A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[Heyo]

Theories are literally just collections of facts based on the data available.

Nope.
A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts that has predictive power and proven that power.
A theory is never a fact. It may be false or partly false or inaccurate.
Facts are the results of experiments, the measurements, the data. These remain facts even if the theory is replaced and a new theory has to explain all the facts an old theory did explain and then some.

 

[darkskies]

Nope.
A scientific theory is an explanation of the facts that has predictive power and proven that power.
A theory is never a fact. It may be false or partly false or inaccurate.
Facts are the results of experiments, the measurements, the data. These remain facts even if the theory is replaced and a new theory has to explain all the facts an old theory did explain and then some.

Okay, so more like a suitable explanation for the facts. My bad.

 

[rational experiences]

A human wrote the bible as human evidence.

Science a chosen human practice just human for humans as humans.

Said my science is about power. Egotism human.

Science says I know all things.

Just as a human.

Said looking back at a whole story human including life's attack that God O earth had changed because of science. His chosen practice.

As Moses is a whole story with an end. Destruction life attacked. The story therefore does not exist as rational advice. It had ended.

Ignored.

Genesis human genetics left. Being mutation with about six real family DNA human living within us and the rest family mutated. The teaching. Life itself changed no healthy human left. Human DNA family barely survived.

The occult flood radiation effect.
The flooding of water atmospheric cooling of causes. What was taught.

So humans evolved life mutation in healing. A humans claim to a human in human evolution.

As God already owned all spirits the gases.
Same gases in heavens.
Water how we live the body that changes due to radiation..what changed.

Science in a human statement evolution healing of my form body human. As the thesis self evolution.

Is not evolution by God.

Any animal living today is natural.

If a human pretends what he believes form used to be then he would be thinking how can I change its natural form that life on God earth supports.

And you would wonder at his evil thinking. Known evil thinking. Proven evil thinking by other humans.

Who asked the thinker who do you claim you represent?

Obviously not any human.

Why consciousness was the Bible topic for humans living on a stone planet as it's owned entity. God. One. Pre formed mass.

Man says but you are not God.
You live inside gases heavens.
I know he says.

Alien Satan his themes.

Yet they are inferred to be human like images.

Nature wood trees is first God nature. Another relevant bible theme. Evicted out of the nature garden.

A science statement.

Their bodies don't look human as first manifested life. Nature and it's garden. First God earth life.

So alienist satanist evolutionists are wrong.

Who say a spirit body existed first.

The evolutionist says no I am talking O cell. Yet maths God stories O are about cells also.

So they are in fact the same human theist maths science.

Just science.

Science says science created life.

Why they said maths was Sophia the mother of creation.

Yet the maths mother attacked life as the title Eve.

The man confession scientist stated God changed my rib when God caused the science activation. The maths Sophia he said. Eve. God said the evil maths female changed my life. An ignored teaching about human science.

O a human one cell an ovary is where a baby life human came from. As a thesis a pre existing cell. In human science. An ovary our life is not science.

Two whole humans existed. Owning human babies.
Apes as two parents exist also in that thesis owning ape babies.

Apes only own ape babies.

Apes never owned mutated human babies. Humans did.

When a human compares their owned human form. Virtually claims why a human became an animal. In thesis as a lesser life than my own by radiation mass.

As radiation mass would not allow any beast form to live as a human. What science theism said actually thinking.

Just as a human comparing life to self owned human presence.

What radiation never allowed to form in life. A thinker is about evil radiation mass due to the theist being a scientist.

Claiming the beast animal a cursed human form.

Which is what he said. Why science looking back attacked mutated natural human life as humans. Lying.
Rationally.

Why evil human theist thinking was told that these types of theories are evil against life human existing.

As an appraisal of the human thinker.

For life control was safety for humans as humans. Science was proven evil.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Theories are an explanation of the facts.
Meaning that theories use factz to make explanations of how things work.
Some times as more facts are discovered, the theory has to be changed to account for the new facts.

