Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Davian]

If science affirms Darwin's work, there wouldn't be Neo-Darwinism.

If science affirms Newton's work - such as by landing a space probe on a moon of Saturn - there wouldn't be Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[AV1611VET]

But... people didn't get anywhere near there via miracle. They used machines, we did that on our own.

But remember:

It was a miracle the trench was brought to them in the first place.

 

[justlookinla]

If science affirms Newton's work - such as by landing a space probe on a moon of Saturn - there wouldn't be Einstein's theory of relativity.

This portion of the forum is about creation and evolution. Just pointing out that Darwin's guesses and suppositions were discarded in favor of Neo-Darwinism....that's how Neo-Darwinism was birthed.

Stay tuned for Neo-Neo Darwinism, the latest 'scientific truth'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This portion of the forum is about creation and evolution. Just pointing out that Darwin's guesses and suppositions were discarded in favor of Neo-Darwinism....that's how Neo-Darwinism was birthed.

Stay tuned for Neo-Neo Darwinism, the latest 'scientific truth'.

"Neo-Darwinism" is a rather silly term. The fact is that science is always changing. It is always getting closer and closer to a full explanation. I don't know why someone would settle for an incomplete explanation when a more complete one was available.

 

[justlookinla]

"Neo-Darwinism" is a rather silly term.

I don't know about "silly". It's an indicator that the guesses and suppositions of Darwin needed to be rejected in favor of new guesses and suppositions.

The fact is that science is always changing.

Yeah, that's why science cannot be fully trusted.

It is always getting closer and closer to a full explanation.

Or maybe further and further away.

I don't know why someone would settle for an incomplete explanation when a more complete one was available.

Newer guesses and suppositions do not always equate with more accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know about "silly". It's an indicator that the guesses and suppositions of Darwin needed to be rejected in favor of new guesses and suppositions.

Calling deduction based upon evidence "guesses" only demonstrates your ignorance.

Yeah, that's why science cannot be fully trusted.

Actually it is why science can be trusted more than any other philosophy. Look at all of the errors in the Bible. There is no self correction method for the Bible so they are stuck there forever, though eventually people do reinterpret it.

Or maybe further and further away.

I am betting that you can't name a case.

Newer guesses and suppositions do not always equate with more accurate.

But you are wrong to call them that, as you and I both know.

 

[justlookinla]

Calling deduction based upon evidence "guesses" only demonstrates your ignorance.

IF Darwin would have had evidence, based on the scientific method, there would be no Neo-Darwinism.

Similarly, if you had evidence, based on the scientific method, you'd not be constantly making worthless and baseless claims.

Actually it is why science can be trusted more than any other philosophy. Look at all of the errors in the Bible. There is no self correction method for the Bible so they are stuck there forever, though eventually people do reinterpret it.

Science can be 'trusted' until the newer 'truth' replaces the old 'truth.

I am betting that you can't name a case.

In the 'scientific' constant restatement of 'truth', who knows if they're getting closer to truth or further away?

But you are wrong to call them that, as you and I both know.

Not at all. If they weren't guesses and suppositions, there would be no need to discard them when newer 'truths' are proposed (actually more guesses and suppositions).

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF Darwin would have had evidence, based on the scientific method, there would be no Neo-Darwinism.

That is a non-sequitur.

Similarly, if you had evidence, based on the scientific method, you'd not be constantly making worthless and baseless claims.

Wrong. I have explained to you why you cannot demand evidence from me. I will help you in any way that I can, but since you have improperly denied evidence in the past there is no point in providing you with more evidence.

Science can be 'trusted' until the newer 'truth' replaces the old 'truth.

Science has been more trustworthy than any other source for quite some time. When Einstein correct Newton it did not automatically make Newton "wrong", his answers are simply more complete and more accurate. Both are far more accurate than the beliefs of the writers of the Bible that claimed the Earth could not move.

In the 'scientific' constant restatement of 'truth', who knows if they're getting closer to truth or further away?

Because it answers more questions more accurately than it did in the past. In the case of the theory of evolution more problems are more fully answered than before.

Not at all. If they weren't guesses and suppositions, there would be no need to discard them when newer 'truths' are proposed (actually more guesses and suppositions).

This is merely more evidence that you have no idea how science is done no matter how many times you post the pretty picture of the scientific method.

 

[SkyWriting]

Mammals arent made of plastic, silly goose!

But it LOOKS like a mammal.
I guess we are going beyond looks then.

