Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Can you give an example of evidence that could make Darwins theory probable in your opinion?

 

No, it's not my job to prove it for Darwinists or tell them what they need to do to convince sceptical minds that it's a valid theory.

It's an obligation of those who claim it to be scientifically valid theory, to find the evidence and make a plausible argument supporting their claim.

 

I agree, in this thread we have had no scientific evidence or proof to back up the rock solid theory people declare it to be. Let's start with that.

 

I did not claim it was your job, I was just asking in the spirit of discussion but if you refuse to offer any speculation at all that's fine.

Why do you choose to use the term Darwinists when referring to someone who believes that evolution is a plausible theory, it's like your setting up Charles Darwin as some kind of object of worship

 

And I answered No.

When are you going to proceed, if ever, to prove your claim that the theory you believe in , whatever you wish to call it, is also a scientifically valid theory?

 

Can you prove that the Roman empire ever existed?

 

That's irrelevant to the subject matter question and is nothing but a mere digression.

If someone opens thread titled "Roman empire never existed" I may participate there and share my opinion on it too.
We will leave it until then.

Now, will you proceed with your argument to prove your claim that Darwin's theory of Evolution is a Scientifically valid theory?

If yes, then please go ahead.
If not then you have no claim to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

Vestigial organs can be seen as observable proof for evolution but if the only evidence you would accept would be to actually witness something evolving before your eyes, which more and more seems to be the case perhaps you should remain skeptical, but then again if that is the case what would make you consider that anything unobservable such as events in history can be taken as fact?

 

You already know that it is not what I ask for as a proof and I already (repeatedly!) gave the definition of what I would consider a scientifically valid theory.

When said earlier that I accept Big Bang theory as scientifically valid I didn't mean that Stephen Hawking or anyone advocating it for the matter has shown me a video presentation and witness testimony of how it actually happened.
What an absurd

Anyway, since you have no claim to begin with there is no need for you to continue any further.

Next!

 

Unless you believe life appeared out of thin air it must have come from a living parent. Since all life is different then it must have evolved. Do you believe life appeared out of thin air?

 

Why can vestigial organs not be considered proof for evolution, I know you want me to link a video of something evolving but I was thinking since the thread is titled "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory" you may want to list some evidence why it is not.

Could you also offer any concrete proof of the Roman empire's supposed one time exitence while your at it?

 

I never said such a thing.
What I say is that I doubt that random chance and natural selection are the sole mechanisms responsible for evolution of life from most simple single cell to what we are now, as Darwinists claim.

 

I agree, although I might quibble with the characterization of the theory as "rock solid".

First, I probably should address issues that have been raised by another poster concerning my motives and (on another site) my sanity. On the issue of motivation, there's an evidentiary record relevant to that question. Since I joined Hip Forums in April, 2007, I have entered 2, 090 posts. A determined reader questioning whether or not I'm a troll, as charged, can go back and review these postings and judge whether or not they seem germane to the thread topics on which they were posted or whether they seem to be designed to divert the thread to extraneous issues, or to do the impossible, such as asking people to prove well-established theories. As to my sanity, that would seem to be irrelevant, since I've never asked anyone to accept what I say simply on the basis of my say so. I've always submitted arguments and evidence which can be independently evaluated.

I think these observations have some relevance to the thread topic, which is about evaluating arguments and evidence for and against evolution. Certainty isn't a goal which is achievable for humans. The best we can do is to look at the evidence and make judgments based on what we consider to be most plausible explanation of the evidence at hand. Scientists have the job of developing scientific theories that are refutable and account for the evidence at hand, and presenting their findings in peer reviewed journals. I think evolutionary scientist have done this job. The theory of evolution is the best explanatory scientific theory for speciation we can come up with, although there are gaps in the puzzle. As I said earlier, transitional evidence for rabbits is lacking, but at least, so far, no rabbits in the Cambrian. As I've also said, star scientists of the Intelligent Design school concede much of the previously disputed case for evolution by agreeing on such matters as development of humans from other species, common descent of humans and apes, and emergence of one species from another over a period of billions of years. On that basis, I think evolution is a respectable scientific theory, even though it might, like any scientific theory, ultimately be proven false. The theory is one Cambrian rabbit fossil away from being demolished. And I agree that scientists are subject to many of the same errors the rest of us are in confusing our theories with reality and dismissing too readily those who challenge them. But the evolutionists have made their prima facie case. It's the other side's turn.

 

They aren't the sole mechanisms. Have you heard about horizontal gene transfer? It's where a bacteria or virus can take away or inserst DNA into genomes of other life forms.

Also, they say it's random as far as they can tell. I don't necesarily believe it's random.

 

Neither do I.

 

Evidently you and Okiefreak are both trolls (like many other Darwin worshipers on this site).

But being troll hardly proves validity of one's claim.

 

I disagree. This thread is to dispute evolution, not to dispute other theories.
I am still awaiting those "rock solid" evidence pieces?

And I do not believe something as complex and yet simple as a human could ever have come across by random.

 

I covered vestigial organs a little in one of my previous posts when I mentioned the appendix and how in new studies it's been shown to possibly be a very important part of the human immune system, harbouring friendly bacteria. The appendix doesn't seem all so useless now! Maybe the organs we originally thought were vestigial actually do have very important functions that haven't been discovered yet, like the appendix? Just a moot point.

 

You're right. As I pointed out in an earlier post, natural selection is only one of several mechanisms making up the New Synthesis which most evolutionary scientists accept. And I don't think that randomness, in the statistical sense, is central to the theory, any more than pure competition (now modified by endosymbiosis) is. Darwin is not a sacred cow. His theory has already been substantially modified on the basis of new findings, as it should be in the enterprise of science. So the label "Darwinism" is largely a propaganda ploy by the opponents of the New Synthesis.

 

Don't expect those two trolls to come up with anything but "you and your gas stove are both result of random chance and natural selection since you two share basic characteristics on fundamental level".

That's all they do.
Now they even ask you to accept their absurd claim as rock solid fact or else, if you doubt, they challenge you to prove that both gas stove and human beings exist, as if proving existence of those two is the same thing as proving they both are result of random chance and natural selection.