Science against evolution

[theophilus]

(17-10-2012 09:07 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Why is this titled "science against evolution"? Maybe, I have spent too much time on the Cannabis Thread but you seem to be confusing origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution (diversification).

I understand the difference between them but people often use the word "evolution" to mean the entire process of entire process of abiogenesis and diversification. Since the word means different things to different people the home page of the site tells us what meaning of the word as they are using it.

Quote:When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change."
Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection.
We use the term "evolution" to mean,
“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that
life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that
common ancestral form of life.”

The December newsletter is now online:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

Here are the articles in it:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3f.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3n.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3e.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/links12.htm#dec

[houseofcantor]

Oh my Gwynnies, Theo... you people like trying to make black a color...

[TheBeardedDude]

You still shouldn't trust random websites. In this case it is not a question of "might they be full of bullshit?" but exactly how much.

[Chas]

(19-12-2012 10:52 AM)theophilus Wrote:  

(17-10-2012 09:07 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Why is this titled "science against evolution"? Maybe, I have spent too much time on the Cannabis Thread but you seem to be confusing origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution (diversification).

I understand the difference between them but people often use the word "evolution" to mean the entire process of entire process of abiogenesis and diversification. Since the word means different things to different people the home page of the site tells us what meaning of the word as they are using it.

Quote:When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change."
Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection.
We use the term "evolution" to mean,
“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that
life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that
common ancestral form of life.”

The December newsletter is now online:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

Here are the articles in it:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3f.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3n.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3e.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/links12.htm#dec

So, they arrogantly decide to redefine what actual scientists mean. Fuck them.

[Vosur]

Anything on there that hasn't already been covered by TalkOrigins?

[Bucky Ball]

(19-12-2012 10:52 AM)theophilus Wrote:  

(17-10-2012 09:07 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Why is this titled "science against evolution"? Maybe, I have spent too much time on the Cannabis Thread but you seem to be confusing origin of life (abiogenesis) and evolution (diversification).

I understand the difference between them but people often use the word "evolution" to mean the entire process of entire process of abiogenesis and diversification. Since the word means different things to different people the home page of the site tells us what meaning of the word as they are using it.

Quote:When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change."
Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection.
We use the term "evolution" to mean,
“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that
life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that
common ancestral form of life.”

The December newsletter is now online:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

Here are the articles in it:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3f.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3n.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i3e.htm

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/links12.htm#dec

You forgot one.
http://www.more.already.debunked.crap.com

[ScienceGeek2587]

Oh theophilus, "evolution" doesn't mean different things to different people. It means, "gradual change over time" when used outside a scientific context and "change in allele frequencies within a population over time" when used by scientists.

Any other definition is meaningless. It is like:

Me: I have three bananas.

You: And since "bananas" can mean different things, I'm defining it as "small red fruit with white flesh".

Me: Um, no, those are apples. I'm not talking about apples, I said I have bananas.

You: You can't prove that "bananas" really means that so there is no such thing as fruit.

Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. There is evidence for abiogenesis (protocells, viruses, etc.), though it hasn't been recreated in a lab (though, neither has gravity, we use what's there) and scientists honeslty and eloquently state, "We don't yet know for certain, but this looks promising."

If you (or anyone else) disproved abiogenesis, that doesn't even address evolution or prove any other explanation.

There is no science against evolution, just like there's no science against gravity (or anything else.) Science studies things, describes what is, what has been, and sometimes what could be, get over it.

[Chase200mph]

(17-10-2012 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(17-10-2012 08:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the exitence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.

It is widely believed that science has proved that the first explanation is correct and those who reject it do so only because it contradicts their religious beliefs. This belief is false. Science is the attempt to find out things by means of observation and testing. The origin of life hasn't been observed and there is no way it can be tested scientifically.

The reality is that there are scientific facts that aren't compatible with the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Here is a site where you can find out about some of these facts:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

Each month a newletter is published with new information. Here is this month's newsletter.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/new.shtml

It includes an excellent article about how to teach evolution.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v17i1f.htm

Here is an index o f all the material on the site.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/topics.htm

The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. Try again.

There is never a shortage of religious people claiming a better understanding of science......... lmfao

[Starcrash]

(17-10-2012 08:59 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life come into existence? There are two possible explanations. One is that natural processes brought about the exitence of simple, single-celled organisms and its descendants evolved to produce all the forms of life that exist today. The other is that it was created by God.

Without reading further down the thread, it's fair to assume that others have attempted to set you straight on evolution, but I'd like to address the illogic in the statement I'm responding to above.

Do you know what a false dichotomy is? It's a logical fallacy where you presume that there are only two possibilities when there are more than two. The reason that scientists believe in evolution is because that's where the evidence led them, not because there were only two possibilities and the other was one they didn't accept (God). Let's consider some other possible explanations:

Life was created spontaneously through another natural process that we haven't encountered (the "sudden monster" theory).

Life started out more complex than it is now but is trending towards simpler forms of life.

Life was created by Allah or some other god.

Instead of life coming from non-life, life is the normal state and non-life can only come from life.


I can't even count all the times where an argument over God's existence started out with a theist making this false dichotomy. I ask for evidence of God's existence, and they instead try to debunk evolution as if that would lead me to believe in God by default. Even if you could debunk evolution, that still wouldn't prove God's existence.

[NoahsFarce]

I'd Chime in, but Theo was thoroughly pwnt in this thread already. Back to my Java Stout, carry on...