1136 replies to this topic

[38542788]

Thing is, the gravitational theory has ten times as much proof (and more convincing proof) than the evolutionary theory.

Great, then you would know that Newton's theory of universal gravitation only serves as a model and is insufficient for all cases. You would also know that the general theory of relativity supersedes universal gravitation, and that general relativity itself is an incomplete examination of gravity.You would of course also be able to refute my point concerning common descent and mitochondrial DNA, and about the generation of new species within one generation such as for wheat.

Stop assuming things. I didn't say they don't have any evidence for their theories. Fact of the matter is that they redefined the term "theory", slapped "scientific" in front of it, and can now pass of theories (things that aren't known to be absolute fact) as facts.

To be quite frank, there's not really even a way to prove without a shred of a doubt that I exist, or that you exist for that matter. As far as we know, our minds could be locked in some sort of artificial world. Perhaps I only exist as a being created by someone's schizophrenia. I could possibly be someone with a multiple personality disorder, and am not even aware of it. In that case, would I make up for two real people? Or would one of those people be nonexistent? I suppose that really just leaves us with one question. What is real? If real is what you can perceive with your five senses, then even reality is subjective.

Please kill yourself, it's the only way to be sure that you don't exist!

Edited by 38542788, 07 November 2008 - 09:03 PM.

[38542788]

Alright, rezing the thread like I said. I'll be replying to the last post of someone I think is still around.

Thing is, the gravitational theory has ten times as much proof (and more convincing proof) than the evolutionary theory.

You've actually picked a very bad example.Gravity is the least understood of the fundamental forces, it's the only one without a verified force mediator. Evolution is currently much better understood, there isn't really anyone expecting new breakthroughs about the nature of natural selection or genetic drift.By the way, it's not "the gravitational theory", the classical form is the theory of universal gravitation, with the modern form being general relativity. Your definition of theory and fact is completely wrong by the way. A fact is a verified observation or event. It's something along the lines of "I just stabbed myself with a dirty knife" (assume for a moment that I did). A theory, germ theory for example, would be a framework that allows for the categorization of facts, allowing us to explain certain phenomena, theories, rather than just facts, are useful because of their predictive value. For example, applying germ theory to the fact that "I just stabbed myself with a dirty knife", we can then assume that I may get sick if I do not clean the resulting wound, because microorganisms on the blade may infect my body through the breach in my skin.Theory and fact cannot be conflated, they are different things, with theories being much more useful since they allow us to properly interpret facts.

[Cougar Draven]

PS. Prove evolution wrong.

Not his job. He challenged the veracity of evolution, which places the burden of proof (or at least proof of concept) on those who would support evolution. On the other hand, asking him to prove creation theory correct would be an acceptable statement.That said. I had hoped that I would see a respectable debate, and for the most part, I haven't been truly disappointed. However, I still see creationists clamoring for proof. So fine. I offer some. Human skin color, as a matter of fact. Trace ancestry of any single person, and it seems likely that there will be a clear defined line to an area of the globe that proportionately relates the lightness of their skin to the distance in latitude from the Equator. In other terms, those people of African descent, living fairly close to the Equator and being bombarded by massive amounts of UV radiation, have dark skin, whereas those of Scandinavian descent, living far away and being subjected to much less UV radiation, thus have much less melanin and lighter skin. (In fact, UV irradiation stimulates melanin production. It's why you get a tan.)Thus you have microevolution, or evolution through adaptation below the species line. Macroevolution is next to impossible to prove, so I'll not even try here.

[reddeath26]

That said. I had hoped that I would see a respectable debate, and for the most part, I haven't been truly disappointed. However, I still see creationists clamoring for proof. So fine. I offer some. Human skin color, as a matter of fact. Trace ancestry of any single person, and it seems likely that there will be a clear defined line to an area of the globe that proportionately relates the lightness of their skin to the distance in latitude from the Equator. In other terms, those people of African descent, living fairly close to the Equator and being bombarded by massive amounts of UV radiation, have dark skin, whereas those of Scandinavian descent, living far away and being subjected to much less UV radiation, thus have much less melanin and lighter skin. (In fact, UV irradiation stimulates melanin production. It's why you get a tan.)Thus you have microevolution, or evolution through adaptation below the species line. Macroevolution is next to impossible to prove, so I'll not even try here.

firstly I want to make it clear that despite how this post will look, I do believe in evolution. It is just your example I disagree with. While the theory that skin colourn came as a result of evolution was once quite widely supported this motion is not true. Firstly in order for it to support evolution it must show that the genetics from skin colour somehow give the person who carries it enough of an advantage to produce more offspring than those with differing colours. As things like skin cancer effected people so late in life this would not of influenced their ability to produce offspring. It has also been widely shown that through use of diet one can make up for certain deficiences in ones skin colour.

[Cougar Draven]

firstly I want to make it clear that despite how this post will look, I do believe in evolution. It is just your example I disagree with. While the theory that skin colourn came as a result of evolution was once quite widely supported this motion is not true. Firstly in order for it to support evolution it must show that the genetics from skin colour somehow give the person who carries it enough of an advantage to produce more offspring than those with differing colours. As things like skin cancer effected people so late in life this would not of influenced their ability to produce offspring. It has also been widely shown that through use of diet one can make up for certain deficiences in ones skin colour.

Fair enough. My example was more accurately of the adaption, not necessarily of the evolutionary benefit. I will endeavor to find another.