Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[Anonymouse]

The optic prism from which you perceive facts is touching.

Regardless whether the theory of Evolution is true or false,

So you believe in it.

any reasonable person has the ability to comprehend that it is impossible for a living organism to be created from mud,as the myth,not theory, of creationism states.

We don't know that. That is the thing with beliefs. Beliefs are beliefs and you cannot place value judgements on which beliefs are more 'correct'. Mind you, I never said I believe in the Biblical story of creation, much less from mud, so you are shadow boxing with yourself.

Putting in the same level the theory of Evolution and the mythical interpretation ,from a bunch of shepherds in the desert 4000 thousands years ago, regarding the creation of the universe, is merely ridiculous.

What is evolution but a religion itself, a mythical interpretation about the past?

[winoman]

What is evolution but a religion itself, a mythical interpretation about the past?

If you cannot separate myth/religion from scientific understanding - and understand why one is (infinitely) more believable then the other then I can only say I'm sorry for you - to willingly remain stupid.

[Anonymouse]

If you cannot separate myth/religion from scientific understanding - and understand why one is (infinitely) more believable then the other then I can only say I'm sorry for you - to willingly remain stupid.

How is evolution scientific understanding? Scientific conjecture, maybe, but understanding, hardly. We have been through this a thousand times, but your buoyant stupidity cannot seem to comprehend the definition of science, nor the scientific method. Science basically means knowledge. Knowledge in science is inferred from the scientific method. To validate ones point, requires the use of one of the senses to gain knowledge about the world around us, one of them being observation. Furthermore, it requires testability and must be repeated. Evolution, the progression from simple organisms to complex ones, has never been observed. Nor can the process be reproduced.

The only thing that is observable and testable is in the present, and it is in the present where evolution is a religion about the past. It makes bold and general claims about the past, for which we can neither observe, test, nor verify, but only take on a leap of faith. Hence, it is a religion about the past, to explain how we are here in the present. In that sense, it is no more scientific than Marx' nonsense trying to explain the past on how we arrived at the present. You will find that Marxists themselves fanatically believe in the 'scientific' nature of their Marxian dialectic.

[winoman]

hahahahaha - amusing.

I've already posted concerning the various tests which the Theory of Evolution has passed - including the recent DNA evidence - and all scientific evidence is verifying the Theory (natural selection and common descent etc) - there is nothing whatsoever that is contramanding it or calling it into question. The Theory of Evolution is Science - as much as Astronomy or physics or chemistry or what have you - whether you - or others who would rather rely on fairy tales and myth - believe otherwise. Evolution might be a belief - as you say - but it is a belief that is based on sound and accepted scientific foundation. To attack Evolution you must attack Science - and if this is your position OK - but make it clear - and regardless - we will laugh at you....

[winoman]

Evidence for Evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

etc

Observation (of speciation):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[Anonymouse]

hahahahaha - amusing.

I've already posted concerning the various tests which the Theory of Evolution has passed - including the recent DNA evidence - and all scientific evidence is verifying the Theory (natural selection and common descent etc) - there is nothing whatsoever that is contramanding it or calling it into question. The Theory of Evolution is Science - as much as Astronomy or physics or chemistry or what have you - whether you - or others who would rather rely on fairy tales and myth - believe otherwise. Evolution might be a belief - as you say - but it is a belief that is based on sound and accepted scientific foundation. To attack Evolution you must attack Science - and if this is your position OK - but make it clear - and regardless - we will laugh at you....

The theory of evolution is not science. It is a conjecture within science. It is what we call pseudoscience.

The theory of evolution is not observed. It cannot be observed. It is not testable. There is no reproducibility therefore it doesn't meet the criteria for the scientific method. Science is knowledge. That knowledge is about the world around us. It is not about conjectures regarding the past of how humans came to be. In that sense, neither evolution nor creationism are scientific for they do not fulfill an arena of knowledge, but an arena of faith, of religion, of philosophizing.

