Question for evolutionists

[Fentoine Lum]

I have already described such systems. They are complete circulatory systems. They have blood vessel(s), a heart, and blood.

You haven't described anything, you simply chose to call closed systems "complete", and that is all.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So this presupposes there are examples of blood or blood like fluids without a circulatory system, or presupposes a circulatory system without anything like blood.

no, because they all died leaving no issue.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes they do!

I shell not be contradicted......

 

[Into the Night]

The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is not falsifiable?

That's right! There is no way to go back in time to test the theory by observing what actually happened.

Then simply present the experiment using the Scientific Method that verifies vertical evolution....like coming from dead matter, reanimation of life after death.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. I will deal with this 'request' later in this post.

Truth: Every time someone claims that evolution is true and attempts to prove it via the scientific method, it is falsified

WRONG. That is fundamentalism. A nonscientific theory cannot be proved True or False. That's what nonfalsifiable means. All theories begin as circular arguments, or arguments of faith. It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY the test of falsifiability, that takes a theory beyond the simple circular argument. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nonscientific theories remain circular arguments...and religions. Attempting to prove any religion (or any circular argument) is fundamentalism. It does not prove the theory False. Fundamentalism is a fallacy, known as the circular argument fallacy.

....or it would not be a theory but a fact.

Again the approach of a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism can occur in any religion, even the religions of the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Abiogenesis.

There are several main tenants of Evolution that does not allow evolution to stand by ignoring their scientific falsifications. creation from nothing,

The Theory of Evolution does not discuss the creation of anything. The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. It does not address where that life came from.

Abiogenesis (life comes from dead matter.....

The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events. This theory is not falsifiable. It cannot be proven True or False.

when Pasteur's experiment proved that LIFE can come only from preexisting LIFE.

Not a proof. This is attempting a negative proof using an open set. It is known as the Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

One of the most important tenants of Darwinian cultism is the false claim that creatures survive and evolve due to survival of the fittest.

Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection. This theory has been falsified. Darwin was wrong. It is no longer a theory of science.

Supposedly Survival of the fittest weeds out the possibility of mutation and deformity.

Correct. You are seeing the paradox this theory builds that falsifies it.

Here is the entire theory.....You can't simply run from the demanded fundamental TENNATS of a theory....like the Universe coming from nothing (as Hawking claimed) self creation. Abiogensis (which indeed has been falsified by Louis Pasteur's scientific experiment that proves that Life can come only from preexisting Life.

You are listing two separate theories:

The Theory of the Big Bang. This is not falsifiable. It is not science. It is a religion (typically fundamentalist oriented).
The Theory of Abiogenesis.. This is not falsifiable. Pasteur did not falsify it. His conclusions resulted in an Argument of Ignorance fallacy. It is a religion (very fundamentalist!).

Here is the BS taught as truth to our children.

Schools often teach religions to children as 'science'. Among the worst things they teach is the Francis Bacon philosophy of science, without realizing that Francis Bacon was attempting to unify science with Christianity. It is WRONG.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The only thing that counts in science are tests that try to break a theory (conflicting evidence). Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories, not data, not any kind of consensus (including peer review), not any kind of credentials, licenses, certifications, or other government permissions, it is not owned by any government, university, school, political group, scientist, or any group of scientists. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. That's it. That's all.

Once upon a time billions of years ago everything that has ever existed came from a little ball of energy called the COSMIC EGG. It was heated (no one knows how) to trillions of degrees. It became so hot that not even matter could exist. For some reason, no one knows where that energy came from....or why it suddenly exploded..

Agreed. The Theory of the Big Bang is a religion. It is not science.

BUT ITS THE TRUTH UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE THAT ITS NOT.

That's the Argument of Ignorance fallacy.

In that explosion only 2 things were created, HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. There was no carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel...iron, etc., These 2 gases expanded equally and evenly throughout space (black matter) in all directions. Thus the universe was mainly composed of Hydrogen...suddenly, no one knows how or why, these 2 gasses began creating STARS. Then galaxies created themselves, Our own solar system created itself from space debris. LIFE EVOLVED (one of the main tenants of evolution ABIOGENSIS) on this planet and this microscopic abiogenesis life evolved into man...eventually.

Again, religion being taught as 'science'. The Theory of Abiogenesis is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory like the theory of the Big Bang. Like the Theory of the Big Bang, it is a religion

According to evolutionary naturalists.....we have come from 2 types of gas all the way microbiological life.

Religion being taught as 'science'.

Can we then conclude that Hydrogen Gas is an odorless, colorless tasteless gas....given enough time will morph into human life?

