Conquer Club

Evolution has been measured.
it has been empirically studied in the case of short lived creatures.
Not just bacteria but also in more complex life-forms such as insects.

Neither of them can be proven. It can only be said that one is a GREAT AMOUNT more probable than the other. Evolution can be measured. It has in laboratories with flies (since they have a one day lifespan).

Chris7He wrote:Neither of them can be proven. It can only be said that one is a GREAT AMOUNT more probable than the other. Evolution can be measured. It has in laboratories with flies (since they have a one day lifespan).

Fruit flies start to smell bad after a few days... I don't like working with them... so does E. coli.

first of all i just skimmed through it but u seem to be over generalizing about a lot of scientific proof...while u shot down many scientific theories u failed to back up your point (from what i saw skimming through the titles and a few lines in each part)...all u did was put some doubt in a few people about evolution....(i'll read everything later)...

Wow, I never knew that evolution cannot be proven untill Widowmakers pointed it out....


The difference between evolution and creationism though, is that evolution can be falsified.

So far, I've seen a few I'll read it later's, I'm to lazy to read it, and a few I have no response so I'll just ignore it and act like I'm smart(Stopper).

Also seen a couple of retaliations, but most were proven wrong by Widow's post meaning it was not read by most.

I've only seen about 2 actual retaliations that bring up points.

Overall, good job WidowMaker, I think that's a score.

Chris7He wrote:Neither of them can be proven. It can only be said that one is a GREAT AMOUNT more probable than the other. Evolution can be measured. It has in laboratories with flies (since they have a one day lifespan).

Maybe you should try reading Widow's whole post.

whats TL:DR?

ParadiceCity9 wrote:whats TL:DR?

Too Long : Didn't Read

Carebian Knight wrote:So far, I've seen a few I'll read it later's, I'm to lazy to read it, and a few I have no response so I'll just ignore it and act like I'm smart(Stopper).

Also seen a couple of retaliations, but most were proven wrong by Widow's post meaning it was not read by most.

I've only seen about 2 actual retaliations that bring up points.

Overall, good job WidowMaker, I think that's a score.

I will respond to some of it though. It's just TL;DR at the moment. I mean, the first post already has so much wrong in it that it will take a lot of time to respond to it fully.

Widowmakers' can refute his own posts by actually reading a little more about evolution too.

Edit:
On second thought, the whole thing is filled with so much ignorance it's like a black hole sucking all fun out of life. It's like he is purposefully misunderstanding stuff to disprove it. It's full of strawmans and arguments from fallacy. He basically says things about evolution that are not true, and then concludes that evolution is wrong.

Neither can be proven. Nothing in Science can be proven. There might not be gravity at all. Maybe some magnetic or electromagnetic attraction. Everything in Science is theory and nothing can be completely proven. It can only be supported.

To Widowmaker's post TL;DR

Creationism is not supported at all by anything. Genetics, fossils, and irreducible complexity are some of the important supporting factors of Evolution. Genetics show that over a period of time people steadily change. Fossils link humans to a common ancestor. Irreducible complexity is the belief that somethings are too complex to have come from evolution or to be simplified.

The belief is falsified. Take a mouse trap. You can simplify it by taking out the hammer and spring and it makes a good tie clip and that can be simplified more by taking every part except for the wood board. It could be a doorstop or a paperweight.

For more information, look up the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.

Creationism is not Science because it does not raise questions or new hypotheses, cannot be tested in a controlled experiment, and do not generate any predictions.

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology. For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.

There's your answer and if you ask a Science teacher 90% don't believe in Creationism. I personally believe in a more scientific Theistic Evolution where Science and Christianity don't need to be in conflict.

Also, for any futher questions, consult the motherload.

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, for any futher questions, consult the motherload.

Wow... Most people in the US believe in God? I always wondered why Canada had lower crime rates, but no fucking gun control...

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, for any futher questions, consult the motherload.

By God Snorri! You're a genius! You are a forum god!

all that doesn't support his cause...all he is doing is trying to discredit ours...which it does by pointing out certain flaws...(not that there aren't any flaws in a thousands of year old book... )

Bavarian Raven wrote:all that doesn't support his cause...all he is doing is trying to discredit ours...which it does by pointing out certain flaws...(not that there aren't any flaws in a thousands of year old book... )

The fun thing is that they're not actually flaws.

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, for any futher questions, consult the motherload.

Well, Widowmakers brought out the tl;dr and now the Evolutionists have responded in kind. The part I feel bad about is that I'm sure there are a lot of interesting arguments made in both of these...I just don't know if I can commit to a 3-week long post like widow did.

Frigidus wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, for any futher questions, consult the motherload.

Well, Widowmakers brought out the tl;dr and now the Evolutionists have responded in kind. The part I feel bad about is that I'm sure there are a lot of interesting arguments made in both of these...I just don't know if I can commit to a 3-week long post like widow did.

Well talkorigins is pretty easy to use. You can browse the arguments much more easily and they're put into a lot less words.

Shit. I actually ran out of ink on part 4.

unriggable wrote:Shit. I actually ran out of ink on part 4.

tl:dp

Guiscard wrote:

unriggable wrote:Shit. I actually ran out of ink on part 4.

tl:dp

Huh?

As promised, I read Ch. 1, 2, 3.

Anyways, WM get an editter because this is actually really good. Unfortunatley you have the wrong idea about a lot of things. The big one is the gases not bunching up to make stars. They do. Physics and a number of experiments proves it.

unriggable wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

unriggable wrote:Shit. I actually ran out of ink on part 4.

tl:dp

Huh?

As promised, I read Ch. 1, 2, 3.

Anyways, WM get an editter because this is actually really good. Unfortunatley you have the wrong idea about a lot of things. The big one is the gases not bunching up to make stars. They do. Physics and a number of experiments proves it.

Was a joke. The p is for print.

I'm through the first 3 parts as well, and even on a rather cursory reading I've spotted several flaws, leaps in the logic and downright false conclusions.

MeDeFe wrote:I'm through the first 3 parts as well, and even on a rather cursory reading I've spotted several flaws, leaps in the logic and downright false conclusions.

Yeah that's the biggest problem, although I gotta congratulate WM on his job. Even though it didn't convince me of anything it did make me think about it.