Evolution - Fact or Belief ?

Evolution - Fact or Belief ? Geology - Stratification - Sedimentology

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution - Fact or Belief ? Geology - Stratification - Sedimentology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XvbbE_VwC8

Evolution is fact.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution - Fact or Belief ? Geology - Stratification - Sedimentology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XvbbE_VwC8

😴

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution - Fact or Belief ? Geology - Stratification - Sedimentology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XvbbE_VwC8

How many times must you be booted out of science for posting this anti-science rubbish before you learn to stop doing it?

Reported.

Originally posted by googlefudge
How many times must you be booted out of science for posting this anti-science rubbish before you learn to stop doing it?

Reported.

Yes, and what an idiotic title for a thread! But, that is exactly what is expected from a moron.

Originally posted by humy
Yes, and what an idiotic title for a thread! But, that is exactly what is expected from a moron.

And I don't see the snappy comeback from RJ. Maybe he has run off, tail between his legs.

Originally posted by caissad4
Evolution is fact.

Is it reproducible? If it is not, then it is not science as far as I'm concerned.

But hey, many people believe that their strongly held beliefs are facts.

Originally posted by Eladar
Is it reproducible?

Yes.

Originally posted by Eladar
Is it reproducible? If it is not, then it is not science as far as I'm concerned.

But hey, many people believe that their strongly held beliefs are facts.

Is gravity reproducible?

I don't think you have a clue what is or is not science.

You have just learned some buzzwords that you think discredit evolution.

Originally posted by Eladar
Is it reproducible?

Yes.

Both many of the observations made in the natural world are reproducible i.e. the same observations can be made again (example; you can repeat an observation of the fossils ) AND ALL the evolutionary laboratory experiments on bacteria colonies and fruit flies etc are all reproducible (and, in both cases have been repeated in many instances ) .

However, something doesn't necessarily have to be reproducible for it to be scientific. For example, although we may be able to keep observing gamma ray bursts, we presumably can only observe each one just once. But the fact that an observation of just any one given particular grammar ray burst from just one unique time and location in the cosmos cannot be observed again (so is not reproducible ) doesn't mean that the observation of that gamma ray bursts is unscientific and that we cannot scientifically make conclusions from it.

Your criteria for 'scientific' is actually a bit inaccurate because reproducible is not necessarily part of it although, if an experiment and/or an observation but one that does NOT involving a unique event is not reproducible then that means it is unscientific else, if the experiment and/or an observation DOES involving a unique event which will never happen again, it not being reproducible doesn't necessarily mean it is unscientific.

What always DOES make something scientific is if it is a conclusion based on and ONLY based on observation (which can be very indirect ) and/or flawless logic and NOT based on anything else such as, for example, what you want to be true or what some religion says is true (which, incidentally, is what distinguishes science from religion )

Originally posted by googlefudge
Is gravity reproducible?

I don't think you have a clue what is or is not science.

You have just learned some buzzwords that you think discredit evolution.

Gravity is in effect as we speak.

Evolution is a theory that has not been witnessed. It is simply something that many people take on faith. The sad part is that they are unable to see their faith since it is simply taught to them as fact. Sheep who do not ask questions are easily led.

People who question get attacked.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes.

Show me one kind of life that evolved out of something that was not alive.

Originally posted by Eladar
Show me one kind of life that evolved out of something that was not alive.

Clearly you don't understand evolution theory. I recommend reading a bit about it, after which you might learn that evolution theory says nothing about "evolving out of something that [is] not alive."

Originally posted by Eladar
Show me one kind of life that evolved out of something that was not alive.

What an idiotic statement. Like KazetNagorra's implied; Obviously, anybody who understands what biological evolution is would know it is, both by definition and in physical reality, NOT the transformation of non-life into anything.

Originally posted by Eladar
Show me one kind of life that evolved out of something that was not alive.

For a supposed teacher you are pathologically naive about evolution. The only reason I see that is your complete religious brainwashing. It just goes to show how the human race is not as intelligent as it thinks it is if you, a supposedly educated individual can be taken in, totally duped by 3000 year old creationist fairy tales.

There is not much hope for the human race as long as this utter BS is promulgated century after century in spite of 300 years of constant advancement in science.

Where those sciences have a certain MO, they all follow rules of science, basically the same logic is used for geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, cosmology and evolution.

You readily admit accepting the results of say, chemistry, but when the exact same rules of logic are applied to evolution and give the results you know full well, but you cannot accept the results in spite of the fact they use the exact same techniques of science as any other science.

So the bottom line here is not the science, it is in fact you and your creationist buddies trying to weaponize creation so-called science not to prove a point about evolution, you wish to bring enough people into your fold to be able to have at least pockets of legality where judges and congressmen are bought off so laws will be passed where creationism is forced into a science classroom to at the very least compete with evolution are better yet completely supplant evolution and have teachers ONLY teach the creationist fairy tale.

Your MO is as clear as day.

You and your ilk profess a love of science except where it collides with creationist BS.

It is YOU and your ilk who are the problem. You should be ashamed of yourself for being a teacher. You should instead be a preacher, maybe talking off a soap box in town square. Try to convince people that way.

Putting your BS so-called 'science' of creation is science fraud pure and simple.

Looking at places like the red rocks of Colorado or the Grand canyon and convincing yourself they are only a few thousand years old is the epitome of stupidity.

It would be one thing if you confined your BS to your own mind. No, you and your buddies have to do what you THINK is some god's work and foist this utter crap on a public where you hope to attract weak minds enough to create a political force. THAT is the bottom line of creationism, not pushing ANY science agenda.

If you for some crazy reason won the battle and proved creationism, you would drop all pretense at the love of science, proud of your pyrrhic victory.

And damaging real science in so many ways the effects are ruining American science in general even before you would win such a victory.

Just the constant debate going on where these half asssed videos which are nothing but opinion pieces disguised as science has a dampening effect on real science.

You may wonder why America is so far down the list of educational systems in the world. Well Creationism has to take part of the blame.

May you choke on your supposed love of science.