Sometimes it is revealed that a fact is not actually a fact.
Sometimes we find out that a fact only applies in certain circumstances.
So again, the theory has to be changed to accommodate that.

You need to read post 66 where Aketo said that theories are proven facts. I was saying that facts do not change. Gaining additional facts may cause a theory to change but the facts do not change. That is why a theory is not a fact but is based on known facts available at the time. Theories are BASED on facts but are NOT facts in themselves. I was saying that Aketo was wrong and I still say the same thing.

 

[darkskies]

You need to read post 66 where Aketo said that theories are proven facts. I was saying that facts do not change. Gaining additional facts may cause a theory to change but the facts do not change. That is why a theory is not a fact but is based on known facts available at the time. Theories are BASED on facts but are NOT facts in themselves. I was saying that Aketo was wrong and I still say the same thing.

Yes, I was mistaken. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

 

[McBell]

You need to read post 66 where Aketo said that theories are proven facts. I was saying that facts do not change. Gaining additional facts may cause a theory to change but the facts do not change. That is why a theory is not a fact but is based on known facts available at the time. Theories are BASED on facts but are NOT facts in themselves. I was saying that Aketo was wrong and I still say the same thing.

My apologies.
I did in fact missed that post.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

My apologies.
I did in fact missed that post.

No problem. I sometimes miss things also.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, I was mistaken. Sorry for the confusion I caused.

That is why we have debates. We all get cobfused sometimes. It takes a smart person to learn from his mistakes. I is good discussing things with you.

 

[ecco]

This very first real kangaroo was the only one of its kind so how did it reproduce to make more kangaroos? A dog cannot mate with a cat and a horse cannot mate with a cow so it would seem that a kangaroo could not mate with a non-kangaroo.

You make an assertion that there was a "very first real kangaroo". Nature is not so simplistic.

On a color spectrum, can you identify the wavelength of the "very first red"?

In the history of languages, can you identify the "very first German word" ever spoken?

There is no such thing as the "very first real kangaroo" or dog or cat or elephant or man or roach.

You really need to learn a little something about the real world before making such nonsensical comments.

 

[ecco]

Sounds like a lot of "could have, should have, would have" guess work. Science is supposed to deal in facts. Where are the facts in "could have"?

It's called honesty.

Can I say my dog had puppies because she "could have" got pregnant but did not.

If you said that, you would be dishonest.




You do see the difference, don't you?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You make an assertion that there was a "very first real kangaroo". Nature is not so simplistic.

On a color spectrum, can you identify the wavelength of the "very first red"?

In the history of languages, can you identify the "very first German word" ever spoken?

There is no such thing as the "very first real kangaroo" or dog or cat or elephant or man or roach.

You really need to learn a little something about the real world before making such nonsensical comments.

If there is one thing science must be it is "logical". So let's look at it logically. If there never was a first kangaroo, how could there ever be a second or third? Just because you cannot identify it does not mean it did not exist. It just shows that much of science is just guesses.

 

[ecco]

You know what's the most amazing thing about atheists..
Is how Atheists beat themselves up and argue over a God they don't believe in..
Atheists will say that they don't believe in God.
But yet Atheists will argue, will come up with all sorts of things trying to disprove a God they don't believe in.

We needn't disprove God. The writings in the Bible are enough to disprove God. Example: Your God flooded the entire world, covering the highest mountains. According to your Bible, this happened about 4000 years ago. That is demonstrably wrong.

If I don't believe in something I'm sure not going to go around trying to disprove something I don't believe in or argue over something I don't believe....that's how ridiculous atheist shows themselves to have no common sense or logic.
If you don't believe in something then why do you let it bother you so much..

Yet people like you do go around trying to disprove evolution. Why do you let the facts of evolution bother you so much?

 

[ecco]

I've myself has come across many atheists in my life...
But none of them can answer the simple question...seeing that you don't believe in God....then why do you argue..beat yourself up over a God that you don't believe in..

If you don't believe in something why would you put yourself through things just to prove what you don't believe in ????...Lol

I've myself has come across many creationists in my life...
But none of them can answer the simple question...seeing that you don't believe in Evolution....then why do you argue..beat yourself up over a Theory that you don't believe in..

If you don't believe in something why would you put yourself through things just to prove what you don't believe in ????...Lol

 

[ecco]

I think they are called THEORIES because...

You've been on this forum for over five years and you still have not learned what a scientific theory is. That is truly sad.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It's called honesty.



If you said that, you would be dishonest.




You do see the difference, don't you?

It is honest to say it "could have" been that way but science tries to say it is a fact. Could have's are not facts. That is why I am showing how foolish it is by asking if I can say my dog had puppies because she "could have". Do YOU see the difference?

 

[ecco]

If there is one thing science must be it is "logical". So let's look at it logically. If there never was a first kangaroo, how could there ever be a second or third? Just because you cannot identify it does not mean it did not exist. It just shows that much of science is just guesses.

Obviously, you did not take the time to read Evolution for Dummies.
Obviously, you do not have any understanding of the basics of Evolution.
Obviously, my comments regarding colors and languages were too complex for you to comprehend.

On a color spectrum, can you identify the wavelength of the "very first red"?
In the history of languages, can you identify the "very first German word" ever spoken?
​

Ignorance may be bliss, but willful ignorance is just willful ignorance.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You've been on this forum for over five years and you still have not learned what a scientific theory is. That is truly sad.

I do not get my science knowledge from this forum. All I can say is that there are some people on this forum who say that scientific theories are FACTS. They may be baes on the known facys available but sometimes new facts are discovered that cause theories to change. Theories can change. Facts do not. Theories are NOT themselves facts.

 

[ecco]

It is honest to say it "could have" been that way but science tries to say it is a fact. Could have's are not facts.

Scientists say "could have" and "possibly" when they are not certain of something. Science has learned that more research often changes knowledge.

Science once said that planets revolve around the sun in circular orbits. Technically, that was wrong. Technically they should have said: "planets revolve around the sun in what we currently believe to be circular orbits".

The only people who have problems with "could have" are people who, because of their fundamentalist religious beliefs, have to try to denigrate science whenever and however they can.

It is honest to say it "could have" been that way but science tries to say it is a fact.

Where does science use "could have" in the way you assert?

Whether the orbits are circles or ellipses does not detract from the fact of heliocentricity. You do accept heliocentricy , don't you?

That is why I am showing how foolish it is by asking if I can say my dog had puppies because she "could have". Do YOU see the difference?

All I see is that your attempt at positing an analogy is nonsensical. It bears no resemblance to how science uses the term.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Obviously, you did not take the time to read Evolution for Dummies.
Obviously, you do not have any understanding of the basics of Evolution.
Obviously, my comments regarding colors and languages were too complex for you to comprehend.

On a color spectrum, can you identify the wavelength of the "very first red"?
In the history of languages, can you identify the "very first German word" ever spoken?
​

Ignorance may be bliss, but willful ignorance is just willful ignorance.

Obviously you did not understand the question or are not able to answer. I do not have to IDENTIFY the first kangaroo or the first word or the first red color. I am saying that in order for there to be a second or thied, there had to be a first. If that is too complex for you maybe I can find a book on "Logic for Dummies" for you.

 

[ecco]

I think they are called THEORIES because

You've been on this forum for over five years and you still have not learned what a scientific theory is. That is truly sad.

I do not get my science knowledge from this forum.

From your writing, quoted above, it is clear that you don't get your science knowledge from anywhere. If you did, you would know what a Scientific Theory is and you wouldn't have to preface it with "I think".

All I can say is that there are some people on this forum who say that scientific theories are FACTS. Theories are NOT themselves facts.

Who? Most posters that I see will tell you facts and proofs are limited to mathematics. Perhaps you are referring to comments like "The Theory of Evolution is supported by facts". That is true. It is supported by facts drawn from many different areas of science.

I realize it is necessary for you to denigrate science in any way you can in order to continue your fundamentalist beliefs.