A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
tiny_dancer33 said:
...Yeah, okay. I'm tired of repeating myself at this point. You said you understand what I mean, and then you keep asking me the same thing ("show me the test") because either you really don't get what I'm trying to say, or you just don't know how to respond. I'm not really sure how many more times I can say that I'm not claiming there is a test, and even if there were, my point is not that evolution can be irrefutably proved.

A scientific theory is something that can be tested, researched, discovered, tangibly experimented on or studied, and can be both supported and refuted with scientific claims. Evolutionary theory can be researched and studied through scientific observation, and scienctific research can both support and refute it. (Again, whether or not you agree with those observations is not my point.) A god or the existence of a god cannot be subjected to any of those, especially not a refutal, because the existence of a god is a belief or conviction not subject to observational study. And therefore should not be taught in class where the subject is observational study or experimentation - a science class.

...I'm done here. Your next post will probably just say the same thing anyway. =/
Click to expand...
As your posts continue to be the same, lack of understanding of your own claim
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Xaquin44 said:
same here.

I gave up after he droned on about how the killing of native americans wasn't genocide.
Click to expand...
gen·o·cide
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


Didn't happen. War against, horrible treatment of, sure. Genocide, not.
 
T

tiny_dancer33

Guest
This_person said:
As your posts continue to be the same, lack of understanding of your own claim
Click to expand...

Don't ever quote me out context, kay thanks. Let's revisit what I actually said, and this time I'll manifest your penchant for bolding.

A scientific theory is something that can be tested, researched, discovered, tangibly experimented on or studied, and can be both supported and refuted with scientific claims.
Click to expand...

You asked me to define a scientific theory and I did. And then I went on to say that evolution falls under those categories, one way or another. And creationism does not fall under any of them. Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
tiny_dancer33 said:
Don't ever quote me out context, kay thanks. Let's revisit what I actually said, and this time I'll manifest your penchant for bolding.
Click to expand...
I included the entire quote, what was out of context? :lol:
You asked me to define a scientific theory and I did. And then I went on to say that evolution falls under those categories. And creationism does not fall under any of them. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Youi're welcome.

Utilizing your entire quote
A scientific theory is something that can be tested, researched, discovered, tangibly experimented on or studied, and can be both supported and refuted with scientific claims[/quote]What is the method of supporting and/or refuting (scientifically) evolution without tests? What is the difference between tests and experiments, and research? When speaking of scientific discovery or study, what scientific support or refute is there for evolution that ID does not meet similarly (ie, without testing, experimentation)?

Thank you back.​
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
tommyjones said:
the crazy part is when you completely ignore evidence of evolution and change the questions to suit your religious dogma.
Click to expand...
But, I don't ignore the evidence of evolution! This is what drives ME crazy from y'all!! :lol:

Evolution in bacteria exists! We see it! We see how a species may change over suffiently large enough generations. We have no good idea why, but we do have empirical evidence of it. I don't doubt that most species probably evolve over time.

I have changed no questions except to clarify. My contention is that there is no science behind the concept of human evolution. I've been given several different, but similar, thoughts as to what constitutes science. Most recently, from Dancer:
Any one of the following
  • Tested
  • Researched
  • Discovered
  • Tangibly Experimented on
  • Studied
AND both of the following
  • can be supported with scientific claims
  • can be refuted with scientific claims
So, neither can be tested, they both can be researched through archeological evidence (because, let's face it, that evidence is equally valuable to both concepts), they were both "discovered" by mankind through reports of old men, neither can be tangibly experimented on with regards to the formation of humans, and, of course, they both can be "studied".

Neither human evolution nor creation can be supported by scientific claims, nor refuted through scientific claims.

Thus, they are both equally not science.
 
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
This_person said:
Evolution in bacteria exists We see it! We see how a species may change over suffiently large enough generations. We have no good idea why, but we do have empirical evidence of it. I don't doubt that most species probably evolve over time.!

