Why every rational person must accept evolution

[PostmodernProph]

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

Who has to prove what to whom?

from the same source, about six inches up the page.....

What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is a fundamental procedure for conducting science composed of four basic steps. I have seen this worded in many different ways, but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Here it is in my own words:

Observation - This is the process of taking measurements of the subject in question and defining the nature of the problem.
Hypothesis - Form a theory that explains the observations based on previously known and accepted ideas.
Prediction - Using the hypothesis, deduce the possibility of potential observations not yet known.
Experiment - Design and perform a test to verify or refute the predictions.

are you selective about what you use from your sources?......

this one is appropriate as well

Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of science by using scientistic language and jargon, as in "creation-science," means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.

???....that isn't an observation of evolution.....

That just shows that a single cell can develop into a more complex organism.

it proves that a stem cell can perform the task it was designed to perform......

 

[ScienceRocks]

Better then having your whole belief system based on belief. Most scientist looked at either the development of a fetus or of natural selection to prove evolution as the best theory.

Humans have a tail bone and look very much like most animals within the first weeks of development. Think about it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's great about evolution is you have real observations.

 

[orogenicman]

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

Who has to prove what to whom?

from the same source, about six inches up the page.....

What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is a fundamental procedure for conducting science composed of four basic steps. I have seen this worded in many different ways, but they all fundamentally mean the same thing. Here it is in my own words:

Observation - This is the process of taking measurements of the subject in question and defining the nature of the problem.
Hypothesis - Form a theory that explains the observations based on previously known and accepted ideas.
Prediction - Using the hypothesis, deduce the possibility of potential observations not yet known.
Experiment - Design and perform a test to verify or refute the predictions.

are you selective about what you use from your sources?......

this one is appropriate as well

Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of science by using scientistic language and jargon, as in "creation-science," means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration.

The theory of evolution is mainstream science. So what is your point?

 

[Iceweasel]

Better then having your whole belief system based on belief. Most scientist looked at either the development of a fetus or of natural selection to prove evolution as the best theory.

Humans have a tail bone and look very much like most animals within the first weeks of development. Think about it.

Wow. That one was done away with many decades ago. Goes to show you the biggest criticizers of faith are faithful themselves. Opposing religions and all that.

 

[orogenicman]

Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

???....so far, you're the one demonstrating a lack of knowledge regarding biology.....not to worry, I will stay and tutor you at no charge......

now, back to the discussion, why did you run away from the discussion regarding the inability to falsify your beliefs regarding macro-evolution?.......

So you will be lying for Jesus, then. As a matter of fact, of the two of us, I am the ONLY one demonstrating any knowledge of biology on this thread. As for your other lie that I ran away from anything, unlike you, I don't live in a vacuum. You want me to provide you with evidence of macroevolution that 1) I have already provided, and 2) is redundant in the first place since there is already a mountain of evidence available for your perusal if you'd only get off your sorry ass and look for it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Better then having your whole belief system based on belief. Most scientist looked at either the development of a fetus or of natural selection to prove evolution as the best theory.

Humans have a tail bone and look very much like most animals within the first weeks of development. Think about it.

Wow. That one was done away with many decades ago. Goes to show you the biggest criticizers of faith are faithful themselves. Opposing religions and all that.

Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds? Darwin noticed exactly this with the difference of the beaks for the same kind of birds for each of the islands he visited.

Tell me exactly how it was done away with?

 

[orogenicman]

Ahem:

"A cluster alone isn't multi-cellular," Ratcliff says. "But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that's an evolutionary transition to multi-cellularity.

except the claim that it is a transition is simply a statement of belief.....as he admits, its still a clump of individual single celled organisms......one cell dies, another cell replaces it.....we are left with the fact that there is no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming a multi-celled organism../...

There is no "except". Dismissing it as a belief doesn't make it so, nor does it make it wrong.

Really? And your evidence is?

I freely admit that what I believe is a faith choice.....the scientific method does not require evidence of faith choices......obviously since faith is defined as the belief in something in the absence of evidence.......which causes one to question why you don't recognize that the things you believe in the absence of evidence are also faith choices......why is it you pretend they are science?......

So you freely admit that you have no evidence for your beliefs. Yet you expect me to have evidence for mine. Interesting hypocrisy.

Mainstream science is not pretend science. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[Iceweasel]

Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds? Darwin noticed exactly this with the differences of the beaks for the same kind of birds for each of the islands he visited.

Tell me exactly how it was done away with?

Well, my main point is that you get put into a category if you don't accept a secualr cause for everything. I have no religion but for me the evidence points to a creator. Exactly who, what, where, when or why I don't know.

What you mention is nothing more than natural selection. If the birds on an island have tougher nuts to crack the stronger beaked birds will prevail, and so forth. Some people call that micro-evolution. The debate hinges around macro-evolution. How that happens, I don't know either.

