Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[kramerfan86]

kramer
Even though my way of defining terms is somewhat different from the "official" one, I make my points obvious enough to get past the "inconsistency of naming".
So, "facts" are things that WORK, real time, could be checked, could be used.
"Theories" though aren't real time and/or can't be checked/observed and/or lack actual events.
Gravity can be proven by throwing a stone, electricity is already proven by me posting here.
Natural selection is proven by dog breeds, while large-scale evolution is unobservable and based PURELY on assumptions.
You assume that this is a skeleton of a Homo species, (and not a gorilla)
you assume it has a direct connection to us, (and not to chimps)
you assume it's a typical individual and not a mutation, (with totally atypical skeleton)
you assume the skeleton wasn't distorted, (though it was there for countless years)
you assume you know everything (and that's where all the trouble starts).

Actually as you have been told multiple times, science doesnt assume to know everything, that is why it is always searching for new evidence. The only is your apparent inability to read what people have told you. If science assumed it new everything there wouldnt be much purpose behind all the continuing research scientists do.

As someone else pointed out you cant actually see gravity. You can see its effects, its end results, but you cant actually see the process behind it. Evolution is the same way, but since it conflicts with your genesis fairy tale evolution-BAD, NO FACT while gravity you have no issue because it doesnt conflict with your religion, so the fact its unseen is perfectly fine in your eyes.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Actually as you have been told multiple times, science doesnt assume to know everything,

and thats why evolution can't be considered scientific fact.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

And gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, mathematics, etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

and thats why evolution can't be considered scientific fact.

A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. (wiki)

 

[Sonereal]

And gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, mathematics, etc.

Every piece of scientific knowledge gained in the past 300 years.

 

[kramerfan86]

and thats why evolution can't be considered scientific fact.

Which just gets into the definitional lack of understanding between scientific theories and facts v layperson theories and facts. Doesnt change the fact it currently has overwhelming evidence which is why it is the exclusively taught system in biology.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Which just gets into the definitional lack of understanding between scientific theories and facts v layperson theories and facts. Doesnt change the fact it currently has overwhelming evidence which is why it is the exclusively taught system in biology.

Civ 2 asked for the overwhelming evidence, and there wasn't enough given.

even some atheists doubt evolution.

 

[timtofly]

@Civ2

There are no Facts in scientific method. Facts are the observables period.

Hypothesis is arranging the facts. Theory is conclusions based on the arrangement. This allows further hypothesis as apposed to a Fact that later "can" be proved wrong.

You cannot tell them Genesis is a Fact. It was not revealed (to scientist) as an observable. That "record" has been tainted, and proven wrong.

On the other Hand, today, scientist think that theory came first and then creationist realized that the Bible does not fit any more so now they are attacking ToE.

Reality check here: The "record" did come first, and Mr Darwin made the mistake of trying to adapt science to the "record". Thus failing, modern science would not give up and kept trying. Now that they have more "evidence", they no longer need the "record". Therefore the "record" can be relegated to myth.

Why does nature and science not line up with God?

Evolution does occur and seen in nature and there are also fossils that prove it.

Evolution takes time and we have nature to prove it.

God does not mention evolution, therefore He is no longer needed in the equation.

Time is on our side, and no one can deny that time exist. No one can prove nor disprove God.

God does not exist and we keep finding evidence to prove that.

I do not think that "origin" was ever meant to replace God. It is just the natural evolution of that vein of research. There did come a point where the Why has been blurred with the How. Neither are relative any more. For 2000 years religion has blurred the world view lense. Globalization has almost wiped out that "fact". It is almost like humans have thrown off the curse of babel and once more reached out and have "become" godlike.

 

[kramerfan86]

Civ 2 asked for the overwhelming evidence, and there wasn't enough given.

even some atheists doubt evolution.

No civ2 asked for impossible evidence, evidence which it were the standard for everything would pretty much make all science "non-factual". Gravity is non-factual too when the same standards are applied.

