evolution could be wrong

[Sunstone]

They also know that if they say evolution is not true they will be maligned, laughed at and no longer taken seriously.

With reason, too.

 

[fantome profane]

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief. You can do all the tests you want but nobody witnessed it......Scientist are still people and apt to make mistakes, so could the collective minds of scientist be wrong?

Sure, this is absolutely true. In science nothing is ever proven absolutely. Everything in science is open to question. But science does allow us to draw conclusions about what happened even when we were not there to witness it directly. It is true that we were not there to witness everything, but “the fact remains” that the scientific evidence we have overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

Still if you don’t want to believe the theory of evolution, you don’t have to. It is your choice. But the only way you can deny that the evidence supports it is by wilfully remaining ignorant of the evidence.

The fact is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. There are two possible conclusions you can draw from this fact. You can conclude that the theory of evolution is true, or you can conclude that the scientific evidence is wrong. But if you choose to dismiss the scientific evidence you do so at your own peril.

At one point in time almost every scientist thought the the planets revolved around the sun but we know that was wrong.

I still think the planets revolve around the sun. This is what is called the heliocentric theory. It is a well-proven and sound scientific theory. Do you have evidence otherwise?

 

[rlasater]

Please forgive the error i meant they thought the planets revolved around the earth.

 

[Luminous]

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief. You can do all the tests you want but nobody witnessed it. At one point in time almost every scientist thought the the planets revolved around the sun but we know that was wrong. Scientist are still people and apt to make mistakes, so could the collective minds of scientist be wrong?

so maybe the tree fell silently? because no one was there to witness it? sure...
and those scientists (as blamelessly ignorant as they were) had very limited information plus your god never disagreed with them in scripture. your supposed creator should have written the "comandments + All knowledge of the Universe, signed God." and made sure it didn't mysteriously disappear.
yes, they could be wrong; but they probably aren't as wrong as you. you assume you were created. they assume the facts as they see them hold up.

 

[rlasater]

Sure, this is absolutely true. In science nothing is ever proven absolutely. Everything in science is open to question. But science does allow us to draw conclusions about what happened even when we were not there to witness it directly. It is true that we were not there to witness everything, but “the fact remains” that the scientific evidence we have overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

Still if you don’t want to believe the theory of evolution, you don’t have to. It is your choice. But the only way you can deny that the evidence supports it is by wilfully remaining ignorant of the evidence.

The fact is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution. There are two possible conclusions you can draw from this fact. You can conclude that the theory of evolution is true, or you can conclude that the scientific evidence is wrong. But if you choose to dismiss the scientific evidence you do so at your own peril.

If there is evidence that a species changed into another species I would like to know it. And any evidence needs a witness. Like you said it is a choice but there is no peril for me not believing in evolution, if I am wrong oh well. But what if God is right.

 

[rlasater]

so maybe the tree fell silently? because no one was there to witness it? sure...
and those scientists (as blamelessly ignorant as they were) had very limited information plus your god never disagreed with them in scripture. your supposed creator should have written the "comandments + All knowledge of the Universe, signed God." and made sure it didn't mysteriously disappear.
yes, they could be wrong; but they probably aren't as wrong as you. you assume you were created. they assume the facts as they see them hold up.

Yes and what did those scientist do when someone showed them they were wrong. I believe he was put on house arrest. And if you read the Bible it does correct some of the errors that those scientist had. Such as the world being flat. If they would have read the book of Isaiah it tells us that God sits on the circle of the earth.

I assume that i was created just as you assume you evolved.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

shock and anger from the evolutionists and glee from the creationists? sorry to disappoint

my point is that while evolution may not be 100% correct it is still the best model available.

take physics as an example. lord kelvin (the person who calculated absolute zero) said at the turn of the centuary "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." that was just before quantum theory and relativity were published.

this shows that while we may think something is 100% true there is still a chance something could pop up and bite us on the arse.

You're right, we could be completely wrong about TOE but since it was first postulated up until now, there hasn't been any decent scientific refutes against it. Obviously that doesn't mean it's right but each time it gets tested and re-tested, and the same result is shown, that gradually increases the chances that it is correct.

