toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Arthur Brain]

You are completely deaf on this subject.

Once AGAIN, radiometric dating is NOT a scientific method. It is based completely on ASSUMPTIONS (assumptions that cannot be verified). That you do not know this is a shame on you.

Have you got anything besides your vitriolic opinion on the subject? Otherwise, it's regarded as a scientific method and your opinion hardly carries any weight in itself.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Either evolution is true, or species of animals were originally created as they are today.

I asked you to provide evidence that New species have arisen out of other species, and you have not.

I gave you evidence that fossils of species of animals have been found which still are observable in nature today; which is evidence of God creating them originally in the forms we now see them today.

This same evidence disproves the theory of evolution.
Darwin suggested that animals are constantly in a state of change; if there are fossils of animals that are still living modernly, that is evidence against evolution.

How do you explain the fact there are fossilized animals which people who entertain the theory of evolution believe are tens and hundreds of millions of years old; are still living modernly?

I mean, if evolution is constantly changing species into new ones, how are there fossils of animals remainining anatomically unchanged today?

=M=

Honestly, I'd suggest reading up on the actual theory as it hasn't been "disproved" and you have real misconceptions regarding it.

 

[Right Divider]

Have you got anything besides your vitriolic opinion on the subject? Otherwise, it's regarded as a scientific method and your opinion hardly carries any weight in itself.

• It's not "vitriolic".
• It's not my opinion that radiometric dating is based on assumptions, it's a fact.
• Is this an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity?

 

[Arthur Brain]

• It's not "vitriolic".
• It's not my opinion that radiometric dating is based on assumptions, it's a fact.
• Is this an appeal to authority or an appeal to popularity?

Well, you sure seem wound up about it. How about you get around to showing how it's been destroyed? Otherwise, it really is only your opinion and that in itself doesn't carry any weight.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, you sure seem wound up about it. How about you get around to showing how it's been destroyed? Otherwise, it really is only your opinion and that in itself doesn't carry any weight.

Why don't you actually talk about the method? Instead of telling up how popular it is or who believes it.

Those are the fallacies of appeals to popularity and appeals to authority.

A method that is based on multiple assumptions is NOT a scientific method.

 

[7djengo7]

Yes, I can read. It seems as though you have some difficulties however

In this thread, not merely difficulties, but impossibilities--many. To each question I've asked you, and for every time I have asked it, it has been impossible for me to be given an answer by you. You're a hardened liar in your stonewalling against my questions, and it has long been obvious that you're here for nothing other than to beg for attention.

It's not a "so called" scientific theory.

Oh, well, you don't call it a scientific theory, and I don't call it a scientific theory (as it is neither scientific, nor a theory). But, it is a so-called "scientific theory", because there are many irrational morons who call it a scientific theory.

Q. What DOES evolution cause? A. Evolution causes _____________.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why don't you actually talk about the method? Instead of telling up how popular it is or who believes it.

Those are the fallacies of appeals to popularity and appeals to authority.

A method that is based on multiple assumptions is NOT a scientific method.

How about you just get around to "destroying it" as you've claimed you can do? Heck, I've had people who think the theory of evolution isn't an actual theory because they don't understand what a theory is where it comes to science. Your assertions mean nothing until you provide some substance.

So please, do get on with dismantling radiometric dating as I've read nothing that discards it in scientific circles as yet, or plenty other methods.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In this thread, not merely difficulties, but impossibilities--many. To each question I've asked you, and for every time I have asked it, it has been impossible for me to be given an answer by you. You're a hardened liar in your stonewalling against my questions, and it has long been obvious that you're here for nothing other than to beg for attention.



Oh, well, you don't call it a scientific theory, and I don't call it a scientific theory (as it is neither scientific, nor a theory). But, it is a so-called "scientific theory", because there are many irrational morons who call it a scientific theory.

Q. What DOES evolution cause? A. Evolution causes _____________.

Of course I call it a scientific theory because that's exactly what it is. In the world of science, theories come about because of the evidence to support, through stringent and continual testing and if it doesn't pass muster it doesn't become a theory. The theory of evolution exists because of the evidence and I suggest you read up on it.

Right now I'd suggest that evolution causes people like yourself to go into a meltdown on the topic. Otherwise, you can read up and then still deny stuff if you like.

 

[Lon]

Have you got anything besides your vitriolic opinion on the subject? Otherwise, it's regarded as a scientific method and your opinion hardly carries any weight in itself.

Radiometric dating is inexact Radiometric dating not-so-exacting

While the first, I cannot find a flaw in data, the second reveals a bit of misunderstanding of 'dating' in general. She is correct, however, that assumptions are made in dating as well as there being problems with past dating efforts of things from the science community.

Science doesn't really have to 'be right' just continue to relearn and reassess rightly.

 

[kiwimacahau]

A scientific theory is based on science facts, observable science: like the theory of gravity, which is based on physical laws of the Gravity constant. The theory of evolution is not observable or testable, which means it’s not a scientific theory, it’s just a theory which there is no evidence for.

There is no evidence for it.

You keep claiming there has to be evidence for a belief to be a theory; that’s false, a theory can be made about anything, it’s just a belief. Only scientific theories have evidence for them, which evolution does not, which makes it just a belief that people hold not based in reality or on any physical evidence.

Evolution is a belief that remains unproven.

