Is there valid proof for evolution?

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Ah, well, there you are wrong. Reproductive systems can evolve from other reproductive systems, in small steps.

For example, a system whereby the female lays eggs which are fertilised by the male, after the female has moved away, can very easily evolve into:
- one whereby the eggs are fertilised close to the female (because that means the fe ...[text shortened]... system can, in fact, evolve into another which is superficially very different.

Richard

Cheating science will say evolution is not guided by intelligent direction but it comes about by random chance.

Small incremental evolutionary steps cannot move forward in useful functional complex ways to give rise to reproduction without intelligent cause or plan.

This is where science is falling down.......maintaining that all is happening by chance.

Its absurd and thoroughly dishonest.

Originally posted by Dasa
Cheating science will say evolution is not guided by intelligent direction but it comes about by random chance.

Small incremental evolutionary steps cannot move forward in useful functional complex ways to give rise to reproduction without intelligent cause or plan.

This is where science is falling down.......maintaining that all is happening by chance.

Its absurd and thoroughly dishonest.

Given that the entire modern world runs on science and the predictions it makes...

Given that the computers hosting this forum, the internet, and the one you are
using to post your inanities were only possible to develop because of scientific
development....

Given that the vaccines that protect you, and medicines that cure you, are products
of that science...

Given that the electricity powering your home, is generated using science...

Given the soap you use to clean yourself was made possible, and its benefits discovered
by science...

Given that the entirety of Biology only makes sense if you include Evolution...

Given that disproving a major theory in science is THE best way to make your name...

Given that in over 150 years not only have no scientists ever disproved Evolution by
Natural selection despite concerted efforts to do so, they have discovered mountains
of evidence to support it...

Would you mind either stop using the 'cheating science' you so evidently despise, and go
back to living in a cave, eating only what you can catch and kill by hitting it with a rock,
and eating it raw because you are afraid of fire...

Or Accept that your narrow and blinkered world outlook might be wrong, and actually
debate those ideas openly in coherent well formulated sentences...

Or simply stop posting bigoted inanities in the science forum...

On the substance you evidently have no clue about scientific method, maths, rationality
or how to properly reason...

Given this I see no possibility of holding a sensible discussion with you until you have
had an actual education.

If you found any of this insulting...

Don't worry it was intended...

If not, you really should have.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given that the entire modern world runs on science and the predictions it makes...

Given that the computers hosting this forum, the internet, and the one you are
using to post your inanities were only possible to develop because of scientific
development....

Given that the vaccines that protect you, and medicines that cure you, are products
of ...[text shortened]... y of this insulting...

Don't worry it was intended...

If not, you really should have.

Given that the Lord gave you this universe.

Given that the Lord gave you this planet.

Given that the Lord gave you the laws of physics.

Given that the Lord gave you a body with senses and mind to make your way through the world.

Given that the Lord gave you intelligence to make sense of everything.

Given that the lord gave mankind the Veda to explain life and death.

Given that the Lord gave us the reproduction mechanism for continuance of the species.

Given that the Lord gave us food which comes from dirt.

Given that the Lord gave us the sun.

Given that the Lord gave us fresh water from the sky.

Given that the Lord gave us the know-how to make the computer you are denying him with.

Given that the Lord gave you a tongue to speak with and deny him.

Given that there is no evidence for evolution bar the fabrications you call evidence.

Given that there is evidence that life comes from life.

Given that there is evidence that life doesn't come from a dead stone as you suggest.

It is then a given you are defending cheating science.

It is then given that to defend that which is in error is to be dishonest.

It is given that you are dishonest.

If evolution were a fact then we would see things turning into other things and we would see the first things disappearing.........but we do not see this because there has always been a cow and a horse and an elephant and a monkey and all the while there was man.

Your problem is that you think there is only one universe and that it is the first universe but in fact there are unlimited universes and they are continually becoming manifest and unmanifest eternally.

Originally posted by Dasa
Given that the Lord gave you this universe.

Given that the Lord gave you this planet.

Given that the Lord gave you the laws of physics.

Given that the Lord gave you a body with senses and mind to make your way through the world.

Given that the Lord gave you intelligence to make sense of everything.

Given that the lord gave mankind the Veda to exp ...[text shortened]... re are unlimited universes and they are continually becoming manifest and unmanifest eternally.

Its a given you are stuck on replay.

Originally posted by Dasa
Given that the Lord gave you this universe.

SNIP

whole load of unsubstantiated religious drivel

/SNIP

It is then a given you are defending cheating science.

It is then given that to defend that which is in error is to be dishonest.

It is given that you are dishonest.

If evolution were a fact then we would see things turning into other thing ...[text shortened]... ere are unlimited universes and they are continually becoming manifest and unmanifest eternally.

How do you know god is a he? (or exists at all? or that there is only one?)

I believe in rationality and reason.
I don't believe in religion.

Science is the use of reason, rationality, and evidence to explore and explain the world.

I thus believe in the process of science.

Given the above, I am not dishonest, as I was telling you what I believe to be true.

