I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[lasthero]

Are you describing The Planet of the Apes movie script?

I'm curious - what was the point of putting the picture there?

 

[Smidlee]

This imagine is misleading since it doesn't not represent evolution.
Careful watch this video: The Evolution of Birds and Flight: It's impossible Part 1 - YouTube

Notice the picture doesn't show "A" evolving to "B" then to "C" then to "D". It shows "A" evolved from "X" then later "B" evolved from "X" then later "C" evolved from "X". "X" is an unknown mythological creature. This video applies to all evolutionist trees including humans.
The reason evolutionist do this is this gives them the maximum flexibility in their storytelling. It would be the same as taking verses of the Bible out of context to make it say anything you want it to say.

Now watch and read carefully this article. Notice how the evolutionist Tyson does the exact same thing , taking events and describing them completely out of order so the events happened the way he want them to happen. This is exact how evolutionist interpret the fossil record. Now to themselves they may think they have a strong case but in reality they are just fooling themselves (and anyone who doesn't take the time to think about what they are claiming).

 

[PsychoSarah]

We didn't actually evolve from chimps, or any other modern species for that matter. So, picture is flawed.

 

[Zosimus]

What you should be arguing is that we can't use falling things to test the theories of gravity.

You should be saying that we should throw out the entire scientific method because it relies on affirming the consequent.

Once again, you must rely on straw man arguments because you cannot refute the arguments I have made.

The value of scientific experiments is that they show bad theories to be false. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, for example, is known to be false. Since then several alternate explanations have been proposed, none of which are satisfactory.

Accordingly physics continues to use the known-bad Newton's laws until a better theory can be invented.

 

[Zosimus]

However, the theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, and there is no other theory that explains the facts in such a complete manner.

A theory cannot be supported by mountains of evidence. Attempts to do so violate logic. The best you can say about a theory is that it has been tested and so far has held up under scrutiny. However, one failed test would immediately falsify whatever pet theory you adhere to.

 

[Zosimus]

Gosh, you just threw the entire scientific method out the window. Talk about nihilism, I don't think I have run into anything this extreme before.

Dizredux

I have thrown the entire scientific method out the window by quoting Karl Popper, philosopher of science, who indicated that the scientific method was useful for falsifying bad theories?

I may have thrown your entire world into chaos by mentioning things every first-year philosophy student learns in epistemology 101. If so, then I'm sorry for you.

 

[Zosimus]

People are sent to the death on what you call "circumstantial evidence" and deny is proof. The juries and the judge considered it proof.

Why don't you think such evidence is proof?

If it were proof, I wouldn't be able to refer you to links such as The Innocence Project - DNA Exonerations Nationwide
or
http://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/fingerprints.htm

"Despite a century of courtroom use, fingerprint examiners have little hard evidence of the method's accuracy."

 

[Delphiki]

So you don't care if the quote is real or not? Why doesn't that surprise me.

How are quotes by me or NDT not real? What do you mean by "real"? Do you mean "by other people in history"? Do you mean "factual"?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have thrown the entire scientific method out the window by quoting Karl Popper, philosopher of science, who indicated that the scientific method was useful for falsifying bad theories?

I may have thrown your entire world into chaos by mentioning things every first-year philosophy students learns in epistemology 101. If so, then I'm sorry for you.

74

 

[Dizredux]

I have thrown the entire scientific method out the window by quoting Karl Popper, philosopher of science, who indicated that the scientific method was useful for falsifying bad theories?

I may have thrown your entire world into chaos by mentioning things every first-year philosophy student learns in epistemology 101. If so, then I'm sorry for you.

Your statement was

confirmed predictions don't support theories.

You say you were quoting Popper. Can you give a cite on this as I can't seem to find it?

Dizredux

 

[JayFern]

Creationism = Evolution is not true because I do not want it to be true.

 

[Split Rock]

Once again, you must rely on straw man arguments because you cannot refute the arguments I have made.

The value of scientific experiments is that they show bad theories to be false. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, for example, is known to be false. Since then several alternate explanations have been proposed, none of which are satisfactory.

Accordingly physics continues to use the known-bad Newton's laws until a better theory can be invented.

And will that law be invented by way of using logical proofs?

A theory cannot be supported by mountains of evidence. Attempts to do so violate logic. The best you can say about a theory is that it has been tested and so far has held up under scrutiny. However, one failed test would immediately falsify whatever pet theory you adhere to.

