Viceroy63 wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote: Viceroy63 wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'
Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?
Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.
Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.
Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.
Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.
Hint-- math and science work with what IS. If something happens, then it is, by definition, not impossible.
As I noted earlier, your basic premise is wrong becuase you assume the claim is that evolution is a random process and that is not a claim being made by anyone except young earthers trying to refute it. This is known as a strawman argument -- you invent something and then disprove it, claiming it has bearing on the debate when it actually does not.
Get it now? Any argument about "math not allowing random evolution" is pointless because evolution, with or without God is not random.
Beyond that, I as I just said, math and science both explain what is. If reality disagrees with the math or science, then the math and science are wrong. People have erred in their observations, in calculations, etc... reality doesn't get reinvented, the math and science do.
Darwin himself claimed that life evolved by way of small ACCUMULATIVE changes over a very long period of time. He never could find evidence to support his claim and as a disclaimer stated that this could be the best real objection to his theory. So that right from the start this very scientist began the process of disproving his own work. Why should other scientist come along and force the issue?
I see, so in your view the fact that this guy did not have all the answers over 200 years ago means that there just is no answer? Guess what? Newton knew nothing at all about Quantum physics, either!
See, science progresses. As I and others have said that Darwin was the first to publish the theories of evolution doesn't mean that everything he said about it was correct.
Viceroy63 wrote: Darwin had hoped that future evidence and findings would be made in time, to support his theory, but time and time again, advancements in science only disproved his theory of evolution one by one, and not supported it.
Let's try this again. What, specific premise of evolution do you believe have been disproven over and over?
... because, other than pointing out that scientists have made errors in the 200 years of investigation of evolution and that fraudulant scientists have made evolutionary claims, you have not really presented any true criticism... just utter and complete misunderstandings and representations of evolution.
(hint.. if you want to know what evolutionary theory REALLY says, read evolution proponents, not Dr Morris.. who really doesn't understand evolution at all).
Darwin's understanding of the complexities of the human cell were not sufficient at the time and so he could not even address the fact of how life would begin in the first place to form from "Mud," (and possibly electricity) "Life," in the first place.
First, evolution does not address how life initially began, not really. It deals with it changing after it already developed.
Second, the whole field of genetics was not discovered until much later... and a LOT of genetic science has only become known in our own lifetimes. (well, mine anyway.....) Recombinent DNA, for example was brand new in the early 80's.
So, again, you say the theory could not explain everything and Darwin further could not explain why the process might work... OK, but what does this have to do with disproving the theory of evolution, really? You have miraculously proved it is a theory.. that is, not fully proven, at least in Darwin's time. You have disproven
It was in fact believed at the time, that spontaneous animation of non living things was even possible. They prove this by showing maggots on dead meat and never even realized that they came from microscopic eggs left by fly's. They did not have full understanding at the time.
Not entirely true. That is, many people believed this, but it was already controversial .... and remained so for some time even after Pasteur came along. Still, true or not, what does this have to do with disproving evolution?
But just five years after the publication of the "Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist, Louis Pasteur, Scientifically refuted these myth's that laid the ground work for evolution and showed that Maggots did not rise from dead meat and neither did frogs from the Mud pools.
He showed that life begets life. That shows that new life comes from old, which is necessary for evolution to happen, sure.
HOWEVER, when you claim that he actually proved that abiogenesis is impossible, you err. Its a common error, but a big one. Proving that life originates from life does disprove the idea that all life came abiogenetically. Further study proved that even lower organisms come from other life. Proving that life DOES come from other life, though is not the same at all as saying it is impossible for it to arise from any other means. Also, there is a big difference between saying that higher life evolves from other life and saying that no life, ever, in all time, ever came from abiogenesis.
If your argument is "abiogenesis doesn't happen". Well... then the Bible is wrong, too!!!
When you talk about the very, very beginning we have 2 possibilities. Either life always existed or it somehow came from nothing. Both the Bible and scientists tend toward the second, that it somehow came from nothing. Neither is able to fully explain the process.
(oh, and the modern ideas about the very origin of life do involve abiogenesis, but have less to do with these early theories as modern chemistry has to to with Alchemy)
Pasteur, after much experimenting reach this very lengthy conclusion that...
"Can matter organize itself? NO!
Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves."
Fox & Dosa
Origin of LIfe p. 4-5
A Russian Scientist of the 1930's who tried to create cellular life stated this...
"Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.
Origin of life p. 136.
In more modern times we find this statement...
"Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life Originate on earth?"
Earth Magazine, February, 1988
How can we then build on a theory of evolution when we can't even answer the basic question of how life began in the first place? By creating Hoaxes?
Begin with evolution doesn't answer the beginning of life at all. It just says that what we have today evolved from prior species... and that has been largely )(though not entirely) shown. That is, we do know that some species emerge from some other species. We do not know how each and every species today alive on earth or ever alive evolved or originated. We definitely do not know how initial life began... yet.
Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.
Nope, this is EXACTLY backwards. A story begins in the beginning. Science, however, starts with what is known and then goes from there. This means that science can say a LOT about things alive and observed today. It can say a good deal about animals that managed to leave fossil evidence for us to study. It can say little about the remainder. We do know there is a LOT missing in the history of Earth. More and more of those gaps get filled in yearly, even daily. Understanding the entire complex involves many, many sciences and studies randing from chemistry to physics to geology to biology and paleontology. EACH field offers a piece that are then put together into what is still not a whole.
There are creatures existing today that are virtually unknown, still. A new mammel was just found a year or two ago. Last year or the year before, a remaining ivoery bill woodpecker was found, previously thought to be extinct. The Ceolocanth, which offered a who range of proof in evolution was only discovered alive a few decades ago.
We know a lot about cows and dogs. We know less about Tigers and Polar Bears. We know almost nothing, still about many life forms. In some cases, we know more about creatures that no longer exist than about some living creatures. There are no doubt creatures alive today that we have not even found to identify.. never mind study anything about them. Still, fossils only provide certain types of information. They are limited and so is our knowledge. The further back, in general, the less we know.. but that is not exact, because, for example sea creatures were preserved so well in some cases that we can learn almost as much from the fossils as if they were sitting alive in front of us. Other creatures, as I noted already, do exist alive today, but are yet to be found and identified by any scientist.
We know almost nothing about the origin of life on Earth... almost nothing. Claiming that this has to be understood for evolution to be true pretty much proves that you know nothing of how science works, never mind evolution.
And I am not the one stating this but am quoting scientist. If you read the Original Post and all the comments I have made, I provide many links to Scientist who are saying this and not me.
You ARE stating it, sorry... take responsibility for what you quote! That is, yes.. acknowledge the quote, but it's up to you to do the research to find out if the person actually exists, if they really did say what is claimed... AND if the quote is appropriate or something taken out of context.
I mean, if I say "the sky is not green today"... you can claim I said the words "the sky is green", and sure, I did, but did I really give that meaning?
Of the people you quoted, 1 very likely just doesn't exist, 2 did not dispute evolution at all, but are repeated by young earthers out of context to make it seem as it they do dispute evolution (and you accuse all of science of being dishonest!). The last was basically whining that his views were not taken seriously by science... well, that's how science works. NO ONE is taken seriously, particularly not anyone suggesting a major change in thinking, until they actually go out and prove what they say is true.