DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

Actually, I chiefly attacked your contrived, absurd standard. The explanation of your motivations for taking such an irrational position was merely for illustration.

Feel free to defend your contrived, absurd standard, if you can.

And you embarrass yourself to say "I have nothing". I actually have all the evidence on my side. All of it. You have none. Get that straight right now.

On the contrary,you have no evidence. No science, nor are you producing any. Your position is fringe and is contradicted by the global scientific community, which accepts evolution as fact. You say false things about evolution, and you would fail a high school science test on it.

So you don't get to sit there and tell me or anyone else that "we have nothing", and we have every right to call you a shameless liar or a delusional fool for saying so.

 

ARDY:

Meanwhile, neither you nor any of your pals have presented any legitimate explanation for how evolution's supposed "common biological ancestor" came to life from non-life by itself. Without this "common ancestor" there could be no evolution--period.

Evolution theory cannot even get from Point A to Point B.


Alter2Ego

 

Abiogenesis is NOT evolution, why do you guys keep doing this?

Anyway, legitimate theory has been out there for decades even if you don't like it and soon enough life will be created in a lab.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

You can now ignore what I posted and do this again in a couple days.

 

Yes, that is quite a puzzle isnt it
But the fact that we do not know EVERYTHING has no bearing in what we DO KNOW

That said. What is it that you claim ti know about the subject of the origen of life

No that is not true.
Fir instance, life may have been seeded herebon earth by an asteroid or space aliens... then evolution could have proceeded from there

Correct
Evolution speaks to points B through Z

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
※→ et al,

The central question {Why Unscientific?} asks the question about whether or not the theory has undergone the rigors of the "Scientific Method."

In this methodology, the hypothesis (Darwin's theory of Biological Evolution) must be testable.

(COMMENT)

The Human Genome Project (HGP), a collaborative biological project, and the studies of Charles Darwin on the Origin of the Species have not progressed far enough to either prove or disprove the "Evolutionary Process" and "natural selection." Charles Darwin may be correct. It is a "hypothesis" and it may even be correct; but, it has not had the benefit of the "scientific process." BUT!

✪ Even if Darwin was correct, it does not mean that Darwins observations were sufficient to establish "Evolution" as fact.

✪ And if Darwin was wrong, it does not prove the faith based belief on "Intelligent Design." ​

Nothing, to date, has proven or disproven the existence of a Supreme Being. And even if Charles Darwin turns out to be 100% correct, it does not disprove any of the major faith-based beliefs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Ah, the predictable "bait and switch" of evolution and abiogenesis. Ken Hamm likes to use this tactic when brainwashing children.

 

True
Also we do not know if there are multiple supreme beings, or if they have any relationship to the bible, or whether these supreme beings are fascinated with our bedroom habits

Yes
But i would point out that any “faith based belief “ is by definition unprovable. Therefore faith based beliefs must operate in a different realm than science.

Respectfully u observe that science makes no claim about faith, where as people of faith appear not to recognize how peculiar it is for them to make faitg based ckaims about science. Claims such as that the earth is the center of the universe

 

Saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying you believe in inches but not yards. In with cases the difference is scale.

 

It turns out that scale often makes a big difference
For instance,
it is very difficult to initiate a continuous fusion reaction without a big scale... like the sun for example
It is also very difficult to observe quantum physics on a large scale
Scale matters

 

Creationism is proven only by fairly tales.

 

So does Context.

 

The only distinction between micro and macro evolution is time.

 

I wouldn't rebut it.

 

The above listed "discussion questions" are inane and belie a fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

 

tecoyah:

You know perfectly well that nobody said abiogenes is evolution. The point that you are pretending not to get is that evolution cannot proceed until evolution's supposed "common biological ancestor" comes to life from non-life.

Your above argument has no teeth, since theories--regardless of how many decades they've been out there--are still nothing more than theory aka educated guesses.

Alter2Ego

 

While skeptics will insist there is no Jehovah, they have no legitimate explanation for how organic life resulted from non-life. But they insist that the baseless theory of evolution is fact. The skeptics aka atheists insist that organic life was not created; it simply "evolved."

Alter2Ego

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and you can't prove a scientific theory. We can't prove The Theory of Gravity is true because we don't even know what gravity is and can't even see the little gravity particles working. We can only see the effects of gravity and create a theory to explain it. We then generate falsifiable predictions from the theory and see if those predictions are confirmed.

So no, we can't prove black holes exist, or the theory of relativity is true, or that atomic theory is true, or that the fossils in the ground are the ancestors of creatures living today, and evolved from other fossils below them.

We can make predictions based on evolution and see if these predictions are confirmed by the fossils in the ground. What we find in the fossil record is its ordered from simple to complex and we see ordered transitional fossils for leaps in evolution. You won't find human fossils out of order among dinosaurs, or find a lizard in the layers with single-celled life, and thats because they are ordered by evolution. Fossils follow the rules of evolution and that wouldn't be expected if evolution was false.

A scientific family of animals isn't the same as a scientific species. Families contain species. So when evolutionists are taking about new species, that doesn't necessarily mean new families. Dogs all belong to the same species, so new dogs isn't speciation.

 

Most skeptics simply lack evidence to believe in any God like Thor, Zeus, or Yahweh and so don't believe in them. I don't believe in the Christian God because of logical inconsistencies in the bible but there is no way of proving or disproving a creator any more than proving or disproving unicorns.

The theory of evolution isn't baseless and has a lot of evidence. Check out this link for the evidences for evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

We still lack evidence for an explanation for abiogenesis or the origin of life but that is a separate question from the evolution of life and requires a different theory to address it. Its ok to not know how life originated, and also be skeptical about the existence of a creator, and not believe in a logically inconsistent stone-age God, and also accept the evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor.

 

Just because you cannot or will not understand a thing does not make it go away.

 

Yes, humans don't know everything.

When we find some question we can't answer, escaping to the religious statement that "god did it" is NOT an improvement. In fact, "god did it" is the END of investigation. After all, why would one continue investigation if the answer is already known?

Thus, true believers in god, such as Darwin, continued investigation - refusing to accept the "god did it" answer.

The theory of evolution does not replace or answer abiogenesis, and excluding theists from the numbers who accept evolution is ridiculous - so your last two sentences just aren't correct.

 

There are several legitimate explanations. But since nobody was around at the time, these are theories without much hope of proof.

 

If we can do it...nature can and she had a lot more time.

 

tecoyah:

As soon as you can explain how "nature can do it," without intelligent intervention, you will have made a point. You have not made any points.

Alter2Ego

 

WillReadmore:

Abiogenesis theory--the claim that life resulted from non-life by itself--was debunked in 1859 by Louis Pasteur. So what point are you attempting to make here?

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

Since you claim "the theory of evolution ... has a lot of evidence," when do you intend to present so much as a single evidence--in your own words--within this thread?

Alter2Ego