Why Evolution is not true?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well, if I thought that he believed the stuff he was posting, I'd agree completely with you, Kyu. After reading all of his posts, I'm beginning to see a pattern that indicates he's just trolling, and doesn't merit serious time or consideration. He's been warned, and if he shapes up, then I'll be happy to change my opinion of him. I was simply suggesting to oldschool that he not bother to go to all the effort, especially since it was frustrating to him.

It's a fair point though I don't think he was merely doing it for jollies, I think he believed some (if not all) of that rubbish and the fact that his spelling and grammar were so bad seems to fall in line with many of the theists I've "met" online ... not that we atheists are completely clear in that respect but I tend to be a bit pedantic sometimes.

Whether he was a troll or not though is almost academic ... I still feel he has to be opposed my usual reason being because of the lurkers.

Kyu

[Messenger]

My blind belief? You are calling decades of research and scientific finding blind? Is it not you that believes in that which he can not see, touch, smell, or hear? That makes your belief blind, deaf and utterly senseless.

A BMW factory has nothing to do with it, cars are inanimate objects that are not subject to Darwinian evolution, get that through your head  :brick:  

[Messenger]

Because it can not come from nothing

Agreed it must be explainable but it is possible not to know as yet.

Yes, but it must be external source

There is nothing called magnetic signature and even if it exists, they must know what to remember before they remember it

There are lots of things called "magnetic signature" including in animals and it is posited that this plays a role in migrating animals.

Can you give a ref?

Animals do not read maps but there are other explanations such as those for migrating birds believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps but, as I keep reiterating, the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

I have no problem with that, the point is how does something like this start? it must start from outside
It can not be a coincidence or from inside

[Messenger]

Dear messenger
you say that evolution ( or parts there of ) can be dissproved with facts, please, post these facts ina  complete and unabridged manner.

I'm doing it

Also, you say evolution is guided, can you show us who/what is guiding with objective evidence of its existance? can you suggest a mechanism for this guidance?

If (some) species evolved from each other, then God did this change
Because construction requires intelligence (and planning)

By putting forward the hypothesis that god guides evolution, you have saddled yourself with the burden of proof. Your current arguments have amounted to " I dont know how eels navigate, therefore, something must be guiding them, therefor its god guiding them". For someone who claims to be a logician, you really have a long way to go. Interecpting the communications between god and an eel would be sufficent proof for me to beleive that gods guides them. until then, it could be zeus, odin or the flying spaghetti monster.

This proof is very logical, I did not say that it proves god; it proves that an external (intelligent) source must feed this information to the eels.

Or, if you are really wacky, it could be the eel remembering the direction and strength of the magnetic field on its journey from the spawning ground, then simply tracing that back when it feels randy enough to breed. Your assertion that an eel places anywhere, in any ocean will find its way back to its home spawning point is false

Yes, it will

[Kyuuketsuki]

Because it can not come from nothing

Agreed it must be explainable but it is possible not to know as yet.

Yes, but it must be external source

And I keep telling you this ... maybe it is but it's far from certain and if you want to claim it is external then YOU Have to prove it. It is NOT enough to claim it is true and assume everyone must prove your claim wrong.

I am still waiting for you to deal with the points I made earlier.

Kyu

[Messenger]

And I keep telling you this ... maybe it is but it's far from certain and if you want to claim it is external then YOU Have to prove it. It is NOT enough to claim it is true and assume everyone must prove your claim wrong.  

If you claim that information about external object can come from inside, then you are making history, you should get a Nobel prize for that

As inside means not outside
and as the birth & current location of an eel is outside the eel's brain
Something must take this information and put it inside the eel's brain

I am still waiting for you to deal with the points I made earlier.

What point?

[Kyuuketsuki]

And I keep telling you this ... maybe it is but it's far from certain and if you want to claim it is external then YOU Have to prove it. It is NOT enough to claim it is true and assume everyone must prove your claim wrong.  

If you claim that information about external object can come from inside, then you are making history, you should get a Nobel prize for that

As inside means not outside
and as the birth & current location of an eel is outside the eel's brain
Something must take this information and put it inside the eel's brain

And that's where you keep (repeatedly  and apparently wilfully) getting it wrong... I'm not, I am QUITE CLEARLY saying WE DON'T KNOW and that that is fine.

I am still waiting for you to deal with the points I made earlier.

What point?

Points (plural) not point (singular)!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=35

Kyu

[BadPoison]

The eel's knowing how to travel to their birth place and how to get there is clearly magic. Anyone who doesn't see this as magic is stupid. It's so obvious, how can you not see that magic exists? I just want every atheist to admit that magic is real!! This is clearly the only logical solution.

