Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

cicerone imposter wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to identify real's post as "sophistry." It's downright elementary with no substance.

* sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

I can think of no better definition for many of RL's posts. His debating techniques are far to finely tuned to be based in pure ignorance.

Sometimes I think RL likes the challenge of the debate more than he likes the position he is debating.

0 Replies

Naw, real believes in his positions, but there's an inconsistency between knowledge and how he seems to twist them for his own benefit. That's where he losses his credibility. He's an old dog that fails to learn new tricks; no matter how well it's presented to him. real will continue to argue his positions that 1) faith is more important and meaningful than science, and 2) the fetus has a right to live over the rights of the mother.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Evolution has been proven, there's no question about it. The evidence is not only solid it's, massive and irrefutable.

If the theory is not falsifiable (refutable) , then it's not science is it?

.....You refuse to acknowledge the nature of scientific proof. You seem to think scientific proof is some type of absolute philosophical proof..

I'm not the one who stated that the 'proof' was 'irrefutable'. That was you.

rosborne979 wrote:
At least be consistant.
Good advice. Will you take it?

wandeljw wrote:

your last post was simply childish, real life

I'm sorry you feel that way, wandeljw.

I consider ros' statements that evolution is 'irrefutable' and that it is at the same time 'falsifiable' to be contradictory positions. Do you not?

If not, why not?

0 Replies

If what real dishes out is ingenuity, I'm afraid I've lost all concept of "ingenuity."

0 Replies

Real life, you dont get it at all, or else you just like to appear naive. A theory has good evidence ( hardly any is "Eye witness"), and theres no evidence to refute it.
Unlike your Cretinism, which has no evidence to support and has paahlenty of honest to goodness evidence (REAL EVIDENCE)to refute.
If Big BAng doesnt fit the data then something else may work that follows the evidence (expanding universe, CBR, etc , red shift, unaccountability for all the mass). However, its certainly not a Biblical Myth. The day you get over believeing the Bible has asquirt of science will be a gig day forward for you.

RL says

Quote:

Why should evidence be necessary to 'refute' assumptions that have been put forward without any solid evidence of their own?

Thats what Ive been asking you all along and you keep coming back with your 10000 year old solar system and "planetwide flood".

You dont even have one scintilla of data. Why is it that no Creationists are out there with picks, shovels and telescopes and mass spectrometers and Electrophoresis and PCR analyzers? I know, its because data and evidence are not your friends.They get in the way of a charming legend.

0 Replies

When you carefully read about the god of the old testament, frankly, there's nothing charming about it. Even that boy Hey-Zeus was scurrilous--he blasts a fig tree for having no fruit for him, even though figs are not in season. He sends the a herd of swine careening into Lake Tiberius (another example of biblical stupidity--for the Gaderene swine to run from Gaderes to Lake Tiberius would have required them to run non-stop for more than 30 miles)--and what, pray tell, had an inoffensive swineherd ever done to him that merited having his livelihood and the security of his family destroyed on the whim of a loony wandering rabbi?

Nothing charming at all about scripture.

0 Replies

"falsifiable" and "irrefutable" mean two different things. It is completely bogus to try to equate them, but completely typical of real life to try to do so.

To take a simple example "2+2=4" is falsifiable, i.e. you can form a hypothesis that it is not so, for example "2+2=3", and you can then test your hypotheses, to prove which, if either, is correct. As it happens, "2+2=4" has been proven to be correct, and it is irrefutable.

rosbornes point is that there is so much evidence, coming from so many different disciplines, and so cross-buttressing each other piece, that its existence and operation are irrefutable.

evolution is also falsifiable, in the scientific sense, which means that you can posit ways in which it would not work, and then test to see whether your posited hypothesis is in fact true. To take just ONE example, of the many thousands of alternative hypotheses that have been propounded and found wanting, you can posit, as anti-evolutionists did for decades, "there is no mechanism known by which evolution can operate on the level of the individual, no mechanism that can produce mutations that are inheritable". That is a falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis. Then Crick and Watson discovered DNA, and the anti-evolution hypothesis was thrown into the historical dustbin. And that is just ONE of the thousands of pieces of evidence which make evolutionary theory now irrefutable.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

You dont even have one scintilla of data.

Hi Farmerman,

What cracks me up is the way you think that evolutionists 'own' the data.

The data is what it is.

You interpret the fossil record as supporting evolution, but you don't 'own' the fossil record.

Evolution is supported largely by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

I know that's uncomfortable, but that's the way it is.

Pretending to 'own' the data won't help your case.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
You dont even have one scintilla of data.

Hi Farmerman,

What cracks me up is the way you think that evolutionists 'own' the data.

The data is what it is.

You interpret the fossil record as supporting evolution, but you don't 'own' the fossil record.

Evolution is supported largely by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

I know that's uncomfortable, but that's the way it is.

Pretending to 'own' the data won't help your case.

No. This is not a acceptable reply.

You fail the test to present your own evidence to support ID, Evolutionists don't own the evidence; it's not as if they stuck a flag in in it and claimed it, the evidence takes the theory, not the other way around.

Offer some evidence to be critiqued, or shut up and get out.

0 Replies

Even if evolution is wrong, there is nothing currently that can be rationally entertained as an alternative. If and when such a rational alterative presents itself science will entertain it as such. Thus in any and all rational cases science will prevail over creationism.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

What cracks me up is the way you think that evolutionists 'own' the data.

. Im afraid that if a real scientist were to allow you to play with the fossils , you wouldnt know what to do with them.
The original discoverer of the data has the right of first refusal to publish. If, as you say, the scientists dont "own" the data and fossils, why dont the Creationists publish unambiguous, supported conclusions about the same data.