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief. You can do all the tests you want but nobody witnessed it. At one point in time almost every scientist thought the the planets revolved around the sun but we know that was wrong. Scientist are still people and apt to make mistakes, so could the collective minds of scientist be wrong?

It is possible for the scientific community to be wrong, however, with all the formal testings, it decreases the chances that we are wrong. One advantage for scientists though is that we can see evolution occur, such as through bacteria. A term that's sometimes used to describe a certain bacteria is a "super-bug", and this is used when a bacteria that becomes resistent to a chemical meant to kill it but not only that, it becomes resistent to many chemicals we throw at it that it wasn't resistent to before. Granted this is evolution not of humans but it's evidence of evolution regardless. We could have the same with fruit flies or other insects if we wanted to through similar means. So while we cannot witness mammals or humans evolve, we can witness evolution occur in other organisms. For creation though, this isn't possible to be witnessed on any organism and so it makes it rather difficult to study and to show that it may be correct. With evolution, it can be witnessed but even when it cannot, the effects of it that can be seen through fossil evidence allows for us to study it. None of this can be done for creationism and so although both have some degrees of faith, creationism has much more faith involved because it's blindly trusting the one account of when it may have happened. Since evolution can be witnessed by scientists, we know that the observation of evolution is factual. The theory regarding it may not be but with all the testing and being able to observe the event of evolution multiple times on numerous organisms, it allows for comprehensive studies that can help "prove" TOE is correct.

I'm getting the idea that you're against TOE and evolution, and that's fine with me, however, if you are to deny it and accept creationism, then understand that what you are denying has immense evidence and is more likely to be "proven" true as opposed to creationism, which has no evidence other than the initial account documented in the bible.

I assume that i was created just as you assume you evolved.

Here is where you're wrong. For creationism it is a mere assumption but for evolution, it's a view with immense evidence for it and is not so much of a mere assumption.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, scientists work for money or grants and in order to get that money, they need to provide what their bosses are looking for, such as proof of global warming, or evidence of evolution. They also know that if they say evolution is not true they will be maligned, laughed at and no longer taken seriously.

If they say evolution is wrong, then they are denying what has been observed, documented, and pieced together from what evidence that past has given us.

What does "TOE" stand for?

 

[Venatoris]

And if you read the Bible it does correct some of the errors that those scientist had. Such as the world being flat. If they would have read the book of Isaiah it tells us that God sits on the circle of the earth.

I'll just take a moment to point out that a circle is a two dimensional geometric shape. Round as it might be, it is still flat. Now if the book of Isaiah stated that God sits upon the sphere of the earth I would be shocked indeed, considering that the book predates the concept of a spherical earth by two centuries. That is, if you don't dispute the approximate date of authorship.

I assume that i was created just as you assume you evolved.

Close... but no dice. Creationism is an assumption but evolution is extrapolation. And you know what they say about those who assume....

 

[Autodidact]

The fact remains that neither you nor i was there to see the evolution process or the creation process. So logicaly both would require belief. You can do all the tests you want but nobody witnessed it. At one point in time almost every scientist thought the the planets revolved around the sun but we know that was wrong. Scientist are still people and apt to make mistakes, so could the collective minds of scientist be wrong?

Yes, you're so right, because science is impossible. So is solving crimes. If you weren't there to directly observe it, there is no way to figure anything out whatsoever. Scientists should really just stop wasting their time.

Do you know anything about the scientific method at all?

 

[Autodidact]

All life forms on the earth will have traits of other life forms on earth because that is the nature of life on earth.

Why? That's what science asks, why is that the nature of life on earth.

That is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry, it could be the way they were created.

Yes, it could. So could the opposite. Or any combination thereof. Because an unknowable, all-powerful creator could make things anyway He wanted. Thus it is not evidence in favor of special creation, or against. It is, however, evidence of common ancestry, because this is the only way things could be and still have common ancestry. That is, the ToE, unlike the HoK, is falsifiable. Do you know what that means, MoF?

Actually, now that I think of it, if each "kind" was created separately, there is no reason why they would share any traits. They could just as likely shared one, or none, or some share one trait and some another. So the fact that each and every one of them, without exception, reproduces via the same mechanism, is evidence against HoK, while strongly in favor of ToE.