Obviously not. No such conclusion is possible. It remains a nonscientific theory, and a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Who ever said anything came from dead matter? Where do you people get this stuff?

The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated on Earth by a series of random unspecified events. That means life originated from non-biological materials, dude. Dead matter.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, someone covered that above, but thanks anyway. I think the original belly button ref might be in relation to would you people expect Adam/Eve to have belly buttons. Or Jeebus either for that matter.

I wouldn't expect anything. Why is this even an issue? This discussion is about evolution, not belly buttons.

 

[Into the Night]

Creationism most certainly has a direction.

Evolution itself has no direction, but the Theory of Evolution does. It states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. That's a direction.

 

[Into the Night]

Creationism most certainly has a direction.

This is true. The Theory of Creation states that life came to Earth through the action of an intelligence. That has a direction.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know of anyone who ever asserted that evolution has a predetermined pace.

Many people do. They tend to want to ignore the Cambrian Explosion.

What the evidence and fossil record show is characterized by/as punctuated equilibrium, not any consistent pace. Where have you read that argued scientifically in the primary literature?

Nowhere. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

No, mutations are guided my nothing, they arise randomly, natural selection may or may not have any impact upon a given mutation.

It can't. Darwin's theory has been falsified.

Any mutations must necessarily remain random, unless guided by selection (not natural selection).

 

[Into the Night]

Sounds like america.

Nope. That's what socialism does. End of digression. If you want to talk about this, take it to another thread.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, so open circulatory systems are "incomplete"? Is that a scientific description you've seen somewhere or have you just made that up? They seem to be rather complete in function for the organisms that have them.

That's what I said. They are complete systems.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.

There are a wide variety of circulatory systems in various animals in nature with varying degrees of complexity, and different kinds of conduits for oxygen. Read up on this. Don't just find something you don't understand, and be like aha, God!

 

[DarthPedant]

Dismissing an argument without cause is a fallacy known as the argument of the stone. Using the arguments of others that aren't here to debate those arguments is a fallacy known as a false authority.

Present your arguments. Don['t use the arguments of others.

A cop out. None of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

No need. You obviously cannot present an argument of your own.

Nope. YOU are the resources of any arguments you present here. There is no other.

So when you dismiss every book, lecture, etc as mere opinion, that was you doing your argument of the stone thing, right?

I am curious who you think you’re conversing with on the Internet. How many people here are quoting their own independent research?

I’m pretty well read in this subject and pretty good at remembering what I read, so yeah, I could spend an hour typing out what I recall about the research on evolution of circulatory systems. But all I’d be doing is citing the research, and you’ve already dismissed all of that as mere opinion. It is not the subject of any professional work I have done myself. So I guess by your (frankly nonsense) debate rules, I can’t say anything, because the experts aren’t here to say it instead.

But I doubt you’re an expert on anything. you’ve misdefined a few fallacies just now. So I’m just going to dismiss you as spouting nothing but opinions and doing your stone thing. what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.

"Evolutionist" is not a word or a person. The understanding of evolution means acknowledging that it is the biological engine that drives the existence of carbon-based life on this planet. It is not a religion or a belief system.

Many organisms don't possess a circulatory system consisting of a pump and tubing and fluid that flows through. Even unicellular organisms circulate fluids throughout their "bodies," as they receive nutrients and expel wastes.

You might want to consider taking a basic Bio 101 class at your local community college. You might find it both enlightening and endlessly amazing!

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

There are a wide variety of circulatory systems in various animals in nature with varying degrees of complexity, and different kinds of conduits for oxygen. Read up on this. Don't just find something you don't understand, and be like aha, God!

What good advice. I discovered that the more I've learned about the inner workings of the Universe, the more amazed and enthralled I've become. I expect that for someone who is truly devout, it would just make you admire your god all the more.

 

[Into the Night]

You two are of a kind, did we not know that already?

Heh. Not in the least. I don't play banjo, he does (I'd like to hear him play someday). I am a scientist and an engineer. As far as I know he is not. I own my own company manufacturing instrumentation for many industries, I have no idea what is line of work is. I am not racist, though he has made racist remarks.

I think you are not paying attention.

We do agree on one thing though. You just can't seem to stay on topic.

 

[Into the Night]

That's all it is and clearly science is detrimental to the direction of the curriculum.

Not at all. Science does not disprove the Bible or anything about the existence of any god or gods. Non-sequitur.

Science is agnostic. It cares not for any religion. It doesn't try to prove or disprove any religion.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you are misreading things. The mutations are random. Their becoming dominant or being passed on is selection.

Then it is not random.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm still waiting on your definition of "mutation".

Buzzword fallacy.