opposition),
This is all completely wrong. Other widely taught theories include the theory of gravity and special & general relativity (the basis for getting GPS as accurate as it is). The colloquial use of the word theory is outright wrong, and in scientific terms translates to a mere hypothesis - which is completely different to a bona fide scientific theory such as evolution or gravity (a law, for completeness sake, is just a mathematical statement - Newtons law of gravitation is the mathematical statement, the theory of gravity is the explanation of what it means and how it works). In order to move past the hypothesis stage and become a full theory, a work must;
  • Make falsifiable predictions which are then shown with consistent accuracy
  • Be well supported by multiple sources of evidence
  • Be consistent with pre-existing experimental results

Evolution easily hits all of these points - and is the only proposed explanation for speciation ever to do so. Nothing else comes close. Non-scientists seem to fail to understand quite how strenuous the requirements are to become a theory, and creationists make theories sound like something you come up with after your sixth or seventh pint.

Also, before anyone starts on this, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life itself, merely "the origins of species" ie speciation. The origins of life itself are, and have always been, totally irrelevant to the evolution debate (and indeed, ideas about that are only at the hypothesis level).

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
I can't be the only one who's on the fence about this, can I? I believe in the same God that UM does, and I believe that when he saw that things weren't working out for a particular species, he zapped them with an upgrade. No joke. Anyone else?
Yeah, there's no real way of proving or disproving this given it renders the actions of God indistinguishable from what would happen anyway.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 08-05-2012 at 11:55 AM.
Concept is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 11:42 AM   #13
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Exhibit 1

I'd firstly like to preface my remarks, so that there is no misunderstanding. The Theory of Evolution I shall be destroying, is the MacroEvolution, that is, the evolution of one species of creature into another, very different creature. I make no cases against MicroEvolution, which is the alteration in the coloring and small features of a single species within it's own species.


Exhibit 1
-Definitions-

Scientific Theory: 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." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time.

Let's break that down shall we?

well-substantiated: "well strengthened, or established by proof". The problem here, is that it's entirely subjective. Who determines what "proves" what? Who determines how much "proof" is "substantial"? None other than the corruptible Scientists performing the very experiments where these observational proofs are gathered. Can they be trusted? You would think so, you would hope so, but you really should not. Doubt everything, and verify it by your own observations, do not take what they say at face value, question it.

repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment: Well, there's certainly a problem here. There has been no experiments done that can confirm nor deny macroevolution, only observations of what is assumed to be the result of it.

"Repeatedly confirmed" needs only require 2 or more observations of the same in order to hold true, it says nothing as to any, or how many, observations which do NOT conform with the prevailing Theory. For this very reason, a theory can, very easily, be manipulated to describe an effect which is, in all actuality, translated completely backwards, or deliberately omitting key facts and observations that would, under honest circumstances, suggest to a contrary viewpoint.

Working at a very rudimentary level, if I observe trees blowing in the wind every time the wind blows, I could make up a theory that states, "Wind is caused by trees blowing." Is this theory wrong? It's backed up by numerous observations!
But of course we understand that wind is actually caused by hot air raising and cooler air rushing in to take it's place, but if we had no knowledge of heat convection and gas buoyancy, we would be forced to assume my theory is very much a valid theory, in fact, it could very easily become a "law" since there is no conflicting knowledge to discredit it.

I wager this could very easily be the case with Macroevolution. Our current knowledge forces us to accept that "wind is caused by trees blowing," or, in order words, "all animal life evolved from single celled organisms", because we have no knowledge of the higher natural laws that would disprove our theory.


inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions: There's a BIG problem here. Though it's only a theory, the Theory of Evolution, is empirical in nature, it is established as fact in the minds of scientists making observations, and of those they educate. Scientists will accept no alternative theories, the teaching of an alternative, is strictly forbidden in Public Schools, and Any archeological findings MUST be viewed through the lens of Evolution, and theorized around it.

There can be no alternative viewpoints, and any who dare try are persecuted, discredited, shunned, and ridiculed. There can neither be any possible evidence that would call The Theory of Evolution into question, any that is discovered and publicized is immediately discredited as a hoax without investigation or serious scientific inquiry, and tucked away in a dark corner somewhere so it can never be studied to confirm or deny either side.



