Who Here Actually Knows Science

Show me this evidence.

http://www.icr.org/article/just-how-well-proven-evolution/

 

Evidence for this observational fact please. I dont ever seem to get it, but yet i can show you things that were written that came true years later. Your beloved science proves the bible to be true, you would find out if you cared to look.
Im watching a program at minute, it comes on evey sunday called the cosmos, its with that dude in the op. The ad for it says somthing like the greatest story ever told. lol He tells me we know how things started, from the beginning.
 
We cant save people from cancer yet but we know what was billions of years before us, and how do we know how can you really its proven fact.

 

It;s a logical fallacy only if you use a customised meaning for the word 'falsifiable'. The generally agreed upon meaning is synonymous with 'testable'.
So the statement is: Since evolution is testable, it was proven to be true. Which sounds logically sound to me.
The corollary: Since God is not testable, it cannot be proven to be true.
 

That article has no evidence to back up any of its claims. The central argument went thus:
2+2=4 can be proved without requiring more than your fingers, evolution cannot. Evoltution is also too slow a process to observe(wrong, btw). Ergo, evolution is false.
I leave you to ruminate upon the soundness of that argument.
 

Did you not see my link? Homologous structures in different species with completely different functions pretty conclusively prove evolution. How else would a giraffe and a pig have the exact same number of neck vertebrae? Why oh why would a whale even breathe air and have lungs despite living in water? Why do they have the exact same number of bones in their limbs as we do? Why do we have a 5-piece coccyx? How do you think the mudskipper came to be? A confused God? I think not.
Also, please explain dog breeds if evolution is impossible. Canis Lupus is the scientific name that includes ALL wolves dogs and dingoes. Which means a Grey Wolf can have fertile babies with a chihuahua. Explain that shit.
Please do me the courtesy of reading through this Wikipedia article on experimental evolution. I did read through your link.
Just in case you don't I'll quote one of the earliest experiments:
 

 

 
 
I think you may be about 200 years behind the times...Evolution is fact.
 
MelT

 

Let me be clear please, I should of said this already, I dont believe in religion, i agree with an earlier post that its a way of control. I believe in God (not necessarily a man with a bread in the clouds as some put it) cos of my own unexplainable experiences. I dont know what God is, i also know a lot of what christianity is today is based on pagan things, so believe me im not all against science.
Im quite interested in a lot of things i just get so many questions when i read things and dont ever find the answers.
Like the comment i made earlier, how do you get a bang from nothing, as that is what was said on that program im watching.
every answer i have seen involves attoms or energy, that throws it out imo because how did that appear,it wasnt from nothing.
 
Now i have a question about evolution (again not a scientist so may sound stupid to a scientist and will probably end up in the blades say the darndest things thread) if we evolved from apeman (keep it simple) why are we today human and we have apes, why did evolution choose. If we came from the same source why did we not all follow the same path. Its like evolution took homo habilis (check me getting all sciency) and did two different things with it.
Idk if that makes any sense i do know the point im trying to make.
 
Explain this, this is one of the things i find in the bible to be amazing, i understand not everyone will. I have posted this before but i think its relevant.
I will read the links you provide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umnUynXnRJc

 

Nobody said that we're sure about the big bang coming from nothing. Stephen Hawking has also proposed a model for a zero-energy universe. Check it out.
Remember, these are merely hypotheses, and may well be falsified in the future. Please refrain from the popular creationist tic of using the big bang as a prop.
 

Compared to the individual inhabitants, the size of Earth is massive, really massive. Some apes moved south, some north some east some west and some stayed put. The different conditions encountered caused differing courses of evolution. Some became bonobos, others common chimps, still others became humans. Even among humans you see the effects of geographical location. Mongoloid Asians and Algerians are as different as a Persian cat is from a Siamese.
 
I do not understand how you failed to see this obvious cause of variegation. It is hardly as if the Alpha Ape decided to start a Become Human project compulsory for all apes to be a part of.
 

This video has annoyed the crap out of me, seriously. Why do you creationists insist upon this old fool's babblings as being credible proof of anything at all?
Fine, I shall respect you and respond to the claims made by that senile person.
 
First off, diamonds and other isotropic gems are the exception rather than the norm. Only gems with cubic unit cells are isotropic. In case you did not know, few have such lattice structures.
Also, diamonds are not all that great to look at compared to those other stones, especially not by middle-eastern standards of the time, so of course they did not use them.
 
Second, I can remember at least three opaque gems in the list he provided: Jasper, Sardonyx, Chalcedony. Also, he wrote Quartz in brackets below Jasper. They are not the same thing. So how would the disco city he's imagining work if 25% of the stones do not refract any light at all? I recognise that the opaque stones' optical characteristics are determined by examining very fine slices, but that won't be the case when a building's made with them.
 
Third, even if I blindly agree with everything the man says about mineralogy, it still doesn't prove the existence of God.
 
 
I must point out that you are mulishly refusing to accept the validity of experiments conducted by scientists, while readily buying into that fevered old man's rubbish. I therefore conclude that you are in fact a biased creationist, despite your claims to the contrary.
Also, I question the sanity of the individual who will say 'I dont believe in religion' and in the same post link to a blatantly creationist Christian video.
 
Cheers.
 
PS: I read links in people's posts before I answer them. It is only fair to do so. 
So once again you responded to my post with BS, without bothering to read evidence I provided at your request.
Well done, Mule. Well done. 

 

 
If everything were to evolve at the same pace and time, there would be very few species left (if any at all).
 
I feel as if you underestimate the time it takes for anything living to evolve. This is pure hypothesis, but it's not like one species simultaneously and unanimously decided to just become another. Rather, there is a biological split between the two. One species will still exist, but now so does another.
 