You might think me wrong,
despite the mountains of evidence to support my position and the total absence of
any to support yours,
but dishonesty implies I don't believe what I am saying and am trying to deceive you.
I am not.


It is not a given that GOD (in any form shape or guise) exists.

If it was there would be no need for faith.

To have religious faith you have to believe, in something without any concrete
evidence or proof.

If you have proof you have no need of faith, you have knowledge.

note: You still need to have belief to have knowledge.
You have to believe the information you have is true for you to know something.
There are plenty of people who have heard of the concepts of evolution, for example,
But don't know evolution happens because they don't believe it.


Evolution IS a fact and we DO see things evolve into different forms, both in present
day populations and in the fossil record. Claiming otherwise is either dishonest, or
demonstrative of great ignorance.


Don't tell ME what I believe about the Universe.

You have no idea what I believe and claiming otherwise makes you look stupid... er.

And what I believe about the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity
of evolution by natural selection.


And again, none of what you say is scientific. You are trying to preach religion not
engage in reasoned debate.

You may well believe all the drivel you spout, but it has nothing to do with science.

And yes, I do support and defend the scientific process, and those who practice it.
Given you support and defend your position, why is it dishonest of me to support mine?

Incidentally, if it is a given that it is dishonest to support that which is in error, as you are
the one in error about... well pretty much everything but lets go with evolution for now...
Doesn't that make you the one who is dishonest?

Originally posted by googlefudge
How do you know god is a he? (or exists at all? or that there is only one?)

I believe in rationality and reason.
I don't believe in religion.

Science is the use of reason, rationality, and evidence to explore and explain the world.

I thus believe in the process of science.

Given the above, I am not dishonest, as I was telling you what I beli ...[text shortened]... ing but lets go with evolution for now...
Doesn't that make you the one who is dishonest?

I am not against science in general.....just dishonest science which is biased in establishing their theories.

Please read "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo the worlds leading authority on extreme human antiquity.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Ah, well, there you are wrong. Reproductive systems can evolve from other reproductive systems, in small steps.

Thanks, Richard SB. Good example.

Originally posted by Eladar
I believe that this may very well be the case. The Bible does say that the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom.

I agree with that statement in the Bible - but it has nothing to do with the statement that you are replying to.

God's wisdom may seem foolishness to man, yes - but God is not deceiving nor mischievous nor malicious

The same argument can be made against those people that suggest that God created starlight in space in an already moving form, (i.e. not originating from a star) so that stars only APPEAR to be so far, but are actually very close and young.

This has nothing to do with the WISDOM (or perceived foolishness) of God, but the CHARACTER of God!

Originally posted by CalJust
The same argument can be made against those people that suggest that God created starlight in space in an already moving form, (i.e. not originating from a star) so that stars only APPEAR to be so far, but are actually very close and young.

Actually, the starlight claim is far worse than that. If the stars were close and young, we would see them as close and young. If the light was created in space, then the 'star' that we think we see when we observe the light, never existed. It is entirely possible that some stars were created to appear to be the continuation/descendants of the imaginary ones, but we have no way of knowing this until the light reaches us, which could take anything up to several billion years, depending on the star in question.

Originally posted by Dasa
I am not against science in general.....just dishonest science which is biased in establishing their theories.

Please read "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo the worlds leading authority on extreme human antiquity.

I am not going to waste my time reading a work of pseudoscience written by a religious whack-job.

Humans have not been on this planet for tens of millions of years let alone billions.

Not only is there no evidence to support this suggestion but there is a huge lack of evidence that
should be there if it were true.

If this is where you are getting your information you are being seriously misguided.

I would suggest a whole string of good sources of information on the subject if I had any hope you
would read them.

Science is a process,
a process which is in itself under constant review,
this process is naturally self correcting,
meaning that while you may have the occasional issue such as confirmation bias in the short term.
In the long term that bias will be spotted and corrected.

Natural selection theory has been under constant attack for over 150 years, in that time mountains
of evidence has been found to support it.
None has been found to refute it.

You can't claim to support science and not believe in one of its crowning achievements.


If you really believe modern humans have been around for tens of millions of years (minimum)
then consider this...

Humans are pretty much the most destructive creatures on the planet.
Even when we had only basic stone tools;

We can survive in almost any habitat on the planet,

We can travel great distances at great speed (in geological terms),

We can hunt and kill almost any creature on the planet,

We modify the landscape to suite our needs,

We reproduce rapidly,

We develop technology with increasing rapidity growing with population growth.

Given all this, if humans had first come into being in their modern form,
with modern intellect and communication ability.

There would be impossible to miss/hide evidence everywhere that this was so.

We would have spread over the planet, taking it over, just as we have done...
but we would have done it millions of years ago.


Now there is plenty of fossil evidence for us evolving and while the details of
that evolution are debatable, they show that basic humans evolved around 2 ish
million years ago, with modern humans probably appearing in the order of
hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Tens of millions of years is out of the question.
Especially if you consider all the evidence we don't have but should if your claims were true.

