Evolution Proven!

[SithDoughnut]

I don't. To me, the science is just wishy washy and a poor attempt to logically explain the wishy washy.

And creationism is a bail-out by those who can't even be asked to try to work it out in the first place.

Without science you wouldn't even be on this forum. It always amuses me how creationists use technology developed by scientific method in order to try and denounce it. It's like driving a car around with a sign on the side saying "All vehicles are useless! God will transport you around!"

 

[kharisym]

...

I really hate that particular style of interwebs debate, it tends to lead to 'bumper sticker' debate (obnoxious) and excessively long posts, so please excuse me if I don't respond to every 4~5 words in your post.

First off, what are your credentials for making the bald assertion 'it is'? You fail to provide substantiation, which gives the impression that you speak from authority. I find those who attempt the facade of authority when they possess none are usually those with the least authority on a subject.

So it is expanding but not necessarily moving. Got It.
Consensus Cosmology seem to believe the earth is a definable "point" from which the universe is measured, so you can start there.

Yes. And the earth is moving through space, therefore space is not at a fixed point from earth, so measuring the expansion of space is meaningless.

And these cause space to expand, how?

Your original exclamation of exasperation didn't ask for a how, it asked for evidence of expansion. Your moving goalposts here.
As per your *new* request, I'm not a cosmologist and so I don't know the latest theories pertaining to what caused expansionism.

Unlike a creationist, I don't pretend to know everything.

 

[Doveaman]

And creationism is a bail-out by those who can't even be asked to try to work it out in the first place.

Without science you wouldn't even be on this forum. It always amuses me how creationists use technology developed by scientific method in order to try and denounce it. It's like driving a car around with a sign on the side saying "All vehicles are useless! God will transport you around!"

If the car drives, that's okay.

The problem is, the car cannot drive but we are still being asked to drive it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You haven't given any reason for us to believe that such a thing is plausible and even say that such a thing is undetectable, as everything would look exactly as it should had it occurred without special creation.

I couldn't disagree more.

Rather, everything looks exactly as your [myopic] instruments are calibrated to tell you how they should look.

You guys have no idea how this universe should look.

Since the first scientist went prodigal, scientists have been changing and rearranging their paradigms over and over again.

Every day, it seems, something is discovered that shows current paradigms to be in error.

Pluto is one of my favorite current examples; Phlogiston is one of my favorite past examples.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like that explanation.

Amen --- praise the LORD!

And I like your explanation as well!

God did it --- Case Closed.

 

[AV1611VET]

And creationism is a bail-out by those who can't even be asked to try to work it out in the first place.

Work what out?

It is history --- not science.

And even it it was science (which it isn't), it would not be my place to 'work it out', as science is not my calling.

You work it out.

Without science you wouldn't even be on this forum.

That's right --- and without the air God gave you to breathe, you wouldn't be using science to create an Internet to tell us we shouldn't be on it.

It always amuses me how creationists use technology developed by scientific method in order to try and denounce it.

Credit where credit is due; criticism where criticism is due.

The alternative, of course, is to just wait awhile, and you guys will soon be criticizing your own science; like Pluto and Phlogiston.

Basically, all you guys are saying is that only a scientist is qualified to critique science in the name of science; but, of course, scientists are equally qualified to criticize religion in the name of science as well --- right?

Well --- that's bologna, in my opinion.

It's like driving a car around with a sign on the side saying "All vehicles are useless! God will transport you around!"

How about we change it to say, "You scientists use your own air!" ?

 

[Cabal]

Since the first scientist went prodigal, scientists have been changing and rearranging their paradigms over and over again.

Maybe they went prodigal after God changed his paradigm and committed genocide during the flood?

Every day, it seems, something is discovered that shows current paradigms to be in error.

Pluto is one of my favorite current examples; Phlogiston is one of my favorite past examples.

The same statement could made about religions - the difference being, science is more efficient because it at least admits error.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same statement could made about religions - the difference being, science is more efficient because it at least admits error.

Big deal --- they are rhetorical errors.

Like one poster here once said to me, "I can't wait until we've been shown wrong about [something we were discussing]."

And you'll never admit to these errors until you've been "caught" --- like Tombaugh's Folly - (Pluto).

And even then, you'll still hold the discoverer up as famous, brilliant, etc.

You're admissions of error are nothing more than cheap, plastic, public relations rhetoric.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Big deal --- they are rhetorical errors.

Like one poster here once said to me, "I can't wait until we've been shown wrong about [something we were discussing]."

And you'll never admit to these errors until you've been "caught" --- like Tombaugh's Folly - (Pluto).

And even then, you'll still hold the discoverer up as famous, brilliant, etc.

You're admissions of error are nothing more than cheap, plastic, public relations rhetoric.

