Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

So there are no other theories available, no speculation or research being put forward in an attempt to begin to unravel diversity?

Why not, are there not enough credited people in support of an anti evolution stance to offer anything other than a creationists argument?

Spontaneous complete mutation?

Aliens?

Anything!?!?!

 

There are none. That's why it's fair to label these guys anti-science biased. They have an agenda. They already know you can't prove evolution to them, because they have no real understanding of how things work. Just a presupposition.

 

Well I did mention the aliens one... Panspermia exogenesis malarkey. Basically that all living forms on Earth originate from outer space....

 

If I suggested an alternative theory without any scientific basis to argue in it's favor, what would be difference between me and Darwinists ?

 

No. The answer is simplistically complicated. Here goes--


Particles are not "solid" objects. "Wavicle" is a better description, because they display wave-like properties. In a way, a particle is a wave-length so short that the waves compact to display particle like properties. So “observing half of it” doesn’t really apply.

However, secondary observations can be made. Energy Content (mass, velocity and such) is relatively easy to ascertain. Thus, we know that a proton has about 1835 times the Energy Content of an electron. But we don’t really know how “big” it is, because the concept is meaningless at the subatomic level. It’s mass that counts. And E=MC2. It all boils down to Energy Content.

So we can determine the energy content, more or less, of any particle we can detect.

Now, if you jam an electron into a proton the result is a Neutron—a different particle with different properties. Contra-wise, if you break and electron’s worth of mass off a neutron, you get an proton because the neutron was already at its quantum level. Less energy content, and it’s simply not a neutron anymore. That’s a Quantum Change, or more poetically, a Quantum Leap.

So the conclusion: A particle can be itself, or something else, but not only part of itself.

Just like a happy person.
------

All this leads to Uncertainty, another overriding parameter of existence that requires Universial Evolution.
So keeping in mind what a particle is, wrap your mind around this:
It's impossible to know exactly where a particle is or where it's going!

 

And the argument in favor of Darwinism is?

 

Come on people!?!

Tell me this guy's not a creationist.

 

Prove that I am !

 

There is no Darwinism, as I explained earlier. Oh, yeah-- that post scared you off.

Anyway, on the most basic level evolution occurs.

Once, the Universe consited of hydrogen-- a single proton orbited by a single electron. Stars formed by graitational nescesity. Neutrons evolved. All the other elements followed.
And eventually life and humanity.
And, of course, creationist.

 

Remider...

First of all you tell lies.

To be Creationist I must insist or claim that this Universe was in some form brought into existence by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity.

Instead I insist that I don't know how this whole thing came to be.

Neither do you KNOW, be you Creationist or Darwinist.
Anyone of you who claims to know something without nothing more to show but a feeling of it being so are indeed following a Religious Doctrine.

Just because, as a hoax perpetrating Darwinist, you call your Doctrine to be Scientific doesn't mean it is so.
Baseless assertion in absence of relevant evidence and plausible argument can hardly serve as proof of your claim.

Calling me "Creationist" (while you have nothing but yet another baseless assertion to say so) and accusing me of "hiding" behind anything is entertaining and amusing way to spin things around, only it is not true.

What "mythology" is that?
Let's figure this out first: who is the one who propagates mythology here?
I certainly don't subscribe to any, neither Biblical nor Darwinian.
Can you say the same about yourself?

What and where is the double standard?
Be specific.
Telling lies and calling me things you do won't put me in defensive.

That's too primitive way to argue in favor of scientific theory, btw, don't you think?

I was not talking about God at all in any of my posts concerning evolution. But you seem to be fixated on God while ignoring necessity to prove your claim that Religious Theory of Darwin has anything to do with Science.

As to your statement, it's illogical and meaningless.

Millions of religious fanatics have repudiated Zeus. Does that prove that Zeus is not valid theory? By your resoning it does.

What kind of imbecilic statement is that? Who said such a thing?

Of course Mr Tall Tale, it is so because you say so

What else do you call baseless assertion with bunch of fraudulently and arbitrarily drawn conjectures?

