Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you give me a falsifiable hypotheses for evolution? How would we disprove it?
I can give you hundreds in addition to the one I already gave you regarding ERVs, which you neither addressed nor refuted in any way.
http://www/talkorigins.org (broken link)
This site includes just about every tested hypothesis for evolution. Get reading and educate yourself.
Quote:
It's a theory that darwin pulled out of his hat because he thought some animals looked the same. It also allowed him to forward his eugenics ideas and make his claim that non-whites were inferior.
Did someone educate you wrong on purpose? Have you ever read the Origin of the Species? Are you blissfully unaware that Darwin's ideas have been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny for over 100 years?
What planet are you from? Why does it matter in 2010 if Darwin had eugenic ideas (big "if" there too). It doesn't. Darwin could have been stark raving mad - his personal credibilty is irrelevant because science has tested his ideas and found them valid. No such testing is possible with Creationism.
Quote:
Actually...this thread is about the origins of the universe--creationism.
No, it is about whether Creationism should be taught in public schools, an issue the courts decided long ago. Creationists always pull this tactic of pretending that science has to prove where everything in the Universe came from in order to prove evolution. It's total nonsense.
Quote:
The fact that we're here indicates a cause.
So what? That does not indicate the cause was an intelligent designer.
Quote:
Nope. I'm not promoting any specific religion, nor am I suggesting we teach kids to worship said creator. Find a new argument...that one's lame.
That's where evolution came from.
After you....I'm still waiting.
No, you are evading. Where's a SINGLE falsifiable hypothesis for Creationism?
You've been given a very good one for evolution: hypothesis - if ERV's leave permanent scars on a species DNA that are passed down to future generations (which is a fact), then we can determine what species are relatively more or less related to us by tracing the record of these ERV's backwards. Testing? If the hypothesis is correct, we should be able to trace ERV scars in our own DNA and match them up with scars in other species.
And guess what? The hypothesis was true, and became a fact. We found exactly that - that primates had, beyond any doubt, a common ancestor with humans. That, sir, is a cold, hard fact.
Quote:
Actually...it's logical to conclude that for every effect there is a cause.
And illogical to assume further that the cause is God. It doesn't rule it out, but it does not prove it either.
Quote:
You guys are the ones that say life comes from life...except the initial life form that existed. Wow...that makes sense.
Actually it does, to educated people who understand basic biochemistry. All life had to start somewhere. At any rate, evolution doesn't address that issue.
Quote:
How's that for a falsifiable hypothesis? I just disproved your theory. It can't exist because life can't come from non-life.
That is not a hypothesis that supports Creationism. In fact, it isn't even a hypothesis.
It's every bit of a "science" as evolution or abiogenesis.
Quote:
Besides, this issue has already been decided by the courts. The Creationists lost, because the court found:
- it ain't science
- it is religion
The courts have made mistakes before. I'm sure if you're liberal you were all up in arms over the fact that the SCOTUS ruled that corporations could donate to political campaigns just as individual citizens.
Quote:
Since it is religion, the Establishment clause applies and the US Constitution prohibits teaching it in science classes in public schools.
What religion is it?
Quote:
Period. End of debate. You can look at it however you want, it is the law of the land.
Calling it the end doesn't make it so. I know you're probably used to that but that's not the way the world works.
It's every bit of a "science" as evolution or abiogenesis.
Then let's see your falsifiable hypothesis. One that can be tested experimentally and yield results that support it.
You cannot provide one, because it does not exist, because Creationism is not science.
Quote:
The courts have made mistakes before. I'm sure if you're liberal you were all up in arms over the fact that the SCOTUS ruled that corporations could donate to political campaigns just as individual citizens.
The judge that decided Dover v. Kitzmiller was a lifelong Republican and conservative, as well as Christian. And he decided - conclusively I might add - that ID was not science, and was religion. Facts are facts, science is science, and law is law. There is no "liberal" anything in this context.
