Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Only in your dreams geckopelli

 

From you, that's a surrender.

 

I am not waging a battle here, only doubting validity of hoax perpetrating darwinist's claim that their theory has scientific validity.

 

Of course evolution is a bunch of bullshit... Hold on, I need a tissue, I caught a cold for the 25th time in my life. Damn, I wish these germs didn't keep on doing whatever they do to re-plague my body after I get rid of a cold the first time. I wonder why my body gets rid of other sicknesses and they don't come back... Maybe the germs are scared! Oh wait... Maybe my body changes in some way to prevent them from producing illness in my body again!

I personally don't see what the big fuckin hullabaloo is all about with this evolution theory. It takes somebody with simple observation skills to see that evolution exists.

But if anybody makes a claim to some extra-physical driving factor behind this (and the rest of the stuff in the universe), saying there is or is not a 'god' or other thing perpetuating it, well this is a religious belief. And that is just that, a belief about events not proven to be true or false, and has nothing to do with the original evolution theory.
Religious belief does not in my opinion interfere with science, because science shows how the physcal world we percieve works, not how the spiritual/metaphysical/[insert belief here] world works, and they don't really cancel each other: finding out that storms come from evaporated water doesn't mean the gods can't be angry and willing the storm at the same time.

And come on. Are you serious? It's not a valid theory? not a valid scientific theory? What the hell's that supposed to even mean? It's a theory for god's sake, not 'written in fact scientifically proven statement' (although in my opinion it should be). Maybe to you, you believe it is incorrect. That doesn't even make it invalid. It is neither valid nor invalid; it is a theory.

(btw I didn't bother to read molst of the thread)

 

Another voice of sanity!

 

No "fuckin hullabaloo", it's just that not one person so far who made positive assertion about it being scientifically valid theory brought up any relevant evidence and plausible argument to back up such assertion.

Why don't you show us those "simply observable things' which would prove possibility of macro-evolution by means of random chance and natural selection?
I am not so gullible as to believe something is so just because some evidently lacking in critical thinking abilities looney says so.

Of course to claim involvement of extra-physical driving force (like Creationists do) is a religious belief.
But how your own claim that evolutinary theory about random chance and natural selection is scientifically valid is anything but religious belief ?

Yes, very similar to darwinism, that's right.

Creationists may well have it wrong.
It doesn't in any way validate Darwinists claim.

If somebody says elephants can swim underwater like submarines, you can't use such argument to support your own equally unsupported by evidence or plausible argument claim that elephants can fly.

Dear Mr Super Zealot and Dogma Worshipper.
There are some free thinkers on this board whose mind does not work like dogma worshipping pre-programmed overzealot software.

It simply means some of us has Doubts that Positive Assertion about Darwinism being valid Scientific theory has any validity to it.

The point is it's scientifically INVALID theory. Unlike Big Bang theory which although "not written in fact scientifically proven statement" yet has scientific validity for reasons i explained way too many times to repeat again.
You should cool down your overzealotry for darwinism and browse few pages of these threads before spewing this irrational dogma worshiping of yours like scores did before you.

Obviously you are blinded by zealotry which has paralized your ability to engage in critical thinking and produce meaningful, logical arguments in support of your view.

I don't observe how such activity serves purpose of proving that darwinism is scientifically valid theory.

 

I have no emotional attachment to any conclusions drawn here, so I again must swap sides back to Jumbuli. You misunderstand the meaning of scientific theory, there are laws and there are theories. But that's not to say that there is a difference between scientific fact and a proven scientific theory. Einstein's theory of relativity was just a theory, gravity is just a theory, it doesn't make them any less concrete than what we lay people call "fact".

To relegate scientific theory as something that does not need to be proven is foolish and shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method and Jumbuli is not insane to say that a scientific theory can be invalid.

What he is saying is that evolutionists have not followed the scientific method in terms of supporting/proving the claim or they have failed in revising the hypothesis in light of evidence gained through the scientific method.

Jumbuli is not wrong to say that such a claim needs to go through this rigorous process to be asserted as true. My disagreement with him is purely his assertion that we must be foolish/religious to believe that the scientists in the field have actually done this.

