Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Jimmy D]

And BTW, can someone/anyone explain exactly why science proves nothing

I hope I don’t offend anyone with my blasphemy but.. Jesus wept

 

[Speedwell]

so if the car were made only from metal parts(naturally occuring materials) you will not conclude design?

The sorts of metal alloys used in manufacturing cars do not occur in nature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I stopped paying much attention to your opinion when you said the experiment was incomplete.

Which is kind of curious, since I never said that.

I'm beginning to understand why you can't seem to remember or understand simple things that are explained to you over and over again... Like how scientific theories are never considered proven, only supported.

You people will spout anything when you get backed into a corner. It goes to show, a lot of what you use to defend your evolution is not really fact, it's made up on the spot, just like the "incomplete" experiment comment.

The irony is hilarious, considering your claim that I said anything about an "incomplete experiment", is completely "made up on the spot".

Empty words is all you have for the proof. Proof that you need to stop pretending can't be provided due to some mysterious law or whatever you call the nonsense logic that brings you to that conclusion.

There's nothing mysterious about the concept of a scientific theory.
It's actually quite simple and has been explained to you a bazillion times over.

So... yeah.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And BTW, can someone/anyone explain exactly why science proves nothing (FWIW, It was recently claimed no one said that but the source was very unreliable).

It was me who brought it to your attention that nobody ever said that.
You can easily prove me wrong, by quoting someone on this forum who said that.

I also clarified that scientific theories are never considered proven.

And as a matter of fact, I used your very own silly example "theory" to explain why exactly it is never considered proven.

It was as easy as conducting a second experiment, under different conditions, where your theory would no longer work.

So while you wanted to consider your silly theory "proven" after your hypothetical "experiment", I showed how other experiments can come along later on which show that your silly "theory" wasn't a proven fact at all.

So.... your experiment did not PROVE your theory. It only SUPPORTED it.
Another experiment (mine) then falsified it.

I imagine I'll get the usual cop outs, like I shouldn't expect an explanation, maybe? lol Or maybe it's too complicated for anyone but the educated to understand, that's a popular catch all.

We'll see. Did you understand what I said above?

(my money is again on "no", but I'ld love to be surprised!)

 

[VirOptimus]

Darn, I forget to list the, "we aren't responsible for your education" in the expected cop out list. Thank you.

Funny though, you had no problem in educating me in that it "doesn't work like that" but when it comes to why suddenly you aren't responsible. lol. How convenient.

Your ignorance is your problem, not mine. Its far from a cop out, my time is just far more valuable then spending it on your education.

 

[VirOptimus]

i need to show a math to prove that a car cant evolve naturally? realy?

As you stated chance implyinh odds, show the math. Unsupported claims are useless.

 

[VirOptimus]

scientists already did it. its not my problem that you dont want to accept it.

No, they didnt. There is no accepted science on ID as ID isnt science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but its still mean that we have a nested hierarchy in vehicle.

You'ld require a MUCH greater and MUCH more detailed dataset, to show that to be a fact.

I guarantee you that you can't do it.
Others on here have already digged a bit deeper into such datasets and it became clear rather quickly that there is no trace at all of such a pattern in the blueprints of manufactured goods. Be it cars, phones or anything else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i need to show a math to prove that a car cant evolve naturally? realy?

You're unaware that probabilities ("chance") are things that need to be calculated?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if the car were made only from metal parts(naturally occuring materials) you will not conclude design?

Well, it's a bad example to begin with since cars are designed by definition. They are machines invented and created by and for humans.

However, you are welcome to show me a real object made from "naturally occuring metals" and I'll be happy to discuss it.

I don't see the point of discussing your imaginary cars and whatnot.

as far as i aware its also prof dawkins way to detect design. are you saying that dawkins is confuse too? good to know.

lol!

You're not "as far aware" as you think you are, that's kind of clear. Accross the board.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a cat cant evolve into something else then a cat even after billions of years. thanks for this clarification.

Not according to evolution theory, no.

You should read up a bit.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your ignorance is your problem, not mine. Its far from a cop out, my time is just far more valuable then spending it on your education.

Yep, your time is so valuable you have plenty of it to say one is wrong but not enough to say why. Another laughable convenience.

Still nothing but excuses. Thanks for taking the, um, "time".

