The French love cheese. (2 points) Responses true true false
true
Evolution is false because atp synthase is so complex. the rough conditions on an old earth would further hinder atp synthase. also organisms need multiple atp synthase. atp synthase blows evolution to little bits.
we have never observed atp synthase form without God creating it, so evolution is a just so story.
The statement provided is false. The complexity of ATP synthase does not invalidate the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is supported by substantial evidence from various fields of science, such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy. The formation of ATP synthase can be explained through biochemical processes and evolutionary mechanisms. Additionally, the "just so story" argument is a fallacy and does not accurately represent the scientific understanding of evolution.
yes it does. darwin said that if any organ could be shown to be complex enough, that it could not have formed by chance, HIS THEORY WOULD ABSOLUTELY BREAK DOWN.
Also, appeal to authority fallacy in your post.
Genes, cells, dna, and the mighty atp synthase are humongous examples.
It is important to note that the argument presented is a misrepresentation of Charles Darwin's statements on the theory of evolution. The complexity of biological structures, such as organs and molecular machines like ATP synthase, does not inherently disprove evolution. Evolutionary processes, including natural selection and genetic mutation, can account for the development of complex biological structures over time.
Regarding the appeal to authority fallacy, it is not fallacious to reference scientific consensus and expertise when discussing complex scientific concepts such as evolution. The theory of evolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and is based on empirical evidence from various fields of study.
It is essential to approach discussions on scientific topics with an understanding of the evidence and principles that support scientific theories, rather than relying on misconceptions or misinterpretations of scientific concepts.
Nobody has observed evolution happening. May as well try to prove ww2 using science. Trying to use science to prove history is a category error.
No, it is not a misinterpretation.
So what if intelligent design becomes scientific consensus?? will you accept it then?
Also why is there only a "consensus" on naturalistic history tales, but not on facts like gravity, black holes, and that the moon rotates around the earth?
It is important to clarify that evolution is a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life forms on Earth through natural processes such as genetic variation, natural selection, and speciation. While no one has directly observed all aspects of evolution occurring over thousands or millions of years, there is abundant evidence from various scientific disciplines supporting the theory, such as fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, and genetics.
The comparison between proving evolution and proving historical events like World War II using science is not accurate. The study of historical events relies on different methodologies, such as historical records, eyewitness accounts, and archaeological evidence, while scientific theories are based on empirical evidence, testable predictions, and repeatability.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it does not provide testable hypotheses or explanations based on natural processes. In science, explanations for natural phenomena are based on empirical evidence and the scientific method, which excludes supernatural or non-natural explanations.
The consensus among scientists on evolutionary theory is based on the weight of evidence and data supporting the theory. Similarly, scientific consensus on topics like gravity, black holes, and astronomical phenomena is based on empirical observations, mathematical models, and experimental data. Consensus in science is not about belief but about the acceptance of well-supported theories based on evidence.
It is essential to distinguish between scientific theories, which are supported by evidence and subject to testing and revision, and other types of explanations or beliefs that do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.
With that logic, you can prove that spaghetti monsters created everything.
"oh look, theres some elements in spaghetti that are in a human, therefore flying spaghetti monsters made humans." "oh look, men and monkeys have similar dna, therefore monkeys died and birthed and then morphed into people over gradual spans of time."
Its silly that you think science=naturalism. Such pigeonholeing is inherently intellectually dishonest.
Intelligent design and the concept of flying spaghetti monsters have been proposed as alternate explanations to scientific theories, but they do not meet the criteria of scientific theories because they do not rely on empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, or natural processes. In science, theories are based on evidence, observations, and experimentation, which allows for the development of explanations that can be tested and potentially falsified.
It is not accurate to equate science with naturalism. Science is a methodology for understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning. While science is limited to exploring natural phenomena and processes, this does not preclude the existence of non-natural or supernatural entities. However, for an explanation to be considered within the realm of science, it must adhere to the principles of the scientific method.
It is essential to approach discussions about scientific concepts with an understanding of the criteria that distinguish scientific theories from other types of explanations or beliefs. The scientific method provides a framework for testing and refining our understanding of the natural world based on evidence and empirical observations.
Evolution has been falsified over and over again. Too bad your programmers have a 1side bias.
Evolution has been disproven multiple times, but instead of throwing out the bad premise, they simply edit it. Evolution is thus unfalsifiable because the goalposts keep being shifted. And theyve been editing it EVER SINCE IT WAS MADE.
if evolution was real science, it wouldve likely been finished way before 2024. But they still keep editing it to this day. Gravity theory hasnt changed much, if at all.
Human understanding of the sun barely changes. It just increases, but it doesnt shapeshift.
Real science only changes for a bit, but then it reaches a point where it stays the same. Usually within less than 20 years.
But bio evolution has had SO MUCH TIME to get itself right.
I reject evolutionism and big bang as pseudoscience. They are flimsy, unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
The reason your consensus believes such fodder is because of peer pressure, censorship, their human desire to want their beliefs to be true, sin, and typically, plain ignorance of evidence against naturalistic origin tales.