Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
For the most part, this is the definition of adaptation. No one argues it.
Click to expand...
When some put magical limits on adaptation, we do argue that that isn’t real.

When we go back 1 billion years b.p. or earlier, there simply are no life forms that are multi-cellular that have ever been found, and yet take a look at what’s found in this world today that’s alive.
 
Uriel1 said:
So where might we inspect the fossils proving the intermediate stages between the alleged common ancestor ( an otter-like creature) of the pinnipeds ( walruses, seals and sea lions) thought to be a land dweller.
Click to expand...
There is this website called “Google”. Have you heard of it? I typed in “seal ancestors” and the first link it gave me was: Found: Missing link ancestor of modern sea lions, seals and walrus.

I am sure there is more if I wanted to dig deeper, I haven’t tried Google Scholar yet.

If you are going to claim that science does not have the evidence, then you would do well to check first that there isn’t any evidence.

Since I have shown you the evidence you asked for, are you now going to agree that seals evolved from a land-living ancestor?

rossum
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
40.png
Uriel1:
The April 28, 2005 issue of Nature reports that DNA sequence data has failed even to establish whether insects are more closely related to us than they are to roundworms
Click to expand...
With the above, it is dealing with hypotheses, of which there are myriads whereas we don’t know exactly what a specific relationship may be.
Click to expand...
Which is why I say it’s not been subjected to the scientific method - it’s just anti-God guesswork
 
" Puijila is the evolutionary evidence we have been lacking for so long," said Mary Dawson, a curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, in a statement.

“This animal was likely adept at both swimming and walking on land,” said Dawson.

That was in 2009, and we await the intermediate life form fossils on the ladder to the seal - none have been found

The link you posted is supposition and guesswork. It is not science
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Loss, or gain, of function is irrelevant; it is still macro-evolution. You attempts to avoid the point by redefining words and introducing irrelevancies only go to show that you have nothing to show in the way of evidence.

When seals evolved they lost the function of moving well on land and gained the function of swimming well in water. Your point is irrelevant.

rossum
Click to expand...
It is degradation and devolution.
 
Uriel1 said:
Which is why I say it’s not been subjected to the scientific method - it’s just anti-God guesswork
Click to expand...
That’s a non-sequitur. Just because we don’t have all the answers to all the questions doesn’t translate out to the ToE being “anti-God” or just “guesswork” any more than not having all the theological questions answered would be “anti-God” and “guesswork”. And if it is “anti-God” then why does the Church teach that it’s a viable belief that clearly could not be “anti-God” if the Church allows for it?
 
Metis1 said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Which is why I say it’s not been subjected to the scientific method - it’s just anti-God guesswork
Click to expand...
That’s a non-sequitur. Just because we don’t have all the answers to all the questions doesn’t translate out to the ToE being “anti-God” or just “guesswork” any more than not having all the theological questions answered would be “anti-God” and “guesswork”. And if it is “anti-God” then why does the Church teach that it’s a viable belief that clearly could not be “anti-God” if the Church allows for it?
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that God through the person of Jesus made all things. If you want to propose Darwinism and exclude God as the cause, YOU need to give us the answers, not just your questions
 
buffalo said:
It is degradation and devolution.
Click to expand...
Swimming is degrading? Again you are presenting a Humpty Dumpty argument where words do not have their usual meaning, besides being irrelevant.

Evolution happens. Macro-evolution happens. I have shown examples of macro evolution.

I’m afraid if all you have is irrelevant claims of “degradation” then you lose.

rossum
 
“a vastly superior operating system”

“a galaxy of design and complexity”

“over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”

“the genome has multiple overlapping messages”

“data compression on the most sophisticated level”

“more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”

“more and more it looks like top down design”

“the reality is everybody is mutant”

“the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”

“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”

“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”

“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”

“so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"1/2

Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” 2/2
 
Last edited:
How is all that relevant to the fact that macro-evolution occurs and that Darwin’s Theory, as modified, is still scientific?

Dr. Sanford is of the opinion that the earth is less than 100,000 years old, as he testified at the Kentucky hearings. Obviously his scientific opinion is not reliable.

rossum
 
The judge in Kentucky had the scientific competence to evaluate what he was hearing?
 
Yes you did. Quote from you:

“We scientists will decide what science is, thank you, and then we’ll teach it.”

This is incorrect. What science is is a philosophical question not a a scientific question. Your image of science as a model that best fits the evidence is a medieval notion, and it’s interesting that you draw on medieval notions to illustrate this, like the infamous Galileo case. Science has moved away from being “a model that fits appearances” towards something radically empirical and today, with the cognitive sciences, even more so. A good example is linguistics were many modern scientists take a very descriptive approach in contrast with the more traditional linguists who are still trying to find a “best fit” model for language.

As for the scientists who believe gender is a social construct, since you claim to be a scientist, log on to your journal system and search for anything along the lines “gender social construct” and prepare yourself to read utter nonsense, clearly marked as science, albeit social science, and accepted and propagated by people calling themselves scientists and recognised as scientists by the scientific community - and certainly not censured by the scientific community (with rare exceptions, such as Pinker and Peterson).
 
Uriel1 said:
40.png
Metis1:
40.png
Uriel1:
Which is why I say it’s not been subjected to the scientific method - it’s just anti-God guesswork
Click to expand...
That’s a non-sequitur. Just because we don’t have all the answers to all the questions doesn’t translate out to the ToE being “anti-God” or just “guesswork” any more than not having all the theological questions answered would be “anti-God” and “guesswork”. And if it is “anti-God” then why does the Church teach that it’s a viable belief that clearly could not be “anti-God” if the Church allows for it?
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that God through the person of Jesus made all things. If you want to propose Darwinism and exclude God as the cause, YOU need to give us the answers, not just your questions
Click to expand...
Like Metis said, the Church allows Catholics to accept evolution. If you want to say the Church is wrong…
 
edwest211 said:
The judge in Kentucky had the scientific competence to evaluate what he was hearing?
Click to expand...
Whoops, my mistake,. The hearings were in Kansas, in 2005. There was not a judge because it was not a trial. Sanford’s evidence is here. That evidence confirms that he is not a reliable scientific source.

Apologies for my error.

rossum
 
rossum said:
How is all that relevant to the fact that macro-evolution occurs and that Darwin’s Theory, as modified, is still scientific?

Dr. Sanford is of the opinion that the earth is less than 100,000 years old, as he testified at the Kentucky hearings. Obviously his scientific opinion is not reliable.
Click to expand...
Sure, always attack the person. Only evo scientists are reliable. ROTFL

Yet their evo formed brain cannot reliably detect truth so why should we trust them?
 
I do not attack the person. I attack the concept of an earth less than 100,000 years old.

If someone holds such an egregiously wrong concept then that person is not scientifically reliable.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top