Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[Afghanistan2010]

He is asking nonsense questions, for instance "what is maintaining the skies and the the earth?" or "why doesn't the son just come to an end?" There is no possible answer to that beyond the scientific answer that makes any sense. He is assuming that there is need for a motivation for these purely mechanical processes. If he knows the answers, why is he asking the questions?

They are for you nonsense because you have no answer for them...i asked you where these physical effects came from , you said the Big Bang i ask you what caused the Big Bang ?....and if you reply there will be future questions...but im sure you cant answer.

[ozymandias]

They are for you nonsense because you have no answer for them...

No, they are nonsense, because you make a false assumption that everything must have a meaning. If not everything has meaning, then asking the meaning behind something with no meaning is nonsense.

i asked you where these physical effects came from , you said the Big Bang i ask you what caused the Big Bang ?

Depends on who you ask. The cosmological process is thought by some to be a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Others think that quantum effects cause the creation of new atoms into vacuum, which started the cycle.

....and if you reply there will be future questions...but im sure you cant answer.

Feel free to ask away. I can easily answer these questions -- as can you. Unlike you, though, I do not need to posit the extra, unneeded step of adding a god. Any origin that is acceptable for a god (came out of nothing, always existed) also works for the universe itself -- and is actually far more logical. Rather than assuming some all powerful, all knowing, complicated being was possible to always exist, why not just allow that the universe always existed in a cycle?

[sanman]

Bacteria didn't evolve, you say? Bacteria evolve and adapt all the time. You can even prove it in a Petri dish, by mutating bacteria randomly, and exposing them to particular environmental conditions, and you will see that natural selection occurs. That's what evolution is.

[ozymandias]

Bacteria didn't evolve, you say? Bacteria evolve and adapt all the time. You can even prove it in a Petri dish, by mutating bacteria randomly, and exposing them to particular environmental conditions, and you will see that natural selection occurs. That's what evolution is.

He actually posted a video showing *exactly* that, and then claimed it was disproving evolution, because the modified bacteria, when placed in the original environment with a sample of the original bacteria, would die out.

Somehow, he thinks that evolution requires the evolved organism to be better suited to all environments than it's predecessors. Anything less somehow disproves evolution.

[Alchemist]

^ The real joke is that you still don't get that the bacteria has never been "modified".

[ozymandias]

^ The real joke is that you still don't get that the bacteria has never been "modified".

It's really sad that you think you have shown evidence of that. If it never has been modified, ever, you would think that you would have some evidence, or some logical explanation to explain your position. All you have now is your opinion, and the statements you repeat. If bacteria has never been modified, why are drug resistant bacteria becoming more of a problem? By your logic, they would always be the same degree of problem, and we would not be finding strains of bacteria resistant to drugs they have never been resistant to before. By your logic, they would not need to come up with a new flue shot each year, as the flu would not be evolving.

[Afghanistan2010]

No, they are nonsense, because you make a false assumption that everything must have a meaning. If not everything has meaning, then asking the meaning behind something with no meaning is nonsense.

what did Albert Camus (french philosopher) said ? if there is a philosophical problem than that of suicide.

if there is no meaning behind everything and you claim this , than you have no reason to live explain me whats the reason that you live,for death is better for you.

Depends on who you ask. The cosmological process is thought by some to be a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Others think that quantum effects cause the creation of new atoms into vacuum, which started the cycle.

where does this huge mass came from which ended in the Big Bang ?

as we know that these planets and many other things are result of the Big Bang and the Big Bang is explained by the noble Quran clearly.

why not just allow that the universe always existed in a cycle?

there cant be atomic reaction without someone to start with my son or you claim the contrary , that atomic reaction takes place just ?.

[ozymandias]

what did Albert Camus (french philosopher) said ? if there is a philosophical problem than that of suicide.

if there is no meaning behind everything and you claim this , than you have no reason to live explain me whats the reason that you live,for death is better for you.

Could you restate your question? It appears you are suggesting I kill myself, simply because I don't see the need for the universe to have a motive in order to exist, and that is just insane.

where does this huge mass came from which ended in the Big Bang ?

You just quoted my answer to that question.

as we know that these planets and many other things are result of the Big Bang and the Big Bang is explained by the noble Quran clearly.

Only if you ignore the parts where the koran is wrong. The Big Bang did not start out of a gaseous material -- and the koran has been repeatedly shown to be no more accurate than any other cosmological description from that time period. It makes few, if any specific claims, and most of these are flat out wrong.

there cant be atomic reaction without someone to start with my son or you claim the contrary , that atomic reaction takes place just ?.

Could you use full sentences? You were doing so well for a long time, and now you are omitting words. No one is claiming that atomic reactions require an intelligence to start them -- that is clearly not the case. The sun undergoes atomic reactions all the time, and there is no need for a governing intelligence to control it, science explains it fully enough. Here you are assuming the need for a Prime Mover again, without any logic or justification to back it up.

We are digressing, though. This thread is supposed to be about evolution, and not cosmology. Start a new thread to discuss cosmology if you need to, but in this thread, we are still waiting for you to disprove all of modern biology.

