|
Author
|
Topic: Why Evolution is science
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: What???
DivineBeginning writes: Who predicted the supposed changes from apes to man? Who observed it. See what I mean? Direct witness is not the only possible way to know about what has happened in the past. For instance, in modern courts a piece of forensic evidence is often considered more reliable then an eye witness (Eye witnesses can be biased, have failable memories or even lie)
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: What???
So does this mean that the scientists that "see" these evolutionary changes in the lab could be lying.
Individual scientists sometimes do lie (They are human beings too). That`s just but one among many reasons why peer reviewing is considered an essential part of the scientific process.
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: What???
Yes, I am aware they lie...especially in regards to radioactive dating. This is the biggest joke ever to hit the field. The numbers and data can be manipulated so as to achieve a desired result. This was explained to me by a scientist..Jay Gould.
For the whole field of radioactive dating to be a big joke it would take much more then some idividuals lying to get some grat money. It would take a huge conspiracy by a large chunk of the scientific community. Do you have any evidence that such a conspiracy actually exists?
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
AiG, That site has some good points, but the one about entropy is a joke. There is a reason why it is called a LAW. Everything follows it. They haven't disproved it...they can't. Food breaking down into it's components doesn't show that chaos is good. The quality of energy is still going down...just like the law says it will.
The point here isn't that the laws of thermodinamics don`t always work. The point is that the theory of evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: What???
Yes, there are a couple of books that I don't happen to own, but have read. They are by scientists that have studied evolution for years and finally confessed to the lies they had been telling to themselves and the public about how evolution is a dead end. It has no merit. They couldn't prove it. They're great books. I'll get the titles and get back to you.
is that supposed to be a response to my question about whether you believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to fabricate radiactive dating techniques? I don`t see the connection...
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
what do you mean it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics?
I mean exactly what I said. It doesn`t violate the laws of thermodynamics. New life forms can evolve while the entropy of the universe steadily grows. One thing does not prevent the other.
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: Speciation as an observed event shows evolution is science
But in the end, this loss of function/information, cannot be regained by lots of random mutations.
This is the centerpoint of your argument. You do not believe that new information can be created by randon mutations. Right now it stands as a simple statement of belief, an unsuported asertion. Since there is apriori no reason for us to believe that information cannot be created that way, could you elaborate a little more on your reasons to believe it?
My very first post at EvC was on a topic closely related to that question. You might be interested in reading that forum. I don`t know how to make links, but if you click on my name, and scroll down to my first post you will find a link for that forum. Edited by fallacycop, : typo Edited by AdminWounded, : Added link to post, to see how use peek.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 7:46 PM | | Confidence has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Nothing new under the sun
It is this type of information gaining that I, and other creationists, believe NEVER happened in life.
Well, you and other creationists believe in lots of wird stuff. No surprises here. Carry on...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Confidence, posted 11-29-2006 3:28 PM | | Confidence has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5547 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
Why throw a good mechanism of survival out the door when it will work for other kinds?
The right question is: Why to throw out a good explanation (Evolution namely) and appeal to a combersome combination of shapeless ad hoc explanation that at the end fail miserably to explain anything at all?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 1:47 PM | | Confidence has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
