Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[chad_tukes]

---

MACROEVOLUTION - Evolution on the grand scale resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, large scale functional and structural changes.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html

[Hellblazer]

what happens on a micro-level clearly affects/reflects on the macro-level.

[Hellblazer]

"As above, so below." - Hermes Trismegistus

[Tattva]

what happens on a micro-level clearly affects/reflects on the macro-level.

correct.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

listen to yourself mr.ho....science does not condone any DOGMATIC beliefs.haha

in the scientific milieu:
a fact is accepted because other explanations haven’t proven to be worth consideration; not because it’s true. science deals with provisional explanations to invite better ones, religion insists on dogma to survive them.

see you are very jumpy...evolution may not be the BEST thing ever....but it is the best as of NOW within the bounderies of our "knowledge pool"...we're still getting there remember that, we are looking for better ones...so far wala pa, so evolution still stands.

if you consider yourself a man of evidence mr.ho....you wouldn't be relying on FAITH for creationism.

thats what happens when religion and its dogmatic beliefs "INTERFERE" scientific study...it ruins progress....and sent us into the DARK AGES.

sorry bro, this in not the place where you need to preach your bible....unless you consider your bible as a scientific textbook of some sort.

Yah science supposedly doesn't condone any DOGMATIC Beliefs. that's why evidence are to be presented.

Again:
there is no stopping any scientist from pushing the walls to find evidence, by all means it is a worthy cause, but until such evidence is final, let's be critical about it and see it as a "none-fact theory" and not as evidence itself!

yah evolution is the best you have right now. but sad to say it will not stand scientific scrutiny, and as such it will remain to be a theory that all scientist will have to work on to until evidence in the strict scientific sense is achieve. It is a worthwhile theory but none-fact theory, no scientific evidence yet. us such it will not be held as the truth, but rather a work in progress only!

and lets stick to that boundaries and not go beyond it, making assumptions that defy already known scientific facts because it will no longer be fit to be science but of Faith and religion!

agree, let not religion interfere with science, let the facts and evidence be the sole basis of our conclusion, therefore the evolution theory will remain as such ... again a non-fact theory that is awaiting evidence, not scientifically proven! it goes beyond the boundaries of yours and ours scientific knowledge pool


that's the difference M666. Creation and believing in GOD goes with Faith. there is no evidence that is needed, although there are scientific evidence to prove HIS existence, but faith is part and parcel of it.

What evolution is saying is that you have science with you! scientific evidence and nothing to do with faith. well sir, you should think twice already, because none of the evolutionist here have given any evidence of evolution claims the one that is exact science, the one evidence that will stand the test of time and the court of law and scientific scrutiny. NONE not one!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

You know what, To tell you the truth i am not confused at all.

where is my confusion? can you enligthen me pls?

oh the bible is not a scientific book, and there is no Evidence from Science that a God created something. What Science have are observable data that you dont like to accept because you prefer to believe in an entity called Creator God that cant be falsified and thats a dangerous thing. I think it is more confusing to believe in a Creator who breathe whatever it is and who knows what into a dirty pile of mud and suddenly turned into a human being,hahaha.

this is the question that you should be asking my angry christian friend...

1) Are there any evidence that an entity called God breathe something into this pile of mud and formed a human being out from the dust of the earth?
2)Are there any observable trend in the moleculart level that will tell us that a God was observed?


you know why? because Science have observable trend. do you have any Scientific mechanism that a creator God was responsible for all of this?

Start answering...

well what you say is different from how you behave. you are indeed confuse monk!

meditate, so the buddha in you will reveal the path away from confusion.

well, you are indeed confuse alot, as I have said before I have faith in GOD! and I don't need scientific evidence ( although there is) to know that in creation there is a creator. just like when i see a painting, i may not know who the painter is but i am most definite that there is a painter. i am in front of a laptop, i don't know who made this laptop but i certainly know that there is a laptop maker. seeing a watch, one would know that there is watch maker, etc... etc... etc...

