clarencec2 says: The Urantia book's sudden speciation claim is a discarded hypothesis from the early 20th century
(from kb)If so, it was discarded without proof. What proves "sudden speciation" never occurs?
Exactly. Apparently Clarence's assertion is all the proof we need.
- like the book's equally discarded eugenics ideas.
The idea of racial improvement has not been discarded. What proof do you have of this claim?
| 1/24/2016 2:11:22 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
What evidence do we have that the evolution hypothesis is correct?
1. Fossils show that huan beings looked different back in the day. So people looked different once upon a time.
2. All the scientists say so. I don't call that science. I call that groupthink. I call that the emperor has no clothes.
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 1/24/2016 3:17:33 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
m_gonzales
San Antonio, TX
26, joined Sep. 2012
|
Given that there's no such thing as the evolution hypothesis, none.
|
| 1/24/2016 3:21:35 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
You're the second person on here, this weekend, who says that there is no such thing as an evolution hypothesis. What is that supposed to mean?
|
| 1/24/2016 3:24:05 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
m_gonzales
San Antonio, TX
26, joined Sep. 2012
|
You're the second person on here, this weekend, who says that there is no such thing as an evolution hypothesis. What is that supposed to mean?
That's supposed to mean that you're ignorantly using the wrong word. Did you mean "theory"? 'Cause there's an evolutionary theory.
|
| 1/24/2016 4:45:37 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
That's supposed to mean that you're ignorantly using the wrong word. Did you mean "theory"? 'Cause there's an evolutionary theory.
Main Entry: theory
Function:noun
1 : abstract thought
2 : the general principles of a subject
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain observed facts
4 : HYPOTHESIS : CONJECTURE
Merriam Webster
|
| 1/24/2016 4:53:52 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
Your god is a hypothesis. Totally unsupported. Completely unproven.
Evolution is a theory, It has been proven over and over again.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions.
|
| 1/24/2016 5:07:03 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
67, joined May. 2010
|
Are you here dirt?
|
| 1/24/2016 5:15:32 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
Your god is a hypothesis. Totally unsupported. Completely unproven.
Evolution is a theory, It has been proven over and over again.
Perhaps, but...
Stephen Jay Gould: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms."
Richard Dawkins: "For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Charles Darwin: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.
|
| 1/24/2016 5:23:50 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
You're the second person on here, this weekend, who says that there is no such thing as an evolution hypothesis. What is that supposed to mean?
do you understand the difference between an hypothesis and a scientific theory, lud?
|
| 1/24/2016 5:36:50 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
FJO There is enough evidence to call evolution proven given the small percentage of living things who become good complete fossils it's not surprising that transition fossils haven't been found. However given the slow rates of successful changes and modern DNA identification it's possible to make connections between species.
Cup yeah I'm here for a bit.
|
| 1/24/2016 7:59:15 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
According to Wiki a hypothesis is a suggested explanation for something, and a hypothesis becomes a theory when there has been some scientific testing. The article goes on to say that even scientists sometimes use the word "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis".
The evolution hypothesis cannot be tested---not unless scientists somehow produce some members of the species immediately below/prior homo sapien. Scientists have merely guessed that homo sapien evolved from lower species. Jrbogie speaks of DNA similarities. That is evidence, I grant that, but it certainly is not proof.
Scientists---find some male and female members of that species immediately below us. Let them mate. Observe as they evolve into humans. If scientists can do this, then they have a theory. Prove that that is the ONLY way humans came into existence, and we have a proven fact. But right now all it is is a hypothesis.
|
| 1/24/2016 8:10:27 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
FJO There is enough evidence to call evolution proven given the small percentage of living things who become good complete fossils it's not surprising that transition fossils haven't been found. However given the slow rates of successful changes and modern DNA identification it's possible to make connections between species.
Perhaps all that is true. It's certainly a good assertion. They should call DH, "Assertion Heaven." Lud is the King of Assertions, but the evolution discussions brings them out too.
I am not against evolution. I believe in evolution. But there ARE problems with the theory and fundy Christians are not entirely wrong about it.
Just reading what Richard Dawkins said, "For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." shows that there are problems. Dawkins came close to having to invoke God to explain the issue. But most scientists are loathe to do that.
