Evolution is a myth

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Hortlund, how did life start?

I dont know.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Can you name a single organism on the planet today that did not come from some other organism before it? Fact #3 is indeed fact.

[/b]
Ok, so you want to change your "fact"#3 from "All living forms come from previous living forms" to "There isn't a single life form on the planet today that didn't come from something else."

You DO realize that you have just killed off your own theory on how life evolved then...since it only applies to life forms that exist on the planet today. Well, thanks fo trying, but you still should follow that get an education-tip.

Origin of life is all theory... No question... plenty of room for divine intervention here if that's your bent.

Evolution and origin of species is something else entirely with plenty of evidence to support it.

[/b]
hehe, this is acutally quite amusing. So are you saying that the theory of evolution is not a theory..but there is plenty of evidence to support it? I'll leave you to ponder over the consequences of your choise of words here and see if you can understand why that is hillariously funny.

It's not about god guys. It's really not. It's about the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, a book that quite obvious to the casual observer, is a load of crap.

I see you have a tendency to hold up your own opinions as facts. If you went to school, you would learn that it doesnt really work that way after kindergarten.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
I got one for ya Mr. Logic.

Is the square root of 2 a never repeating decimal? How about Pi?

Prove it.


Calling someone a MORON because you think his logic is flawed, then backing it up with a silly statement like that is really below you. Something like Evolution has been proven to the extent that it is highly unlikely that it is wrong.

Enough to convict in even your courtroom logicmeister.

MT, this evolution vs creation debate have been going on for dozens of threads now..some participants are smarter than others. This sandman guy should try to read back in the old threads and he might learn something about the stuff he is talking about. Instead he presents some rediculous theory on how to logically prove the theory of evolution.

If you want to open up the topic again, fine fine, you can start by telling us if you are talking about macro or micro evolution. Then you can list your evidence for macro evolution. (I have a vauge recollection that the latest thread on e vs c ended somewhere at that point, cant remember exactly though)

I'm not going to try to prove some mathematic stuff here MT, simply because I cant. I barely know what pi is, heck after school I have not once tried to calculate the area of a circle and stuff like that. But I note that your choice of topic is quite interesting, since math is the only science with exact answers.

[bounder]

Mathematics is a closed system. The only reason there are exact answers is because the environment is artificially created and not boundless like the universe; therefore (according to Gödel) incomplete and necessarily internally inconsistent. This has been proven.

There are no such thing as 'circles' in the real world. Only things that approximate circular form.

There is no such thing as a straight line or a point in the real world. These are human constructions.

[StSanta]

A quickie. Someone stated that 'evolution is just a theory, not a fact'.

This is erroneous. There are two aspects of evolution and it might be poor that the same word is used. But let me explain quickly.

Evolution is popularly described in 'change in allele frequency in a population over time'. What this basically means is that there are some stuff on genes that change - and that the change is propogated through the entire species over time. In this sense, evolution is a fact - this has been proven time and time again to happen.

Then there is the theory of evolution. A scientific theory that explains a fact. In this case the diversity we see in nature and the origin of species.

For those that cannot see the difference, the first definition is more of a factual nature. 'Evolution is this:' basically. The second use of the term takes a fact and tries to explain why things are the way it is.

So, evolution is a fact and a theory.

I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of evolution that creationists are uncomfortable with. In my discussions with creationists, i've found that they're not so much trying to discredit evolution because it might be flawed, but more because they have an alternative they like better. It strikes me as odd when someone states 'oh that is unrealistic' only to claim 'an invisible unknowable form majickally created something'. Consistency? Absent.

[Kadesh]

"Originally posted by midnight Target
I got one for ya Mr. Logic.

Is the square root of 2 a never repeating decimal? How about Pi?

Prove it. "

If the square root of 2 is NOT a never repeating decimal, then it can be expressed in the form p/q, where p and q are integers.

Assume that such a rational number (r) exists such that r ^2 =2
Therefore p^2/q^2 = 2

Now for the square root of 2 to be expressed as p/q they must have no common factors, otherwise we could reduce the fraction further.

Therefore by rearranging p^2 = 2q^2

But if this is true, then p and q must have common factors and must therefore be reducible.  Therefore p and q cannot be integers, and if they are NOT integers therefore the square root of 2 MUST be an irrational number (a never repeating decimal).

Next?

[lazs2]

what difference does it make?  The God guys are gonna believe what they belive and the "science dudz" are gonna believe.... whatever is popular and "undisputed" this decade.   At least the God guys don't have to recant every few (relatively speaking) years..