Ownership without any follow-on research activity is merely compiling a kid's rock collection. Ive seen Creationist collections of fossils that span the ages from the Cambrian to the Paleocene and the preachers only explanation is that these were "flood victims" , even when it was called to his attention that the Paleocene insects were in AMBER and the Sabre tooth cat skull came out of a tar pit. Maybe it was a series of sap floods and tar deluges. He had fossil footprints of trachodons that ere clearly from muddy flats that contained dessication cracks. Another fosil that cant be explained by a "Flood"

0 Replies

I've never made the claim that all fossils are a result of the Flood.

Perhaps some have made that claim and that's what you're reacting to.

However , as we've often discussed , nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point.

We DISagree on WHEN this happened, not if.

The methods commonly relied upon to date these are, as I've said before, based often on unprovable assumptions; and more importantly the various methods almost never agree with each other.

For example, if one method gives a date of 15my and another gives a date of 7-12my, it's ridiculous to claim that they corroborate each other just because each date was 'very old'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

However , as we've often discussed , nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point.

Well, if the flood were true, wouldn't EVERYWHERE have been flooded and flooded AT THE SAME TIME?

Nearly? At some point?

Your position (your meaning the Christian's bible) is that ALL was flooded at the SAME POINT in TIME.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

However , as we've often discussed , nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point.

We DISagree on WHEN this happened, not if.

I'd be very much surprised to know that Farmerman ever agreed that "nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point. Which ocean would that have been, "real life?" The Indian, the Southern Ocean, the Pacific?

Dear me . . . i think you're making **** up again.

0 Replies

Quote:

We DISagree on WHEN this happened, not if.

The methods commonly relied upon to date these are, as I've said before, based often on unprovable assumptions; and more importantly the various methods almost never agree with each other.

So, you deny radiochemistry too?. If you had enough money you could date all these fossils from the CAmbrian by C14. (Its an idiots challenge cause youd be wasting your money)

As far as the difference between 7.12 and 15 million years, that IS important because radioisotope dates always are published with an error bar (+/-) some small percentage so I dont think that youll see any published data that shows such disagreements of the Miocene Pliocene. If you do, please point it out because the authors should be severely critcized for poor QA and the peer review group should have called this into question.

Did you ever have a chance to read Wiens paper of "Radiometric Dating-A Christian Perspective" ? Hes a world famous geochron scientist who's also a Christian. Hes a lot less charitable than I about the "Errors in understanding made by Fundamentalist Christians and Creationist Proponents who try to deny the validity of isotopic dating techniques"

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
We DISagree on WHEN this happened, not if.

The methods commonly relied upon to date these are, as I've said before, based often on unprovable assumptions; and more importantly the various methods almost never agree with each other.

So, you deny radiochemistry too?. If you had enough money you could date all these fossils from the CAmbrian by C14. (Its an idiots challenge cause youd be wasting your money)

As far as the difference between 7.12 and 15 million years, that IS important because radioisotope dates always are published with an error bar (+/-) some small percentage so I dont think that youll see any published data that shows such disagreements of the Miocene Pliocene. If you do, please point it out because the authors should be severely critcized for poor QA and the peer review group should have called this into question.

Did you ever have a chance to read Wiens paper of "Radiometric Dating-A Christian Perspective" ? Hes a world famous geochron scientist who's also a Christian. Hes a lot less charitable than I about the "Errors in understanding made by Fundamentalist Christians and Creationist Proponents who try to deny the validity of isotopic dating techniques"

When formations of known recent age are 'dated' in the millions of years, yes, you could say I have my doubts about the dating techniques. Don't you?

You may respond, 'well, the method is only meant to be accurate on specimens of very old age, in the millions of years'.

Isn't that the point? All specimens are then ASSUMED to be old, and any data to the contrary is an 'anomaly' or 'error' or 'misusing the dating method'.

If earth really is young, then by definition many of the dating methods commonly in use today are not going to accurately date the samples, are they? They would, in effect, give false dates, would they not?

No I have not read Wiens, but the fact that he is a Christian would have no effect on my impression of whatever he writes regarding dating. (Why should it?) I'll look it up online.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
However , as we've often discussed , nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point.

We DISagree on WHEN this happened, not if.

I'd be very much surprised to know that Farmerman ever agreed that "nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point. Which ocean would that have been, "real life?" The Indian, the Southern Ocean, the Pacific?

Were you aware that there is coral atop Everest?

If even the (now) tallest areas were once low enough that they could be undersea, it is not much of a stretch to see how all the earth could have been undersea at some point in time, using the same amount of water that still covers 75-80% of the planet.

(This is especially relevant if all the landmass was in one location, as is thought to be the case. It would require even less water to effectively cover all land.)

Kansas , at the point farthest inland (the geographic center of the US) is well known for the huge numbers of shark's teeth. These are to be found in abundance in Kansas.

0 Replies

You've trotted out witlessness such as that before, and it has been pointed out to you that sea floors can be uplifted. You never tire of posting the same old horseshit over and over again, though, do you?

There is absolutely no good reason to assume that all of the "tallest" areas were once undersea. Just because you repeat the same nonsense again and again doesn't make it any less foolish now than it always has been.

0 Replies

Set, The reason real continues on this BS path is simple; his world of belief and faith will crumble after a lifelong devotion to his god. His fear of the truth is the real culprit.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You've trotted out witlessness such as that before, and it has been pointed out to you that sea floors can be uplifted. You never tire of posting the same old horseshit over and over again, though, do you?

There is absolutely no good reason to assume that all of the "tallest" areas were once undersea. Just because you repeat the same nonsense again and again doesn't make it any less foolish now than it always has been.

Of course they were uplifted. That is the point.

They were undersea (that's where the coral came from) and now Everest is a large mountain, the tallest in the world. But it wasn't always. At one point, the land that is now mountainous was undersea.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know