Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[mordecai_327]

---

ahhhm, you sound like you have something to settle with the pope and his ministry or sumthing. nevertheless, thats none of my business.

...me neither.

even demons shudder.haha jowk
sure, on a sidenote... most self righteous people around here treat atheists like of demon decent, those atheist guys dont even believe in god so much for demons...yet here we are calling a distant brother from another god belief orientation demons...oh well, thats how the cookie crumbled.

...so you're categorizing me as one? How sad tsktsktsk! Cite a single post where I did so.

clearly you have no background on what evolution is all about...why dont you catch up with your reading...then we discuss. that would be better than a monotonous discussion coming from one side of the table.

...seems like you knew me at all, hehehe.

[turbomark]

are you for real?
clearly that is not what evolution is about...no wonder, you sound funny.

naks kung tukion nato ang missing link sa evolution duwa na lang ta DOTA oi malingaw pa ta....pero kung gustohon gyud matuki for the sake of sharing of ideas why not...

[turbomark]

so para sa akoa not worth believing since dili pa nila gani mareconcile ang mga missing links
mao bitaw nabahin ang mga scientists: ang creationists og evolutionists kay magkasumpaki ilang mga point of views so kinsa man sa ilaha atong tuhoan? kinsa sa ila ang gasulti sa tinuod......

whereas bisag nagkalandrakas lang ni mga naginterpret sa bible but magkahiusa og moyukbo lang gihapon when you mention GOD...apil muslim ha

human minds is gamatitoy ra kaayoog limited ra ang kaalam komapara sa mind sa Creator nga gahimo sa tanang
then proud sila nga mosangyaw nga we have unleashed how the universe began....
wow great minds huh missing link lang gani kotkot na ulo...

but again it's up to us to choose which side ta modapig...

[Sinyalan]

sharing....aren't we all.haha

Pre, aren't we doing it in the first place? For the sake of "sharing". The modern equivalent of a geocentric universe. Science proves irrefutably that causal, linear events led up to the ecosystem we see today. Since this idea just so happens to go against Christian doctrine, it is condemned by many Christians, who put forth a pseudoscience known as creationism, or intelligent design, in response.

Creationism is non-scientific, as there is no way to test it using empirical data. Many creationists see perceived flaws in evolutionary theory as proof that creationism is true and provable. This is not true because

1.The so-called flaws are rooted in the misunderstanding or ignoring of the mechanics of evolution. Arguments such as "irreducible complexity" illustrate that creationists do not understand the process of evolution. Evolution is yet to be discredited in the scientific community, where it is accepted universally.
2.Disproving one theory does not make another theory any more credible. Even though theory A may have been disproved, theory B still must make its case based on sound scientific data.

Creationists also believe that the world is in the order of 6,000 years old, which can easily be disproved with radiometric dating. Creationists say that this technology is inaccurate, but have no proof of this whatsoever. Creationists also use the argument "Evolution is just a theory." All that this argument does is show that they don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Debunking creationism (by virtue of exposing the fallacy of the "young Earth" theory) is very easy. Any high school student has the capability to do so. Scientists do not waste their time even addressing it at this point, as there has never been so much as a single piece of evidence in support of it. Those who claim to be creation scientists are not scientists at all, as they cannot apply the scientific method to their theories.

by Professor Richard Bube of Stanford University (2007)

[Hellblazer]

so why wont you give your evidence so that you will open closed minds. those are all your assumption. evidence infront of them, i am dying to see one. spill it out instead of making personal statements.

look at yourself on the mirror. there's your evidence.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Pre, aren't we doing it in the first place? For the sake of "sharing". The modern equivalent of a geocentric universe. Science proves irrefutably that causal, linear events led up to the ecosystem we see today. Since this idea just so happens to go against Christian doctrine, it is condemned by many Christians, who put forth a pseudoscience known as creationism, or intelligent design, in response.

Creationism is non-scientific, as there is no way to test it using empirical data. Many creationists see perceived flaws in evolutionary theory as proof that creationism is true and provable. This is not true because

1.The so-called flaws are rooted in the misunderstanding or ignoring of the mechanics of evolution. Arguments such as "irreducible complexity" illustrate that creationists do not understand the process of evolution. Evolution is yet to be discredited in the scientific community, where it is accepted universally.
2.Disproving one theory does not make another theory any more credible. Even though theory A may have been disproved, theory B still must make its case based on sound scientific data.

Creationists also believe that the world is in the order of 6,000 years old, which can easily be disproved with radiometric dating. Creationists say that this technology is inaccurate, but have no proof of this whatsoever. Creationists also use the argument "Evolution is just a theory." All that this argument does is show that they don't understand what a scientific theory is.