[Squid]

Ahem..

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=30#p30053

[McQ]

Ahem..

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2363&start=30#p30053

Apparently, you've used too much science in making your point about science. Therefore, it must be ignored in hopes that it will go away.  

[Messenger]

The eel's knowing how to travel to their birth place and how to get there is clearly magic. Anyone who doesn't see this as magic is stupid. It's so obvious, how can you not see that magic exists? I just want every atheist to admit that magic is real!! This is clearly the only logical solution.

It is not magic and for sure it is not a coincidence  

It is like a child born knowing how to play chess very well, even though the intelligence could be an internal attribute, knowing how to deal with chess must be external

[Kyuuketsuki]

The eel's knowing how to travel to their birth place and how to get there is clearly magic. Anyone who doesn't see this as magic is stupid. It's so obvious, how can you not see that magic exists? I just want every atheist to admit that magic is real!! This is clearly the only logical solution.

It is not magic and for sure it is not a coincidence  

It is like a child born knowing how to play chess very well, even though the intelligence could be an internal attribute, knowing how to deal with chess must be external

I'm still waiting for you to deal with the points I raised earlier.

Kyu

[Messenger]

What external object? You mean the terrain? Presumably it has senses, presumably it is able to remember where it has been and therefore trace its way back. Like I have repeatedly said science may not have an answer at present but someone is likely working on one and if they find one it will be published in one or more of a number of reputable journals of science.

What science can know in the future is how they are doing it, not from where they get the information

There is no such thing as non-true science ... it either is science or it is not.

Wrong
You can use scientific methods but the result could be wrong (Actually wrong proved theories are much more than true ones)

But what you are really saying is that 99% of the scientific community (and 100% of all relevant experts) are either so stupid they have been fooled by this "evolution nonsense" or they are engaged in some kind of global conspiracy (that they are frauds).

Wrong statistics!
Before,  Darwinism thought that species evolve by behaviors, for example a deers trying to reach high leaves evolved into giraffes  
Now they found that it is wrong and silly as well
Are you saying that what was proved wrong before can not happen on the current theory?

That won't be science (science can make mistakes), it will be a RELIGION

[Squid]

Darwin and Wallace's ideas have seen been substantiated by genetic inquiry and if you want to get technical some heritable changes in gene expression aren't necessarily from DNA sequences  - epigenetics.  So, in a partial way, Lamarck wasn't totally wrong.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What external object? You mean the terrain? Presumably it has senses, presumably it is able to remember where it has been and therefore trace its way back. Like I have repeatedly said science may not have an answer at present but someone is likely working on one and if they find one it will be published in one or more of a number of reputable journals of science.

What science can know in the future is how they are doing it, not from where they get the information

So you say but you have yet to justify that beyond anything other than wishful thinking.

There is no such thing as non-true science ... it either is science or it is not.

Wrong
You can use scientific methods but the result could be wrong (Actually wrong proved theories are much more than true ones).

The only person here trying to say that science claims to always be right is you! No one else is saying that science is always right, what I'm saying is that current scientific explanation represent our best current understanding of the universe we observe around us. Truth (with the exception of math) is a variable concept ... there's your truth, my truth, their truth and then there's the facts. "Truth" as you use it is the domain of religious idiots.

But what you are really saying is that 99% of the scientific community (and 100% of all relevant experts) are either so stupid they have been fooled by this "evolution nonsense" or they are engaged in some kind of global conspiracy (that they are frauds).

Wrong statistics!

Right statistics ... see Project Steve.

Before,  Darwinism thought that species evolve by behaviors, for example a deers trying to reach high leaves evolved into giraffes

Now they found that it is wrong and silly as well

So Lamarckism was wrong? It's not a problem for science. What's your point?

Are you saying that what was proved wrong before can not happen on the current theory?

Let's see if I can get some real science through that thick #%@&ing skull of yours! I'm not holding my breath.

Science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explain the universe we observe around us. Nothing about that statement implies that science is absolute, beyond challenge or beyond making mistakes indeed science is characterised by the fact that it can change, that it is flexible in the face of new evidence. Because of this science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.

Now I know you'll try to find holes in that, I know you'll say it's wrong but the simple fact is that that is the way science is and like it or not evolution DOES represent our best current understanding and explanation for the diversity of life around us And just because YOU, poor little ignorant you) cannot deal with that fact is neither here nor there. That you are a scientific ignoramus means nothing whatsoever to science or to me.

That won't be science (science can make mistakes), it will be a RELIGION

No you idiot, it won't.

Kyu