It's sort of like proposing all humans will turn into something else at the exact same time, and so we will immediately cease to exist.

 

You dont know what respect is, you will not convince me with your condescending way of wording your post.
You sound intelligent, but then that goes out off the window due to your childish way of debating.
Quote me all you like im out of here the thread is in the wrong place anyway, go back to your science circle.
Good day.

 

My condescension was directed at the old man in the video. Towards you, I felt annoyance at your refusal to peruse the sources I provide. And even that was only in the postscript. 
But are you going to allow your personal issues with me prevent you from responding to Some Asian Toker?
 
Obviously, you are unable to have a proper discussion with anybody whose views differ from your own. Like all other creationists. Have fun with your head in the sand
 
I go where I please.
 
Edit: After reviewing our conversation, I find that I have been reasonably calm and polite in the face of your bullheadedness and complete disregard for my posts. So I now take the liberty to say: Go fuck yourself. With a piledriver, please.

 

What I wanna know is if evolution really happens, why aren't there any species in between monkey and man still living? It seems like if a monkey can survive all this time, we would see neanderthal thriving.

I believe in evolution by the way.

 

lol.
 
While im fucking myself with a piledriver maybe you will grow up a bit.

 

I like how with every response, you only seem to look at the last line of my post.
Also, I thought you'd resolved to not respond to me. Please at least do what you said you'd do.
 

There is the possibility that neanderthal man bred with early homo sapiens who migrated to Europe and hence died out.
Nobody really knows what exactly happened, tbh. There are all sorts of hypotheses as to their fate. 
 
Now, it is highly unlikely for one species to evolve simultaneously in far apart places. So perhaps the first instances of Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, as mitochondrial RNA suggests. Maybe they then forced the migration of precursor species who then died due to lack of adaptability. Or maybe all the precursors died, and the ones that survived became us. The lesser primates had no such issues perhaps, and thus survive till today. Note that all members of the genus Homo have exhibited gradual decline in arboreal ability, muscle density, etc. So if a species evolved that was not strong enough or smart enough, they died.
Also, given how violent Homo Sapiens is, it is entirely possible that we wiped out any precursors that still existed.
Kind of like in X-Men, the way The Brotherhood thinks of mutants as the new humans, and want to wipe out Homo Sapiens.
 
Edit: I only just noticed 'monkey and man'. Well that's easy: Chimpanzees!

 

science can theorize about the combining of elements and amassing of particles, but there is still the main question left unanswered.....where did it all come from in the first place...where did all of the building blocks come from.
 
 
also apes dont have wireless internet,  iphones, or dank ass amber glass errl

 

I think that if a fish evolved into a lizard for example, we would have on record something that is 90% fish 10% lizard and then 80% fish 20% lizard and so on. To me this sounds logical for evolution to work.
Unless i have totaly mistaken what evolution is.
I believe in evolution but in the sense we evolve with technology and our skills, but to say i come from a rock is just as mad as believing in creation, both are possibilities, and for all we know it could be something different altogether.

Mate i have no problem with you i dont hold a grudge i said my bit and now it is in the past.
 
I am interested in what you say, you need to understand that I, like others, have limited knowledge in this field. I can only go on what sounds logical, like the video, to me that was inpressive given it was written 1000s of years before. I dont care about the building itself, it was more what was said about the stones before the technology existed to find this out, There is many things in the bible like this.
 
So if you want to educate people by all means but remember, im just a humble human not a scientist, what is obvious to you may not be to me.
But if you still want me to go fuck myself, not a problem, forget i said anything.

 

I'm not a scientist either, haha. I've just taken a variety of courses and have spent a lot off effort into satisfying my curiosity beyond idle speculation.
Anywho, here goes...
 
 

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
<div>noun
 

1. \t\t<div>1.
   \t\t<div>the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   \t
   \t</div>\t

</div></div>By definition then, science does not have all the answers. It is the process by which answers are found. So yes, it cannot yet answer the creation question. But that certainly does not mean we ought to look to dogma for answers, especially since religion does not offer any proofs beyond an imperative 'Believe!'
By the way, I assume by building blocks you mean the building blocks of the universe, not life. As for life there are a myriad of non-divine possibilities for abiogenesis. Follow the link to find out more.

Believe or disbelieve as you will. But evolution is fact all the same.
Look, there is no reason for all the intermediate species to exist now. But there is the mudskipper. I believe that would be the 80-20 scenario you're looking for.
And what makes you think we would have everything on record? We're humans, ffs. We bicker about absolute inanities, devote massive resources to guns and shit, and bicker over a thread on an online forum. We're anything but thorough
Also, nobody said you came from rocks. Yes 'living rocks' have been identified and even relished, but they seem in no way related to our biology.

 

Falsifiability:
 
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
 
The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are not falsifiable). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; if "All humans live forever" were true, we would never actually find a dead human, and yet that claim would still be falsifiable because we can at least imagine the observation that would prove it wrong.
Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.
 
Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.
 
Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas. In contrast to positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability. Still, he admitted that tests and refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.

 

I have seen that mudskipper and it is very ugly.
 
When i say rock i mean, rock smashing together created the planet then created crators which filled with water as more rock was smashing and causing rain. Then some elements or molecules, if thats righrt, that came from the rock and mixed in the water creating a soup and this is how life started.
Very basic i know but, am i right in saying this is the basic version of events that led up to creating the planet, as science tells it.

 

@[member="p42082"]
Mr. Mudskipper would beg to differ.
 
Yes you are correct, mostly. 
 
Also, please do read through MelT's post, if you truly wish to learn. In fact, follow the guy around in general and you'll learn a lot more than school can teach you