Author Topic: The bird has always been just that....A Bird! (Read 24517 times)

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #50 on:** August 01, 2006, 03:14:40 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 01, 2006, 02:46:37 PM

I'm being deceitful? Me and millions of others who don't buy this theory I guess.

You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution cannot be proven. By definition, a scientific theory (like gravity) can never be proven. Evolution can be disproven, however, which has yet to be done.

Quote

I'm not talking about gravity. I'm talking about the holes in this theory that make it unbelievable to me. The origin of life and evolution of species can't be reproduced and has no support in the fossil record. Nothing "deceitful" about that.

I know you weren't talking about gravity earlier. I merely used gravity as an example of another scientific theory which cannot be proven. Evolution doesn't really have any "holes" you speak of. There is abundant evidence from the fossil record, homologous structures, embryology, molecular sequences, vestigal structures, etc.

OzmO · « **Reply #51 on:** August 01, 2006, 05:09:35 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 01, 2006, 03:14:40 PM

You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution cannot be proven. By definition, a scientific theory (like gravity) can never be proven. Evolution can be disproven, however, which has yet to be done.

I know you weren't talking about gravity earlier. I merely used gravity as an example of another scientific theory which cannot be proven. Evolution doesn't really have any "holes" you speak of. There is abundant evidence from the fossil record, homologous structures, embryology, molecular sequences, vestigal structures, etc.

Just for the record:

de·ceit·ful (dĭ-sēt'fəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Given to cheating or deceiving.
2. Deliberately misleading; deceptive. See synonyms at dishonest.

He might inaccurate, and that's debatable, but he is definatly not being deceitful.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #52 on:** August 01, 2006, 09:15:58 PM »

OzmO, I repeatedly explained to Bum why it's wrong to say evolution hasn't been proven.

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 01, 2006, 09:43:29 AM

I see. I need to disprove a THEORY. Riiiiiight. I guess if you can prove this THEORY, you'll win a nobel prize too, no?

a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth."

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 01, 2006, 12:42:11 PM

But what I refuse to do is attempt to disprove a theory that has never been completely validated. That's impossible. It's a theory to begin with because it hasn't been proved.

By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proved."

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 01, 2006, 01:28:47 PM

I never said I could disprove evolution. I said evolution hasn't been proved.

I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven.

I said he was being deceiful AFTER I corrected him multiple times. He knows he's wrong, yet he persists to spread misinformation. There is no excuse for him to continue being deceitful.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #53 on:** August 02, 2006, 12:04:35 AM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 01, 2006, 09:15:58 PM

OzmO, I repeatedly explained to Bum why it's wrong to say evolution hasn't been proven.

a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth."

By definition, a scientific theory can never be proven. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it "hasn't been proved."

I already told you a scientific theory cannot be proven. You are being deceitful everytime you say evolution hasn't been proven.

I said he was being deceiful AFTER I corrected him multiple times. He knows he's wrong, yet he persists to spread misinformation. There is no excuse for him to continue being deceitful.

Dude you never "corrected" anything and you haven't proved anything. I simply disagree with you. All you did was cite some "Wikipedia" entry, which proves absolutely nothing. Wikipedia can't fill the gaps in the evolutionary chain. Wikipedia can't prove or disprove the evolution theory. Wikipedia cannot explain why you can't recreate the "big bang" in a lab that will result in the creation of a single cell creature. Wikipedia isn't even a reliable source IMO, although I do cite it regularly for its discussion of Sybil and her multiple personalities.

Ozmo is right. There is nothing deceitful about disagreeing with you. Try a different, more accurate word.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #54 on:** August 02, 2006, 05:12:49 AM »

it's fine if you disagree with me. However, you are being deceitful by saying evolution cannot be proven as your argument. Scientific theories can never be proven. You are stating the obvous, yet ignoring the fact that evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. I only used the wikipidea reference b/c I felt it was simple enough for you to understand. I guess I was wrong.

Colossus_500 · « **Reply #55 on:** August 02, 2006, 07:59:37 AM »

Neo, where does evolution come into play with something like quantum physics?

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #56 on:** August 02, 2006, 08:16:19 AM »

biological evolution and quantum physics are separate branches of science as far as I know.