Eventually however, that's exactly what they're going to have to do. Sooner or later. We had an evolutionary scenario here on earth, but it was a God initiated scenario. Stephen Jay Gould tried to solve the missing transition fossil issues by dreaming up his theory called "punctuated equilibrium." And a good theory is was too, suggesting that certain pockets of species evolved quickly, say over 3000 years or so, I think it was, and then they moved into the territory of the older group and took over the range. Or something. I think that's the gist of it. But The Urantia Book, published 17 years earlier than Stephen Jay Gould, already contained an explanation for the phenomena. In The Urantia Book it's called "sudden speciation" and it's built into the evolution recipe like a cake rising is built into a cake with yeast and heat and sugar and so on. With "sudden speciation," one species gives birth to another, new species, like right now. Scientists hate that stuff. They can't explain it without God or some power they refuse to acknowledge. But that can't last forever. A Creator was involved.
Anyway, Christians are not totally off the wall on this. Evolution as it's currently understood has issues.
But you can assert that it's all settled if you like. Assertions R Us.
|
| 1/24/2016 8:38:01 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
According to Wiki a hypothesis is a suggested explanation for something, and a hypothesis becomes a theory when there has been some scientific testing. The article goes on to say that even scientists sometimes use the word "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis".
The evolution hypothesis cannot be tested---not unless scientists somehow produce some members of the species immediately below/prior homo sapien. Scientists have merely guessed that homo sapien evolved from lower species. Jrbogie speaks of DNA similarities. That is evidence, I grant that, but it certainly is not proof.
Scientists---find some male and female members of that species immediately below us. Let them mate. Observe as they evolve into humans. If scientists can do this, then they have a theory. Prove that that is the ONLY way humans came into existence, and we have a proven fact. But right now all it is is a hypothesis.
hey, we're making progress, lud. now you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. did wiki give you the names of some scientists that use the word theory when they mean hypothesis? of course it is wiki so you can go in and edit it you think it'll make your point.
|
| 1/24/2016 8:50:44 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
perhaps the best explanation of a theory that I've seen;
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
|
| 1/24/2016 9:25:17 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
According to Wiki a hypothesis is a suggested explanation for something, and a hypothesis becomes a theory when there has been some scientific testing. The article goes on to say that even scientists sometimes use the word "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis".
The evolution hypothesis cannot be tested---not unless scientists somehow produce some members of the species immediately below/prior homo sapien. Scientists have merely guessed that homo sapien evolved from lower species. Jrbogie speaks of DNA similarities. That is evidence, I grant that, but it certainly is not proof.
Scientists---find some male and female members of that species immediately below us. Let them mate. Observe as they evolve into humans. If scientists can do this, then they have a theory. Prove that that is the ONLY way humans came into existence, and we have a proven fact. But right now all it is is a hypothesis.
I would like to add that abiogenesis also is a theory waiting to be tested and proven. When are scientists going to mix up a bunch of chemicals in a bowl and create an amoeba? Heck, they could even take an amoeba and put it in a blender and use that as a starting point, then they'd know they had all the right chemicals to begin with.
They're up against a wall.
|
| 1/24/2016 10:22:18 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
Unfortunately lud still seems confused as he thinks evolution only pertains to the human animal, It covers all living things not just the great apes evolution is observable in all the species.
For instance Elephants are hunted for the Ivory tusks, after being hunted for the tusks for 200 years they now are being born with shorter tusks( the trait for large tusks is hereditary ).
This trait towards shorter smaller tusks is observable in both the African and Asian Elephant.
This one of many ways of proving the theory of evolution.
|
| 1/24/2016 10:54:49 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
Unfortunately lud still seems confused as he thinks evolution only pertains to the human animal, It covers all living things not just the great apes evolution is observable in all the species.
For instance Elephants are hunted for the Ivory tusks, after being hunted for the tusks for 200 years they now are being born with shorter tusks( the trait for large tusks is hereditary ).
This trait towards shorter smaller tusks is observable in both the African and Asian Elephant.
This one of many ways of proving the theory of evolution.
I, and a lot of people I think, only have 28 teeth. I think 32 used to be standard. I've never had, and don't have any wisdom teeth or buds. I remember when I was a kid, people getting wisdom teeth pulled. We are evolving away from them to a 28 tooth set. But I really don't know how widespread this 32 to 28 trend is.
Look at this!