=M=

Except for the fact that modern medicine would not work as it does if evolution was simply a belief rather than fact.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Radiometric dating is inexact Radiometric dating not-so-exacting

While the first, I cannot find a flaw in data, the second reveals a bit of misunderstanding of 'dating' in general. She is correct, however, that assumptions are made in dating as well as there being problems with past dating efforts of things from the science community.

Science doesn't really have to 'be right' just continue to relearn and reassess rightly.

A creationist website is hardly proof of anything Lon. If there's flaws in the methods used to establish the age of the universe then there needs to be something that holds up to scrutiny.

 

[Right Divider]

How about you just get around to "destroying it" as you've claimed you can do?

I don't have to destroy an non-scientific idea based on assumptions.

Heck, I've had people who think the theory of evolution isn't an actual theory because they don't understand what a theory is where it comes to science. Your assertions mean nothing until you provide some substance.

Blah, blah.... blah.

So please, do get on with dismantling radiometric dating as I've read nothing that discards it in scientific circles as yet, or plenty other methods.

More fallacious appeals to popularity and authority. It appears that you are the one that does not know how science works. It's based on facts, observations, repeatability, etc. etc. etc. and most certainly NOT assumptions.

 

[7djengo7]

Of course I call it a scientific theory because that's exactly what it is. In the world of science, theories come about because of the evidence to support, through stringent and continual testing and if it doesn't pass muster it doesn't become a theory. The theory of evolution exists because of the evidence and I suggest you read up on it.

Right now I'd suggest that evolution causes people like yourself to go into a meltdown on the topic. Otherwise, you can read up and then still deny stuff if you like.

Q. What DOES evolution cause? A. Evolution causes _____________.

Here, in red ink, is Arthur Brain's final answer:

Q. What DOES evolution cause? A. Evolution causes absolutely nothing.

Thus, Arthur Brain admits that the cloud of pompous nonsense he calls, "the theory of evolution", is utterly worthless to explain anything, whatsoever.

You see a rabbit frolicking in a field, and a snake slithering nearby, and notice how wondrous, and very different from one another, each of these critters is. Guess what is something that does NOT cause this wondrousness, and this differentness between the snake and the rabbit: evolution. Guess what is something that does NOT explain this wondrousness, and this differentness between the rabbit and the snake: the nonsense Arthur Brain calls "the theory of evolution".

Thanks for finally admitting, Arthur Brain, that

evolution causes absolutely nothing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't have to destroy an non-scientific idea based on assumptions.


Blah, blah.... blah.


More fallacious appeals to popularity and authority. It appears that you are the one that does not know how science works. It's based on facts, observations, repeatability, etc. etc. etc. and most certainly NOT assumptions.

So, you can't actually destroy it then? I know fine well how science works which is why I know that theories don't come about unless there's enough evidence to support such, which has been a basic misunderstanding not just on behalf of the author of the OP but several others who somehow think that the theory of evolution itself is not much more than some soundbites in effect but also a complete misunderstanding of just what the actual theory is about as well. Go figure.

Not how science works.

 

[7djengo7]

Except for the fact that modern medicine would not work as it does if evolution was simply a belief rather than fact.

By "a belief", do you mean something that is believed? 'Cause, that'll be pretty funny, when you, then, turn around and say that you believe facts. Do you not believe facts? Only a fool would refuse to believe facts.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except for the fact that modern medicine would not work as it does if evolution was simply a belief rather than fact.

Which of the many aspects of evolution has led to an advance in modern medicine since the theory was originally formed? If you could present two or three, that would be wonderful.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A creationist website.

A genetic fallacy.

Try again.

 

[Right Divider]

So, you can't actually destroy it then?

Still won't discuss the facts of the case?

I know fine well how science works which is why I know that theories don't come about unless there's enough evidence to support such, which has been a basic misunderstanding not just on behalf of the author of the OP but several others who somehow think that the theory of evolution itself is not much more than some soundbites in effect and also a complete misunderstanding of just what the actual theory is about as well. Go figure.

Still won't discuss the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS that make up this bogus "theory"?

Not how science works.

So science works by making MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS and then calling the results a "scientific conclusion"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Q. What DOES evolution cause? A. Evolution causes _____________.

Here, in red ink, is Arthur Brain's final answer:

Q. What DOES evolution cause? A. Evolution causes absolutely nothing.

Thus, Arthur Brain admits that the cloud of pompous nonsense he calls, "the theory of evolution", is utterly worthless to explain anything, whatsoever.

You see a rabbit frolicking in a field, and a snake slithering nearby, and notice how wondrous, and very different from one another, each of these critters is. Guess what is something that does NOT cause this wondrousness, and this differentness between the snake and the rabbit: evolution. Guess what is something that does NOT explain this wondrousness, and this differentness between the rabbit and the snake: the nonsense Arthur Brain calls "the theory of evolution".

Thanks for finally admitting, Arthur Brain, that

evolution causes absolutely nothing.

It's like having a front row seat at a circus where you hope the clowns might just be amusing for once...

Otherwise, erm, no.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Still won't discuss the facts of the case?


Still won't discuss the MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS that make up this bogus "theory"?


So science works by making MULTIPLE ASSUMPTIONS and then calling the results a "scientific conclusion"?

If you can destroy the methods that calculate the age of the universe then get on with it. Otherwise, you've done nothing but bluster.

If you've got something to actually bring to the table that invalidates the universe being billions of years old then just spell it out.

:idunno: