This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
Proof is something you do in math not in science.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@KaliKali: All the evidence supports it? You do know that there's quite a bit of evidence for that it isn't correct, as well as the evidence supporting it, correct?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Shaman · 26-30
@KaliKali: Lol, is math related to science?
SW-User
@Shaman: Science often uses math if that is what you are asking.
SW-User
@MartinTheFirst:
Yes.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. " Quite a bit of evidence for that it isn't correct"? I mean you can literally interpret anything to be evidence for something if you don't care it is correct, so everything has evidence for it that isn't correct. I knocked over my coffee earlier - evidence that isn't correct that my brain has been taken over by reptilians.
All the evidence supports it?
Yes.
You do know that there's quite a bit of evidence for that it isn't correct, as well as the evidence supporting it, correct?
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. " Quite a bit of evidence for that it isn't correct"? I mean you can literally interpret anything to be evidence for something if you don't care it is correct, so everything has evidence for it that isn't correct. I knocked over my coffee earlier - evidence that isn't correct that my brain has been taken over by reptilians.
Shaman · 26-30
@KaliKali: Math is a science. I was making a joke about the comment of a celebrity.
SW-User
@Shaman: Math is not a science. Science involves ...wait for it... the scientific method. Math definitely does not use the scientific method.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@KaliKali: This simply proves that you ignore the evidence that goes against evolution, and blindly agrees with all the evidence that says that it's correct.
Shaman · 26-30
@KaliKali: Whoa... You went full 1300s there...
Aristotle defined mathematics as:
The science of quantity.
The science of quantity.
The science of indirect measurement.[5] Auguste Comte 1851
Mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions.[8] Benjamin Peirce 1870
The abstract science which investigates deductively the conclusions implicit in the elementary conceptions of spatial and numerical relations, and which includes as its main divisions geometry, arithmetic, and algebra. Oxford English Dictionary, 1933
The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects.[12] Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006
SW-User
@MartinTheFirst: There is no evidence that goes against evolution. Provide some and you'll likely win the Nobel Prize.
SW-User
@Shaman: Funny how you accuse me of using antiquated thinking when none of the sources you listed is modern with the exception of the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is definitely not an authoritative source. You'll have a very hard time finding a modern scientist or a mathematician who agrees with you. Mathematics is regarded as philosophy much more often than it is a science. Science uses hypothesis testing and repeated results, math uses proofs. There is a field called experimental mathematics, but it is only a very small subset of math.
Shaman · 26-30
@KaliKali: Oh, I see. Well, it can be considered like that.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@KaliKali: You've clearly not researched on this topic.
What about the huge amounts of testing that was performed in the US, Asia as well as EU where they promised to speed up evolution, yet after 40 years of research the evolutionist researcher Peter von Sengbusch says
where Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig afterwards said
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded:
What about the huge amounts of testing that was performed in the US, Asia as well as EU where they promised to speed up evolution, yet after 40 years of research the evolutionist researcher Peter von Sengbusch says
In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.
where Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig afterwards said
By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded:
Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@Ciaraisyourfriend: I know you're not on my side Ciara, I can stand on my own legs, thanks.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.
That isn't evidence against evolution, that is evidence against using that particular method of irradiation to produce more variety.
By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.
See above remark.
Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.
See the same shit.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@KaliKali: Lol. No, it's evidence against how new species can't come to exists. Variations of a species have been proven to occur, but this denies the very idea that a fish can become a human through a series of mutations.
SW-User
@MartinTheFirst: Suppose you want to test whether heroin can kill you. So you buy some heroin and shoot up. You live! You do it again, and again, and again...for years and never die. Do you think that that is evidence that heroin can't kill you?
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@KaliKali: Yet, until anyone can provide evidence for that there is a way you can cause a species to become an entirely new species, the only thing you have to go on is your belief. 😁 Now that's ironic, isn't it?
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@KaliKali: 😂