Evolution is a joke pt V

Because if you are going to call gravity a law because there are laws of gravity then gravity is also a theory, nitwit. And of course you're going to go on a long tirade to wimp out on being wrong about gravity being constant. See ya.

 

Now as expected - here comes the Peanut Gallery when they "think" they can get me... When they "THINK" they can prove me wrong in anything!

You all reading this? Like chicken (*)(*)(*)(*) gang bangers who have to team up on folks because they are too weak to do battle on their own - here they come...

Blah blah blah - evolution was proved wrong by you so I'll post this to satisfy how I was duped into believe in it to begin with... Blah blah blah..

Blah blah blah - I know I was asked a question and don't want to answer because I don't know crap dealing with evolution so I'll post this... Blah blah blah...

PEANUT GALLERY - A group of people whose opinions are considered unimportant.

Nice try Peanuts... You all didn't get the name for nothing now did ya? Why don't you post more and divert from the questions about your religion! See how you all have been reading... Reading this whole time and as soon as you think you got me - you all come in and do what? Act EXACTLY how I predicted from the beginning!

You all act like religious nut cases (as not all religious folks are nuts, but you get the idea) that know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION, BUT YOU ARE THE LOUDEST AND MOST AGGRESSIVELY BIAS ABOUT OTHER THINGS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AND THUS WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR RELIGION - WHAT DO YOU DO?

Like clock work...

Just look above!!! Did any of them address anything when I called them about about the experiments? Some had questioned directed to them - did they answer those?

They do what they know how to do - duck, dodge and Google! Their religion is crap and when they post you can smell it in their posts...

As I said before NEVER have I seen such a pathetic group of sorry individuals as the Peanut Gallery as they try SO HARD to discredit me... That's fine discredit away!! Still does nothing for those reading as you NEVER answer the questions before you about your crap smelling religion...

Hey Peanut Gallery - you all evolved from Dung Beetles!

 

I already said I was wrong NITWIT!!! REEEEEEAAD!!!!!

Please explain where the hell do you get that if someone is "going to call gravity a law because there are laws of gravity then gravity is also a theory". You have any links on that retardation Grasping?

 

Also - you are at 69 FAIL's... Just thought I'd let you know... You got one for posting something stupid that there is only one type of fossilization. That sea and land animals fall under the same type of fossilization!

Yep - 69 FAIL's... Zero for 69!!!!

 

Oh, then I owe you an apology. I am sincerely sorry. Anyways, you are saying that gravity is a law and not a theory and then you pointed to the Newtonian law. So, there is a Newtonian law on gravity, thus gravity becomes a law? If you knew what a scientific law actually was then your statement would make literally no sense.

A law in science explains a fundamental principle, like the Newtonian law of universal gravitation, but to simply say that gravity is a law is absurd. Saying that because the gravitation rate on Earth is 9.8 m/s^2 it is a law makes literally no sense. That isn't a fundamental principle, obviously, considering it changes at different elevations and on different planets.

So, anyways, back to your logic. You were saying that because there is a law of gravity, gravity is a law. Well, there is also a theory of gravity, so by your logic, wouldn't gravity also be a theory?

 

A scientific Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. Consequently, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed. Scientific laws are commonly found to be false when extrapolated beyond the circumstances under which they were originally observed. For example, modern physics describes gravity using the general theory of relativity. Newton's universal law of gravity provides an accurate approximation of gravitational forces in many physical situations BUT Newton's law fails when applied to relativistic gravitational calculations. A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with scientific laws that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Your claims that the ToE does not qualify as a scientific theory is contrary to the consensus scientific position as well as the position statements of every major scientific academy and association including the US National Academy of Sciences. The ToE is based on a massive, multi-disciplinary set of empirical and measurable data. The ToE is based on information gathered from the scientific method- procedures that characterize natural science consisting of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment that results in the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. The assumption that the ToE is not falsifiable is absolutely incorrect. Any number of observations, experiments and/or measurements could unequivocally disprove the ToE. The fact that all credible scientific evidence supports the ToE doesn't mean that the theory can not be falsified it means that arguments against the validity of the ToE are not based on any credible scientific evidence.

Here are links to bonafide scientific examples of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

The ToE is stronger than it has ever been. The dataset supporting is only getting larger and more robust. What you have failed to realize is that evolution is so well supported that is now considered a scientific theory thus arguing against the ToE is just as foolish as arguing against the theory of gravity.

