Evolution Proven!

[AV1611VET]

This is unjustifiable.

Present evidence or retract.

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

I gave two examples: Pluto and Phlogiston.

I'm being nice, too, by not bringing up Nebraska Man and Haeckel's Embryos.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I gave two examples: Pluto and Phlogiston.

I'm being nice, too, by not bringing up Nebraska Man and Haeckel's Embryos.

Doesn't prove your point. Your implication was that we don't doubt ourselves - we do. That's why we have peer review and many other techniques for making sure that our theories are constantly refined and improved, and occasionally disproven altogether.

Don't project your own inability to doubt your theories on to scientists. That's the great strength of science - doubt everything. If you think you can disprove it, try. If scientists treated science like creationists treat creationism, we'd never advance at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't prove your point.

Baloney --- it does too.

You guys were forced to drop Phlogiston when evidence became so overwhelming that it would be ludicrous to keep believing it as factual.

If scientists treated science like creationists treat creationism, we'd never advance at all.

That's because creationism is not science --- it's history.

Look at what treating it as science is doing now; nothing but confusing you guys.

Until you look at it like it was meant to be looked at, you guys (and we too --- we're no exception) are not going to get anywhere.

 

[BananaSlug]

Baloney --- it does too.

You guys were forced to drop Phlogiston when evidence became so overwhelming that it would be ludicrous to keep believing it as factual.That's because creationism is not science --- it's history.

The point is we did. The creationist mindset would be to continue denying evidence contradicting phlogiston while creating wild claims to explain why all of the evidence seems to contradict phlogiston.

Look at what treating it as science is doing now; nothing but confusing you guys.

We can use science to study history. Even as history creationism is wrong. How did >6,000 years of C14 get "embedded" into Chinese pottery?

Until you look at it like it was meant to be looked at, you guys (and we too --- we're no exception) are not going to get anywhere.

So could you explain again how fossils got into 250 million year old rock?

 

[Cabal]

I gave two examples: Pluto and Phlogiston.

I'm being nice, too, by not bringing up Nebraska Man and Haeckel's Embryos.

Wonderful, four terrible examples.

Pluto - A DEFINITION, for the n-th time. A name does not change empirical observation.

Phlogiston - it lingered because it actually wasn't contradicted by results until a certain point.

Nebraska man - not even going to dignify this one with a response - it wasn't even touted as science in the first place.

Haeckel's Embryos - not totally wrong, just exaggerated.

And those four terrible examples are but from a handful of different people.

And you broadbrush it to all of us.

Bravo.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is we did.

Of course you did --- you had no choice.

Now you want to claim credit for changing it and call that a "strength".

The creationist mindset would be to continue denying evidence contradicting phlogiston...

What on earth does creationism have to do with evidence, Phlogiston, or anything scientific?

 

[Cabal]

Of course you did --- you had no choice.

Now you want to claim credit for changing it and call that a "strength".

What's with this "you"? Scientists coined phlogiston, other scientists discovered oxygen? It's people from the same discipline all round.

What on earth does creationism have to do with evidence, Phlogiston, or anything scientific?

"Mindset", AV.

He's saying creationists don't even admit their mistakes.

And he's completely right.....

 

[BananaSlug]

Of course you did --- you had no choice.

Now you want to claim credit for changing it and call that a "strength".What on earth does creationism have to do with evidence, Phlogiston, or anything scientific?

You do realize that history can be studied by science. If you still want to claim there is no physical evidence for creation you might want to explain why your beliefs contradict the Bible.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Romans 1:20

Clearly this verse means that God's attributes are clearly evident in the things that are made (creation) so that we are without excuse. Yet you claim that God's attributes are not clearly evident in creation. Can you explain why your beliefs clearly contradict what the unfallible Bible states? Or are you just going to claim that my interpretation is wrong (considering this is what my pastor at my old church told me, you could explain why his interpretation is wrong).

 

[kharisym]

AV, who disproved phlogistan, haeckel's embryos, and nebraska man?

Wait wait wait... I know this one! God! *BEEEEEEP*

Okay okay, one more try... how about... scientists? DING DING DING

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't believe that.
Yes.

God did it --- Case Closed.

"God did it" explains red shift? *rolls eyes*

 

[firechild_82]

"God did it" explains red shift? *rolls eyes*

Goddidit explains nothing and is simply a creationists excuse to not have to answer anything about concepts that they simply do not understand.

 

[pgp_protector]

I don't believe that.
Yes.

God did it --- Case Closed.

