Welcome, Guest. Please Login
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  Welcome to our forum.
  HomeHelpSearchLogin  
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Only two theories, science or religion (Read 11659 times)
Mr. Truth Seeker
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 2
Only two theories, science or religion
Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm
 

It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #1 - Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am
 
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?


Thanks for coming by!


You do not need theories that are perpetuated with no evidence. That is a logical fallacy. Whoever told you that is an Evodelusionist.

There is no absolute need for a theory to answer questions which have no answer.  It is human weakness to do that and it is the cause of such nonsense as fake religions and fake science. 

How do we know that the Theory of Evolution is a religion.  It follows absolutely no use of the scientific principles. 

In all the, pseudo science, papers filled with jargon. Once you understand the jargon, it is clear that it is not a scientific inquiry at all.  The premise that evolution is real is the foundation for the paper.  Yet there is not one use of any experiment that shows any irrefutable evidence for evolution. 

Evolution is this idea that simple creatures, magically evolved over some immense time and that for example fish got out of water and became mankind over some immense time.

The only way someone could believe that is

1/ They are normal weak minded and need to have beliefs. 

2/ They have been thoroughly indoctrinated with these slogans of Evodelusionism.

3/ They have been taught to not think in terms of objective reasonableness.

4/ They just want to get along in society and get a degree in science. 

5/ Others find this theory (religion) a good way to negate other religions and to carry on politically correct nonsense.

6/ Conformity (afraid of ridicule if they don't "believe), Ego and status along with low IQ's, which is very common with Evodelusionists.


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.  After 150 years of hard work by the religious leaders of this religion trying to pass it off as "science" they have failed to bring forth any natural objective evidence of any simple life form that ever evolved into any complex life form.  It is a religion, based solely on belief and nothing else.
The children of this faith are brainwashed as any indoctrination into any religion.  Only the brainwashing is done under the guise of "science".

I have yet to get any answers that would satisfy a sane objective observer that shows that this idea is even plausible from all the evidence we have.

The difference between these religions is one is disguised as science, the other is more honest and says it is about faith.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?  It must be irrefutable, have no other plausibility, be objective and obvious. It must be physical, and most of all have no opinions from the priests of this religion.  Opinions are not evidence nor are they fact. When you can prove this beyond all doubts as repeatable, absolute and uses the real scientific methods then show it to us all.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mr. Truth Seeker
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 2
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #2 - Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?




You do not need theories. ....


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?


There is none.  You win.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ElectricRussel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 8
On a horse
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #3 - Dec 21st, 2010 at 4:33pm
 
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?




You do not need theories. ....


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?


There is none.  You win.


I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung.

But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level.

We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives.

Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #4 - Dec 21st, 2010 at 7:00pm
 
ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 4:33pm:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?




You do not need theories. ....


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?


There is none.  You win.


I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung.

But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level.

We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives.

Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.


There is no evidence for evolution.  I don't know if you  have ever researched this or not, but I have.  In 42 years of keeping tracks on all the evidence, there is none.

All we have is genetic lineages, extinction, and we have 88% of the non bird vertebrates, now living, as fossils and they have not changed.  There is no trail of any form of evolution on this planet.  It is a mythological religion.

There is no need for theories in science to go on for ever, without proof.  There is no need to believe in anything that has no evidence.

It may sound logical, but if you have no evidence all the belief means nothing.

Where is your absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have become complex life forms, That fish have evolved into humans?  Clue evidence does not contain beliefs nor opinions, just obvious, irrefutable and clear.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ElectricRussel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 8
On a horse
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #5 - Dec 28th, 2010 at 1:29pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 7:00pm:
ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 4:33pm:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?




You do not need theories. ....


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?


There is none.  You win.


I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung.

But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level.

We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives.

Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.


There is no evidence for evolution.  I don't know if you  have ever researched this or not, but I have.  In 42 years of keeping tracks on all the evidence, there is none.

All we have is genetic lineages, extinction, and we have 88% of the non bird vertebrates, now living, as fossils and they have not changed.  There is no trail of any form of evolution on this planet.  It is a mythological religion.

There is no need for theories in science to go on for ever, without proof.  There is no need to believe in anything that has no evidence.

It may sound logical, but if you have no evidence all the belief means nothing.

Where is your absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have become complex life forms, That fish have evolved into humans?  Clue evidence does not contain beliefs nor opinions, just obvious, irrefutable and clear.


Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the existence of atoms? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the theory of universal gravitation? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of molecular orbitals? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of anything in science for that matter?