Conclusion:
The theory of a Scientific Theory is inherently flawed. Theories are entirely subject to the Prejudices, viewpoint, and understanding of the Scientists who make them. They do well to help improve scientific understanding and facilitate in the discovery of Nature's Laws, but it becomes a serious trap to fall into when you assume a theory should only be amended to account for new observations, and never thrown out in favor of a more comprehensive one.

It is entirely possible that our current understanding of natural laws is flawed, and because of this flawed understanding, the only acceptable explanation for the observations we make, is that Macro evolution exists, while this may very well not the case.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 11:53 AM   #14
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
You're wasting your time UM. Your first post neatly outlines why having this debate is pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Oftentimes it's more profitable for a group to perpetuate a falsehood than report the facts. And many times a Scientist just doesn't want to believe that everything they've known up till that experiment was incorrect, so they ignore the facts staring them in the face and report their "ideal world" instead.
There, you've laid the groundwork so you can dismiss out of hand any and all scientific evidence we bring against you as falsified to support current scientific beliefs without needing to look at the specific experiement or data at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
And so scientists, controlled by their nature, actively try to put down, hide, and descredit any findings that do not conform with their view, often crying "Hoax!" or labeling it "unknown" and tucking it away in a tiny corner where only those Looking for it, could find it.
And there, you've decried any rejection of those sources that you would like to use as mindless support of the scientific status quo. By giving yourself an excuse to reject our arguments out of hand whilst simultaneously preventing us from rejecting your "evidence" under any circumstances, you've established the double standard you need to refuse to ever change your mind. You're not interested in debating. You're interested in being right. And until you recant your entire first post - until you decide you're willing to examine the evidence on both sides for scientific merit, rather than to simply cry "falsification" or "suppression" as it suits you - further input by you here is meaningless.

EDIT the first: At any rate, I'm not overly interested in having this debate on a pokemon forum of all places - whether evolution is right or not is pretty irrelevant for my day to day life. I just wanted to urge people to keep this debate on a purely scientific basis and resist any attempts by anyone to drag this into the whole entirely unproductive, unprovable "no this source is biased I'm not counting it" "of course you'd say my source is biased, you biased prick" nonsense.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 08-05-2012 at 12:05 PM.
Concept is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:13 PM   #15
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
There are two fun facts about the evolution debate. One is that it is not a theory. It's been conclusively proved to happen with bacteria. No rebuttal, no question, absolutely proven to be something that occurs. It's a fact.
Source please?

Quote:
The other is that it in no way precludes creationism or intelligent design as beliefs or ideas. In fact when it was first proposed most religions were pretty happen that people had proven that God(s) had set up the world so that it could do this.
I'm aware of that. Incompatibility with my Religion is not why my make my remarks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
This is all completely wrong. Other widely taught theories include the theory of gravity and special & general relativity (the basis for getting GPS as accurate as it is).
By "only theory" I was referring to, it's competition with Intelligent Design, where only The Theory of Evolution, and not the Theory of Intelligent Design is allowed to be taught in Public Schools.

Quote:
The colloquial use of the word theory is outright wrong, and in scientific terms translates to a mere hypothesis - which is completely different to a bona fide scientific theory such as evolution or gravity (a law, for completeness sake, is just a mathematical statement - Newtons law of gravitation is the mathematical statement, the theory of gravity is the explanation of what it means and how it works).
Ah! This is a much better explanation than the one I read, far more understandable. Thank you, I think I understand it better now, a "Scientific Theory", is a description of the reasoning behind observed behavior.

In effect, it is based upon our current understanding of Nature's Laws, and is our best attempt at explaining why we observe what we observe. Correct?

Quote:
In order to move past the hypothesis stage and become a full theory, a work must;
  • Make falsifiable predictions which are then shown with consistent accuracy
  • Be well supported by multiple sources of evidence
  • Be consistent with pre-existing experimental results

Evolution easily hits all of these points - and is the only proposed explanation for speciation ever to do so. Nothing else comes close.
I'd argue that Intelligent design can do the same.


Quote:
Also, before anyone starts on this, the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origins of life itself, merely "the origins of species" ie speciation. The origins of life itself are, and have always been, totally irrelevant to the evolution debate (and indeed, ideas about that are only at the hypothesis level).
Not part of my points, but it is interesting to watch scientists/athiests squirm as they try to explain why there can not be a God when they have no answer as to how life originates.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:34 PM   #16
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
You're wasting your time UM. Your first post neatly outlines why having this debate is pointless.
I don't consider it a waste.

