Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

said:

quote:

---

"I know exactly how lesbians like you feel about men"

---

[qs]"You lump all lesbians together into one and decide that all of them hate men"[/quote]

quote:

---

Please explain to me how you make the leap. You went from lesbians like you, to all lesbians.

---

Maybe it's because you also said:"Let me get started on gays and lesbians".and"I don't agree with lesbianism."But tell me, Riverrat, what kind of lesbian am I?

Is it your point that if there are any gaps in the evolutionary history of a species, we cannot say that it has evolved at all, is that correct?Yes or no.

quote:

---

Is it absoloutly true that we evolved?
Big difference.

---

Unresponsive.Answer the questions: Are they true "enough" for us to teach them as true in science class?Yes or no?

quote:

---

Contracycle said that, not me! I never said you were lesbian.

---

Just a joke, hon.

quote:

---

And most lesbians I've seen are extremely hot.

---

LOL!There are hot ones and less hot ones.I happen to work with a lot of gay men and women in a very gay-friendly town, and I saw one woman's friend, and she looked just like a young Ralph Macchio.IOW, she looked an awful lot like a 14 year old boy wearing reflective shades, a bandana around her head and a white T-shirt with the sleeves rolled up.

quote:

---

And I never said you were ugly. I just think you look goofy riding that horse in your avatar(assuming that's you).

---

Goofy?How am I goofy?(I'm not being defensive, I'm just curious what you find goofy about the picture. FYI, my position is almost textbook-perfect, if I do say so myself.)

quote:

---

Just because I like taunting feminists doesn't mean I'm a shovenistic barbarian.

---

That's "chauvinistic".

quote:

---

What kind of lesbian are you, well lets see, as far as I know, you are the kind of lesbian that hates men like me and B2P.
So you are a hating lesbian.

---

OK, I'll clue you in.I'm not a lesbian, riverrat.I've been happily married for almost 12 years now to a wonderful man who is also a member of this forum (Zhimbo), though he doen't post much these days because he is getting ready to defend his PhD in Cognitive Science this spring.

quote:

---

If it is not proven, you cannot say that it happened.

---

Nothing is science is proven.Do you disbelieve all of science now?

quote:

---

That is truth.
People who belive in it, are believing in something that isn't proven, I call it faith, so does the dictionary.

---

I asked you a specific question that required a simple, yes or no answer.Please stop avoiding the question.I will repeat it below:

quote:

---

Why is it you don't answer my question?
Are you are looking to justify what you believe in because its a good chance that germs cause desease?

​

If I told you soap cleans dishes, and there is a theory behind it, but its not proven, does that make all science valid as truth?

---

Unresponsive.I asked you very specific questions that require only a yes or no answer.Please stop avoiding answering these very simple questions:Is it true that germs cause disease? Yes or no?
Is it true that matter is made up of atoms? Yes or no?Are they true "enough" for us to teach them as true in science class? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Nope, but I wouldn't teach it as proven.

---

Right. I wouldn't teach it as proven either.As I have been saying, NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVEN.However, do you think we should teach the best current explanations (theories) that we have that explain the evidence?

quote:

---

To answer your question, the correct answer would be I don't know, and that should be the answer of people who believe in TOE.

---

So, you "do not know" if any creature anywhere has ever evolved AT ALL?You "do not know" if we have observed any change in the alelle frequencies in populations over time?Is this the case with you?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-24-2004 09:24 AM

quote:

---

Also when I was taught about atoms, it was very clear that it was a theory because we could not actually see them. I'm fine with that.

---

Then you were taught poorly or you didn't retain what you were taught properly.Being able to literally "see" some kinds of scientific evidence does not have any bearing whatsoever on if the related explanation of why the evidence appears as it does qualifies as a theory or not.Is the Atomic Theory of Matter true "enough" for us to teach it as true in science class? Yes or no?

quote:

---

Germs cause desease, we know that, we just don't know exactly how.

---

Um, what?Of course we know how many, many germs cause disease.Is the Germ Theory of Disease true "enough" for us to teach it as true in science class? Yes or no?

quote:

---

But most Christains wouldn't get healed from a prayer, because they don't deserve it for reasons that only they and God would know about.

---

But what about the Christians who do deserve it but who don't get healed anyway?What about all those sick Christian children who believe in God with all their innocent, pure hearts and who have never done anything that any reasonable person could construe as terribly sinful?Why do they die?

quote:

---

And no I haven't witnessed any species changing into another species.
A bacteria is still just a bacteria.

---

1) What is the barrier that prevents many many small changes in a species from becoming large changes over a long time span?2) What are your falsifications of the entire fossil record?3) How do you explain the fact that species which show greater morphological similarity also show greater genetic similarity, if common descent with modification is false?

quote:

---

Most definatly, and other things as well.

---

Excellent! Then you agree that we should teach the ToE, because it is the best current scientific explanation of the evidence.

quote:

---

I love science, even if I don't understand it completely, but I probably understand it better than 97% of the rest of America.