A scientific theory as we said must be testable by repeated observations. It also needs to be falsifiable to meet the criteria of being scientific. It is very important that you don't dismiss this for this is the most basic, and most damning point against evolution being a scientific theory. Observing within species variation, is not sufficient, for that is using a sample of the entire structure of the said theory, to somehow "prove" the entire theory, or to make a generalization based on an exception.

In that sense, both the theory of evolution, and creation, purport and attempt to prove the origins of life. By the fact itself, they are dealing with the past, as with history. There were no humans who observed the origin of life, the first simple celled organism, or the jump from a simple organism to a complex one. None of this, be it creation, or evolution, have been observed. Trying to explain origins of our past, is not scientific, it is philosophic, and historic. It is the same as when these fanatical historicists come about and propose scientific theories of history, like Marx. Despite the language, there is nothing scientific about it.

A scientific theory therefore can only deal with the present realm of our existence, and the present things that are occuring repeatedly, and which are observable and testable. Copy and pasting articles, or links, doesn't add anymore weight to your position, any more than name calling those who disagree with evolution.

[winoman]

A scientific theory therefore can only deal with the present realm of our existence, and the present things that are occuring repeatedly, and which are observable and testable.

So I assume we must strip Einstein of any scientific recognition regarding his silly Theory of Relativity - it seemingly fails all of your criteria for science - or certainly did at the time it was proposed (and accepted as legitimate scientific theory)....and to think Evolution has had thousands of times the observable and testable results ...(all passed BTW)...sorry charlie...time to scamper back into your dark little tunnel and let truely educated people discuss things. silly pathetic fool

[Siggie]

Stop the insults and actually debate each other. Otherwise stop posting or some suspensions will be in order.
Keep the pictures to a minimum too. Let's not prevent the low-speed users from being able to read any threads because of irrelevant images.
Thanks!

[Siggie]

The theory of evolution is not science. It is a conjecture within science. It is what we call pseudoscience.

The theory of evolution is not observed. It cannot be observed. It is not testable. There is no reproducibility therefore it doesn't meet the criteria for the scientific method. Science is knowledge. That knowledge is about the world around us. It is not about conjectures regarding the past of how humans came to be. In that sense, neither evolution nor creationism are scientific for they do not fulfill an arena of knowledge, but an arena of faith, of religion, of philosophizing.

A scientific theory as we said must be testable by repeated observations. It also needs to be falsifiable to meet the criteria of being scientific. It is very important that you don't dismiss this for this is the most basic, and most damning point against evolution being a scientific theory. Observing within species variation, is not sufficient, for that is using a sample of the entire structure of the said theory, to somehow "prove" the entire theory, or to make a generalization based on an exception.

In that sense, both the theory of evolution, and creation, purport and attempt to prove the origins of life. By the fact itself, they are dealing with the past, as with history. There were no humans who observed the origin of life, the first simple celled organism, or the jump from a simple organism to a complex one. None of this, be it creation, or evolution, have been observed. Trying to explain origins of our past, is not scientific, it is philosophic, and historic. It is the same as when these fanatical historicists come about and propose scientific theories of history, like Marx. Despite the language, there is nothing scientific about it.

A scientific theory therefore can only deal with the present realm of our existence, and the present things that are occuring repeatedly, and which are observable and testable. Copy and pasting articles, or links, doesn't add anymore weight to your position, any more than name calling those who disagree with evolution.

Evidence can be archival. Finding fossils and such is still evidence and there is this kind of evidence supporting evolution.
Please show me how the theory isn't falsifiable.

[Siggie]

More and more - the religion of evolution is being is disproven by scientific fact and human logic. Today, as it stands, only *primitive* idiots believe in the *theory* of evolution.

Some drunks may want to believe that their forefather was an ape, in some cases that may be true, nonetheless, I know that my God is a spiritual being within our universe.

When my family went out for dinner on my birthday, my dad told me he read this and he was talking to us about it. I don't believe in evolution and I didn't know he did. I was like, "Dad. You really think we were once monkeys?" Then I made a racist joke. Hahahahaha.

There's a huge difference between saying that apes and humans have a common ancestor and saying that our fathers were apes or that we were once apes.