OzmO · « **Reply #57 on:** August 02, 2006, 08:43:53 AM »

That's all good Neo, but deciteful is the far and away the wrong to use here.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #58 on:** August 02, 2006, 09:53:08 AM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 02, 2006, 05:12:49 AM

it's fine if you disagree with me. However, you are being deceitful by saying evolution cannot be proven as your argument. Scientific theories can never be proven. You are stating the obvous, yet ignoring the fact that evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. I only used the wikipidea reference b/c I felt it was simple enough for you to understand. I guess I was wrong.

So, by your own admission, at least some of the scientific community does not accept the theory of evolution. I guess they're "deceitful" too?

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #59 on:** August 02, 2006, 10:09:58 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 02, 2006, 09:53:08 AM

So, by your own admission, at least some of the scientific community does not accept the theory of evolution. I guess they're "deceitful" too?

Not really b/c they don't go around saying "evolution cannot be proven."

Dos Equis · « **Reply #60 on:** August 02, 2006, 11:58:17 AM »

Well Johnny . . . er . . . I mean "Neo," how would you like to win $250,000? Just follow this link and give this guy your evidence supporting the theory of evolution. http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

And you're using semantics to try and support an argument. If a scientific theory can never proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #61 on:** August 02, 2006, 01:42:41 PM »

Kent Hovind's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to confuse the misinformed. He creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. Here is how he defines evolution:

"When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."

As you can see, Hovind believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with biological evolution. He then insists that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then evolution does not take place.

Colossus_500 · « **Reply #62 on:** August 02, 2006, 01:53:10 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 02, 2006, 01:42:41 PM

Kent Hovind's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to confuse the misinformed. He creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. Here is how he defines evolution:

"When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."

As you can see, Hovind believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with biological evolution. He then insists that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then evolution does not take place.

Welcome back, JA!

scooter · « **Reply #63 on:** August 02, 2006, 09:45:12 PM »

so what do you guys that do not belive in evolution think happened i belive in god ii belive that there is a higher form of life somewhere but i also belive in the truth. do you really think that one day god was like i am kinda bored i should make some people and boom there was adam and eve and they created every human on this earth. NO like i sad i do belive in god dont get me wrong but i do think that there was some science involved in there somewhere. there had to be i belive in evolution i do think that we evolved from somewhere. if the bird was over 100million years old then dosent that right there dissaproves the creation theory i mean most christians think that the world is only something like 50thousand years old dont they?

Dos Equis · « **Reply #64 on:** August 03, 2006, 01:59:55 AM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 02, 2006, 01:42:41 PM

Kent Hovind's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to confuse the misinformed. He creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. Here is how he defines evolution:

"When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."

As you can see, Hovind believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with biological evolution. He then insists that unless all can be demonstrated equally and in the same way, then evolution does not take place.

Okay, so you don't want to make $250,000. Fine.

How about responding to my question and comment:

"If a scientific theory can never be proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact."

Dos Equis · « **Reply #65 on:** August 03, 2006, 02:07:31 AM »

Quote from: scooter on August 02, 2006, 09:45:12 PM

so what do you guys that do not belive in evolution think happened i belive in god ii belive that there is a higher form of life somewhere but i also belive in the truth. do you really think that one day god was like i am kinda bored i should make some people and boom there was adam and eve and they created every human on this earth. NO like i sad i do belive in god dont get me wrong but i do think that there was some science involved in there somewhere. there had to be i belive in evolution i do think that we evolved from somewhere. if the bird was over 100million years old then dosent that right there dissaproves the creation theory i mean most christians think that the world is only something like 50thousand years old dont they?

I can't speak for most Christians, but I don't have a problem believing the earth is billions of years old. The Genesis story discusses the six-day creation, which many believe was about six or seven thousand years ago, but the story starts with the earth already in existence. There is no discussion about how long the earth was in existence before the creation of life, etc.

And let's keep this evolution theory in context. It was invented by an atheist (Darwin). The premise (some spontaneous spark that created life) is incompatible with the creation of life by God. I think it requires a whole lot more faith to believe in the evolution of species than intelligent design.

