Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Serious discussion is fun, but what I like about you is that you're also taking the debate seriously and presenting arguments supported by evidence. Yes, I have noticed that you haven't mentioned anything biblical. And you're right that some of the posters who've joined me on the other side aren't doing as good a job as you are in that area. I'll try to answer your points if I have time and no one else does. Meanwhile, there are some other mechanisms: pleiotropy, heterochrony, and endosymbiosis.

 

I wouldn't know how to continue now, not knowing what a straw man argument is I'll give it a quick google search.
Hmm...wikipedia searched it and don't really understand. I need something in laymen's terms lol.

 

I am a genius, knew it !

 

By the letter of your law, is that question allowed? Are the words true?

 

Ah, but you won't find it like that on Wikipedia.... The core evidence were from Wiki but as Wiki is a very evolution-friendly website, you will never find anything there that uses it against evolution like I did. For that high school science is good enough to apply the evidence how I want it to be applied!

 

I see you have a sense of humor too (very rare for humans, not as rare as intelligence but still).

Anyway, who is next?

 

I'd like for people to seriously try and prove me wrong. It's a challenge and I like that. Which is why I was disappointed that no-one has done so yet if there is "clearly" so much evidence for evolution. All that evidence, how about throwing some my way? Go on, I want a challenge. And the more people who answer with insults, the more I believe they can't assert their beliefs and the less I believe they can find the evidence. So come on, you want me to take evolution seriously, I gave some evidence, now I want a challenge from you guys....:cheers2:

 

But I understood what you were getting at before you even suggested it

Anyhow, I'll watch for now how highly qualified evolutionists on this site wage a mighty science battle against your high-school level criticisms, will join to present a lot mightier refutations to challenge them thereafter

 

I'd like for them to refute me. My science is only limited to what I understand in school, and I only got a C in science GCSE. So it can't be so difficult to dispute what I have said.
But the only evolutionist response so far has been... "fuck off".

 

Sure, but keep in mind that even if you had F in science and were going to elementary school and said Darwin's theory of evolution is not scientifically valid, just because it was you saying so it wouldn't validate the asserttion of Darwinists to the contrary.

5 years old kid could watch the movie about Munghausen and say "I don't believe Munghausen can fly to the Moon by being shot from the artillery gun".
Just because 5 years old ignorant of science kid was saying so it wouldn't in any way validate Munghausen's claim that he indeed could perform such a deed.

 

Whether or not you think what I say is funny, does not answer the question.

 

You don't get to ask the question whether question asked is a question or what not.

I mean you can keep doing that but I don't see it in any way proving the point that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science, which is what the discussion is really about.

 

Out of curiosity what are your opinions on the Burgess Shale and the Cambrian explosion?


What about the fossil record and transitional fossils in general?

Normally if someone was going to refute a well tested widely accepted theory they at the least offer reasons as to why they find it imposable to begin with.

Still waiting for that proof of the Roman Empire using observable facts by the way!

 

I think both are evidence and proof of certain type of life that existed at certain time in past. I do NOT dispute that.

What I dispute is the inference made based upon such findings, as if it was any proof of evolutionary theory which claims all life (inluding those found in fossils) advanced from most primitive to most complex by means of random chance and natural selection.

Space aliens visiting planet Earth 600 million years from now could dig out a gas stove, a piece of human bone and see lots of spiders walking around.
How would it be a proof of spiders evolving from the same source as a gas stove and human beings by means of random chance and natural selection and that the said mechanism was responsible for evolution of all three ?

Normally someone claiming the theory is "well tested and proven" would also need to do more than mere repetition of the same assertion.

I answered it here (Post # 140):

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=5962095&posted=1#post5962095

 

Random chance...

You do realize that 99.9% of all life that has ever lived on this planet is now extinct correct?

Your really comparing a gas stove to a human bone and think that if some other intelligence was to look at these to artifacts it would be unable to tell which one was organic and which one was made unnaturally?

Are you sure thats the theory you want to get behind?

By the way here is a little more proof of evolution this time more recent than the cambrian explosion

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

I'm sure you won't read the article but I'll give it a shot anyways.


Normally someone claiming the theory is "well tested and proven" would also need to do more than mere repetition of the same assertion.



I answered it here (Post # 140):

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=5962095&posted=1#post5962095[/QUOTE]

 

The truth has nothing to do with science, or science has no interest in the truth?

 

I do realise that. And so would extra-terrestial aliens, 600 million years down the road on post-apocalyptical Earth.
And what would it be a proof of?

Perhaps they could argue that gas stove was even more advanced creature than humans or other organic life forms, due to utter complexity involved in it's coming into existence, but that it still was a product of random chance and natural selection (since those aliens just couldn't think of anything else).

Of course not, I am not insane and I don't want to play Munchausen here

 

Might also try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

I know you were not directly asking me this... but I thought no harm an be done by adding my 2cents.
Read this from this page.

That is pretty much the same information as I put forward in my own post. What is written on this site is common knowledge on human adaptation to it's environment. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

You don't give much credit to your aliens!