Science is not a matter of absolutes. The accepted theories are those that explain the evidence that is available and yet science by its nature open to alternatives and adaptations to established theories. Evolution explains the evidence, so it is accepted, only a foolish scientist would ever say there could never be any other explanation, but a more foolish scientist still would claim there could never be any explanation. In fact I would call any such person the antithesis of a scientist.

I honestly have no single "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" to offer. A perfect fossil record in two close but differing environments covering perhaps 100 millions years and containing a provable speciation event at it's base would be nice, but that is about the best I can muster from my imagination (imagination it must be, since no such fossil site could possibly exist).

I fail to see the significance of having a great proportion of living fauna as fossils as disproving evolution. Surely extant fauna have had less chance to deteriorate. Unless you're talking about Permian elephants.

I am also curious as to what you would define as a "genetic lineage". Evolution would consider us all part of the same "genetic lineage", so where in your opinion is the barrier between genetic lineages? Certainly it cannot be within the DNA since all creatures are based on a combination of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #6 - Dec 30th, 2010 at 10:23am
 

"Download full size image
Ancient Human Remains Discovered In Israel

Posted on: Wednesday, 29 December 2010, 06:05 CST

Israeli archaeologists reported on Tuesday that have found teeth of modern humans in a cave in central Israel dating back 400,000 years. That makes them twice as old as modern humans found in Africa, which is where they’ve been thought to have originated."

Now, watch how these morons will work to cover this up.

Watch how magically the dating will be changed, just like most all of these findings.

Humans did no come from Africa as is thought according to this finding. All the so called genetic DNA evidence has just been show to be concocted nonsense.

Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #7 - Dec 30th, 2010 at 11:02am
 
ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 1:29pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 7:00pm:
ElectricRussel wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 4:33pm:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 6:11pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:30am:
Mr. Truth Seeker wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
It seems there are only two theories:
1. Theory of Evolution (the How, not the Fact)
2. The "poof" Theory of religion

Any other theories?




You do not need theories. ....


The Theory of Evolution is a religion.

Now where is your absolute evidence for evolution?


There is none.  You win.


I hope GSFU never sits on a jury. It would definitely be hung.

But it cannot be said that evolution does not have overwhelming evidence in its favour. Furthermore, it is a unifying theory that explains everything we understand about the ability for life to adapt at the observable level.

We can take what we know and observe and extrapolate to the beginnings of life, which makes it a unifying theory. And since it has practical applications in the real world, and observable data, even if only at a relatively small level, I find that the extrapolation is not unwarranted. Here is a theory that leaves out any magic and/or miracles to explain biology. What is beautiful about it is the biological example that is used to illustrate it - the tree; always growing, always stretching, always searching. Some leaves and branches will die off, but the tree survives.

Personally, I find evolution to be quite enlightening, and if there is an alternative explanation I've yet to hear one.


There is no evidence for evolution.  I don't know if you  have ever researched this or not, but I have.  In 42 years of keeping tracks on all the evidence, there is none.

All we have is genetic lineages, extinction, and we have 88% of the non bird vertebrates, now living, as fossils and they have not changed.  There is no trail of any form of evolution on this planet.  It is a mythological religion.

There is no need for theories in science to go on for ever, without proof.  There is no need to believe in anything that has no evidence.

It may sound logical, but if you have no evidence all the belief means nothing.

Where is your absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence that simple life forms have become complex life forms, That fish have evolved into humans?  Clue evidence does not contain beliefs nor opinions, just obvious, irrefutable and clear.


Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the existence of atoms? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of the theory of universal gravitation? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of molecular orbitals? Where is the "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" of anything in science for that matter?

Science is not a matter of absolutes. The accepted theories are those that explain the evidence that is available and yet science by its nature open to alternatives and adaptations to established theories. Evolution explains the evidence, so it is accepted, only a foolish scientist would ever say there could never be any other explanation, but a more foolish scientist still would claim there could never be any explanation. In fact I would call any such person the antithesis of a scientist.

I honestly have no single "absolutely irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence" to offer. A perfect fossil record in two close but differing environments covering perhaps 100 millions years and containing a provable speciation event at it's base would be nice, but that is about the best I can muster from my imagination (imagination it must be, since no such fossil site could possibly exist).

I fail to see the significance of having a great proportion of living fauna as fossils as disproving evolution. Surely extant fauna have had less chance to deteriorate. Unless you're talking about Permian elephants.