Debunking creationism (by virtue of exposing the fallacy of the "young Earth" theory) is very easy. Any high school student has the capability to do so. Scientists do not waste their time even addressing it at this point, as there has never been so much as a single piece of evidence in support of it. Those who claim to be creation scientists are not scientists at all, as they cannot apply the scientific method to their theories.

by Professor Richard Bube of Stanford University (2007)

Nindot kung mag cut ka ug paste kay klaro. hehe

and you think evolution is empirical science? you must be kidding me. either you're joking or you don't understand it at all.

the real question is, how can you prove evolution with science, i have been asking that from the start.... but all i get is vague and unclear explanations, no definite evidence. if it is science there should be! but if it is a religion, then no worries, you don't need to prove it with science.

here's another view about radiometric dating:

The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have

also carbon dating is employed by evolutionist in dating the earth age, but funny, how they dated a living snail to be 27,000 yrs old using the same techniques. you see it is not accurate as well. hahaha

and indeed the world is 6000 yrs old not billions of years old! the Bible says so!

[Mr.Ho_chia]

look at yourself on the mirror. there's your evidence.

i am sorry, i thought evolution is supported by science, i never knew that it would be snowwhite and the 7 dwarfs. mirror, mirror on the wall.... bwahahaha!

[Sinyalan]

Nindot kung mag cut ka ug paste kay klaro. Hehe

--salamat!

and you think evolution is empirical science? you must be kidding me. either you're joking or you don't understand it at all.

--op kors evolution is empirical science! Why wouldn’t it be? Does creationism give experimental observations? I think not. Because all you do is typically would agree that everything is all about FAITH IN GOD. God did it. Where is you experimental science there ho chia? I’m not joking, do you see me joking?

the real question is, how can you prove evolution with science, i have been asking that from the start.... but all i get is vague and unclear explanations, no definite evidence. if it is science there should be! but if it is a religion, then no worries, you don't need to prove it with science.

--didn’t you take my advice to read? I guess not, because you keep on repeating the same issues over and over. If you keep on repeating the same questions, you will get the same answer. What’s vague and unclear explanations to you because you have a preconceived religious belief… that all is nothing without faith. Does science need faith in god to observe things experimental? Wala di ba? Evolution is religion and not science… di ba creationism adopted science to prove that there is intelligent designer? Up until now, your creationist scientists can’t even prove a tiny bit of evidence, why? Let’s have faith because it will soon come out through the grace of god. That’s no experiment… that’s simply giving up hope of discovering worthy for your creationists minds.

here's another view about radiometric dating:

The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

---here’s what I can advice for you ho chia because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read radiometry. Besides, there is an instrument that can be used to date objects… isn’t it work both ways because if found out nga the dates are wrong then they have sufficient data to agree upon. You only see errors but you don’t see the use of it. Nurse man unta… you should be familiar with all scientific tools pre because you work in a hospital (or maybe not). Do you have any alternative ways to date an object? If there are any, I’m sure FAITH is included to determine age decaying objects. Radiometric dating is a fact not magic. Btw, nice cut and paste bro… clear pod kaayo.

The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have

--ah, so you are only looking at errors but you neglected the use and results that were discovered. Is there any instrument in creationist department that can determine the earth’s age? I bet there is… BIBLE. do you think that your bible is consistent to date the earth? Oh, we can do that… let’s have faith…. That was easy. No need for sophisticated scientific tools because we already have one, BIBLE. NOT. Besides, suya lang mo nga wala moy radiometric dating instrument to prove your creationist minds.

also carbon dating is employed by evolutionist in dating the earth age, but funny, how they dated a living snail to be 27,000 yrs old using the same techniques. you see it is not accurate as well. Hahaha

--My suggestion again pre, read all about carbon dating because you are outdated with scientific tools. Give yourself a favor, UPDATE YOURSELF.

and indeed the world is 6000 yrs old not billions of years old! the Bible says so!

--what a shame. Hey, ho chia, have you heard or read the discoveries of fossilized bones of dinosaurs? How old were they? Your bible is outdated and that is so.

[Sinyalan]

i am sorry, i thought evolution is supported by science, i never knew that it would be snowwhite and the 7 dwarfs. mirror, mirror on the wall.... bwahahaha!

Di ba you don't deny that man was created by magic? are you created through magic? you live in a mgical world ho chia make a not to that.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

sinyalan. empirical science means ---- you can observe and repeat. evolution is empirical? cge kuno be, repeat it.... how you ape becomes you! --- that's your problem kay you don't understand what your talking about! you don't even know whats empirical science means.

advance reading? maski asa ka basa dong no evolution book can give you detailed evolution process, ang isulti ra kay basta ni -happen due too gene mutations. mao ra. evolution can not even prove where matter, space and energy came from. is that your empirical science? you must be kidding me!

read radiometry, of course i did. but it is not proven to be accurate and the margin of errors is just to wide to be basis of factual findings. no amount of readings will change that!
looking for errors you say? looking for factual science not errors. throwing away unsubstanciated claims is more like it!

update. hahaha. look at yourself sinyalan, the technique employed is still flawed. living snails dated 27,000 years old and youwnat me to update myself? common, wake up! open your eyes is more like it!

fossilized bones. and you know how they determine age? they use earth granulations to age fossils but they use fossils to age the earth too. circular process. use the earth to age fossils and use fossils to age the earth. bwahahahaha, scientific baloneys!

when you dig a fossil there's no tag that goes with it. you're a shame to the real evolutionist!