I never said anything of magic man in the sky being valid.
You must be really delusional if you believe I ever did say so and I am afraid there is nothing I can do to fix this delusion in your head.

I can only reiterate that never did I claim to know how species came to be what they are.
Claiming not to know something is not the same thing as claiming there a magic man in the sky.


But claiming that UFO is definitely a rocket because it can't be anything else and that it flies on kerosene merely because it can't fly on horsepoop , and that is a valid scientific theory because anyone who doubts you must believe instead that magic man in the sky is a valid theory ,well, that's a whole different story

What "belief"? Please specify for me my beliefs and copy-paste a single quote where I stated to believe it.

How come saying "I don't know" qualifies me as blind believer while your overzealous and delusional Faith that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science is indeed Scientific? How so? What did you present but baseless assertion?

Even Okeiefreak (who has chronic disease of ad hominem arguments employed instead of rational ones) did better this time than you (and I will address his points later).

1. No matter what you call a Ptolemaic Model of Astronomy, it basically has one fundamental premise: Earth is the center of Universe and all planets and stars rotate around it.

You can synthesise it any way you like and you may join flat Earth society and incorporate it into their theory, but it won't change the basic premise of the original theory.

2. If Creationists , among others, decided one day to also dispute Ptolemaic Astronomy, it wouldn't validate Ptolemaic Astronomy merely because Creationists joined the dispute and had some scientifically invalid points of their own.


Likewise, no matter what you call the modern theory of evolution, it's fundamental premise is that most complex life evolved out of most primitive singe cell by means of random chance and natural selection.
That premise is laid down by Charles Darwin.
No modern evolutionary biologist (no matter what they call themselves) refute it.

And it's completely irrelevant to me who else disputes Darwin's Theory, whether it's Creationists or believers in Santa Claus , it's totally irrelevant to the fact that Darwin's Religious Thoery has nothing to do with Science.

Right, and I am glad that sometimes even in the darkest state of madness there is a glimpse of light, as evidenced by your lipservice to what constitutes a scientific argument.

WHy don't you share with us some of that enlightening research?

Aha, madness is progressing

Let's talk about Darwinism. Leave Creation to some other thread.

Perfect! It's proven because it's proven and it's a fact because it's a fact and because you say so.

Somebody mentioned of agreeing with something said about scientifiic argument before

It's a poetry. And one which is irrelevant to subject matter.

 

He's not.

 

Your reading skills apparently haven't caught up with your scientific knowledge. Actually, neither Jumboli nor I have been preaching the creationist party line. I've actually been arguing very explicitly against it, to the extent that it challenges the validity of the New Synthesis in evolutionary thought. Jumbuli uses quotations lifted from creationists where they're convenient, but he's made clear that he isn't endorsing their position about where we came from. He says he doesn't know. My cutting and pasting was from secular sites, except the one from Bio-Logos, which is maintained by the pro-Darwinian theist, Dr. Francis Collins. I did it mainly to address the persistent charge that no one had provided any evidence at all to support evolution, and to provide an alternative to the recycled Moonie disinformation posted to attack Darwin. I agree it's an undesirable practice. I think the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Cration, and the Discovery Institute are disinformation factories; e.g., the article by the Moonie we've been wasting our time on.

 

There you go quacking like a duck!
Spam and name calling. The last resort of the creationist.

I thought you were going to quit answering my post? Wait- don't answer that!

 

Okiefreak,
Then why the religious overtones?

"Darwinism"- a creationsit label for something that doesn't exist.

Anti-science bias while offering no alternative.

Your so-called secular websites are not legit science sources. It's the same crap creationists have been trying to peddle for decades.

You cling to petty details to invalidate a science-- yet you use the computer! Science is of a piece. Scientist are not so stupid that a couple of kids with no education or constructive opinions have seen through a fallacy in a theory built of many lifetimes worth of work.

The study of Bio-Evolution is like and old pair of jeans-- there are a few holes, and some worn spots. But all in all, they got your ass covered!

 

They may well be Moonies. And they may have an agenda to spread disnformation.
But those two possibilities alone neither discredit everything they say about Darwinism nor make Darwinism any more valid that it is.

