It's really fine that you have your faith and all, but stop trying to speak on science when you clearly don't understand the concepts you're talking about. You aren't going to trick anyone out of understanding evolution anymore than we are going to convince you to give up your religious beliefs.
It's really fine that you have your faith and all, but stop trying to speak on science when you clearly don't understand the concepts you're talking about. You aren't going to trick anyone out of understanding evolution anymore than we are going to convince you to give up your religious beliefs.
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2002
- 6,957
- 1,268
- 126
Compared to other English-speaking nations
Relgious (belief in a god)
USA approx 90%
Ireland 73%
Australia 65%
New Zealand 60% approx
UK 38%
Relgious (belief in a god)
USA approx 90%
Ireland 73%
Australia 65%
New Zealand 60% approx
UK 38%
Gravity can be tested by anyone. It's observable, testable, repeatable. It's not exactly understood, but there are definite laws that exist within the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity is incredibly useful in aiming a spacecraft to pluto or if you want to catapult something a certain distance, like a mortar shell.
Evolution on the other hand, has one wild conclusion supported by a lot of wild speculation, full of missing data, depends on models that make one crazy assumption after another and unproven principals. Evolution has no practical purpose or use in science. It can't be used to predict anything what so ever with any kind of accuracy.
The 2 "Theories" are nowhere near each other in terms of usefulness and testable evidence.
You still don't have a clue about the scientific definition of the word, theory so here it is, again:
It takes only one demonstrable contradiction to disprove a theory. Got one to disprove evolution?
Didn't think so. Neither does anyone else.
The same cannot be said for "creationism," "creation science" or "intelligent design." The only "intelligence" in a speculative Trojan horse like in "Intelligent Design" is the directed, intentional effort by its proponents to cloud the definition of the word, theory with the more colloquial, less precise usage. The concepts presented by "creationism," "creation science" or "intelligent design" are contradicted by the physical evidence of the history of this planet and the observed universe. They fail out of the gate as a scientific hypotheses or propositions
Evolution can be tested by anyone. It's observable, testable, repeatable. (like with bacteria) It's not exactly understood, but there are definite principles that exist within the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is incredibly useful in developing new biological agents for cleaning up oil spills, our understanding of microbiology, and the principles behind developing new antibiotics and antiviral agents.
Gravity on the other hand has one conclusion (attraction) supported by a lot of speculation, full of missing data (what is the agent? The hypothetical graviton?) , depends on models that make one crazy assumption after another (relativity vs. quantum mechanics) and unproven principles.
Duwelon, how long is it going to take for you to realize that the real lesson you should take from this is not whether evolution is true or false (as your fanaticism has prevented you from objectively viewing this issue). It is that you are fundamentally ignorant of science. How many times have I and other people had to correct flaws with your understanding of extremely basic principles? Shouldn't this instead tell you that you should go read a few books before debating more?
When you stop posting lies and peddling them as real science. Evolution cannot be tested by anyone. Evolution has no use in developing new antibiotics, at least not macro-evolution that we're talking about, which would be necessary in going from a mineral to a living human over billions of years.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,122
- 12,764
- 136
Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are made up words that are never used in the scientific community.
It is the same mechanism for all evolution.
Evolution is used for developing new antibiotics. When a set of bacteria become immune to something like penecillin, you have to find a new vector to destroy the bacteria without hurting human cells. Evolution, such as finding antibiotic resistant cells allows for testing of gene expression and finding out what different things do.
As Eskimospy said, you have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING and a FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING as to what science is doing. You just keep opening your mouth and showing the world how much of an ignoramus you really are.
First off, chill out.
Again, the theory of evolution is absolutely no benefit to the actual work involved in creating a new drug to fight a mutated virus. The theory of evolution is of zero benefit to the process. it makes no predictions about how a virus will mutate, because, tada, it can't, because everything people like you and eskimospy know about evolution is based on theories and "models" that have no basis in real testable, repeatable, demonstrable SCIENCE.
What's great is that you only prove my point with your post. As has been told to you dozens of times at this point, evolution makes no claim as to how living things came from non-living things. See what I mean? Basic facts.
Evolution is proven each and every day in the lab. Richard Lenski has done just such an experiment, and the evolution is testable and repeatable. Furthermore biologists are using evolutionary principles to create new strains of beneficial bacteria in order to combat a whole host of problems. You do realize that these same scientists do not differentiate between micro and macro evolution, right? It's all one process. Hell, without evolution there would never be a need for new antibiotics, as bacteria would never become resistant.
Seriously? No one claims you can make predictions..
Mutations happen and natural selection determines whether the mutation is viable
You keep putting words in my mouth because you take what I say out of context. Macro-evolution is an idea, the culmination of going from something simple like a mineral or one species to another, like a non-rock or another species completely incompatible with the first. CLUE TO ESKIMOSPY AND OTHERS: THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, DEMONSTRATED AND THEREFORE NEVER REPEATED EITHER.
Apparently you make no distinction between an ape evolving into a human and a bacteria changing to a more resistant..... bacteria. It's still a bacteria. It still has the basic characterists of a bacteria, but somehow for you it's proof of evolution. Well anyone will admit the bacteria changed, but to say it did anything other than adapt using it's already present DNA or harmful mutation of already present DNA is not real science. There is no proof that the bacteria evolved into anything other than a variation of itself, another bacteria.
I put no words in your mouth. You said from a mineral to a human being, non-life to life. If you cannot be bothered to phrase your statements accurately I'm certainly not the one to blame.