65:6.5 The continuation of such biologic adjustments is illustrated by the evolution of teeth in the higher Urantia mammals; these attained to thirty-six in man’s remote ancestors, and then began an adaptative readjustment toward thirty-two in the dawn man and his near relatives. Now the human species is slowly gravitating toward twenty-eight. The process of evolution is still actively and adaptatively in progress on this planet. -The Urantia Book
I have 28. I must be very, very advanced. 
[Edited 1/24/2016 10:55:03 PM ]
|
| 1/24/2016 11:02:08 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
*
Ancient Mutation Explains Missing Wisdom Teeth
by Douglas Main | March 13, 2013 05:52pm ET
Impacted third molars, or wisdom teeth, can be very painful.
http://www.livescience.com/27529-missing-wisdom-teeth.html
BOSTON — Many people have suffered from impacted third molars, also known as wisdom teeth. But there are also a lucky few who are missing a wisdom tooth or two (or even all four). Why do some people have wisdom teeth, while others don't?
The answer, partly hinted at in new research presented here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, could also explain why particular ethnic groups, such as the Inuit, have a particularly low occurrence of wisdom teeth.
Some thousands of years ago, a random mutation arose which suppressed the formation of wisdom teeth, a trait that then spread and now accounts for the lack of wisdom teeth among some modern humans, said Princeton University researcher Alan Mann.
*************************************************************
When they were passing out wisdom teeth, I said, "I'll pass."
|
| 1/24/2016 11:23:33 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
I think most people can see evolution through the evidence, unfortunately lud can't see past the catechism.
|
| 1/25/2016 6:03:29 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
aphrodisianus
Leander, TX
66, joined Oct. 2013
|
|
| 1/25/2016 9:32:48 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
We need to define our terms here. What do we mean by the word "evolution"? Does it mean gradual genetic change over time, something that no one can deny, or does it mean one species evolving into another species, or does it mean one species evolving into homo sapiens?
Some mean genetic change over time. They point to things such as the number of teeth people have, ot that people are taller than in past generations. And they are right. Of course this kind of evolution takes place.
Some mean species evolving into other species. Amoebe evolve into paramecia. One kind of mice evolving into another kind. This has been shown to happen.
But what most people are talking about when they address the subject of evolution is the evolution of lower species into human beings. Just because species change within themselves---they get smaller or larger, they have more or fewer teeth, etc.---doesn't prove that humans evolved from another species. And just because amoebe can evolve into paramecia doesn't mean huma ns evolve into other species.
The evolutionists, defined as those who believe that humans evolved from other species, have observed some phenomenon and made a conjecture as to what caused that phenomenon, the dictionary definition of hypothesis. That's as far as they have gotten. To draw an analogy from the criminal justice realm they have enough evidence for a warrant but nearly enough for a conviction, or even an indictment.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:10:43 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
Go read then come back and tell us if you learn any thing new.
http://www.livescience.com/51628-human-evolution-biggest-questions.html
|
| 1/25/2016 11:22:29 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
Evolution explains all living creatures from aardvarks to zebras and azaleas to violets.
Including humans!
|
| 1/25/2016 11:23:56 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
We need to define our terms here. What do we mean by the word "evolution"?
the word is well defined throughout the theory, lud. that you don't realize that just indicates that you've never studied it. why you get into discussions on science topics without first have studied the topic is beyond me. kinda/sorta like me arguing with my mom about knitting when I've never even picked up a pair of needles.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:32:11 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Here's the sleight-of-hand the evolutionists pull: they say evolution (defined as genetic change over time) is a fact, so therefore those who don't believe in evolution (defined as the change to homo sapien from a lower species) are going against scientific fact. That's a complete non sequitar, Jrbogie.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:46:04 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Go read then come back and tell us if you learn any thing new.
http://www.livescience.com/51628-human-evolution-biggest-questions.html[/quote
I checked that website, Older. It spoke of Darwin's theory that species change over time to adapt to changes in the world. Nobody denies that, Older. The issue being debated is, did humans evolve from a different species?
Also, the article on the site said that there is now some scientific evidence that whales walked at one time. Evidence, not proof. But even if whales did walk, how does that prove that humans evolved from another species?