In short, Michael Cremo is wrong, and is not a leading authority on anything.

Most importantly, his work is religious...
He selectively seeks evidence to support his belief's.
Scientists seek evidence to try to refute their hypotheses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo

http://ncse.com/rncse/19/3/review-forbidden-archaeologys-impact

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not going to waste my time reading a work of pseudoscience written by a religious whack-job.

Humans have not been on this planet for tens of millions of years let alone billions.

Not only is there no evidence to support this suggestion but there is a huge lack of evidence that
should be there if it were true.

If this is where you are gett ...[text shortened]... dia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo

http://ncse.com/rncse/19/3/review-forbidden-archaeologys-impact

Your comments are biased and baseless...........characteristic of scientific method.

At the end of the day you are saying everything has come about without intelligent cause or plan but by random chance.......this is absurd.

This is dishonest.

This is your science that you are defending.

After the book Forbidden Archaeology was reviewed all the dishonest critics came out one by one to comment. And one by one in another book called "Forbidden Archaeology The Impact" their criticism was annihilated very methodically and academically leaving them in an embarrassing situation.

Why have theses science critics stooped to dishonesty to defend their evolution.

Typical of dishonest science.

Originally posted by Dasa
Your comments are biased and baseless...........characteristic of scientific method.

At the end of the day you are saying everything has come about without intelligent cause or plan but by random chance.......this is absurd.

This is dishonest.

This is your science that you are defending.

After the book Forbidden Archaeology was reviewed all the dish ...[text shortened]... ence critics stooped to dishonesty to defend their evolution.

Typical of dishonest science.

Do you do another trick?

Originally posted by Dasa
Your comments are biased and baseless...........characteristic of scientific method.

At the end of the day you are saying everything has come about without intelligent cause or plan but by random chance.......this is absurd.

This is dishonest.

This is your science that you are defending.

After the book Forbidden Archaeology was reviewed all the dish ...[text shortened]... ence critics stooped to dishonesty to defend their evolution.

Typical of dishonest science.

Have you heard of the blind watchmaker?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Have you heard of the blind watchmaker?

There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins' arguments. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. Many of those who cite Dawkins' book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every tactic, fair or foul, to destroy theism. This can be easily documented. His books are self-confessed attempts at indoctrination.

Note that, for natural selection to work, you have to have a self-reproducing entity. What is the simplest conceivable such unit? It is incredibly complex and full of information. This whole functioning unit has to come into being all at once, before Dawkins' mutations and natural selection can function (assuming that they then can function at all as Dawkins claims!).

Fred Hoyle did some calculations on the likelihood of a hypothetical minimum self-reproducing cell coming together, given all the ingredients (this is impossible anyway, by natural, non-enzymatic processes). Hoyle hypothesised a cell of only 400 enzymes/proteins; a real world bacterium has about 2,000! For this hypothetical minimum cell, Hoyle calculated a probability of it forming by natural processes of 1 in 1040,000.

To put this in context, there are about 1080 atomic particles in the universe. If the universe actually were 15 billion years old, as Dawkins believes, this would give about 1018 seconds. If every second and every atomic particle were an experiment in a soup of all the ingredients necessary for the cell to form, this would amount to 1098 experiments. This is a long way short of any chance of getting our 'cell'. Let's make every microsecond an experiment. This gives 10104 experiments. This is not getting us anywhere. Let's make every atomic particle in our universe a universe like our own with every atomic particle in those universes and every microsecond an experiment. We now have 10204 experiments. Hey, we're still a long way short of 1040,000 necessary for a reasonable chance of succeeding. The chances of getting our cell are zero!

Furthermore, if you mixed all the ingredients together necessary for a living cell to form, many of those ingredients would react together to prevent anything from happening!

Dawkins' computer morphs have as much relevance to the origin of the information in living things as sand has to the origin of information in a computer memory (the memory chips are made of silicon extracted from sand). Dawkins' selects things that look like something recognisable and then he claims that what he gets is the result of blind selection (The Blind Watchmaker). How illogical!

There is no evolutionary answer to the origin of information in living things.

Originally posted by Dasa
There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins' arguments. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. Many of those who cite Dawkins' book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every al!

There is no evolutionary answer to the origin of information in living things.

Why do you insist on evolution theory having something to do with origins of life? Science has shown life having started on Earth several times but that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not seek to find the origin of life. Evolution deals with what happens to life forms after they start. You are on a one track mind game here.
You need to do some research of your own to see what science it is that tries to deal with life origin research. That science is not called evolution. Why can't you get that through your head?

The answer is simple: You strive to destroy any science that attempts to refute your built in dogma. Just like the right wing christian nutjobs.

You figure that because your religion is far superior to christianity you can look down on them, call them arrogant and such but it is you who is arrogant. I already know christianity is full of shyte, but so is your ultra wordy religion too. You or anyone else on earth has no real answer, just word after word after word after word, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, and then more words and more words and more words. It gets old hearing and reading all that BS that comes out of your typing.