In order to live on this earth you have to have certain traits. If you are an animal you have to be able to drink water, eat food, move around, think, run, hide, etc... If you are a plant, you have to be able to use your surroundings to grow, sprout, produce fruit or flower etc...

Uh huh. And?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, scientists work for money or grants and in order to get that money, they need to provide what their bosses are looking for, such as proof of global warming, or evidence of evolution. They also know that if they say evolution is not true they will be maligned, laughed at and no longer taken seriously.

Instead of peer-review, they should call it peer-pressure.

Before slandering an entire group of hardworking people trying to advance human knowledge in the face of people like you, maybe you should, I don't know, meet one?

Your immoral, slanderous lies reflect more on your unethical standards then they do on science.

Because the truth is the exact opposite of what you said. The more novel, innovative, iconoclastic, and revolutionary a scientific discovery is, the more acclaim its discoverer receives.

In short: stop lying. No, keep on lying. It demonstrates to the world what creationists do.

 

[Autodidact]

Please forgive the error i meant they thought the planets revolved around the earth.

Yup. And at one time they believed that God poofed two of each animal into existence 6000 years ago. In both cases, our knowledge avvanced, and no we know better.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Anyone else feeling a little...inadequate...?

Not me....See this weeks...avatar...?...I'm an elephant....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

i know it has alot of other factors, one of them being mutations. so i want to know if evolution is correct then how come there has been no beneficial mutation?

what do you mean by this
"If it where, then cancer would disprove it, since cancer are caused by mutations"
are you saying that if mutations are a part of the evolution process, cancer would dissprove it due to it being harmful rather than beneficial?

Does this count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu7Db5On00U
Take note of what the doctor says

Does this count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko
Take note of what this Scientist/Theist says

Does this count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Take note of what this scientist/Theist says

Does this count?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fN7rOwDyMQ
Take note of what the doctor says

I could scour Youtube or the web to find more but you wanted to know of a beneficial mutation and there you go.

EDIT: I want to add (melanin). This blurb taken from Wikipedia

Melanin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As with peoples who migrated northward, those with light skin who migrate toward the equator acclimatize to the much stronger solar radiation. Most people's skin darkens when exposed to UV light, giving them more protection when it is needed. This is the physiological purpose of sun tanning. Dark-skinned people, who produce more skin-protecting eumelanin, have a greater protection against sunburn and the development of melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer, as well as other health problems related to exposure to strong solar radiation, including the photodegradation of certain vitamins such as riboflavins, carotenoids, tocopherol, and folate.

 

[rlasater]

So most of you agree with me that evolution is not 100% verifiable and therefore cannot be a fact but a belief. I do think that we can change and adapt but i do not believe that we change species. A bacteria may change but it will always be bacteria.

 

[Autodidact]

So most of you agree with me that evolution is not 100% verifiable and therefore cannot be a fact but a belief.

Well, in the same way that say the theory of electricity, germs, gravity or atoms is a "belief." That is, it's the highest possible level of scientific knowledge. But if you don't value that...

I do think that we can change and adapt but i do not believe that we change species. A bacteria may change but it will always be bacteria.

Before you embarrass yourself further, you might want to learn the relationship between "bacteria" and "species." Little suggestion for you.

 

[rlasater]

I guess i should be more specific. A species will never change into another species. But i do appreciate your antagonism. Since you think my problem is ignorance shouldn't you feel sorry for me, as i do you.

 

[Autodidact]

I guess i should be more specific. A species will never change into another species.

Let me ask you something. If I post actual scientific studies of actual species changing into other species, will you change your mind?

But i do appreciate your antagonism. Since you think my problem is ignorance shouldn't you feel sorry for me, as i do you.

Yes, I do. Ignorance is only a problem if you're not open to rectifying it. Are you?

 

[Autodidact]

I guess i should be more specific. A species will never change into another species. But i do appreciate your antagonism. Since you think my problem is ignorance shouldn't you feel sorry for me, as i do you.

I see you did not bother learning the relationship between bacteria and species. Bacteria is a domain. That means it refers to the highest, broadest level of scientific classification, and contains millions of species, hundreds of thousands of families, etc. It's an unimaginably huge category. Within that category, it is common and trivially easy to evolve a new species.

And if you doubt anything I assert, just ask and I will be more than happy to provide cites in support.