1. Species change over time. Granted.
2. Mammal species, way back in the day, evolved into other species. That's conjecture only.
|
| 1/25/2016 11:47:19 AM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
Actually I thought it fit rather well lud, you obviously know nothing of evolution and should not try to discuss it until you learn at least the basics. It really makes you seem uninformed.
|
| 1/25/2016 12:34:17 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
You evidently didn't read the article or you did not comprehend any of it.
I am tired of talking to someone who can't understand the simplest concept and stubbornly refuses to do any research on their own.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done
|
| 1/25/2016 12:44:01 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
*
For what it's worth:
58:6.2 Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called “missing links” will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed.
58:6.3 From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly.
58:6.4 The sudden appearance of new species and diversified orders of living organisms is wholly biologic, strictly natural. There is nothing supernatural connected with these genetic mutations. The Urantia Book
The words "sudden" and "suddenly" are italicized in the book, so I took the liberty of emphasizing them above too.
I know that "science" doesn't like this sort of thing.
[Edited 1/25/2016 12:44:55 PM ]
|
| 1/25/2016 3:06:17 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
While the evolution believers are hurling insults, FJO presents the real scientific story.
There just isn't the overwhelming evidence that human beingsbevolved from other species. Just because lower species evolved into other lower species does not mean homo sapiens evolved from other species.
|
| 1/25/2016 5:33:45 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
lud sites T.U.B. as scientific evidence 
|
| 1/25/2016 5:42:46 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Maybe not everything in the Ueantia Book is wrong.
Your turn, Older. Let's see your evidence that homo sapien evolved from another species.
|
| 1/25/2016 5:50:33 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
olderthandirt20
Waldron, AR
69, joined Jul. 2014
|
I'm through with people who are incapable of rational thought, my time is better spent laughing at ignorance.
|
| 1/25/2016 5:54:08 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
clarence2
South Yorkshire
United Kingdom
58, joined May. 2011
|
.
Maybe not everything in the Ueantia Book is wrong.
The Urantia book's sudden speciation claim is a discarded hypothesis from the early 20th century - like the book's equally discarded eugenics ideas. And furch's earlier posts on page one are creationist quote mines of evolutionary biologists, that without the surrounding context make the scientists appear to be doubting the theory.
|
| 1/25/2016 6:24:17 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
rufftreasure
Fairmont, MN
61, joined Jun. 2014
online now!
|
I'm through with people who are incapable of rational thought, my time is better spent laughing at ignorance.
That's what gets me in the Iggy Bin
Did he put you there too??
|
| 1/25/2016 6:29:03 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
clarencec2 says:
The Urantia book's sudden speciation claim is a discarded hypothesis from the early 20th century
If so, it was discarded without proof. What proves "sudden speciation" never occurs?
- like the book's equally discarded eugenics ideas.
The idea of racial improvement has not been discarded. What proof do you have of this claim?
|
| 1/25/2016 6:36:30 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
perhaps the best explanation of a theory that I've seen;
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
Scientific theories are testable
Well that certainly makes the Big Bang "Theory" a HYPOTHESIS.
|
| 1/25/2016 6:53:44 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
63, joined Feb. 2008
online now!
|
Sudden speciation may be a hypothesis, but the notion that man evolved from some other species is also a hypothesis.
Evolution believers, here's how you prove your hypothesis---bring two apes into the laboratory, let them mate, and if a human being is born, you have proved your hypothesis, and I too will believe in evolution. Is that a deal?
|
| 1/25/2016 7:06:05 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
I think I have read where humans have on the order of 95% of the same DNA as chimpanzees.
|
| 1/25/2016 7:40:52 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Scientific theories are testable
Well that certainly makes the Big Bang "Theory" a HYPOTHESIS.
so you don't thing the theory has been tested? I suppose that makes since as you don't seem to have studied the theory much. now I suspect you'll come back with "how has it been tested" even further confirming your lack of familiarity with the theory so anticipating such i'll again refer you to some further reading. I simply can't educate you. only you can do that.
|
| 1/25/2016 7:56:02 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
so you don't thing the theory has been tested? I suppose that makes since as you don't seem to have studied the theory much. now I suspect you'll come back with "how has it been tested" even further confirming your lack of familiarity with the theory so anticipating such i'll again refer you to some further reading. I simply can't educate you. only you can do that.
