I suggest you realize you have no scientific foundation other than the origin of life which you continue to avoid explanation.
toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
I suggest you realize you have no scientific foundation other than the origin of life which you continue to avoid explanation.
Django is right.
Here is another video; it’s pretty long Arthur, but maybe it will help you understand why many people that have done the research, do not believe in the theory of evolution.
I hope you don’t let the length persuade you from watching, or watch it when you find some free time.
=M=
=========================
Here is another video; it’s pretty long Arthur, but maybe it will help you understand why many people that have done the research, do not believe in the theory of evolution.
I hope you don’t let the length persuade you from watching, or watch it when you find some free time.
=M=
=========================
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How about God? You do realize that there's no reason why science and belief can't co-exist, right? If you think gravity is "just a theory" then you really should acquaint yourself as to what the term means in science as well.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, he isn't right in the slightest. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life itself originated, at all. How life evolves is a completely separate issue and thanks but no thanks where it comes to the video. There's all sorts of whacko stuff on youtube and if you want to show how evolution as a theory can be debunked then it needs to be credible and verified.
Right gravity does exist,not based on a theory, ask God what about? Since you brought Him up, I guess you realize he exist or does he as your creator? Did God create you?
I challenge your statement; if there is evidence for the theory show me.
A scientific theory is based on science facts, observable science: like the theory of gravity, which is based on physical laws of the Gravity constant. The theory of evolution is not observable or testable, which means it’s not a scientific theory, it’s just a theory which there is no evidence for.
If you think there is evidence for evolution, please post it.
Like a picture of a fossil that is in between species, or a fossil that has unformed functional anatomy; such as a leg, or an arm that is not fully formed.
Why is it all the animals we find fossils of have fully developed anatomy?
Even the trilobites had fully functional eyes and legs; yet, the theory of evolution suggests that animals have gained functional anatomy over long periods of time: however, actual fossil evidence has proven that theory false.
=M=
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The theory of gravity exists and explains the whys and wherefores just like the theory of evolution. Both exist. I answered you as to a source of life, God. Evolution doesn't do away with there being one, you do know that, right?
A scientific theory is based on science facts, observable science: like the theory of gravity, which is based on physical laws of the Gravity constant. The theory of evolution is not observable or testable, which means it’s not a scientific theory, it’s just a theory which there is no evidence for.
=M=
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How about you simply research the theory of evolution and see why it's actually a theory and not just a hypothesis? There's a plethora of evidence for it that's just a google click away. If there wasn't sufficient evidence for it it wouldn't have become a theory. Heck, take a look at the link that debunks Djengo's OP for a start.
Forget about evolution if you possibly can and just tell me how you came into to being.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, if there was no evidence for it then it wouldn't have become a theory to start with. In science, the term "theory" has a whole different meaning to common usage. I thought you might have been aware of that.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, my parents had something to do with it...
lain:
Yes they did and how did they come to be and so on until Adam. How did Adam become Adam?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, their parents and theirs before them etc? What point are you trying to make exactly? If it's that God created life itself to start with then I'm not arguing against that.
A scientific theory is based on science facts, observable science: like the theory of gravity, which is based on physical laws of the Gravity constant. The theory of evolution is not observable or testable, which means it’s not a scientific theory, it’s just a theory which there is no evidence for.
There is no evidence for it.
You keep claiming there has to be evidence for a belief to be a theory; that’s false, a theory can be made about anything, it’s just a belief. Only scientific theories have evidence for them, which evolution does not, which makes it just a belief that people hold not based in reality or on any physical evidence.
Evolution is a belief that remains unproven.
=M=
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Not only do you mean nothing by your word, "evolves", but also, in your attempts at obfuscation, you invite in more nonsense jargon: "expands". Why do you so like to multiply jargon by which you mean absolutely nothing?
Life "evolves"?
Life "expands"?
Utterly meaningless; and you seem to agree with me that it is so, inasmuch as you stonewall against every request for you to say what (if anything) you imagine you mean by such slogans.
"species" (plural--you have no article) "evolves" (singular)?
"species" (plural--you have no article) "expands" (singular)?
You can't even get grammatical number to agree between your noun and verbs. Sad.
You mean absolutely nothing, therein.
What (if anything) would you say is the difference between "came about," and "came about to begin with"?
You must stonewall against this question, just like you have had to stonewall against my questions about your phrases, "life", and "life itself". You know as well as I, and everybody else reading this thread, that you are forced to remain silent to these questions. And look: even though you have no hope of giving a reason for your sometimes choosing to write "life itself", rather than "life", you nevertheless have the audacity, here, to add emphasis (via italics) to the word, 'itself', as though you imagine you are somehow modifying the word, 'life', in some important, noteworthy, meaningful way.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Of course there's evidence for it, an abundance of it. You don't get to redefine the term where it applies to science. If there was no evidence or an insufficient amount for it to become a theory then it would have remained a hypothesis or possibly discarded altogether if the evidence didn't support it. That it's a theory should impress upon you just how much evidence there is because in science theories are about as definitive as it gets.
In science, a theory is not "just a belief" by any stretch.
At what point is the origin of mankind and how did he come to be? Was man created in the image of God or evolved? Look in the mirror and analyze yourself. What do you see that you need to run from and you know you are?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Let's see if this will help clarify things in more simple detail. A brick does not evolve into a house. It's not alive. A house can be built but all of those bricks and cement and such are not alive. Evolution can't make a brick become a house or a wall or an insulation unit because bricks are not alive. Evolution can't make a brick become alive either. Or a wall, or an insulation unit. Evolution does not cause life.