[Alchemist]

It's really sad that you think you have shown evidence of that. If it never has been modified, ever, you would think that you would have some evidence, or some logical explanation to explain your position. All you have now is your opinion, and the statements you repeat. If bacteria has never been modified, why are drug resistant bacteria becoming more of a problem? By your logic, they would always be the same degree of problem, and we would not be finding strains of bacteria resistant to drugs they have never been resistant to before. By your logic, they would not need to come up with a new flue shot each year, as the flu would not be evolving.

for the nth time...

google: antibiotic resistance is ancient

If you weren't such a layman, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement again...but there you are again superimposing the problems of anti biotics with the common cold ...one is bacterial and the other viral.
In both cases it is the pharmaceutical companies that have sold you on the delusion that either could be "cured"...when really they are just peddling you on a "suppressant". Common house hold cures could do the same. You could even get some Probiotics (bacteria) to help you fight the common cold. The seasonal flu shot is just a scam...it is based on a probabilistic shot gun modal. It isn't even designed to target a "specific" strain. Plus you wouldn't know of the problems with polymorphism and assortment. Your logic is based on your ignorance. You can rationalize your way to Mars and back but it wouldn't mean you are being realistic.

Clearly you are an idiot. After even shoving the evidence in your face you still failed to admit you were in the wrong...or have the decency to admit that compared to ME you don't know what you are talking about!

[sanman]

Alchemist, what point are you arguing exactly? What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

Are you claiming that since antibiotic resistance is ancient, then this means.. what exactly?

[ozymandias]

for the nth time...

google: antibiotic resistance is ancient

And this shows nothing, as there have been natural antibiotics for a long time as well -- just not deliberately used by man.

If you weren't such a layman, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement again...

Like what? You say I made an asinine statement, now prove it.

but there you are again superimposing the problems of anti biotics with the common cold ...one is bacterial and the other viral.
In both cases it is the pharmaceutical companies that have sold you on the delusion that either could be "cured"...when really they are just peddling you on a "suppressant".

Preventative. There is no 'cure'.

Common house hold cures could do the same. You could even get some Probiotics (bacteria) to help you fight the common cold. The seasonal flu shot is just a scam...it is based on a probabilistic shot gun modal. It isn't even designed to target a "specific" strain.

No it's a group of likely strains, that the predict have the most chance of spreading. The reason they cannot use the same vaccine year after year is the evolution of the virus.

Plus you wouldn't know of the problems with polymorphism and assortment. Your logic is based on your ignorance. You can rationalize your way to Mars and back but it wouldn't mean you are being realistic.

Clearly you are an idiot. After even shoving the evidence in your face you still failed to admit you were in the wrong...or have the decency to admit that compared to ME you don't know what you are talking about!

Well, when you have some evidence, feel free to shove it my way -- then we will talk. As it is now, I have given you proof after proof that your claims are wrong, and you are the one ignoring science through willful ignorance.

[Alchemist]

yup..you made another asinine statement:

And this shows nothing, as there have been natural antibiotics for a long time as well -- just not deliberately used by man.

LOL

you are stupid enough to think that all anti biotics are the same thing. When in fact the evidence shows that those strains were resistant to the SAME antibiotics that are present now. Meaning a bacteria from 30,000 years ago, if by time travel were brought to the present would still show the same type of resistance ...hence ...not modified.

Lord have mercy...

you are really dense man!

It has taken me three weeks and you still can't understand this.

Do me a favour ... go back to school. Learn something of biology...then come argue with me.

and memorize this mutation=/=evolution.

[sanman]

You really are an illiterate masquerading as some kind of pseudo-intellectual. He thinks he's one of those 'Intelligent Design' debaters, but even those fools argue better than he does.

Yes, anti-biotics have existed in nature, such as in things like fungi. Anti-biotic properties are an evolutionary adaptation. The first anti-biotics discovered by man were natural fungi.

So how are you using this argument to disprove evolution? Are you trolling? What point are you making? You just seem to be randomly babbling and trying to present a deluge of irrelevant facts.

Why don't you just agree to invoke religion where moral and spiritual issues are involved, but when it comes to analyzing the physical universe, let science be used for that, since that's what it's for.

[sanman]

Another thing I want to mention. A lot of simple-minded people say, "Apples/Pears/Dates/Bananas/etc are sweet and tasty - this is a gift from God, and proof that God exists."

Understand that plants evolved in tandem with animals. Since animals can move around and plants cannot, it became evolutionarily favorable for plants to attract animals, to have them carry the plant seeds farther away to fresh soil. So plants evolved things like fruit, which became tasty to the animals, to lure them to eat the fruit. And inside the fruit are the plants' seeds, which then get carried in the animal's gut, until they excrete them out later, in a potentially different location.

Fruit is just one example. There are lots of different plants with various phytochemicals that are of benefit to animals, including humans. And that's part of the way they attracted animals/humans to eat them, and catch their seeds to carry them elsewhere.

Processes like this assisted in plants spreading themselves around more quickly.

[Leonine]

if evolution was true, plants would have evolved mobility in order to protect themselves from being cut down!!!!!