 

[Kenny'sID]

Which is kind of curious, since I never said that.

I'm beginning to understand why you can't seem to remember or understand simple things that are explained to you over and over again... Like how scientific theories are never considered proven, only supported.

Incomplete, not an experiment at all....pretty much the same thing.. But grab at all you can to try to discredit the party you know is correct , you clearly need all the help you can get, so I'll let it slide.

Challenge allert!

And if it is not either complete, or an experiment at all, please explain why? I mean I had so much fun with the first round, I want to do it again. Bit I'm sure you've had time to collect yourself and, well, I at least hope you can do better this time around. If not, please don't do that to yourself again

There's nothing mysterious about the concept of a scientific theory

Which is kind of curious, since I never said that. LOL!

I'm beginning to understand why you can't seem to remember or understand simple things that are explained to you over and over again, like science absolutely does prove things...it's how things ARE proven...

Too funny.

 

[Brightmoon]

what kind of evidence it will look like?

Animals plants fungi , you know the usual crowd , living and extinct

 

[DogmaHunter]

Incomplete, not an experiment at all....pretty much the sane thing..

Didn't say that either.

Challenge allert!

And if it is not either complete, or an experiment at all, please explain why? I mean I had so much fun with the first round, I want to do it again. Bit I'm sure you've had time to collect yourself and, well, I at least hope you can do better this time around. If not, please don't do that to yourself again

Troll.

Which is kind of curious, since I never said that. LOL!

You implied it. The "proof" is refering to a theory. And you call it "mysterious" as to why theories have no proof, only supportive evidence.

So indeed, there's nothing mysterious about the concept of a scientific theory.
There's just the simply fact that new potential evidence that you could discover tomorrow may overrule what seems correct today.

This is why grand progress in science might actually mean the fall of previously accepted theories.

This is why theories can only be disproven and not proven, only supported.

The evidence available at this time supports theory A.
New evidence tomorrow might disprove A.
Enter theory B, which explains all the data that supported A as well as the new evidence discovered tomorrow.


Let's look at your "Paper burns!" theory.
Your data supported it. You put it in a torch and it burned up.
My data didn't. I put in a vaccuum and nothing happened.

So now you need a new "burn!" theory. The "Paper burns!" theory has been debunked. Now you need a new theory which also encompasses the new data.


Honestly, I don't think it can be simplified more then this.

And I wonder why I even took the time to write this little piece of obvious.

I'm beginning to understand why you can't seem to remember or understand simple things that are explained to you over and over again, like science absolutely does prove things...it's how things ARE proven...

Too funny.

I'm not talking about "things". I'm talking about theories.

Spoiler

I predict he'll answer something along the lines of "I stopped reading at 'Troll'..."

​

​

 

[Kenny'sID]

Challenge response

Troll.

First, give me a moment to collect myself/dry my eyes.

Conclusion to challenge,

You decide for yourself but I'd say that is refusal to accept the simple challenge to back up what was said.

But that's ok, I never expected such and no one is going to goad it out of you. The only purpose of the challenge, I wanted to make clear exactly where we are at here, and thanks for your contribution..

 

[Kenny'sID]

;

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny'sID said: ↑

Incomplete, not an experiment at all....pretty much the same thing.

Didn't say that either.

That's not a scientific experiment.

Seriously, how can I take your word for anything...And are you seriously going to say "I didn't use the term "scientific". That's the whole subject here, what is scientific expirimentation/proof.

 

[pitabread]

so you will conclude design or not if you will see such an object?

I don't know because I have no idea what such an object would look like.

 

[Shemjaza]

but its still mean that we have a nested hierarchy in vehicle.

As always with this line of, (what can only loosely be called) reasoning, this is nonsense and lies.

Trivial examples: chassis material, radio brands and models, tire material are all examples of traits that appear completly out of sequence of a nested hierarchy of cars and trucks.

Preach to the world about creationism all you like, but the petty pretence of ID as science is demeaning to both science and faith.

 

[Jimmy D]

like science absolutely does prove things...it's how things ARE proven...

LOL, I think you've befuddled yourself with your rambling Kenny.

If you consider observing paper burning as "proof" of your theory, would you not consider observing a species evolve as "proof" of evolution? You are aware that we have observed such things aren't you?