You are acting rather snobbish and condescending. If you have done the research you say I need why don't you just go ahead and state HOW the Big Bang Theory is even testable if you think you know?
|
| 1/25/2016 8:03:54 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
You are acting rather snobbish and condescending. If you have done the research you say I need why don't you just go ahead and state HOW the Big Bang Theory is even testable if you think you know?
as expected. where have I said how much research I've done? I've stated time and again that my amateurish "research" amounts to reading only what other credentialed researchers have done? I think we're pretty much done here as we've reached a logjam and getting nowhere. that said, just a few of the tools used for testing would include hubble, cassini, wmap, the large hedron collider and others. there is plenty of accredited writings on all of them.
|
| 1/25/2016 8:52:31 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
kb2222
Jacksonville, FL
75, joined Apr. 2011
|
as expected. where have I said how much research I've done? I've stated time and again that my amateurish "research" amounts to reading only what other credentialed researchers have done? I think we're pretty much done here as we've reached a logjam and getting nowhere. that said, just a few of the tools used for testing would include hubble, cassini, wmap, the large hedron collider and others. there is plenty of accredited writings on all of them.
Okay you have named some tools but that isn't what I am asking. How is/was the BB theory tested? Indeed, how is it even possible to "test" and prove such a HYPOTHESIS?
|
| 1/25/2016 9:09:35 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
jrbogie1949
Red Bluff, CA
67, joined Mar. 2009
|
Okay you have named some tools but that isn't what I am asking. How is/was the BB theory tested? Indeed, how is it even possible to "test" and prove such a HYPOTHESIS?
one final time. some reading about the tools I mentioned will help you understand how they have worked in testing the theory. and once again, it's not an hypothesis, it's a theory and yes again, a theory can never be proved. off to do some reading. a crime novel. completely fictitious. won't learn a thing.
|
| 1/25/2016 9:22:52 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
While the evolution believers are hurling insults, FJO presents the real scientific story.
There just isn't the overwhelming evidence that human beingsbevolved from other species. Just because lower species evolved into other lower species does not mean homo sapiens evolved from other species.
Um, well, it's complicated. You might should read the book. It's really a good read.
|
| 1/25/2016 9:23:54 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
.
Maybe not everything in the Ueantia Book is wrong.
The Urantia book's sudden speciation claim is a discarded hypothesis from the early 20th century - like the book's equally discarded eugenics ideas. And furch's earlier posts on page one are creationist quote mines of evolutionary biologists, that without the surrounding context make the scientists appear to be doubting the theory.
I knew those would smoke you out.
|
| 1/28/2016 2:25:35 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
.
Maybe not everything in the Ueantia Book is wrong.
The Urantia book's sudden speciation claim is a discarded hypothesis from the early 20th century - like the book's equally discarded eugenics ideas. And furch's earlier posts on page one are creationist quote mines of evolutionary biologists, that without the surrounding context make the scientists appear to be doubting the theory.
Who made you The Great Arbiter of what has been "discarded" and what is valid? And if you are not The Great Arbiter of such things, why do you talk as if you are, and who is?
You simply can't go around announcing that something has been "discarded." How has sudden speciation been discarded? You never say how. You just make the assertion without any backup. If sudden speciation has been "discarded," then "punctuated equilibrium" is equally bogus, and that was all the scientific rage not long ago. As soon as Stephen Jay Gould dies you discard his theories too? Is that what happened?
And don't even think about discrediting anyone regarding quote mines, unless, and until you can explain them. You make a lot of assertions without any backup.
Please explain what this clear quote below means, and stop calling it a "quote mine" as if it's wrong to quote people. Truly, the science emperor has no clothes. Why do you get to make assertions without having to prove anything, and why do you get to disparage legitimate quotes by calling them "quote mines"? Something ain't right here.
Richard Dawkins: "For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Charles Darwin: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."
Stephen Jay Gould: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms."
Debunk these. Don't just call them "quote mines" and walk away as if your case is made. It's not. And don't just assert that some theory has been "discarded" just because you say so.
|
| 1/28/2016 2:49:35 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
And furch's earlier posts on page one are creationist quote mines of evolutionary biologists, that without the surrounding context make the scientists appear to be doubting the theory.
Well, what exactly is the secret "surrounding context" that makes these quotes below wrong?
Richard Dawkins: "For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Charles Darwin: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."
Stephen Jay Gould: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms."
|
| 1/28/2016 2:53:21 PM |
Evidence for the Evolution Hypothesis |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
73, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
|