---

No, you don't love science.You have a very strange idea of what science is and how it works.Remember, you have pretty much been told this by actual scientists on this board!You have squandered your time here by working desperately to maintain your misconceptions that have been pointed out to you by actual professional scientists instead of learning and correcting them.

quote:

---

But of me its not where I put my faith, which is what I have said since day one in this forum.

---

It's not where I put my faith either.This thread is about if the ToE, as scientists use and develop it, is religious in nature.So far, you have not shown this to be the case.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-25-2004 08:53 AMThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-25-2004 08:54 AM

quote:

---

You can't see them, and its a theory,

---

Right.However, as I explained to you in my last message, the fact that you cannot literally "see" some kinds of scientific evidence has no bearing whatsoever on if the explanation for the evidence qualifies as a theory or not.You just have to be able to detect it in some way. It's called "inference", and it's how the vast majority of science works.A Neuroscientist can't "see" the firing of neurons in a brain. Does that mean that the inference that brains work by the firing of neurons should be doubted?Do you often just ignore what people write?

quote:

---

it was very clear what they were teaching. I am not saying if they exist or they don't, can you egt that?

---

So, do you think that the evidence for the Atomic Theory of Matter is strong enough for us to teach it in science class, or not?Yes or no?

quote:

---

Unfortunatly the devil weaves a very tangled web, and it seems to me that the smarter you are the more weaves you have to go through to find the truth. This why I have said before that "stupid", or "not so smart" people have a quality that I admire.

---

Wow, that explains a lot.Your God likes 'em dumb.

quote:

---

1 The barrier is our design. Although we could become taller, shorter, or different colors through natural selection, it wouldn't make us grow a third arm because we needed to wipe our ass at the same time we are picking our nose and masterbating. (Its humor, laugh a little)
RNA is the blueprint of our make-up, so its like a computer program being executed. Maybe we that is just the limitations of our design.
This is just a thought, I really don't know enough to come up with a better one.

---

Sorry, this isn't really an answer.We have directly observed species changing in response to environmental pressure.What is the mechanism by which many of these small changes are prevented from accumulating, over time, into large changes?

quote:

---

2 I don't need to falsify the entire fossil record. Most of the time the scientist do it for me. They put things in order that suite the TOE

---

Actually, the ordering of the fossil layers was done by Creationists decades before the ToE was a twinkle in Darwin's eye.Please stop making claims about things that you don't know anything about.And anyway, can you please give an explanation, then, of why the fossil record appears as it does if the Paleontologists have it totally wrong?For example, why are flowering plants not ever found below a certain layer?

quote:

---

and then connect the gaps with lines making you think there is a connection between species.

---

Why do you think there aren't connections between species?What overwhelming evidence do you have which refutes the entire fossil tree of life, or even just part of it?How do you account for the amazing congruence between morphological trees of life and genetic trees of life if the ToE is false?I am open to your evidence.Please provide it, and give specific examples.

quote:

---

For instance, most charts of the fossil record I have seen show the species from the cambrian period developing at different times so that they can connect lines together to show how TOE would make sense, when in actuality it was an explosion of different species, that when shown on a true time line wouldn't make sense or fit into the TOE.

---

This is interesting.Do you have a link to a detailed description of this?Since you are making a very serious accusation of outright fraud on the part of hundersd of thousands of scienctists, maintained for hundreds of years, I hope you are well-prepared to provide a great deal of evidence to back it up.Otherwise, I fully expect a retraction and an apology for making such a serious accusation without just cause.

quote:

---

3 What does morphological similarity and genetic similarity have to do with common decent?

---

Are you seriously asking this question?

quote:

---

Isn't it becasue things that morph also would be similiar genetically, its the way they were designed. Just like a honda is very similiar to a toyota lol.

---

Cars do not reproduce themselves with DNA, do they, so comparing them to organisms which do is not useful.You are also not understanding the scientific terminology I have used."Morphology" refers to the physical construction of an organism, as opposed to it's genetic code.It doesn't refer to "things that morph".So, "morphological similarity" between species means that species are more or less similar in construction, and the morphological tree of life shows how all species are related to each other using these greater or lesser similarities in structure to show common descent.When DNA and it's role in heredity was discovered a few decades ago, scientists began constructing another tree of life, this time based upon genetic similarity between species, with the more genetically similar species being mapped as more closely related, and the less genetically similar species being mapped farther apart.As it turns out, the morphological and genetic trees of life are extremely similar.If all life isn't related, and if it doesn't all descend from a common ancestor, why would these two trees of life be so similar?

quote:

---

Let me ask you a few questions.

​

When was the first complex life form here on earth?

---

Please define exactly what you mean by the term "complex life".

quote:

---

Yes I believe we should teach TOE, and about God too.

---

Do you believe that God should be included in science class?If so, why?