I am an agnostic on the subject... not so much because it interests me but because it doesn't.
lazs

[Sandman]

Originally posted by hyena426
go prove your right and get that money then:)<~`ill by you a beer too after you get the $10,000,,lol prove the big bang to be true,,,,a big bang just happend out of nothingness<~~how can that happen?,science nor anyone can prove that,,how can the hydrogen atom just appear out of nothing?,,, and then explode and form a vast universe,, science believes this to be true,, a belief,,sounds like religion again,,lol,,thought they only based science on facts not beliefs?<~~and if he is lieing about the 10,000 sue:),,lol,,jk but its worth a shot


but threoy is a belief in somthing that isnt proven yet,,just like some people are saying about god,,,so in a way,,god is allmost a threoy ,,lol,,im not taking anyone side on this,,,ill make my own choices and not push any of my beliefs on anyone,,i was just giving my point of veiw on it and info,,thats all nothing more all

Hyena... Fact... the observable universe is expanding. How do we know? It can be measured. Fact... ALL of the observable galaxies are moving away from each other.  Now, it stands to reason that yesterday, the galaxies were closer to each other than they are today and a billion years ago, they were much closer. Keep backing up in time and eventually, you come to a beginning. You have to.

How it all started? Who knows? We don't have enough information yet. But there's considerably more data than "god made it happen" available. You have to consider that the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago with a extremely limited amount of data.

The guy you keep quoting is a whack job. Stars are born and stars die in this universe every single day. Some of them have even been captured on film.

I've neither the time nor the inclination to shoot the many holes in that link.

It's all moot... There is an mechanism of the universe. Have no doubt. We don't understand it all. Even if we did, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god. That is an issue of faith not science.

The morons who treat science as if it were faith understand neither.

-edited to reduce/remove patronizing tone-

[Sandman]

Yep... Santa pretty much nailed it.

[Yeager]

The Big Cigarette!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Hortlund

You DO realize that you have just killed off your own theory on how life evolved then...since it only applies to life forms that exist on the planet today. Well, thanks fo trying, but you still should follow that get an education-tip.
[/B]

Cool... maybe I can go to your school... Shouldn't be too difficult being surrounded by people too dim to realize that the Old Testament is a fable.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hyena... I'm convinced that you haven't a clue. Fact... the universe is expanding. How do we know? It can be measured. Fact... ALL of the galaxies are moving away from each other.  

It's only a "fact" that "ALL" the galaxies moving away from each other are the ones we can observe. Like all "facts", this one is based on the assumption that what we observes extrapolates to that which we don't.

How do you know that the outer edge of the universe hasn't begun collapsing?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StSanta
A quickie. Someone stated that 'evolution is just a theory, not a fact'.

This is erroneous. There are two aspects of evolution and it might be poor that the same word is used. But let me explain quickly.

Evolution is popularly described in 'change in allele frequency in a population over time'. What this basically means is that there are some stuff on genes that change - and that the change is propogated through the entire species over time. In this sense, evolution is a fact - this has been proven time and time again to happen.

Then there is the theory of evolution. A scientific theory that explains a fact. In this case the diversity we see in nature and the origin of species.

For those that cannot see the difference, the first definition is more of a factual nature. 'Evolution is this:' basically. The second use of the term takes a fact and tries to explain why things are the way it is.

So, evolution is a fact and a theory.

I'd be happy to discuss any aspect of evolution that creationists are uncomfortable with. In my discussions with creationists, i've found that they're not so much trying to discredit evolution because it might be flawed, but more because they have an alternative they like better. It strikes me as odd when someone states 'oh that is unrealistic' only to claim 'an invisible unknowable form majickally created something'. Consistency? Absent.

You are using observed microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. It doesnt work that way. You know it doesnt work that way, so I really dont understand what point you are trying to make here.

It is more complicated than you pretend it to be, and you know that, so why the BS?

But we have been over this discussion before. In fact you promised to start yet another thread about the subject after you posted your what is scientific theory threads in the past. The answer to why you are wrong in this post can be found in those threads so instead of acting as if they dont exist, go back to them and answer the questions there instead.

I really expected more from you.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yep... Santa pretty much nailed it.

LOL you are so pathetic. At least try to present your own arguments.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by AKIron
It's only a "fact" that "ALL" the galaxies moving away from each other are the ones we can observe. Like all "facts", this one is based on the assumption that what we observes extrapolates to that which we don't.

How do you know that the outer edge of the universe hasn't begun collapsing?

You're absolutely right and I'll rephrase... "the observable universe is expanding."