Evolution is Unscientific

Although I cannot understand at the moment as to how the mechanism works, but thanks for the info on E-Ship and similar airplanes. Need to find out more. :)
Edit: Got the idea. 5-20% fuel saving. Can be used for stabilization. :)
 
Last edited:
Evolution can't be proven, that's why it's a theory. If it were something that could be proven, it would be a scientific law as opposed to a theory... like the law of gravity.
 
Did you had any science education in your school? Evolution is a well-established theory. Of course, removing of creases always goes on in all science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
HeartNSoul19 said:
Evolution can't be proven, that's why it's a theory. If it were something that could be proven, it would be a scientific law as opposed to a theory... like the law of gravity.
Click to expand...
The 'Law of Gravity' as defined by Newton says the force of gravity (F) between two objects equals the masses of the two objects (m1& m2) multiplied together, divided by the square of the radius of the distance between their two centres (r squared) and then multiplied by the gravitational constant (G)

So gravity is defined as the attractive force between two objects. But there are several theories about what gravity actually is -- the prominent one being Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Although the GTR has been demonstrated and is used all the time, it is still called a theory. It is falsifiable: which means it could (in theory) be proved wrong. Quantum theory is the same: it workes in practice, until it fails or something better comes along

In fact I believe there are no 'proofs' in science, only (experimental) evidence?
 
Last edited:
HeartNSoul19 said:
Evolution can't be proven, that's why it's a theory. If it were something that could be proven, it would be a scientific law as opposed to a theory... like the law of gravity.
Click to expand...
If gravity is a law, then what exactly is gravity? How come we cannot make artificial gravity? Some vague little particles called "gravitons" was postulated at one time, I think that answer is now out of favor...and since postulate is a step below hypothesis, which is below theory, which is below law, it would seem "law of gravity" is misnamed.

The only thing we actually know about gravity is the effect, but what exactly gravity is remains a mystery. Even Einstein was not able to develop a Unified Field Theory of Relativity that was able to fully account for gravity.
 
wil said:
Flipping thru, havent watched..bit will!
Click to expand...
Ok. I hope you don't think I understand it much, lol ...
wil said:
Intermittent thought...no cause, but allows us to observe?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Who says that Standard Model physics is the only way to understand the universe?

Western music understands music on it's own terms, centred around middle C and all the scales and keys and minors that proceed from that quantization -- but Indian music, and African music and Arabic music, all proceed from a different root understanding, which although differently and independently quantized, is absolutely valid?
 
Last edited:
People who don't understand or choose not to understand think that they understand. :)
Which is the other way? A great magician appeared from nowhere and snapped his fingers six times, and lo, there was the universe with perfect animals and imperfect humans created out of mud and ribs, and then the ever-loving and merciful magician sent them to earth along with disasters and diseases? He was so tied after snapping his fingers six times that he rested on the seventh day. :D

Well, the Hindu God had only to utter "Ekoham, bahusyami", and there was the universe - I am one, I will be many.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
Well, the Hindu God had only to utter "Ekoham, bahusyami", and there was the universe - I am one, I will be many.
Click to expand...
In the beginning was the Word....

What you are calling "finger snaps" was G-d "uttering the Word," and it was so. Interesting, that our two beliefs agree on this matter. ;)
 
muhammad_isa said:
Can a person be a deist AND a theist at the same time?
Click to expand...
I think depending on how strict one is about the meaning of deism and theism, one can be somewhere in between.

I was always a little disappointed in Deism due to the idea that once God created the world, he then withdrew and did not interact with it.

I used to have a friend who was a self described Deist, he wrote a lot of material for years. (The Book of Expanded Deism) During the pandemic he hosted Zoom meetings and there was this one guy who who attended, trying to promote his own, different material, who was always mad at me and insisting "you aren't a Deist! You can't call yourself a Deist!" when we discussed prayer.
(note, I had never outright called myself a Deist. Also this particular guest in the meetings called HIS religion "Religious Deism")

Anyway, if Deism is about a relatively impersonal God who no longer reactions to his creation (room for debate probably)
And if Theism is about being a practitioner of a monotheistic religion (room for debate probably)
Then I would probably be somewhere in between. Theistically inclined deist?
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
Look. All l'm asking is that the respondent can give evidence for evolution via genetic mutation. If you have any then give it.

All l am getting in response is:
Actual verbal abuse (by the way, how did that post of yours get removed? And you weren't even warned for calling me names? And how do you end up calling me names when it's an impersonal post?)
Deflection
Circular arguments ("of course evolution is true - therefore it's true!")
Book stacking / link hurling ("oh erm., the answer is in this book haha in your face" "the answer is in these links tee hee" - if you actually have an understanding, then you will put it in your own words)



The falification test for this theory of evolution is to show genetic mutations leading to evolutionary change. It's evident in the OP that this was actually what l was asking.

You are saying you cannot answer it because what l really need is to show evolution to be happening (= falsification test), and so that's why you will not show that evolution is happening. Bizarre.



It is evident now that nobody here has any evidence for evolution by gene mutation.

It is evident therefore that everybody here who supports this idea, doesn't know why they believe in it, they just heard it's a good idea.

There is no rationality here.

I am speaking facts here so don't get personal. The fact is nobody here that speaks in support of evolution, actually knows how evolution works or actually knows that the theory has zero evidence to support it. Please, don't give me natural selection - that was covered in the OP, natural selection is scientific. Evolution by gene mutation (the ONLY way a goldfish could give rise to a cat over time) is not scientific.

As l say: please, just show me the money. And don't insult. Don't talk about software development and progress in whatnot. Just answer the question.
Click to expand...
Is there any theory within evolution that goldfish are the ancestors of cats?
I've been reading this old thread with interest, but I'm not really sure where anybody is going with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top