can we say the same with evolution? meaning to say that even though we don't know exactly how it works evolution is there? ....... if so, then this is not science isn't it? it is religion? you have two now... congratulations.... the first evolutionist monk! hahaha. maybe not......... who knows? who cares?!

kaya nga faith eh! just like being a buddha and the buddha in you, do you have evidence? well you have faith as well. but that is beside the point monk! see how confused you are, dragging faith and science all together!

and out of your confusion you admitted ignorance and defeat all together... hahaha. just because you can't prove evolution with science as you so profess, you turn the table to religion and faith? hahaha

dong. FAITH nga eh! who needs science in Faith? you? bwahahahaha! but obviously you needed faith in your science!

that's right science is observable, hey i have a good idea... please let us observe also, how you apes became humans now. put it in youtube version and tattva brand of evolution. bwahahaha!

This guy is really angry hahaha

i think i need to address this anger first...

ok you said that i need to give Scientific evidence and not buddhism? Now show me when and where did i used buddhism to prove evolution? pls quote me.

because if you cant then you are in danger of misrepresenting my idea again, and thats a great Sin. rght?, for a christian to commit because it means False ACCUSATION, like the accuser the Devil.

Show me...

I am angry? bwahahahaha, you should meditate more because your loosing it! the buddha in you is slowly fading. if i am not mistaken your a meat eating evolutionist monk, are you? bwahahaha. confused really!

use buddhism to prove evolution? you actually didn't prove anything at all, because the thing you can't even start to understand you meditate and surrender to buddha.... bwahahaha... and the thing that you can manipulate, you quote science terms and processes! then tie it up to evolution so that it will look as if an evidence when infact all you've done was to confuse people not intentionally though because you are confused yourself.

hahaha. an evolutionist and a buddhist believing in the devil..... calling me one...... whoa.... whoa.... i will be watching you... whoa.... whoa.... bwahahahahaha. one word for you ..... confused!

you better calm down monk. meditate so that your mind will be free and you will see clearly because it is clouded and your are one confused meat eating evolutionist monk who i think have not evolve completely... if there is such thing. my two cents lang!

hi my false accuser Christian friend...

You got it all wrong...from a distance it sure looks like a horse? not all of it. See yourself as walking in a jungle then suddenly you saw a creaturte that has a body of a horse but a face that has the same feature of a giraffe and a horse-zebra, what comes into your mind? Nothing you wouldnt know until somebody will tell you,somebody like a scientist, will tell you that it belongs to the Horse family.

Now here is a question...How did that happened? how can a creature like that with horse parents would look something like that?

start answering...dont tell me that its mix breeding.hahahaha. Because if my memory serves me right, creatioinists do not believe in mix breeding in between two different kinds.

By the way i remember asking you this question but up until now i still got nothing from you.

Then a follow up question...What is macroevolution?



i want to provide a link...see the picture


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13218557/

I am quite sure that a three year old will know that a zebra and a horse are of the same kind and you a different kind even put side by side with each other. easy to spot. i don't need a scientist to tell me that. bwahahahaha, you need one to tell you that? confuse indeed. well, that what happens if the brain wasn't able to evolve completely.

here's another example... a fox, a dog and a wolf......... surely they are of the same kind... and if you are put beside them a three year old will not need a scientist to tell him that the first three are of the same kind and you're different. right. but of course you will need one as you have said you need a scientist to tell you that... bwahahahaha!

you want me to prove how a fox, and a dog and a wolf came to be? and you don't need proof or evidence how dirt becomes an ape and eventually you? common on! you must be really a confused monk! bwahaha!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13218557/ ---- this is evolution to you? you definite that this is not because of cross breeding one after another. This is solely because of evolution? sure ka? hahaha. just because you see something like a horse, zabre and a giraff you assume that they evolve from one to the other. bwahahaaha.

if you see a person affected by dwarfism, gigantism, retardation and a normal human being, you will also conclude that one evolve from the other? bwahahahaha. see how your reasoning is corrupted. it is not an evidence for evolution! you are just confused monk!

what evidence? that there is a million years or evidence for microevolution? stay on topic we are discussing evolution not the age of the earth.