And your assumption is wrong, by the way. As much as I think it is too often abused, I agree with the decision regarding corporations vis-a-vis the First Amendment.
Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?
Quote:
What religion is it?
It doesn't have to be a specific religion. That is not the legal standard, which you would know if you ever read the cases themselves, which you probably did not. But I did. Hence the Dover decision.
Quote:
Calling it the end doesn't make it so. I know you're probably used to that but that's not the way the world works.
It is over, and not because I said so. The courts have consistently ruled against you, and will continue to do so.
I think you know very, very little about how the real world works.
again, my point is, if political agenda is allowed to be pushed, then so should creationism.... whether it is a science or not.
you say creationism has no place in public schools, I say neither does political agenda.
So if they are going to allow one thing that shouldnt be allowed, they should allow other things that shouldnt be allowed.
If you don't agree with one thing being allowed, why dont you agree with the other? just because you don't agree with it?
First of all, I don't aree with your premise regarding political agendas in public schools - especially not in science class. Even if I did agree, it is totally irrelevant in light of the Establishment clause.
Creationism is religion. Our system of laws accomplishes separation of church and state. You cannot teach religion as fact in science class in public schools - period. That debate is long over.
Your argument ignores the highest law of this country. The courts have conclusively and consistently ruled that Creationism is not science and cannot be legally included in a public school science curriculum, because it violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Then let's see your falsifiable hypothesis. One that can be tested experimentally and yield results that support it.
You cannot provide one, because it does not exist, because Creationism is not science.
Create life from non-life and we'll talk.
Quote:
The judge that decided Dover v. Kitzmiller was a lifelong Republican and conservative, as well as Christian. And he decided - conclusively I might add - that ID was not science, and was religion. Facts are facts, science is science, and law is law. There is no "liberal" anything in this context.
and? he was wrong.
Quote:
And your assumption is wrong, by the way. As much as I think it is too often abused, I agree with the decision regarding corporations vis-a-vis the First Amendment.
Do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?
If not that, I'm sure there have been other SCOTUS decisions you disagreed with.
Quote:
It doesn't have to be a specific religion. That is not the legal standard, which you would know if you ever read the cases themselves, which you probably did not. But I did. Hence the Dover decision.
Actually, if you want to get technical, the forbidding of establishing religious law is only to be applied to the federal gov't. 9 of the original 13 states had official religions at one point. They didn't want the federal gov't telling them what they had to be.
But again...saying that an unknown creator caused the universe to exist is a religion is just silly. You're smarter than that...come up with a good one.
You people on both sides of this issue are really quite funny!
Trying to compare a purported "science" with a faith-based belief is an exercise in futility
A faith-based belief cannot be proven. It also cannot be DIS proven! Since there is NO evidence one way or the other, a faith-based belief seldom changes.
The purported "science" of evolution is subject to change every time a new discovery is made. The "science" is full of holes and gaps, and questions abound that cannot, at this time, be answered.
Darn, it almost seems like the "science" is very close to a FAITH-BASED belief system, in many ways!
Then there is the much touted "establishment clause". How anybody can take ONE clause out of the First Amendment and try to use it to prove something is beyond comprehension! One clause without reading the entire amendment is meaningless, and apparently the Supreme Court has finally begun to realize that! The very first line of the amendment as regards religion is "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW", and no such law has ever been passed! So, what does the "establishment clause" refer to? Nothing, it seems to me!
Then, "teaching religion" in the public schools. Do you REALLY think that there is NO teaching of religious concepts in schools? THINK a little bit!
Then there are those who say that any religious belief is foolish. Think about this: When the believer dies, if he discovers his belief was wrong, he has lost nothing. When the NON-believer dies, if he discovers that his NON-belief was wrong, he has lost EVERYTHING!
Which is the bigger fool?
The bottom line is, THINK instead of following the accepted line. EITHER accepted line!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
