|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where is the evidence for evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
blanko writes:
quote: Care to back up that assertion? I'm not going to accept your say-so that there is a global conspiracy to promote evolution and that nobody has been able to uncover it before now.
quote: Mathematics isn't a science.
quote: Firstly, live most probably DID NOT start with a cell.Secondly, abiogenisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. Live could have been zapped into existence, arrived through a dimentional rift, or came about via abiogenisis. Evolution doesn't care, as long as that life doesn't replicate perfectly evolution proceeds naturally. Thirdly, scientific theories are based on 'probabilities', though not the way you think. The more evidence supports a theory, the more probable it is that said theory is correct. No theory ever reaches 100% probability, however it can go from highly likely to to falsified very quickly. All you need is evidence that the theory cannot explain. Have any? quote: You do know what panspermia means don't you?Where did you get this quote anyway? It matters little. Fred Hoyle is wrong. Nobody I know says that life originated randomly. It most likely started chemically, following the rules of chemistry. You do know that chemicals don't react together randomly don't you? ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
sonnikke writes:
quote: Why would I want to do that? Just because scientists make use of Math in their theories and law use equations to express certain relationships does not make mathematics science. Math has proofs.Science has evidence. Math is exact. Science is tentative. quote: Do you doubt that life exists?
quote: Why? If life exists and doesn't reproduct perfectly then evolution happens. How it got here doesn't matter.
quote: Since when did their experiment fail?
quote: No. It is because they are different theories. Period. ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Zephan writes:
quote: How exactly should I provide peer reviewed references for something that doesn't happen? Besides, you are shifting the burden of proof. Blanko claimed that evolution and abiogenisis are part of the same theory, therefore he has the burden of proof.
quote: What fairy tale? ------------------compmage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
blanko writes:
quote: Scientists discarding evidence? You do have evidence of this, don't you? You are right; scientists are biased. They are biased in favour of evidence. What is wrong with that?
quote: I have a feeling these are going to be out of context.
quote: I knew it. Did you bother reading the next paragraph? Here it is: Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." - Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (Chapter 6) If you had actually read this you would know that Charles Darwin did not consider evolution 'absurd'.
quote: I have never seen this before, but given that the previous quote was out of contect I'm going to ask you to provide a reference for this.
quote: Never heard of this before either, but since no one is suggesting the life accurred by chance it doesn't matter. Besides, what does abiogenisis have to do with evolution? Some quote expressing personal opinion... quote: Respected evolutinists?Darwin who you quoted out of context. Dr. Clark, who's quote is unreference. Prof. Rubin, who's quote is also unreferenced and who (if that quote is accurate) doesn't understand abiogenisis or evolution. A doctor and a lawyer? quote: I can. You are being mislead. Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life given the current evidence.
quote: I have a feeling we mean different things by "exact" here, but I'll see where it goes.
quote: It is not debatable.The Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Abiogenisis. Two different theories. End of story.
quote: Interesting you should say that. One of those options was creation.However you missed the point. It doesn't matter how life got here, as long as it doesn't reproduce perfectly evolution will occur. quote: No. It is possible to have many theories, none of which are supported by evidence. A theory is valid if it explains all the evidence and makes predictions that can be tested.
quote: How exactly is evolution mathematically impossible?And if it is impossible, why do we see it happening before our eyes? quote: Hoyle was not a good choice.
quote: Reference?
quote: This is all good a well...except that chemicals don't react randomly. If I have 1 mole of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen at 1 atmosphere and I spark them, I get water. Every time. How is that random?
quote: Except that chemical reactions don't happen randomly.
quote: See above. The calculations are worthless since they don't address what abiogenisis says happened.
quote: This is not science. It is people who don't understand chemistry and probabilities misleading others. 1) Chemisty isn't random.2) We don't know exactly what the conditions where when life came into existence. 3) We don't know how many of the possible combinations would have lead to life. Therefore it isn't possible to calculate the probabilities of life occuring randomly. What does any of this have to do with evolution? *** Edited to fix quote tage ------------------compmage [This message has been edited by compmage, 02-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
blanko writes:
quote: If he had 'proven' it instead of just asserting, then yes. ------------------Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
blanko writes;
quote: Primordial Egg already dealt with this.
quote: Do all the research you need. As far as my being 'arrogant'. It is nothing of the sort. Chemical reactions are not random, therefore any calculations based on pure chance with regards to chemisty are invalid. That is simply not how chemistry works.
quote: I am not a Chistian. You still have yet to explain why evolution requires abiogenisis. Care to answer this question?
quote: Scientists are human. However, your claim made it sound as if evolutiionary biologists as a rule almost, discard or falsify evidence. ------------------Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Quetzal writes: Yeah, yeah. I know I'm a lazy sod, but there it is.
Not that lasy. I don't know if I would even bother trying to write an essay, but maybe it also has to do with no having read enough to be able to write one.
Quetzal writes: It's one thing to post a "Evolutionists can't explain X" sort of one line challenge OP. It's another to develop an explanation for a complex line of argument. I don't know what the solution is... Become a creationist. It is far simpler to assert than to argue. That's my off topic post for the day. A suggestion. Perhaps off topic post, like this one, should be marked as such. That way people who don't want to read them, can just skip them? Then again it might encourage these sort of posts. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024