I have changed no questions except to clarify. My contention is that there is no science behind the concept of human evolution. I've been given several different, but similar, thoughts as to what constitutes science. Most recently, from Dancer:
Any one of the following
  • Tested
  • Researched
  • Discovered
  • Tangibly Experimented on
  • Studied
AND both of the following
  • can be supported with scientific claims
  • can be refuted with scientific claims
So, neither can be tested, they both can be researched through archeological evidence (because, let's face it, that evidence is equally valuable to both concepts), they were both "discovered" by mankind through reports of old men, neither can be tangibly experimented on with regards to the formation of humans, and, of course, they both can be "studied".

Neither human evolution nor creation can be supported by scientific claims, nor refuted through scientific claims.

Thus, they are both equally not science.
Click to expand...

your first statement supports the theory of evolution, but you are welcome to continue to be blinded by your religious prejudices.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
tommyjones said:
your first statement supports the theory of evolution, but you are welcome to continue to be blinded by your religious prejudices.
Click to expand...
I don't discuss evolution in terms of religious beliefs. I discuss it in terms of the science it pretends, but doesn't actually, represent.

Once again, species may change, though we cannot yet discuss why. Who knows, maybe we live longer and are taller now because of better medicine and food :lol:, not through some arbitrary mutation of our species.

As I said, I believe evolution of specific species does exist. I just do not believe there has been anything close to demonstrating, beyond mere speculation, that humans evolved from separate forms of life. There is no transitional species fossils, there is no evidence of any type of life evolving into different types of life (such as both plants and animals from a single type of parent life) which would be required for the concept of evolution to be true (as it suggests that life originated as single celled lifeforms in the oceans from which evolved all of life today). And, as we don't know what the conditions were then, we can only guess at what it was, which means we can only guess at any tests/experiments to come up with the conditions to recreate.

Human evolution from oceanic protoplasm is not science, it's fanciful conjecture. Individual species evolution is a science.
 
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
This_person said:
I don't discuss evolution in terms of religious beliefs. I discuss it in terms of the science it pretends, but doesn't actually, represent.

Once again, species may change, though we cannot yet discuss why. Who knows, maybe we live longer and are taller now because of better medicine and food :lol:, not through some arbitrary mutation of our species.

As I said, I believe evolution of specific species does exist. I just do not believe there has been anything close to demonstrating, beyond mere speculation, that humans evolved from separate forms of life. There is no transitional species fossils, there is no evidence of any type of life evolving into different types of life (such as both plants and animals from a single type of parent life) which would be required for the concept of evolution to be true (as it suggests that life originated as single celled lifeforms in the oceans from which evolved all of life today). And, as we don't know what the conditions were then, we can only guess at what it was, which means we can only guess at any tests/experiments to come up with the conditions to recreate.

Human evolution from oceanic protoplasm is not science, it's fanciful conjecture. Individual species evolution is a science.
Click to expand...

and there is the religious prejudice- everything else evolved, god created me cuz i am special, thats what the book says anyway

back to ignore i guess.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
tommyjones said:
and there is the religious prejudice- everything else evolved, god created me cuz i am special, thats what the book says anyway

back to ignore i guess.
Click to expand...
You can put me back on ignore, but understand that I said nothing of the kind. I did not say everything else evolved but humans. I said just the opposite! I spoke not a word of God, or the Bible, or any other religious concept. As I stated above, I spoke in terms of the conjecture of evolution only. Nothing, not a single thing of religion. There has been no evidence in any kind of transitional species of ANYthing. Kinda strange, wouldn't you say, since 99% of life is gone now?
 
Tonio

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
This_person said:
When one believes in the sacredness of individual life, one will not accept abortion as a viable "choice". I would still be against it for that reason - the individual life is sacred. The lesser the religious background, the more likely (not certainty, but more likely) one will accept abortion as a choice.
Click to expand...

It's a mistake to assume that a religious background automatically leads to a belief in the "sacredness" of individual life, or that a lack of it automatically excludes such a belief. I use that word in quotes because religion has no monopoly on that aspect of life. That mistake cannot and should not depend on any particular claims about the existence of supernatural life.

As an aside, I have long been frustrated with fundamentalist pro-lifers because they also oppose contraception and sex education, two ways for preventing unwanted pregnancies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top