 

Evolution, which is common descent with modification has never passed the scientific method in no way shape or form. If you think so – how did it pass? Also, you said measurement and experimentation – please provide the measurements of evolution (what is evolution measured in – units of evolution) and any experiment that shows common descent… The point of being “falsified” is every time evolution get shot in the knee cap they just come up with an excuse to say, “This doesn’t mean evolution isn’t a fact and life evolved on this planet…” If you think evolution can be falsified – please explain how and why?

Do you think speciation and evolution are the same thing? I hope you do realize that they are not the same thing…

What “is” the dataset for evolution? What is the “math” behind evolution. I do find it funny when people post the generic “gravity” posts. Gravity has math backing it. Unless you can produce an equation for rate of change in ANY lifeform, I suggest you refrain from comparing the two since they are nothing alike. Gravity can’t be compared to String Theory, nor any other theory – to do so is going “outside” of what science is and playing school yard games – just because this is like this, then this is the same - not how we work!!

Each and every hypothesis MUST be looked at individually. When I hear people posting about “other” theories, it leads me to believe they do not know anything about how things work dealing with phenomenon’s and I am usually right. Unless, you can draw a line between the two theories (mathematical equations) – discussing them as equals is just, plainly put, wrong. This is equivalent in trying to compare the theory of Alchemy with the theory of Instinctive Behavior. They have nothing to do with each other and to mention one in a discussion – you better expect to be looked at as if you said something retarded (because you just did) or just dismissed.

 

That's everybodies logic Grasping...

The theory is why large (mass) objects even "have" gravity! Why do people sleep? How do jellyfish work?

Who cares! If you want to go all off topic start another thread... We are talking about evotion.. Not sleep, not instinct, not any other than evolution.

If you want to talk about Gravity - do it in another thread. If Gravity exists or doesn't exist it plays no part in the mechanisms of evolution on the basis of evolutions definition, thus it should and shall be deemed retarded to bring up within the conversation dealing with common descent with modification.

Do you understand?

 

Readers...

Do you know why they believe in science, but believe in evolution which is common descent with modification without science providing anything dealing with evolution concrete?

I have seen many posts "saying" there is evidence of this "evolution", but still have yet to see it in any way?

If any of you have seen it and I just missed it, could you please "relink" the post that I missed please!

Glad to be back!

 

This is Gaia - and this is what is called experimentation and math that coincides with the hypothesis of Gaia.

There is math... There is predictions from said math... they even explain with the math they have provided from the experiment you may run your own.

http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~dmb53/DaveSTELLA/Daisyworld/daisyworld_model.htm

Here is another:

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105b/1425chap9.htm

and assignment for predictions dealing with the experiment of Gaia:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~smpenny/111/homeworks/EC2.pdf

There is PLENTY of internet links and documentation dealing with the "HYPOTHESIS" of Gaia. Why has it not passed the Scientific Method you ask? We have no evidence of this, it is only a hypothesis, even with the math, due to the absence of the phenomenon.

So I ask... How in the turnip is evolution a theory? Do you see what I provided for what is a "HYPOTHESIS"??!?! It's all there - the math - the experiment - everything science needs!

So... Where are the links that show this for evolution? Where is the math? Where is the experimentation? Where is.... Well.... ANYTHING?!??!

 

how about finish or close the thread with a fact of logic that anyone can reason:



if existence only operates ONE way, is the math the name to know?

 

You believe in evolution - where is your math? Or do you not think math is not relevent?

 

You can lead a horse to water but ...........

 

Now, I will add this... What was the Earth like in the Precambrian period? What is needed for a fossil?

The question I ask is this - was the Precambrian period conducive to producing fossils? It's hard enough to get them now, what was the Earth like during this time for a fossil to form?

What was the Earth's surface like? How a fossil happens is like 1 our of 1 septillion to the power of 10 if not more taking into account of how many fossils we have compared to how much life has lived and died on our planet.

So, let us take into account what the planet was like - was there conditions for rare fossilization to occur like it can now, or were condition quite different to where fossilization is close to impossible on the Earth's surface?

Because... to state that a rabbit didn't live in the Precambrian period would suggest that the Earth was identical to what it is today, which nontheless, still makes fossils ridiculous to form. Then we tack on the time frame to millions of years and then types of fossilation that can last that long and we come to some pretty difficult problems.

The religion you believe in is ridiculous because those who believe do not know crap on what the science is the kicks your religion in the backside!

Evolution is a joke - a religion... No more - no less...

 

You can't make him believe in religion!