I am also curious as to what you would define as a "genetic lineage". Evolution would consider us all part of the same "genetic lineage", so where in your opinion is the barrier between genetic lineages? Certainly it cannot be within the DNA since all creatures are based on a combination of combinations of adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine.



Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science.

There is evidence for other parts of science.  You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses.  You  can't do that with evolution.

If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory.

This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures.  Faith and religious ideas are not science.

DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.

There is no magical processes nor mystical causes.  This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds.  Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.

I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't.  They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science. 

Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence.  Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence. 
Understand?  You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.

DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.  They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are.  If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.

What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.

You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form.  That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.

The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense.  It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from.  There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T.  The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.

If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.

The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.

According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true.  The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.

It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.

"The obvious isn't obvious until it is obvious." GoodScienceForYou

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein.




Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ElectricRussel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 8
On a horse
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #8 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 11:02am:
Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science.


I have a chemistry degree, so I already know how science works thank you very much. I don't really appreciate you establishing yourself as some sort of authority figure, but comment on your condescending opening aside… let's move on.

Quote:
There is evidence for other parts of science.  You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses.  You  can't do that with evolution.


As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome.

Quote:
If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory.


I would say that natural selection, because of its repeated tests fits that description very well. Again, I accept that we are talking about small changes over short time periods, but still the principle has withstood rigorous testing.

Quote:
This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures.  Faith and religious ideas are not science.


The primary mechanism has been tested though (again I hasten to add in short term experiments).

Quote:
DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.


Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.

Quote:
There is no magical processes nor mystical causes.  This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds.  Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.


As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?

Quote:
I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't.  They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science. 


What do you mean by "religious slogans"?

Quote:
Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence.  Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence. 
Understand?  You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.


At the very base of things, yes, a fossil is meaningless as evidence. But inference based on the skeletons of dead creatures is surely worthwhile, even if never conclusive.

Quote:
DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.  They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are.  If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.


Mutations are errors in duplication. I can't see the validity of your point that mutations can only exist if you can show the cause. If a change has occurred then it has occurred, why is it necessary to prove the cause? We also return to my original question of where the boundary between genetic lineages is; as far as I know there is no such boundary.

Quote:
What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.


An interesting hypothesis, but it requires some foundation. For example what would be the founding families? And when in the fossil record do we see the parents of these genetic lineages?

Quote:
You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form.  That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.


You're swearing again. And also using the word magic, which is inappropriate when describing evolution as I understand it. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have some personal issue with the theory.

Quote:
The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense.  It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from.  There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T.  The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.


More swearing. As a chemist, I'm betting that the "cause" is chemical. Meaning that the expression of those groups of bases probably has a structural relevance to the amino acids they "code" for. Or are you going deeper than the chemistry of life?

Quote:
If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.


That's one way of looking at it I guess.

Quote:
The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.


And again with the cuss words. I still see evolution as a valid, non-magical explanation for the abundance of evidence.

Quote:
According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true.  The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.


I take it "evotard" is play on words to include retard. So now you've gone from cuss words to insults. Stay away from that, it only weakens your stance.

Quote:
It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.


Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #9 - Jan 5th, 2011 at 1:17pm
 
Quote:
It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.


"Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative."


First of all this idea that one needs to know is a human weakness and is the cause of all sorts of religious nonsense.

Second, I like to use very succinct words to express what something is.  "nonsense", "Evotard", are all very descriptive and represent my dislike of religious nonsense used in science.

There is no need for a theory, unless you  have some reason to create a theory, some natural observation that would give rise to this theory.  Since there is absolutely no reason in the natural world to even consider that "fish became human" by some magical nonsense, then where does this crap come from?
It comes from a religion:

It started from a religious idea that was congealed back about 2600 years ago.  Just like all religious ideas, people are looking to prove them and only them and are not able to just look at what is obvious.  That is a human flaw. Out of fear that comes from ignorance they make up crap to fill in the gaps, console themselves, and use that crap until it is shown to be wrong.

You cannot falsify a religion and so this Evodelusionism continues.

What we actually know in real evidence is that creatures appear, they remain basically the same for the entire time they exist. They go extinct or are still here on earth.
There are only genetic lineages and they don't seem to improve at all.

There is no evidence of any creature breaking the boundary of their genetic lineage and evolving.

If you have any absolutely irrefutable evidence that shows otherwise, where is it?

When each and every premise is easily dismissed, by several other much more logical "reasons", then why would you only accept the faith based logic and only see that?