 

[Sonereal]

Some people doubt the existence of nuclear weapons. Due to your reasoning, nuclear weapons must not exist.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Illogical? True. But logic is just another of His creations. He who created logic is permitted to disregard it.

Comedy gold!

A sincere belief held by many people, unfortunately. Becomes slightly less funny once you realize that.

kramer
So, "facts" are things that WORK, real time, could be checked, could be used.
"Theories" though aren't real time and/or can't be checked/observed and/or lack actual events.

No, you've misunderstood once again, I'm afraid.

Gravity can be proven by throwing a stone, electricity is already proven by me posting here.

But the point is they're still theories, and thus, obviously "scientific theory" cannot mean what you claim it means.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]"

Natural selection is proven by dog breeds

Er, no, dog breeds are a human construct.

...while large-scale evolution is unobservable and based PURELY on assumptions.

Nope.

You assume that this is a skeleton of a Homo species, (and not a gorilla)

What are you even trying to say here? That both humans and gorillas have the same skeleton, and if we let them both decompose, you wouldn't be able to tell which skeleton was which?

you assume it has a direct connection to us, (and not to chimps)
you assume it's a typical individual and not a mutation, (with totally atypical skeleton)
you assume the skeleton wasn't distorted, (though it was there for countless years)

Again, I'm lost as to what you're trying to say here.

you assume you know everything (and that's where all the trouble starts).

Okay, you know what, we've answered this a dozen times and you've ignored it a dozen times, so I'm going to go ahead and assume you're simply trolling. Ignore list for you, then.

and thats why evolution can't be considered scientific fact.

What sets evolution apart from other scientific theories, historical events, and other things we know? Do you consider the Holocaust a fact? Can you give me a full record of the relevant events? Can we observe it happening with our own eyes? Were you there? Do we have a full skeletal record?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm still waiting for a proof of gravity by throwing a stone (or throwing a cat out of a window).

Bonus points if it explains everything the quantum gravity/grand unification theory guys are struggling with.

 

[emzie]

I'm still waiting for a proof of gravity by throwing a stone (or throwing a cat out of a window).

Bonus points if it explains everything the quantum gravity/grand unification theory guys are struggling with.

Intelligent Falling.

 

[Akka]

Thus failing, modern science would not give up and kept trying.

Everything in your life (computer, planes, car...) is based on what science built. Hardly failing, or I wonder how you're able to read this post (man, where is your skepticism toward science when it comes to Internet and electricity ? Isn't it amusingly selective ?).

Funny how science is "failing" only when it comes into clash with the psychological denial of religious nuts, isn't it ?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You know what? I give up. They win. I do know everything.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Nah, it just appears that way in this thread.

 

[kramerfan86]

I'm still waiting for a proof of gravity by throwing a stone (or throwing a cat out of a window).

Bonus points if it explains everything the quantum gravity/grand unification theory guys are struggling with.

Nope that isnt enough. They need to see the rock fall, and then they need scientists to show me what gravity actually looks like. We must demand to SEE gravity. Otherwise you cant prove its not just God pulling the rock down. Intelligent gravity is truth defacto because science cant provide 100% total utter evidence anything else causes it IMO.

 

[civ2]

timtofly
I'm not even talking about Genesis or any other religious points.
(And that's the MAIN point where they are wrong. I was disillusioned about evolution back then in school, when I wasn't yet "too religious".)
Evolution doesn't make much sense (and is 100% unprovable) from the "normal" point of view!!!
All they say is "it should've been that way - look, my dog is here, so he must've evolved".
Which is nonsense and will remain such regardless of how much "science points" you will put on it.

kramer
I couldn't care less about the WORDS/FORMULAS/REASONS you give about how the rock falls.
All I need is to SEE IT FALLING.
And in evolution - this is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
For anyone!!!
Ever!!!
Got my point of why I do not consider it any more then a "theory"???

 

[cardgame]

What's the "normal" point of view, then?

God did it because I don't know?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Is that what they say? Really?