I already posted my opnion on this.

 

As I said, you'd benefit from a remedial reading course. If you don't like my "so-called" secular sources, give us some of your own, because before I posted those, no one else had done much to defend the New Synthesis. If you didn't bother to read them, you might go back and do so. They support the fossil record for macro-evolution. Far be it from me to try to "invalidate science". I've argued here and elsewhere that science is the gold standard of human knowledge--but that it does have inherent limitations that are part of the very rigor that make it important. I've said that science can never answer our questions about meaning, and I'll stick to that. And all scientific knowledge is tentative and by definition refutable. The theory of evolution is one Cambrian rabbit away from destruction. But so far, no Cambrian rabbits, despite the best efforts of Creationists to find them. If you think I've been arguing against evolution, you have a major comprehension problem. The only reference I can recall making to "Darwinism" was in a response to the post by Rudy. I said: "Good post. 'Darwinism' is Propaganda". Note the placement of the quotation marks. Translation: the Creationist efforts to brand the New Synthesis as "Darwinism" is propaganda--which I think is your point as well. Since I was the first poster on this thread to explain the "New Synthesis" and why it's no longer appropriate to talk about Darwinism, I thought my admittedly cryptic comment would be clear to everyone. I guess not. And I hope you understand that my post about Einstein was--a parable, not serious but not unrelated to the posts that preceded it. Could it be that your chronic misinterpretation of my posts is a result of the fact you know I'm a Christian and figure that therefore I must support Creationism? Check out Kenneth Miller, the Christian biologist who was the star witness on behalf of evolution at the Dover textbook trial.

I haven't quite figured out Jumbuli's game yet, but one thing that can be said for it is that it challenges a certain mindless arrogance that True Believers in establishment science sometimes convey when they try to generalize beyond their data and dismiss challengers with some pseudo-scientific jargon and epithets. I think you've provided a good illustration.

 

First, my sources-- I'm highly learned in these matters. You've got a long way to go before I'll need to consult a reference. But I can give you enough info off the top of my head for you to check out anything I say. Of course, you haven't directly addressed anything I said.

Second-- ALL theories are a Cambrian Rabitt away from, NOT destruction, but modification. Eienstien didn't destroy Newton. That's the beauty of the whole set-up. It roles with the punches. Asimov called it "The Relativity of Wrong".
I suggest you study the history of science as opposed to science itself; you'll see that these matters of disagreement are self correcting as part of the Scientific Process.

I haven't seen you arguing FOR anything. That's the problem. You don't answer questions, and you're only opinion is expressed in cut and paste. You don't actually appear to have much knowledge on this subject at all.

And you know, you might as well quit with the insults- maintiain your decorum if you are who you now claim. And let's be honest-- it's pretty obvious that my understanding, and knowledge, of Science overall, far, far exceeds yours.

As for the "meaning"-- that is not a question adressed by Science. Besides, the answers obvious.

 

Ah, as you bring up Cambria, there are actually Creationist theories on it that don't require finding rabbits pre-Cambrian explosion. I wouldn't necessarily buy into them, but they do exist. The biggest young Earth theory being that pre-Cambrian life was life before Noah's flood.
The flood then would have buried these different lifeforms in the sediment, where they would fossilise in the layer of Cambrian rock. The new creatures post-explosion (or post-flood) would have been the new animals to repopulate the Earth, and low and behold, there's that gorgeous little Rabbit.
I was just reading an e-book I found on Google Books on it actually, just out of my own interest.

I personally do not know if I'd buy into it, but I've looked for answers on the Cambrian Explosion and there doesn't seem to be any real answers to why something like that would have happened. If the Young Earth theory is to be believed, it does answer why it would have happened, at the very least.

 

*Rabbit.

(Sorry, but that was bugging me)

 

Science is actually a technology for gathering information. Sciences gold standard, the thing that makes it valuable, are its' rigors of proof. Knowledge is, being shared. There is no scientific knowledge, there is scientific data, that data which has gone from the proofing process into reproduction. Inspected for fidelity of image before it goes to print.