I have studied this, seen all the iterations, adjustments, fixing the dogma, changing if foundational scientific terms,  sidestepping, sideways logic, to keep this faith going for over 42 years that I have studied it. It has a long history of faith holding this crap belief (of simple life becoming complex) together, but no evidence that is conclusive, not ever.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1267149414

Start Here







Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #10 - Jan 5th, 2011 at 1:36pm
 
ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:
As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome.



Natural Selection has nothing to do with evolution.  Breeding and not breeding, killing off creatures etc is not evolution.  It shows what happens with extinction, and with  breeding.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
ElectricRussel
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


Seek Truth!

Posts: 8
On a horse
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #11 - Jan 5th, 2011 at 5:28pm
 
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 5th, 2011 at 1:36pm:
ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:
GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 11:02am:
Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science.



ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:
I have a chemistry degree, so I already know how science works thank you very much. I don't really appreciate you establishing yourself as some sort of authority figure, but comment on your condescending opening aside… let's move on.

[quote]There is evidence for other parts of science.  You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses.  You  can't do that with evolution.


As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome.

Quote:
If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory.


I would say that natural selection, because of its repeated tests fits that description very well. Again, I accept that we are talking about small changes over short time periods, but still the principle has withstood rigorous testing.

Quote:
This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures.  Faith and religious ideas are not science.


The primary mechanism has been tested though (again I hasten to add in short term experiments).

Quote:
DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.


Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.

Quote:
There is no magical processes nor mystical causes.  This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds.  Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.


As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?

Quote:
I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't.  They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science. 


What do you mean by "religious slogans"?

Quote:
Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence.  Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence. 
Understand?  You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.


At the very base of things, yes, a fossil is meaningless as evidence. But inference based on the skeletons of dead creatures is surely worthwhile, even if never conclusive.

Quote:
DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures.  They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are.  If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.


Mutations are errors in duplication. I can't see the validity of your point that mutations can only exist if you can show the cause. If a change has occurred then it has occurred, why is it necessary to prove the cause? We also return to my original question of where the boundary between genetic lineages is; as far as I know there is no such boundary.

Quote:
What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.


An interesting hypothesis, but it requires some foundation. For example what would be the founding families? And when in the fossil record do we see the parents of these genetic lineages?

Quote:
You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form.  That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.


You're swearing again. And also using the word magic, which is inappropriate when describing evolution as I understand it. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have some personal issue with the theory.

Quote:
The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense.  It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from.  There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T.  The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.


More swearing. As a chemist, I'm betting that the "cause" is chemical. Meaning that the expression of those groups of bases probably has a structural relevance to the amino acids they "code" for. Or are you going deeper than the chemistry of life?

Quote:
If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.


That's one way of looking at it I guess.

Quote:
The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.


And again with the cuss words. I still see evolution as a valid, non-magical explanation for the abundance of evidence.

Quote:
According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true.  The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.


I take it "evotard" is play on words to include retard. So now you've gone from cuss words to insults. Stay away from that, it only weakens your stance.

Quote:
It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence.  It is far better to just see what is obvious.


Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative.




When you can't even use Code:
[quote][/quote] 

properly, how can I even take you seriously?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #12 - Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:35pm
 
I was interrupted by work.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #13 - Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:48pm
 
ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:
Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.




Comparative anatomy is a religious idea.  It allows a lot of room for "feelings", "brainwashing", "belief", and other human failings that can never be tested.

OPINIONS are never evidence.

I have looked at all the fossils that I can stand to look at in 42 years. And there is no trail of evolution anywhere.

When I was young I was introduced to this idea that these fuddy duddys were out there telling me what this fossil was and what that fossil was, but they had no physical evidence to back up their beliefs.  It was clear that they were purposely imposing belief on the fossils.

Without the belief, there is no evidence "for" evolution  in fossils.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
GoodScienceForYou
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


The obvious isn't obvious
until it is obvious

Posts: 1361
United States
Gender: male
Re: Only two theories, science or religion
Reply #14 - Jan 5th, 2011 at 7:57pm
 


ElectricRussel wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 12:22pm:
As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?



Since there is no physical evidence for evolution, they use magical concepts to project on evidence. 

There is no such thing as "random" in real science. There is only cause and result, the first law of science, what all of science works on.

When mystical causes are invoked, like "random mutations" and crap like that we know it is a religion.  There is only cause an result. The result is all they know that there are differences in the DNA, the causes are unknown, so they us magical terms to teach this crap with.
Back to top
 

"Putting your faith in humanity has historically not been a good concept. Why do you think it is "different" now?"
"Find the truth for yourself and don't succumb to indoctrination."
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print