Unfortunatley i am no biologist (i have said this before), so i have no idea who through this debate has a greater scientific understanding of the subject, i also wonder how much of the science has even been discussed here, but i'm still having some fun, even if the discussion is becoming some what stale and less heated.

 

xac - you are correct, I was on a rant, and that just popped out of nowhere.

other dude-
Does the fact that you can catch the cold more than once not prove evolution? Or is science lying to further some dugma bullshit or whatever that is? Why do you think plants can after a period of time grow outside of their original climate? things evolve. Why do we see resistant bacteria infect people? Maybe it's natural selection, because the weak bacteria was killed, and resistant bacteria formed. In other words new species of bacteria were formed as the old ones died off.

I could go on all day. I don't really give half a shit if it supports Darwin's theory, but it is clear that adaptation exists, and through adaptation comes evolution. Saying that darwin's theory is not valid is like saying only 9 of the 10 birthday candles are lit: if the cake is good and most of the candles are there, why raise a fuss, just light the last candle (revise the theory)! That is if it is proven to need revising.

I haven't studied Darwin's theory to the exact word, but I have a general understanding of it. Maybe there are some grammatical errors or something that I'm not aware of - but to say that evolution and natural selection don't exist is ignorant, we have science proving otherwise, and you could even see for yourself. Introduce suddenly plants to your home that come from a radically different climate, most will die but a few will survive, The ones that survive will produce offspring that have a better chance of surviving in your climate. And so goes the cycle.

This isn't all that hard. Maybe I'm on the wrong track, but it seems simple to me.

 

1. "Bullshit", "fuck" and similar words don't prove a point nor will distract me in any way and cause to return the favor by speaking the same to you.

2. Browse and read some of the posts in two threads started by Okiefreak and dedicated to evolutionary theory.
I am not going to repeat what I have posted at least 300 times already.

 

this argument has no merit-- it's a complete misrepresentation of protocol.

There are NO proven theories. at the point of proof, for the hundreth time, they become Laws, not theories.

And gravitation is a LAW. Relativity is a rigorously tested theory. theremodynamics is governed by 3 LAWS, Uncertainty is a Principle (more than a theory, but less than a law).

Bio-Evolution is a FACT, the THEORY attempting to explain it is in a high state of Evolution itself, however that does not negate the FACTUAL basis on which it is built.
-----------------

[/QUOTE]
Sounds like we are saying the same thing, just in different ways. You're right, gravitation is a law, the mechanics of it is only theory though. As far as relativity goes, thats why i said it was a theory, because initially thats all it was.

All i was pointing out is that the attitude "oh it's just theory, so it doesn't need to be proven and it holds no weight" is wrong. Every theory needs to be scientifically tested to hold weight.

 

Which has been my position with jumbuli all along.
He is not really interested in scientific information as much as he is trying to distinguish between belief and knowledge. No amount of information can, in his estimation, breach the "I can only believe" thresh hold.

 

Thats suppose to be a quote let me fix it.

 

actually cbf, go back 1 pg.

 

Theory in the Scientific Tradition


A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:


1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.



Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in nature and is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (i.e. facts and relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic.

 

I see Jumbulli's coming around. Assuming he actually read what he posted.

Whatever- a concession is a concession.

 

Lets not argue about the things we agree on, we have plenty of things we disagree with to argue about

 

I don't see how your seeing my concession in your dreams makes the claim of bunch of Munchausens about Darwinism any less invalid than they have shown it to be so far.

I Doubt Positive Assertion of Darwinists, just as I Doubt Munchausen's claim that he flew to the Moon on cannonball.

There is nothing for me to concede, but you have all the obligation to back up your assertion or else you have none to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

jumbulli,
Did you actually read the post you put up?

Take out the editorial opinions, and it says exactly what we've been telling you a theory is.

And Bio-evolution due to natural selection fits the definition.

In your own inept way, you've been attempting to argue that bio-evolution does not occur. THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE.

 

jmo --you can believe in evolution and religion---gotta admit that some of the bible isnt literally "the word of God"---didnt read 58 pgs but i assumed thats the issue--Peace hot topic for some of the christians