Quote:
There, you've laid the groundwork so you can dismiss out of hand any and all scientific evidence we bring against you as falsified to support current scientific beliefs without needing to look at the specific experiement or data at all.
No, I'm laying the groundwork to ensure I receive actual observations, not scientific opinion. Every opinion should be suspect, Authority figures can not be trusted with their conclusions. If you don't want to give me the actual experiments and observations, your claims are suspect

Quote:
And there, you've decried any rejection of those sources that you would like to use as mindless support of the scientific status quo. By giving yourself an excuse to reject our arguments out of hand whilst simultaneously preventing us from rejecting your "evidence" under any circumstances, you've established the double standard you need to refuse to ever change your mind. You're not interested in debating. You're interested in being right. And until you recant your entire first post - until you decide you're willing to examine the evidence on both sides for scientific merit, rather than to simply cry "falsification" or "suppression" as it suits you - further input by you here is meaningless.
No, I am decyring your rejection of my arguments based upon my Sources. I am removing your ability to make ad-hominum attacks on my sources so you do not have to look at the actual Observations and experiments I'm linking you too. In effect, I am FORCING you to accept my sources as credible until you can refute them, and not before. This "double standard" as you put it, is designed to put our sources on equal credibility levels. I've cast a shadow of doubt on your source, and shone more light on my sources, which would otherwise be unacceptable, so the amount of light on each is now equal.


I'm interested in having a debate on actual material, not on whom's source can be trusted. I'm thoroughly convinced I'm right, as I'm sure you are as well, however, if I am pointed to any actual evidence of being wrong, I will acknowledge it, and if you can soundly, refute each and every one of my points, I promise I will yield. Which is more than I expect from you guys, as I've noticed whenever I hit a nerve with my claims, you guys launch directly in to ad-hominum attacks on me and my sources, and refuse to look at any of the evidence presented. I'm simply preempting that, and refusing to allow it.

Fair enough?

Last edited by unownmew; 08-05-2012 at 12:41 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:35 PM   #17
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
um, ID by definition cannot be falsifiable, as, despite what you may believe, there is no way to definitively prove or disprove a designer.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:41 PM   #18
Midgeorge
Marsh Badge
 
Midgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ELO Hell
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poke_Hunter View Post
Not getting involved, but I'm just going to leave this here to see people's thoughts.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ence-pictures/
A fish with hands is not a fish.

The arguement for most creationists is that roughly, its completely fine to accept evolution as a proven fact of nature... as long as you don't call it evolution.

Ken Hovind tried to disprove ring species, but now accepts the theory, and accepts that species can branch off into other subspecies... but he brands it 'variation'. Plenty other creationist scientists do the same thing.
__________________
Midgeorge is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:43 PM   #19
Midgeorge
Marsh Badge
 
Midgeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ELO Hell
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
um, ID by definition cannot be falsifiable, as, despite what you may believe, there is no way to definitively prove or disprove a designer.
Agreed. When it comes down to it, you can ask 'Why' or 'How' to every proven scientific theory, and eventually there will be holes. I won't disprove a designer, I just simply don't believe that its possible.
__________________
Midgeorge is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:47 PM   #20
kusari
「Killer Queen No Prog」
 
kusari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In a beautiful Duwang
Posts: 2,343
Send a message via Skype™ to kusari
Quote:
Originally Posted by UM
I'd argue that Intelligent design can do the same.
Since you do it to most claims people make, I think I have the right to ask for your source/evidence for this claim.
__________________
Eternally TL4 4-EVER For All of Infinite Time
kusari is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 12:53 PM   #21
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
> Source

Afraid I'm not subscribed to the journal required to look at some of the original stuf but you can find a neat (if fairly mediocre) summary here. A little detective work leads you to better versions, that's simply the first one I came across.
Mercutio is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 01:03 PM   #22
Char
Banned
 
Char's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Patches made this cool Charmander pumpkin
Posts: 1,203
Char is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 01:47 PM   #23
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
um, ID by definition cannot be falsifiable, as, despite what you may believe, there is no way to definitively prove or disprove a designer.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kusari View Post
Since you do it to most claims people make, I think I have the right to ask for your source/evidence for this claim.
Of course you do! And welcome. But I have no source for it but myself, at the moment. I said I'd argue it does, I'm not sure yet if it would pass muster, but I'd like to suggest it anyway. It Seems like it could work, you tell me if it doesn't.