 

[justlookinla]

That is a non-sequitur.

Not at all. It's a fact.

Wrong. I have explained to you why you cannot demand evidence from me. I will help you in any way that I can, but since you have improperly denied evidence in the past there is no point in providing you with more evidence.

Keep making your worthless and baseless claims of evidence.....and excuses.

Science has been more trustworthy than any other source for quite some time. When Einstein correct Newton it did not automatically make Newton "wrong", his answers are simply more complete and more accurate. Both are far more accurate than the beliefs of the writers of the Bible that claimed the Earth could not move.

The forum is about creation and evolution, thus the focus on Darwin.....and the new improved Neo-Darwinism. Well, allegedly new and improved.

Because it answers more questions more accurately than it did in the past. In the case of the theory of evolution more problems are more fully answered than before.

What's not answered is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinism.

This is merely more evidence that you have no idea how science is done no matter how many times you post the pretty picture of the scientific method.

The 'pretty picture' pretty well exposes your complete and total failure to provide evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claims of Darwinism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. It's a fact.

No, it is an error, and now you are simply repeating yourself.

Keep making your worthless and baseless claims of evidence.....and excuses.[/qluote]

Now you are making up false charges.

The forum is about creation and evolution, thus the focus on Darwin.....and the new improved Neo-Darwinism. Well, allegedly new and improved.

Yes, and to others I will give evidence when requested. You on the other hand have disqualified yourself.

What's not answered is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinism.

Science works more on the "what" than on the "how". But perhaps I did not understand you. Exactly what do you mean by the "how"?

The 'pretty picture' pretty well exposes your complete and total failure to provide evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claims of Darwinism.

Nope. Not at all. Scientists who work on evolution always follow the scientific method. I don't understand where you got the idea that they don't. Sadly you have only shown that you either don't understand how they do their work or you won't let yourself understand.

 

[Hoghead1]

I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But it LOOKS like a mammal.
I guess we are going beyond looks then.

Find us a plastic mammal and we'll talk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.

Neo-Darwinism is not all that different from "Darwinism". The main difference is that we have learned quite a bit since Darwin's time. Darwin did not understand genetics since it did not exist when he wrote his work. The work of Mendel was lost for a time. And Mendel only took baby steps. Darwin thought that there was simply a blending. He did not understand the idea of a limited number of genes coming from each parent. It also includes refinements such as the work of Gould and others that showed that evolution is not a slow steady process, but rather one that goes forward by fits and starts.


It is not as if NeoDarwinism refuted Darwinism. No more than Einstein's theory of gravity refuted Newton's gravity. Einstein is merely more precise and more complete of an explanation. The same applies to "Neo-Darwinism".

 

[justlookinla]

I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.

I triple-dog dare anyone to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago only by naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[justlookinla]

Neo-Darwinism is not all that different from "Darwinism". The main difference is that we have learned quite a bit since Darwin's time. Darwin did not understand genetics since it did not exist when he wrote his work. The work of Mendel was lost for a time. And Mendel only took baby steps. Darwin thought that there was simply a blending. He did not understand the idea of a limited number of genes coming from each parent. It also includes refinements such as the work of Gould and others that showed that evolution is not a slow steady process, but rather one that goes forward by fits and starts.


It is not as if NeoDarwinism refuted Darwinism. No more than Einstein's theory of gravity refuted Newton's gravity. Einstein is merely more precise and more complete of an explanation. The same applies to "Neo-Darwinism".

Neo-Darwinism means that new guesses and suppositions replaces Darwin's guesses and suppositions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I triple-dog dare anyone to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago only by naturalistic mechanisms.

Define what you mean by "how" in the first place. It seems that you are not using the word correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neo-Darwinism means that new guesses and suppositions replaces Darwin's guesses and suppositions.

Wrong, but then you don't understand evidence. You won't even let yourself learn what evidence is though people have offered time and time again.

The scientific method does not work on guesses and suppositions. It works on evidence, and guess what? Most of it is "what" evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Define what you mean by "how" in the first place. It seems that you are not using the word correctly.

You responded with a link when I originally asked about the 'how', didn't you? Were you responding from a position of ignorance?

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong, but then you don't understand evidence. You won't even let yourself learn what evidence is though people have offered time and time again.

The scientific method does not work on guesses and suppositions. It works on evidence, and guess what? Most of it is "what" evidence.

Not a single shred of evidence is offered by you, or anyone, for the claims of the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.