Of course a theory can be supported by mountains of evidence. Logical proofs tell us nothing about the natural/ physical world around us. Logical proofs did not create computers nor the internet you are using to spread your flawed arguments, for example.

The last part of what you wrote is actually correct.... to a point. One failed test does nothing in isolation. If it represents a falsification that is confirmable with additional tests, then yes you are correct.

I have thrown the entire scientific method out the window by quoting Karl Popper, philosopher of science, who indicated that the scientific method was useful for falsifying bad theories?

No. You are attempting to do something Popper never attempted.. and that is indeed to throw the scientific method out the window. All because you quote him on occasion, does not mean his quotes support your flawed arguments about logic.

I may have thrown your entire world into chaos by mentioning things every first-year philosophy student learns in epistemology 101. If so, then I'm sorry for you.

Lets get right down to the basic flaw in your argument. I will ask you a simple question:

When has a logical proof ever helped us to understand the physical/natural world around us?

Take your time... I will wait.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism = Evolution is not true because I do not want it to be true.

I don't want evolution to be true, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

When has a logical proof ever helped us to understand the physical/natural world around us?

When it comes from a computer program and helps you connect the dots of evolution?

 

[Dizredux]

Lets get right down to the basic flaw in your argument. I will ask you a simple question:

When has a logical proof ever helped us to understand the physical/natural world around us?

Take your time... I will wait.

As will I but not with a lot of optimism.

What Zosimus is missing (although I suspect he understands but is playing games) is that deductive or formal logic is just that, a formal system complete into itself and has no requirement to connect in any way with empirical reality. It is concerned only with the form of the arguments.

Inductive logic on the other hand is tightly connected with the empirical world and is the primary logic tool used by science which is why deductive logic can and does "prove" but science never does.

I have seen this kind of argument many times and mostly they are rather silly mental games.

Let's see in Zosimus can be the first to come up with something convincing. It would be interesting.

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

Your statement was You say you were quoting Popper. Can you give a cite on this as I can't seem to find it?

Dizredux

Popper’s Account of Scientific Theories

"The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents....What, I asked myself, did it confirm? No more than that a case could be interpreted in the light of the theory. But this meant very little...It was precisely this fact—that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed—which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness."

P.S. See that signature below? It's another Popper quote.

 

[Zosimus]

And will that law be invented by way of using logical proofs?


Of course a theory can be supported by mountains of evidence. Logical proofs tell us nothing about the natural/ physical world around us. Logical proofs did not create computers nor the internet you are using to spread your flawed arguments, for example.

The last part of what you wrote is actually correct.... to a point. One failed test does nothing in isolation. If it represents a falsification that is confirmable with additional tests, then yes you are correct.



No. You are attempting to do something Popper never attempted.. and that is indeed to throw the scientific method out the window. All because you quote him on occasion, does not mean his quotes support your flawed arguments about logic.


Lets get right down to the basic flaw in your argument. I will ask you a simple question:

When has a logical proof ever helped us to understand the physical/natural world around us?

Take your time... I will wait.

 

[Loudmouth]

The value of scientific experiments is that they show bad theories to be false.

How do you do so, without affirming the consequent?

Wouldn't you need to make predictions? Would observing those predictions absolutely prove that the theory is false?

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, for example, is known to be false.

How so? There could be alternative explanations, such as invisible fairies moving bodies about to make it look like they violate the Newton's theory of instantaneous gravity.

 

[Zosimus]

As will I but not with a lot of optimism.

What Zosimus is missing (although I suspect he understands but is playing games) is that deductive or formal logic is just that, a formal system complete into itself and has no requirement to connect in any way with empirical reality. It is concerned only with the form of the arguments.

Inductive logic on the other hand is tightly connected with the empirical world and is the primary logic tool used by science which is why deductive logic can and does "prove" but science never does.

I have seen this kind of argument many times and mostly they are rather silly mental games.

Let's see in Zosimus can be the first to come up with something convincing. It would be interesting.

Dizredux

You don't find a proof of the Pythagorean theorem convincing?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have thrown the entire scientific method out the window by quoting Karl Popper, philosopher of science, who indicated that the scientific method was useful for falsifying bad theories?

You have thrown out the scientific method by rejecting theories that are not falsified. You seem to think that observations that match the hypothesis mean nothing.