At least we can admit it where it is necessary.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I couldn't disagree more.

Rather, everything looks exactly as your [myopic] instruments are calibrated to tell you how they should look.

And what makes you any less myopic, AV?

 

[SithDoughnut]

If the car drives, that's okay.

The problem is, the car cannot drive but we are still being asked to drive it.

From this I can only conclude that you close your eyes whenever you see a post about evolution. It happens, we have demonstrated it, we have evidence for it, and that same evidence has been posted regularly around this thread. I'm not sure there's much left that we can do.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Work what out?

It is history --- not science.

And even it it was science (which it isn't), it would not be my place to 'work it out', as science is not my calling.

You work it out.

Since when was history unrelated to science and the scientific method?

If you don't want to work it out, stop claiming that you have the answer.

That's right --- and without the air God gave you to breathe, you wouldn't be using science to create an Internet to tell us we shouldn't be on it.

I can prove that science has led to the invention of cars. You can't prove that God made air. In fact science has an alternative theory backed up with evidence for that too. Stop breathing science's air!

Credit where credit is due; criticism where criticism is due.

"SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE"

I guess you're criticising the invention of the internet then. There doesn't appear to be much credit in that statement. It's more of a blanket criticism, really.

The alternative, of course, is to just wait awhile, and you guys will soon be criticizing your own science; like Pluto and Phlogiston.

Yep, and we'll happily admit that we were wrong and we'll adopt the new better theory. That's how the world develops. If it didn't happen, we'd still be living in tribes beating each other over the head with clubs.

Of course, we might not be wrong, but you never know. Whatever it is, I'd rather progress with scientific development that stagnate with Goddiditism

(Some people appear to make up words all the time here, and Godiditism is much more fun to say and write than Creationism, although it's still up for debate.)

Basically, all you guys are saying is that only a scientist is qualified to critique science in the name of science; but, of course, scientists are equally qualified to criticize religion in the name of science as well --- right?

Pretty much. That's how science works, after all. We don't use religious developments to criticise religion, that would be as hypocritical as using scientific developments to criticise scien-

Oh, wait...

Well --- that's bologna, in my opinion.How about we change it to say, "You scientists use your own air!" ?

We do. It's our air as much as anyone else's. We can show that the air as it exists now arose through the development of organisms that made use of photosynthesis to generate energy. If it's anyone's air, it's theirs. Since they're not claiming it I think it's alright for us to breathe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least we can admit it where it is necessary.

Like I said, not until you have to, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can prove that science has led to the invention of cars.

No, you can't.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Like I said, not until you have to, though.

No. We admit to it when a better theory comes around. There hasn't been a better theory so far, so we must proceed under the conclusion that the current one is correct.

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, you can't.

Sorry, my bad.

I have large amounts of evidence that science led to the invention of the car. There is about as much conclusive evidence as there can be. Therefore, I can be 99.999999% sure that science led to the invention of the car, i.e. I'm as sure as I ever will be.

In other words: I have proof (following the general use of the word) that science led to the invention of cars.

 

[Cabal]

Big deal --- they are rhetorical errors.

Like one poster here once said to me, "I can't wait until we've been shown wrong about [something we were discussing]."

And you'll never admit to these errors until you've been "caught" --- like Tombaugh's Folly - (Pluto).

And even then, you'll still hold the discoverer up as famous, brilliant, etc.

You're admissions of error are nothing more than cheap, plastic, public relations rhetoric.

Utter, UTTER unjustifiable nonsense.

Public relations describes your constant twisting of definitions pretty well.

 

[Cabal]

Like I said, not until you have to, though.

This is unjustifiable.

Present evidence or retract.

This is defamatory and unbelievably hypocritical, not to mention false witness.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is unjustifiable.

Present evidence or retract.

This is defamatory and unbelievably hypocritical, not to mention false witness.

Creationism 101.

You should know by now that creationists will never resort to anything as base as "evidence," "facts," or "proof" when they can shuffle around "interpretations" of other people's work to make it look like they have a valid point.

Demand evidence, and all you'll get is word-twisting and projection.

 

[Nostromo]

I couldn't disagree more.

Rather, everything looks exactly as your [myopic] instruments are calibrated to tell you how they should look.

You guys have no idea how this universe should look.

Since the first scientist went prodigal, scientists have been changing and rearranging their paradigms over and over again.

I was quite happy to give you the benefit of the doubt when I saw other posters mocking you, but it seems they were right.

You lack even the most fundamental understanding of what science is and intellectual rigour seems almost entirely non-existent in your world.

You decry the continuing betterment of human understanding by science when your own myth of choice has been stagnant for 2 millennia despite being way off the mark in the first place. Revision of theories is a strength of scientific study, not a weakness.