PROOF against evolution

The scientific method required repeatability of observations, not necessarily repeatability of the events observed. That said, the fact is that one can repeatedly observe the stratification of fossils in the geologic column, and the fact is that one can repeatedly compare the genomes of humans and chimpanzees and see that they are 98% similar, and the fact is that similar genetic comparisons can also be made repeatedly amongst additional species to determine their degrees of relatedness, and the fact is that a 9th grader like yourself can repeatedly observe the evolution of resistance to a T4 phage in an E.Coli bacteria population, and the fact is that ALL of these facts and more are consistent with the theory of evolution, whereas virtually NONE correspond to a strictly literal reading of Genesis.Gee, why would that be?

quote:

---

Strictly speaking, science doesn't even need repeatability of observations, just that the observations be objective (i.e. visions and hunches do not count). Neutrinos coming from a supernova were observed in 1987, and have not been seen since (because there haven't been any supernovas close enough). Even without anyone being able to repeat those observations, they're still perfectly valid scientific data.
In general, telling scientists that they're not following the scientific method is likely to be a losing effort, since the practice of scientists is what defines the scientific method (which may only bear a loose resemblance to what's taught in ninth grade as the scientific method).

---

All very good points, sfs. Thanks for contributing them.

Well on the one hand it's a shame I didn't get to this reply sooner, but on the other hand you've already received some excellent responses from the others on the board.I'll share with you my thoughts in response to your post so that you I might hopefully offer a unique perspective. As some have already pointed out, this is fallacious thinking because it is unfalsifiable. Meaning, that no matter what we found using the scientific method, you could simply pronounce "God made it that way!" and there would be no way to prove you wrong. That's not really the point, though, because nobody's trying to show that God didn't make it that way, nor that God doesn't exist. Instead, we are simply trying to show you that IF God made it that way, he did so using common descent, mutation, natural selection, and millions and millions of years. If this idea is incompatible with your interpretation of your favorite religious text, then you've obviously misinterpreted it. Y'know, I've seen this argument probably an hundred times, and every time I ask the person arguing it to present the probability calculations that they used to arrive at their figure. Do you know how many times I've actually seen them supply it?None.Wanna be the first? Go ahead, make my day. I'm gonna need to also see your probability calculation for the existence of God so that we then might compare them. Is there any chance, according to you, that your God doesn't exist? If not, is that possibly because you've defined him such, like when you go on to say: So you say, but I think you're a little short on supporting evidence that might compel me to believe your assertion. Slight nitpick. In general, non-conservation doesn't happen. Nothing about the law says that it can't happen, in principle. We've just never been able to observe it, and every test seems to support the idea that it doesn't happen. Wrong. Incorrect. Erroneous. Hogwash. Bullsh*t.All it means is that the sun wasn't always burning, which is well accounted for in stellar evolution. We know how stars form in the universe, and we know that they can have beginnings even if the universe does not. Not at all. No observations support the idea that there was ever a time when the universe did not exist (except for, perhaps, the inexhaustible imaginations of religious zealots). Sorry, but this guy's "proof" crashed and burned harder than the Hindenburg. Actually, that's what a certain Psalmist said. There's no evidence that he was in fact speaking on behalf of any god, except for, perhaps, the say-so of more religious zealots.