There's no 'somehow' that it's proof of evolution, it is. Again, you are blinded by religious fanaticism. This idea threatens your world view, and so to you it must be wrong... you just have to figure out how. The fact that evolution is an extremely complex process doesn't help, because it just creates a shield of ignorance from which you can hide behind.
When you say that the bacteria just turned into a different form of bacteria, you're not understanding that a series of mutations has led to an entirely different means by which to process food. This is like turning a herbivore into a carnivore. You say it has to be 'something new', but what you don't seem to realize (or choose to ignore) is that the line you draw is completely arbitrary. Hell, we ourselves have caused speciation to occur, the modern domestic sheep cannot mate with the ancestors we developed it from, are therefore incompatible with the old sheep, the very definition of a new species. We do the same thing with fruit flies.
EDIT: I see you've said this has never been observed. That is ridiculously false, and the above provided examples show this.
Because in a lab you can determine the environment, genius. If you want to encourage certain traits you can alter the environment to encourage the survival of those traits. This is basic... basic stuff man. Go read a fucking book that isn't the bible.
Your lack in basic reading comprehension speaks volumes for you. I said evolution is worthless in making predictions (edit, in other fields of science) and you delved into this drivel. Before you read into what I said, re-read what I said.
SSSnail
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 17,458
- 83
- 86
Who's up for a Museum of His Holiness The Flying Spaghetti Monster? (Herein shall be referred to as FSM).
I will take up donation to create this museum, everything from the beginning when the pasta was created, and the sauce. Though one can argue when the sauce was created, it could be before or after the spaghetti; don't get me started on the meatballs. Nobody can prove how the meatballs were created, you just have to believe.
Please send all donations to FSMnutcase@imdumberthanshiet.org.
I will take up donation to create this museum, everything from the beginning when the pasta was created, and the sauce. Though one can argue when the sauce was created, it could be before or after the spaghetti; don't get me started on the meatballs. Nobody can prove how the meatballs were created, you just have to believe.
Please send all donations to FSMnutcase@imdumberthanshiet.org.
As I said before, go read a fucking book. Using environmental factors allows scientists to work on types of bacteria that are useful in immunology, environmental cleanup, etc... etc. Sounds like other areas of science to me.
I don't know why I bother with you. You're a religious fanatic.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
What about..medicine?
You know, bacteria and viruses growing resistant to medication is evolution. They evolve to survive new environments. This evolution is triggered by an already existing mutation that causes a virus or bacteria to be immune to the medicine. Then that bacteria and virus multiplies until it creates an entire colony of drug resistance organisms, letting them survive
Thats all based off evolution.
That is definately "evolution" that is demonstrable, testable, and is in fact, scientific. What started this whole thing with eskimospy again is me saying that the principals of evolution, the whole damn theory is so shallow and so unknown, that it has no scientific principals which can be applied to a current bacteria to predict what the outcome should be.
Think of it this way: Throwing a boulder at an angle + theory of gravity we can determine almost exactly where the boulder will land, minus wind and other factors.
A current bacteria + antibiotic + evolution = science has no friggin clue. That's all I said. Of course the bacteria changes, i'll even go as far as call it evolution, but to say it's a new species or that (macro) evolution is real science and can predict what the outcome will be is pure fantasy.
I hope one day the idea that a magic man in the sky created us is right where it belongs...in a museum. Right next to rubbing two sticks together to create fire, and 56K modems.
ZzZGuy
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 1,855
- 0
- 0
Well, the quote button doesn't seem to be working.
@Duwelon
To be blunt, are you or are you not attempting to disprove the theory of evolution in order to prove creationism is right?
I ask this the give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not fallen into the trap many believers of creationism do, which is to think that disproving evolution proves creationism right. In my treks across the net and in several books I have seen this over and over again.
-edit- To attempt to disprove evolution using science is perfectly fine, this is how science works. I am not attempting to mock you. It is only the bible quoting nuts who long abandoned reason I don't like.
You also do not fully understand the definition of evolution, the two biggest errors I have seen is thinking the theory of evolution is ALSO the theory of how life began, it is not. The theory of evolution begins AFTER life began, we still do not know how life started on earth, or even if it started on earth. The second error is assuming evolution is used to predict exact outcomes, such as in 5 generations these hamsters will have a extra toe. The theory of evolution explains how animals slowly change over many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many generations.
I will not discuss the piratical uses of the theory of evolution as I have not looked into it and know jack all about that subject.
-edit- Also edited for link failure, I so wanted to use LetMeGoogleThatForYou.
@Duwelon
To be blunt, are you or are you not attempting to disprove the theory of evolution in order to prove creationism is right?
I ask this the give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not fallen into the trap many believers of creationism do, which is to think that disproving evolution proves creationism right. In my treks across the net and in several books I have seen this over and over again.
-edit- To attempt to disprove evolution using science is perfectly fine, this is how science works. I am not attempting to mock you. It is only the bible quoting nuts who long abandoned reason I don't like.
You also do not fully understand the definition of evolution, the two biggest errors I have seen is thinking the theory of evolution is ALSO the theory of how life began, it is not. The theory of evolution begins AFTER life began, we still do not know how life started on earth, or even if it started on earth. The second error is assuming evolution is used to predict exact outcomes, such as in 5 generations these hamsters will have a extra toe. The theory of evolution explains how animals slowly change over many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many generations.
I will not discuss the piratical uses of the theory of evolution as I have not looked into it and know jack all about that subject.
-edit- Also edited for link failure, I so wanted to use LetMeGoogleThatForYou.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter