You raised some interesting points. Id love to talk about them..but thuggishsplicer has just got his micro-evolution stuff going here.....
You think we can do this in the other thread? There is another one...i think it is called Evidence for creation/evolution. How about it?
Sure. Go for it.
Raise your hand if you have a lab, and you are paid as a researcher, and have published a scientific paper. :highfive:
Otherwise...your just using other people's research which is what most people do anyway.
I've written research papers and reports, but none were for scientific journals; does that count?
Even people who hold to the evolution theory use darwins theory as resource. Unless your the next einstein your going to post stuff from someone elses research as well. And thats the best most of us here can do.
You're using a weird version of the ad hominem fallacy. The support for evolution is in scientific evidence, not in our opinion of Charles Darwin as a person.
(Edit: and BTW - the support for relativity and the photoelectric effect is also in scientific evidence and not in our opinion of Albert Einstein as a person)
I think you'll find that just about every method for measuring the size of the Earth can be traced back to the method that Eratosthenes came up with in the 3rd Century. Does this mean that all our estimates of the Earth's size from then to now are contingent on anything about Eratosthenes? Of course not; that's the whole point of the scientific method: one person comes up with an idea, and others try to repeat it. The whole point is that the truth or falsehood of a scientific claim is dependent on the evidence alone, not on the people making the claim.
I do have a degree in chemistry though so you would THINK that i know about scientific investigation.
You would... which makes it especially perplexing that you seem to ignore how theories are verified by repeated scientific investigation.
And the darwin theory has not remotely done the scientific method justice. And somebody is going to have to be einstein to convince me that the evolution theory has indeed shown appropriate scientific observations and is able to predict outcomes of the ongoing evolution theory.
I really don't know what you're looking for. I think that evolution has been confirmed and verified more than just about any other scientific theory.
All of biology depends on, and is an ongoing and repeated confirmation of, evolution.
Science has become people's god.
Its correct because people say...'its science'. Its not science..its a theory as long as the scientific method can not be satisfied. Its science...so accept it. Well im not accepting it until there is proof. And that proof will NEVER come, unless proper scientific methods are used.
Let's try something out: how about you define the scientific process for us, just in general terms. Then, we can see whether evolutionary science has followed that process.
Science is making plasitic...
Science is the HABER process, the contact process, nano technology, car technology, making perfumes.
Science is sending people to the moon.
Actually (and speaking as an engineer
), I'd say that all of those are engineering. Science is figuring out the theories that allow them to happen.
Evolution is raising the dead to make it look like us. Its first ASSUMPTION is already wrong. The whole theory is based on an ASSUMPTION that things evolved from some pool of gue. Where did the goo come from? They dont know...ok that i can still cope with...but then...there is NO way to recreate this goo and make it into life. And yet BILLIONS of people believe it as fact.
What bearing does abiogenesis have on the truth or falsehood of evolution? It's like all sorts of other scientific disciplines; for example, take Ohm's Law: nobody argues that we need to figure out how electrons were created to talk about how they move and interact. The same goes for evolution: evolutionary science describes how life is effected by the mechanisms of inheritance, random mutation and natural selection, just as Ohm's Law describes how electrons are affected by voltage potential and resistance.
And then...if the fruit fly changes....its mutation, not evolution. If you survive an atom bomb, your not going to look like you did before. Is that evolution? Or is that mutation?
It's mutation. Evolution is adaptive mutation over generations.
Of course the saving angel of evolution is their carbon dating. With it they have been able to magically tell us how many billion, million years ago stuff happened. Carbon dating has many flaws. And unless it becomes 100% correct it should not be used as evidence. You dont build an atom bomb on a probability, why do they accept carbon dating is 100% correct when most people know its not?
I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but there's much more support for evolution than just carbon dating.
However, I think it's worth pointing out that radiometric dating and the atomic bomb are both based on the same theories and body of scientific knowledge.