Colossus_500 · « **Reply #66 on:** August 03, 2006, 06:20:28 AM »

Quote from: scooter on August 02, 2006, 09:45:12 PM

so what do you guys that do not belive in evolution think happened i belive in god ii belive that there is a higher form of life somewhere but i also belive in the truth. do you really think that one day god was like i am kinda bored i should make some people and boom there was adam and eve and they created every human on this earth. NO like i sad i do belive in god dont get me wrong but i do think that there was some science involved in there somewhere. there had to be i belive in evolution i do think that we evolved from somewhere. if the bird was over 100million years old then dosent that right there dissaproves the creation theory i mean most christians think that the world is only something like 50thousand years old dont they?

Scooter, do you think maybe you are separating science from God? I tend to think that this is the issue that most people take when they say that they believe in God and the evolutionary theory. It's also my strong belief that you CANNOT separate God and science. Science only discovers what God has created, thus I believe in creation. Science is but the art of discovery. Science does not create. Yes, science can take raw materials to build or make something, but that's what we call synthetic...man-made. Which still leaves the question, "where did the raw materials come from? Who made the raw materials?" Science is more of the side of Scripture (thus, God) than it is evolution.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #67 on:** August 03, 2006, 10:06:26 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 03, 2006, 01:59:55 AM

Okay, so you don't want to make $250,000. Fine.

I already showed you why Kent Hovind's "offer" is a joke.

Quote

How about responding to my question and comment:

"If a scientific theory can never be proved, then why do many evolutionists now refer to this theory as a fact? If no theory could ever be proved, then no theory would ever become a fact."

When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth." Take gravity for example. Nobody questions it b/c we can easily observe its effects everyday. However, gravity can never be proven b/c it is a scientific theory. Much like gravity, evolution is supported by such an abundance of evidence that scientists accept it as "truth."

Dos Equis · « **Reply #68 on:** August 03, 2006, 10:22:07 AM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 03, 2006, 10:06:26 AM

I already showed you why Kent Hovind's "offer" is a joke.

When there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, it becomes accepted as "truth." Take gravity for example. Nobody questions it b/c we can easily observe its effects everyday. However, gravity can never be proven b/c it is a scientific theory. Much like gravity, evolution is supported by such an abundance of evidence that scientists accept it as "truth."

More semantics. Like there is a difference between "fact" and "truth." You didn't answer my question: why do scientists refer to evolution as a "fact" if no theory can ever be proved?

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #69 on:** August 03, 2006, 10:33:22 AM »

Actually, I did answer your question. I do not believe scientists refer to evolution as fact. I said they accept it as "truth" b/c evolution is supported by an abundance of evidence. If you want to substitute "truth" with "fact" then be my guest.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #70 on:** August 03, 2006, 11:52:44 AM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 03, 2006, 10:06:26 AM

I already showed you why Kent Hovind's "offer" is a joke.

Then submit your analysis and collect your $250,000. I'd like a finder's fee too.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #71 on:** August 03, 2006, 11:59:15 AM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 03, 2006, 10:33:22 AM

Actually, I did answer your question. I do not believe scientists refer to evolution as fact. I said they accept it as "truth" b/c evolution is supported by an abundance of evidence. If you want to substitute "truth" with "fact" then be my guest.

Oh really? When I have time I'll pull several cites off the internet where evolutionists refer to evolution as a "fact." Here is one: "Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #72 on:** August 03, 2006, 12:06:59 PM »

Did you bother to read Kent Hovind's site? He says unless you can demonstrate how evolution is tied to cosmology, astrophysics, and abiogenesis (none of these are related to biological evolution by the way), then you do not win the $250,000. Furthermore, he mentions you must be able to prove evolution takes place without any supernatural intervention. You would have to disprove a negative (i.e. God) to accomplish this.

I shall make a challenge of my own. I will offer $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Any takers?

Butterbean · « **Reply #73 on:** August 03, 2006, 12:17:54 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on August 03, 2006, 12:06:59 PM

I shall make a challenge of my own. I will offer $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Any takers?

First prove you have $1,000,000 to give.

just messing w/ya. Welcome back!

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #74 on:** August 03, 2006, 12:18:44 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on August 03, 2006, 11:59:15 AM

Oh really? When I have time I'll pull several cites off the internet where evolutionists refer to evolution as a "fact." Here is one: "Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

From the same article:

"Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution."