Evolution 'not established truth'

Evolution 'not established truth'

There are 9177 comments on the GoErie.com story from May 30, 2008, titled Evolution 'not established truth'. In it, GoErie.com reports that:

Public schools should teach established truth. Evolution is not established truth.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at GoErie.com.

once_more

Newman, CA

#4698 Nov 21, 2008
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

While at the same time millions of scientists who study:
Anatomy
Anthropology
Archaeology
Bacteriology
Biochemistry
Biology
Botany
Chemistry
Ecology
Embryology
Endocrinology
Entomology
Enzymology
Genetics
Geochemistry
Geography
Geology
Geophysics
Histology
Hydrology
Ichthyology
Linguistics
Medicine
Meteorology
Microbiology
Mineralogy
Mycology
Neurology
Nutrition
Oceanography
Paleontology
Pathology
Petrology
Pharmacology
Physics
Physiology
Radiology
Volcanology
Zoology
And all of these area have produced support for the Theory of Evolution as well as the FoE (which you seem to accept as you have not lifted a finger to argue against it).
An Appeal to Authority. tsk tsk.
.
:)
Cliff

Haines City, FL

#4699 Nov 21, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
An Appeal to Authority. tsk tsk.
.
:)
you are mistaken. in fact most of those are simply sub categories of the only 5 sciences (philosophies) that support evolution (which other natural scientists (natural philosophers) said didn't support evolution at all).
Cliff

Haines City, FL

#4700 Nov 21, 2008
Cliff

Haines City, FL

#4701 Nov 21, 2008
in fact the false enlightenment was to produce a satanic world which had help from the (believe it or not) "x men" no not the marvel hero's though. And one of the x men was thomas huxley, who's son wrote a book about the x men's intention called "a brave new world" where the plans of the xmen and rest actually succeded and now it describes modern day america to the letter even though it was written in 1932. it talks about all the brainwashed people believing in evolution, being controlled by chemicals and medication and the media. and much more. it is interesting that the book took place like 300 years after it was written, not so early as today.
Cliff

Haines City, FL

#4702 Nov 21, 2008
evolution worked faster then they thought it would

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#4703 Nov 21, 2008
Cliff wrote:
nuggin lets calculate some odds some REAL odds.
For the big bang compression to have been there there would have to be several laws in place to allow that compression in itself. So where did those laws come from? The odds say impossible. literally. not even 1/infinity simply 0/infinity.
But you can give it that little "so what i wanna think it's real anyway" so tell me this. The evidence for God is so great, that all the the philosophies of science including scientific facts, theories, and half truths put together can't even begin to compare. but you still believe. Why? scvience has already proven the big bang never happened. and science also proved evolution never happened. but you still believe. why? and science never disproved God and Jesus Christ, but you still believe in evolution
Why, Cliff, do the laws have to come from somewhere? Why is it that the laws can not just be? After all, you are claiming that your god "just is" and doesn't have a source. Why not apply Occam's Razor and eliminate one step?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Northridge, CA

#4704 Nov 21, 2008
Cliff wrote:
nuggin lets calculate some odds some REAL odds.
For the big bang compression to have been there there would have to be several laws in place to allow that compression in itself. So where did those laws come from? The odds say impossible. literally. not even 1/infinity simply 0/infinity.
Show your math.

Also, "been there" implies that these laws are physical things. They are not. They are merely descriptions of the Universe as we see it.

The speed of light is the speed of light. You can call it a "law" and imply that there is some cosmic cop making with a radar gun waiting to pull over any light that breaks the "law" - but that's no more valid an idea than to say "it just is".
Cliff wrote:
so tell me this. The evidence for God is so great, that all the the philosophies of science including scientific facts, theories, and half truths put together can't even begin to compare. but you still believe. Why?
Which "God"?
Cliff wrote:
scvience has already proven the big bang never happened. and science also proved evolution never happened. but you still believe. why? and science never disproved God and Jesus Christ, but you still believe in evolution
Science never disproved Thor or Zeus or Shiva or Turtle or Xinu or any number of other "gods".

So do you feel they are all equally likely to exist? Why not? What is your criteria?

As for "proving" that the Big Bang didn't happen, or "proving" that evolution didn't happen - show your evidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4705 Nov 22, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I know what he said; and he is definitely mocking the idea that "nature" and "evolution"(as an active subject) are the cause of anything.
.
If you don't get it, it's because you don't want to..
.
I have many times.
What is the cause of god.
Why do you keep avoiding this question?
What are you afraid of?
You are a master at ducking the issues, I will give you that.
Oh good; so then you should be able to explain what the "cause" of evolution is. I'm all ears.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4706 Nov 22, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what he said; and he is definitely mocking the idea that "nature" and "evolution"(as an active subject) are the cause of anything.
.
Oh good; so then you should be able to explain what the "cause" of evolution is. I'm all ears.
.
:)
I have many times.

What is the cause of god.

Why do you keep avoiding this question?
What are you afraid of?
You are a master at ducking the issues, I will give you that.

Oh good; so then you should be able to explain what the "cause" of evolution is. I'm all ears.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4707 Nov 22, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
An Appeal to Authority. tsk tsk.
.
:)
Incorrect. You did not read the appeal to authority section very well. AtA applies only with the appellate is NOT an authority. Thus YOU evoking the Pope on a religious issue IS an appeal to authority because YOU do not accept him as such.

Remember, Science demands internal consistancy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4708 Nov 22, 2008
Cliff wrote:
in fact the false enlightenment was to produce a satanic world which had help from the (believe it or not) "x men" no not the marvel hero's though. And one of the x men was thomas huxley, who's son wrote a book about the x men's intention called "a brave new world" where the plans of the xmen and rest actually succeded and now it describes modern day america to the letter even though it was written in 1932. it talks about all the brainwashed people believing in evolution, being controlled by chemicals and medication and the media. and much more. it is interesting that the book took place like 300 years after it was written, not so early as today.
wow.

Have you, or anyone in your family, been diagnosised with a major psychotic disorder?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4709 Nov 22, 2008
Cliff wrote:
<quoted text>
you are mistaken. in fact most of those are simply sub categories of the only 5 sciences (philosophies) that support evolution (which other natural scientists (natural philosophers) said didn't support evolution at all).

All science supports evolution. Astronomy, nuclear physics, cosmology, vulcanology,........

Pick one and I will show you the tie in.

BTW, while science is divided up into many specialities they all subscribe to the same standards, methods, and requirements. Scientists are specialist like most doctors are. But they are all scientists.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4710 Nov 22, 2008
Cliff wrote:
nuggin lets calculate some odds some REAL odds.
For the big bang compression to have been there there would have to be several laws in place to allow that compression in itself. So where did those laws come from? The odds say impossible. literally. not even 1/infinity simply 0/infinity.
But you can give it that little "so what i wanna think it's real anyway" so tell me this. The evidence for God is so great, that all the the philosophies of science including scientific facts, theories, and half truths put together can't even begin to compare. but you still believe. Why? scvience has already proven the big bang never happened. and science also proved evolution never happened. but you still believe. why? and science never disproved God and Jesus Christ, but you still believe in evolution
Proof!!!

Proof that numbers don't lie but that liars use numbers. If there are an infinite number of possible realities and one reality has to exist then the possibility that that reality would exist is 1/infinity. So your own math, correctly interpited in context shows that the big bang was just as likely as not.

You are another one of those people who don't mind eating the fruits of the tree of science such as comupters, internet, FLU SHOTS!(not so down on evolution nor supportive of creationism when flu season rolls around, are you?!).

Science fruits include evolution and most of the medications you are on (and you need at least one more) are designed with a knowledge of evolutionary biology in mind.

You want the apples but bad mouth the tree. You are a hypocrite.

"So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!" - Yeshua bin Sirac
once_more

Newman, CA

#4711 Nov 22, 2008
Wilson wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, life "emerged" from dead chemicals - all by itself.
Fancier words noadays but do you think that's new?
Wilson
And another attempt to avoid the question as to the "cause" of evolution in general.
.
:)
once_more

Newman, CA

#4712 Nov 22, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim that God was this alleged "driving force".
That's not the issue Nuggin. The Pope is asking: WHAT is the "cause" of evolution(gee that sounds familiar). He KNOWS Nature IS NOT causation.
.
And you can be sure he's got the educational background to back that one up.
.
Now he says it's God and your going to prove him wrong by saying.....The cause for evolution is WHAT ??
.
:)
once_more

Newman, CA

#4713 Nov 22, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have claimed 1,000s of times now.
However, YOU have not and can not give an example of the "cause" for ANYTHING.
Since YOU can't provide the cause for ANYTHING, why should we be held to a higher standard than you?
I've even given YOU the freedom to pick ANYTHING you want to present the cause for.
.
I suppose you must somehow think this is clever; but it's not. I have asked you for the "cause" of evolution; You DO NOT have an answer.
.
Since you fail to do so, we'll take that as an admission on your part that there is NO CAUSE...
Yes, I admit that there is NO CAUSE that science can claim for evolution.
.
:(
once_more

Newman, CA

#4714 Nov 22, 2008
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. You did not read the appeal to authority section very well.
.
Yes, you're right. Your list actually is an appeal to majority rule.
.
AtA applies only with the appellate is NOT an authority. Thus YOU evoking the Pope on a religious issue IS an appeal to authority because YOU do not accept him as such.
Remember, Science demands internal consistancy.
To say that I don't accept the Pope's authority on the subject is debatable. Should I ignore those things that are correctly stated because I don't accept all of what he says?
.
Regardless of your answer; what he said in mocking the scientific cause of evolution is still quite clear.
.
:

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#4715 Nov 22, 2008
tangled bank wrote:

Ohh, I get it! You want to play science sez!! OK, let's play!
*Science sez living things descended with modification from common ancestors
*Science sez that there are connecting forms between major groups
*Science sez humans evolved from H. erectus
*Science sez mammals evolved from reptiles
*Science sex birds evolved from dinosaurs
*Science sez changes in regulatory genes casue evolution
*Science sez primitive bacteria were the first recognizable cellular forms of life on this planet - from which all other forms evolved
once_more wrote:
.
Yep, they say lots of things they can't prove.
Then why are you using science to try and "prove" your point about earliest life and human evolution?
once_more wrote:
YOU LOSE!! you forgot to say Science sez.
.
:)
...at least you are in the spirit of things!! You are also correct when you say science is not in the business of "proving" things....but they are in the business of falsifying...care to try??

*Science sez living things descended with modification from common ancestors
*Science sez that there are connecting forms between major groups
*Science sez humans evolved from H. erectus
*Science sez mammals evolved from reptiles
*Science sez birds evolved from dinosaurs
*Science sez changes in regulatory genes casue evolution
*Science sez primitive bacteria were the first recognizable cellular forms of life on this planet - from which all other forms evolved

??

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#4716 Nov 22, 2008
once_more wrote:
<quoted text>
An Appeal to Authority. tsk tsk.
.
:)
Are you not doing the same thing??

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#4717 Nov 22, 2008
Cliff wrote:
<quoted text>
you are mistaken. in fact most of those are simply sub categories of the only 5 sciences (philosophies) that support evolution (which other natural scientists (natural philosophers) said didn't support evolution at all).
Cliff -

Your contention that science is philosophy is nothing more than your own rationalization trying to make your religious beliefs as valid as science.

This is sad. Science is based on evidence, while your religious beliefs are based solely on faith - no evidence involved.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Ronnie 34,470
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min DanFromSmithville 199,207
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 52 min Don Barros Serrano 151,288
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 54 min ChristineM 14,866
the dinosaurs of the lega-warega people: racial... 1 hr teri107 1
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 12 hr FREE SERVANT 33
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web