Speciation by Intelligent Design:

Make falsifiable predictions which are then shown with consistent accuracy.
All Species of Animals exist as they have since the creation period.
There is diversity and mutation within a Species, but no species becomes another completely different species. Abnormalities which seem to be separate species can be explained by injury, rare mutation, and sickness within a species.
Accuracy: 100%

Be well supported by multiple sources of evidence
Fossil Record
The Bible
The Koran
Basically all Ancient Religious beliefs

Be consistent with pre-existing experimental results.
Abnormalities can be explained by Mutation, injury, and sickness within a single species, and flaws in the experimental/observation process.
No half-evolved or evolving species has ever been observed in real-time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
> Source

Afraid I'm not subscribed to the journal required to look at some of the original stuf but you can find a neat (if fairly mediocre) summary here. A little detective work leads you to better versions, that's simply the first one I came across.
Thank you for the source, I shall peruse it at my leisure.

Edit: Thank you, that's quite the interesting read. On the one hand, it completely proves evolution, on the other hand, there's still a large room for doubt. The E-coli developed a new trait within it's species of E-coli, but that doesn't help us see how a single celled organism could evolve in to a multi-celled organism.

found an interesting comment there as well"
Quote:
A creationist's answer:

your postulations have a paradox. You think that we are normal beings like any other things, but at the same time indirectly indicate that our view of the universe and phenomena is what they really are. But I have to say that we, like any other things, can make mistakes, for example the one we have made about chance. In our view, the God is controlling the universe so nothing happens by chance. Why:

In our ordinary view, chance events are the one that we can not fully predict. I accept that, but it doesn't mean that it is intrinsically chancy. For example, imagine the phenomenon x happens because of four causes, if we determine all the four causes we will be able to fully predict it; otherwise we will predict it based on probability or chance.

In evolution cases, we don't know all the causes of evolution so we can't fully predict it, and it is mainly because we don't pay attention to all of the possible causes. Even the tiniest changes do have effect and we don't consider all of them or maybe we can't. So it fools us into thinking that they are naturally chancy.

That is how God controls the world: by manipulating the tiniest parts and particles.

We pay attention to large scale things and imagine they have come out of chance, but that's wrong.

Second, religion does not adapt, it provides up-to-date answers. Meaning that it convinces people with different levels of knowledge and it is not supposed to do the sciences' job.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-05-2012 at 02:07 PM.
unownmew is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 01:59 PM   #24
DaveTheFishGuy
Primordial Fishbeast
 
DaveTheFishGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,258
Send a message via Skype™ to DaveTheFishGuy
>No half-evolved or evolving species has ever been observed in real-time

Aside from, you know, all species. There's no such thing as 'half-evolved', all species are permanently undergoing evolution at a rate that is only observable over thousands, if not millions of years.

Technically mankind is in transit. It's a popular hypothesis that due to the creation of the African Rift Valley approx. 3 mya, apes began to exploit the new habitat, using the water to support their bodies and allow for a bipedal stance, before developing more characteristics seen in aquatic mammals - loss of body hair, accumulation of fat in layers under the skin, widening of hands/feet to paddle through the water. This was so they could access the newly-available source of aquatic food, which over the generations increased the size of their brains. When self-awareness kicked in, said apes moved away from the water and back inland, which is why humans are so strange compared to other mammals.

Again, just a hypothesis, but one I happen to agree with because it makes sense.

Another example would be racial diversity. People of african origin have such dark skin as a response to the higher levels of UV radiation that they are exposed to, whereas peoples from around the arctic have fairer skin because they have no need for such a defence.

Just because no massive changes have taken place in animals (aside from ones purpose-bred by man, which is another story) have taken place over the last three/four thousand years, doesn't mean that evolution can be dismissed because 'you can't see it'. You can't stand by a fault line for a year and then state that continental drift doesn't exist just because you can't see the land moving beneath your feet.
DaveTheFishGuy is offline  
Old 08-05-2012, 02:27 PM   #25
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
I love how your multiple sources of evidence are almost all known for extreme allegory.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.