that thae wolrd is millions of years old! i want to know what is your basis, what technology you used and how you come up with the definite time table of billions of years.... but if you say buddha revealed it to you and not science then, i will respect that, no problem. but if you say it is scientific fact. i want to see evidence!

you're that one who raised that the earth is billions of years old to support your shaky arguments on evolution.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

guys i think tsakto by c mr. ho chia sa kad2 na fact about genetic chances na it's almost like impossible but come to think of it, it's like hitting a bullseye from a kilometer with a pin needle...sounds impossible?right but imagine hitting that bullseye for 65million years everyday!!! im sure naa jud tsamba ana dba? tsamba or divine intervention?

that is if they can prove the world is billions of years old. because frankly speaking no substantial technology that can definitely say accurately the age of the earth that is being used by evolutionist. the margin of errors is billion of years apart also.

one application they employ is to use the fossils to date the earth age and use the earth age to date the fossils. see how manipulative and confused.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Yes according to Biology by virtue of Common Descent.


This is evolution based on Biology not biology based on evolution.

"As above, so below." - Hermes Trismegistus

correct.

care to show scientific evidence?
to dispel assumptions and speculations made by conclusive statements in the absence of real evidence

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Creationists wanting to refute the evidence of microevolution to support macroevolution would say that minimal changes in microevolution do not imply LARGE CHANGES("macroevolution- a term used by creationist but lacks concrete definiton).


why? According to them that minimal changes only apply to variation within kind. Meaning that a horse can never be something else but a horse.


But these conclusions are based on false assumptions because microevolution is just one of the 29+ evidence for evolution. Other evidence includes fossil record, patterns of similarities and differences between living species, and genetic comparisons. Gathering all the DATA from those evidence will give us a clear picture of evolution on a grand scale. Then CREATIONISTS fail to give a genetic mechanism limiting changes.


Unsay pasabot ani?

walay mechanism or any scientific data nga mo limit sa changes meaning any changes is possible including from one kind to another kind.

walay instruction sa atong GENES nga ni ingun nga oi dili ra ktuob imong change ha,dili naka puede mo change into another kind kutob ra ka sa iro. NO,there is no INSTRUCTIONS from our genes nga mo LIMIT sa changes. So any changes is possible. Mao ng ang claim sa mga creationist nga limited ang change within sa kind is a conclusion based on FALSE ASSUMPTION. If anyone wants to contest this by all means give your Scientific mechanism stating limitations in genetic variation.


I still have a lot to say but lets give our friends here a chance to say something.

that is not an assumption but that is what we see now. observable science and at the same time it can be repeated. it qualified to be an empiric science.

macro evolution---- none, but speculations and assumptions design to support a theory without scientific evidence.

fossil records are not evidence for evolution. fossils are petrified organisms, preserved in the dept of the earth. when you excavate one. it doesn't go with a date. 2nd it does not say anything it is the human mind that imagine what it could have been, now I don't say that should not be, but rather i say, the assumptions are to be check and tested if indeed it is true or will just stay as an assumption. but most imaginative and imagination of evolutionist made those assumptions to be facts without scientific evidence and that should not be in science.

creationist should not be the one to give genetics limiting mechanism. it is already a fact of science that if a certain trait is not in the gene the organism will never develop it. like for example the recessive gene of a blue eyed Caucasian. Not in the asians with out lineage for that gene!

another point, mutation in the gene produces more harm, the best useless. like dwarfism, gigantism, retardation those are genetic mutations, and most of them don't live long. another useless mutations is an organism developing more fingers, 7 out of the usual 5. the gene for finger growth is already there.

and in science you don't look for limitations that will hamper your assumptions as evidence --- that it is not possible for the assumption to prosper but rather you will look for direct evidence that will directly support your assumption. that's sound and logical reasoning.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

what do you think of this creature...a pciture is provided in this link.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13218557/


copy paste it if it wont work.

Sit tattva. This is not evidence for evolution!

as I have said in the other thread... if you see an individual with dwarfism, gigantism, retardation and a normal individual. would you assume that one evolved from the other?