For me, there seems to be a driving force behind life. It doesn't just exist, it thrives whenever and wherever it can. Lifeforms can be found in some of the most hostile places on Earth, not long ago seemingly impossible. Wherever life has an opportunity it exists.

The fact that it happens can be studied, tested and all that. But to simply dismiss the drive behind it and random chance doesn't work for me, like the universe itself. So I'm a theist but with no religion, I have no problem saying "I don't know".

 

[orogenicman]

It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe.

except, as already demonstrated, it has never achieved the status of being falsifiable......what do you call it again when a large group of people share a common faith choice?........I believe its called religion........

Except that it has. Except that you are not qualified to make that assessment. Except that you have provided no evidence to support that claim. Except that when you resort to calling science a matter of faith, you lose the argument. Isn't there a rule in your faith about bearing false witness? Yes, I think there is.

 

[orogenicman]

than the one almost everyone else accepts.

ah, ad populum......what if I point out the majority of people in the world believe that a deity created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.....would that then mean I win the debate?.....

Then I would point out that what the majority of the people in the world (billions of which are highly undereducated) believes with regard to faith is irrelevant with respect to what scientists know to be true based on 150 years of scientific discovery.

 

[orogenicman]

Honestly how do you explain the many different kinds of the same species of insects or birds? Darwin noticed exactly this with the differences of the beaks for the same kind of birds for each of the islands he visited.

Tell me exactly how it was done away with?

Well, my main point is that you get put into a category if you don't accept a secualr cause for everything. I have no religion but for me the evidence points to a creator. Exactly who, what, where, when or why I don't know.

What you mention is nothing more than natural selection. If the birds on an island have tougher nuts to crack the stronger beaked birds will prevail, and so forth. Some people call that micro-evolution. The debate hinges around macro-evolution. How that happens, I don't know either.

For me, there seems to be a driving force behind life. It doesn't just exist, it thrives whenever and wherever it can. Lifeforms can be found in some of the most hostile places on Earth, not long ago seemingly impossible. Wherever life has an opportunity it exists.

The fact that it happens can be studied, tested and all that. But to simply dismiss the drive behind it and random chance doesn't work for me, like the universe itself. So I'm a theist but with no religion, I have no problem saying "I don't know".

What debate, where? Natural selection is not random.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[orogenicman]

???....that isn't an observation of evolution.....

That just shows that a single cell can develop into a more complex organism.

it proves that a stem cell can perform the task it was designed to perform......

Designed to perform? By who?

 

[Iceweasel]

What debate, where? Natural selection is not random.

You can't read. I said as simply as I could the debate was about what the driving force was, not that it doesn't happen.

Either it was/is guided along or it was/is programed that way or it's all a natural occurance. Not every person, including scientists believe it's totally secular. You are coming across very bullheaded and arrogant and it doesn't help make you look smarter.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[orogenicman]

What debate, where? Natural selection is not random.

You can't read. I said as simply as I could the debate was about what the driving force was, not that it doesn't happen.

Either it was/is guided along or it was/is programed that way or it's all a natural occurance. Not every person, including scientists believe it's totally secular. You are coming across very bullheaded and arrogant and it doesn't help make you look smarter.

Well, no, there is no debate. The driving force is natural selection. Full stop. This is not me being bullheaded. This is me telling you what the facts are. If anyone here is bullheaded, it is those who cannot accept that fact despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, no, there is no debate. The driving force is natural selection. Full stop. This is not me being bullheaded. This is me telling you what the facts are. If anyone here is bullheaded, it is those who cannot accept that fact despite the overwhelming evidence.

Natural selection is the process, that's not what I'm talking about. I can't use simpler words. There is no evidence that life and it's mechanisms happens on its' own, your bullheaded assertions are a poor substitute for science. You can't explain how it all started and it just happens isn't intellectually honest.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, no, there is no debate. The driving force is natural selection. Full stop. This is not me being bullheaded. This is me telling you what the facts are. If anyone here is bullheaded, it is those who cannot accept that fact despite the overwhelming evidence.

Natural selection is the process, that's not what I'm talking about. I can't use simpler words. There is no evidence that life and it's mechanisms happens on its' own, your bullheaded assertions are a poor substitute for science.

There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own. It is not bullheadedness that leads to this conclusion. Why? Because for life not to be able to happen on its own, there has to be evidence that 1) that is the case, and 2) that something specific assists it in happening.

Got anything like that?

You can't explain how it all started and it just happens isn't intellectually honest.

God of the gaps argument. Next.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no evidence that life cannot happen on its own. It is not bullheadedness that leads to this conclusion. Why? Because for life not to be able to happen on its own, there has to be evidence that 1) that is the case, and 2) that something specific assists it in happening.

Got anything like that?

God of the gaps argument. Next.

Anything but God argument. I'm not out to prove anything to a fundamentaist atheist. I said why I am convinced there is a God and apparently it makes your panties bunch up. For me, there has to be a reason something happens. Things don't happen on their own. apparently for you, magic is good enough and you cloak it with condescention.