$50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

quote:

---

God's being cannot be explained by philosophy or science... God is just too much for us to understand.

---

I'll agree with that. In fact, that's why I expect science to provide material explanations for natural processes. What else could we understand?

quote:

---

No I think the vital difference is that you believe Man to evolve from a Primordial pool and at that 'randomly'. Mathematicians dont support that premise either, so its not really 'blind faith' to believe in a creator.

---

I think it's pretty well established that humans share ancestry with all beings on Earth, and I'm not ashamed of that. You use the word 'random' like it means something other than 'without purpose or intent.' Obviously the deterministic process of natural selection doesn't depend on mere chance. What mathematicians in particular dispute the hypothesis of common descent? Again, it certainly is 'blind faith' to believe in something you admit you can't understand, that's the essence of faith. But it's not science.

quote:

---

Could God create a simple world yes, but He clearly didn't though. I kinda just have to look around me at the complexities of even the tiniest tick.

---

And I keep saying that the complexity is due to the billions of years of evolution that have taken place. Sometimes you say you agree that natural selection and adaptation take place, sometimes you attribute even a spider's web to a 'superior designer.'Again, I agree that God is too much for us to understand. But Nature isn't. If you give it its due and have respect for its wonders, you'll learn. If you keep bringing the supernatural into it (as if Nature can't take care of itself), then you're back to believing whatever you want.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

How is that any different from using the Big Bang and evolutionary theory in filtering what you will, will not accept ? You will not accept Creation, because of the Big Bang theory. Everyone seems to have their blinkers on. Hi, its not my site. It's merely a site I could pull that quote from.
I suppose I can go and post every possible mathematical formula I can find, but I doubd't any of us would even be able to understand it, thus I posted the opinion of well respected Scientists and Mathematicians. Seeing as they are not on the forums to defend their theories, and I would'nt be out to defend it either, I think we should go by their statements dont you think ?"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"
Sir Fred Hoyle.You can choose to criticise Hoyle's theories after his death, and post them here, but unfortunitely I wont be able to defend it. I go by when he said when he was alive.

You posted a link to a page of Marxist philosophy - that doesn't evne touch on the subject you were supposed to be discussing and then claim that it is the work of "well respected scientists and mathematicians" ?And since you beleive Hoyle so implicitly (in subjects where he was NOT an expert) I suppose you also accept his view that Christianity is the product of a virus from space ?

quote:

---

How is that any different from using the Big Bang and evolutionary theory in filtering what you will, will not accept ? You will not accept Creation, because of the Big Bang theory. Everyone seems to have their blinkers on.

---

Wrong again...you are equating now physics AND biology with religion...if evidence (no this does not mean assertions, your favorite passage from the bible, doctored photos of a skull with horns glued on etc. but real scientific evidence like alleles frequencies in a population that adapts to a new environment do not change over time) then scientists will either have to adapt or discard the theory of evolution. This has happened repeatedly thoughout the history of science as more and more information and insight has been accumulated....look up the protein only hypothesis of prion pathogenesis or kuru which revolutionized the idea of what can or cannot be a pathogenic substance for a recent example.but here is something for you to do if you want your religion to be accepted as scientifically valid..mind you nobody has ever been able to do it....1. propose a testable hypothesis of creation
2. explain how it is a falsifiable hypothesis
3. show the supporting evidence for the hypothesis
4. explain theoritically or empirically why the counter evidence is not valid.If you cannot do this then creationism is not science.

Zealot, Nonsense. I can construct a logical argument supported by evidence to "show" that both evolution & the BB are indicative of reality, I am in no way obliged or required to filter out data that doesn't fit. Therefore, I am not using the BB & evolution as a "knowledge filter". Creationists cannot construct a logical argument to support creation using Genesis, nor can they support it with evidence.There's only one side with their blinkers on, & it's not the evo's. Their statements are irrelevant to the matter in hand!You claimed to be able to mathematically falsify evolution, & all you do is post an irrelevant website about chaos theory with no supporting argument. You have not supported your claim.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

I posted a quote from Einstein. I used the first site I could find on the net that listed that quote. If you choose to ignore Hoyle, feel free.

You posted an IRRELEVANT quote from Einstein.And since you still seem to beleive that Hoyle's opinions should be accepted jsut because they come from Hoyle, I'll take it that you agree that Christianity is the product of a virus from space. After all if you rejected that you would be the one ignoring Hoyle (I don't - I *know* that his calculations don't give the probability of life forming naturally on Earth).

Mammuthus, So if something cant be proved to be false, it cant be a valid 'scientific' hypothesis ? On a smaller scale, how can Darwin's explanation of instinct in evolution be a hypothesis ? How is it possible to disprove ?cheers.

quote:

---

So if something cant be proved to be false, it cant be a valid 'scientific' hypothesis ?

---

Correct. Falsifiability is one of the criteria of a scientific hypothesis. There is no way to test it otherwise.

quote:

---

So if something cant be proved to be false, it cant be a valid 'scientific' hypothesis ?

---

You seem to be mixing up what this means. It doesn't mean you can prove something false, it means you can test whether or not it is false. For instance:If you drop a rock out of your hands, and it falls up, it means the theory of gravity is incorrect.In other words, gravity is falsifiable, but not false. This is a really oversimplified example, but you see my point.On the other hand, if I tell you that there are invisible, intangible gremlins that don't smell like anything or make any sounds living in the president's underwear, there is no way to test this hypothesis. It would amount to, "No, you've just got to trust me on this one." Therefore, this hypothesis is not falsifiable, and not a valid hypothesis.

Fair enough. However Darwins explantion of instinct in Evolution. How can that be a hypothesis ? How would one prove that wrong ?

What, specifically, are you thinking of that Darwin said about instinct. He dedicates an entire chapter to it in The Origin of Species. We have to know what you're referring to before we can respond.--Percy

Simple. How would I go about proving that instinct has nothing to do with the ToE. What would I need to do to disprove it ?thanks

What exactly does he say the connection is?

Dan, Or you have something much more massive than the earth over your head, in which case closing your eyes may be a better strategy than looking up......Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."