You were asked if you can explain it.
You answered yes.
God did it isn't an explication, so please explain it.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

I know the feeling. You are excused.

First off, what are your credentials for making the bald assertion 'it is'?

I'm just imitating everyone else who discuss cosmology, with or without the 'credentials'.

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.

Ya know, I have often wondered why people who discuss cosmology, with or without the 'credentials', use the term "it is", even though "it is" has never been PROVEN.

Forming a theory is the best cosmologists can do. So for anyone, with or without the 'credentials', to use the term "it is" is a "bald assertion" to me too, because "it is" is not supported by PROOF.

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.

Then why do cosmologists do it?

Your original exclamation of exasperation didn't ask for a how, it asked for evidence of expansion. Your moving goalposts here.

That's because I don't see the relation between the "evidence" you provided and the so called "expansion", so I just wanted to clear up the confusion.

As per your *new* request, I'm not a cosmologist and so I don't know the latest theories pertaining to what caused expansionism.

Perhaps you should find out from real cosmologists, then you might understand my "exasperation".

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

It would appear we are both "exasperated".

Now you know how I feel.

 

[Nostromo]

Ya know, I have often wondered why people who discuss cosmology, with or without the 'credentials', use the term "it is", even though "it is" has never been PROVEN.

What, in your mind, constitutes proof of something? Or more specifically, what would constitute proof of an expanding universe?

[edit] I suppose I should add that nothing is ever really proven, in an absolute sense, before anyone picks me up on it.

Forming a theory is the best cosmologists can do.

This isn't going to turn a law vs theory farce is it? Look up what the word theory really means, how it is used in science. Many theories are so well evidenced that they are taken as facts.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

From what I've learnt about evolution has led me to conclude that evolution is nothing but an insult to my family's intelligence. The idea that my family has the intelligence of apes, and that my great grand dad was the brother of a gorilla, does no fit well with us. That’s a car that just won’t drive in our family.

Consensus Cosmology with all of its dark, invisible, undetectable stuff is a car that doesn't drive, either.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

In other words, the science is not about reality, it's about one theory remaining until another theory comes along and replaces it, while reality remains unchanged.

 

[SithDoughnut]

From what I've learnt about evolution has led me to conclude that evolution is nothing but an insult to my family's intelligence. The idea that my family has the intelligence of apes, and that my great grand dad was the brother of a gorilla, does no fit well with us. That’s a car that just won’t drive in our family.

Then my post was correct.

You really should read up on evolution, it'll do you good, if only so that you can understand what it is you are arguing against.

Evolution does not claim that your family has the intelligence of (other) apes. Of course, like all humans, they are a species of ape but they have evolved to become much more intelligent than other species of ape, or any animal for that matter.

You great grandad was not the brother of a gorilla. No one in your family is related to gorillas. You didn't even evolve from gorillas. The truth is that if you trace your family history and the family history of a gorilla back for millions of years, eventually you will find that you have a common ancestor. That is, an ancestor that both you and a gorilla is decended from. This happened so long ago that you'd never be able to be sure at what point you'll reach this common ancestor, but you can be assured that no one in your family is or was the brother of a gorilla. Rather, you are both ridiculously distant cousins, although you are more closely related to every other human than you are a gorilla.

Try reading about evolution, it's an interesting subject whether you believe in it or not. I'm going to make an assumption that your family has taught you what you know about evolution, and if so they are as wrong as you are. If you would like I can give you some links to read up about it on.

 

[SithDoughnut]

In other words, the science is not about reality, it's about one theory remaining until another theory comes along and replaces it, while reality remains unchanged.

Almost. It's about one view of reality being replaced by another view of reality that is closer to reality than the first one, until we eventually hit the actual reality.

Reality does indeed remain unchanged - science isn't an omnipresent God after all.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

There is plenty of evidence for this:

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

But you guys will only deny it, as you are doing already.

 

[MoonLancer]

From what I've learnt about evolution has led me to conclude that evolution is nothing but an insult to my family's intelligence. The idea that my family has the intelligence of apes, and that my great grand dad was the brother of a gorilla, does no fit well with us. That’s a car that just won’t drive in our family.

Where does evolution say that your family or any human family have the intelligence of apes, and where does it say that 4 to 5 generations ago, people where gorillas? You are using straw-man and hyper-bowl here and its not honest.

Consensus Cosmology with all of its dark, invisible, undetectable stuff is a car that doesn't drive, either.

If an invisible man ran on a beach would he be undetectable? Invisible surly but not undetectable.