Why evolution isn't scientific

[46AND2]

so you dont want to deal with the facts. ok. fine .

Of course I want to deal with facts. It's why I'm no longer a YEC, after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course I want to deal with facts. It's why I'm no longer a YEC, after all.

Becoming a TE didn't enter your mind?

 

[46AND2]

Becoming a TE didn't enter your mind?

I have been a YEC.
I have been an OEC gapper.
I have been TE.

While dealing with facts convinced me that YEC wasn't true, and likewise OEC, philosophy and specifically logic left me unconvinced of TE.

 

[AV1611VET]

While dealing with facts convinced me that YEC wasn't true, and likewise OEC, philosophy and specifically logic left me unconvinced of TE.

So you're a Factist then?

 

[Kylie]

so you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 15234 (5 represent the horse in this case) instead of 12345 evolution will be false in this case. right? again: this is your criteria. i want to be clear about this before i will try to give you such an example.

I have made my position clear already.

Now post your evidence.

Honestly, it seems like you are trying to get me to agree that any irregularity will result in me abandoning my opinion that evolution is a powerful explanatory tool. I'm not going to do that. If your evidence is valid evidence against evolution, then I promise I will consider it.

Now will you PLEASE stop blustering about it and POST IT.

 

[Kylie]

So you're a Factist then?

Only you would be able to make it sound that accepting facts is an unreasonable course of action...

 

[AV1611VET]

Only you would be able to make it sound that accepting facts is an unreasonable course of action...

I'm asking him if he's a Factist.

Let's see if he ponies up.

 

[46AND2]

So you're a Factist then?

I'm asking him if he's a Factist.

Let's see if he ponies up.

What's a Factist?

 

[Kylie]

What's a Factist?

Someone who thinks facts are what we should be basing our viewpoints on apparently...

 

[tas8831]

so a watch isnt evidence for design. thanks.

So odd how frequently you totally ignore and/or distort what others write - especially if what they've written makes one of your mantras look like the childish nonsense they almost always are:

Which designer? And how do you know? What about the multitude of other watch types - digital, for example? Was it the same designer? How would you know?

At the very best, if you find a watch on earth, you could conclude that a human made it.

Which human? And how would you know? And how did this human design and make the watch? Did this human make all the pieces him or herself? All the gears, springs, etc? Or were there other humans involved?


So you can (but likely won't) see that merely positing a Designer or Creator without providing any evidence for whom the designer was, how the designer operated, etc., is something a child might do?

 

[tas8831]

this is what he said: If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation. so a watch by itself isnt evidence for design according to him. its just a proclamation.

Why did you ignore - troll-like - everything else?


Which designer? And how do you know? What about the multitude of other watch types - digital, for example? Was it the same designer? How would you know?

At the very best, if you find a watch on earth, you could conclude that a human made it.

Which human? And how would you know? And how did this human design and make the watch? Did this human make all the pieces him or herself? All the gears, springs, etc? Or were there other humans involved?


So you can (but likely won't) see that merely positing a Designer or Creator without providing any evidence for whom the designer was, how the designer operated, etc., is something a child might do?

 

[TheBear]

so a watch isnt evidence for design. thanks.

A watch looks like it was designed, compared to what looks _______. (fill in the blank)

 

[tas8831]

A truelly out of place fossil would require a serious explanation, yes. Although if you have just one of them, it wouldn't be enough to dismantle a theory that's only grown ever more solid from multiple independent lines of evidence - the fossil record being just one of them, and not even the best one at that...

Now, if you would find a bunch of them, with some kind of pattern that doesn't fit the evolutionary narrative, then you'ld have something.

A singular example and nothing else, is problematic to simply discard 200 years of solid and useful science. After all, all that other evidence doesn't just go away...

So, do you have a truelly out of place fossil, or better yet, a bunch of them?

Not really sure what your point is with pressing this. I mean, let's be serious, it's not like you have such a fossil and have kept it a secret all this time, right?

I watched a video about the fallacy employed by those claiming 'science changes its mind, so it cannot be trusted' the other day. It ended with a clip of NGT talking about how relativity "replaced" Netwonian mechanics - it was not that Newton was "wrong", it was that his theories and equations did not cover things that were discovered later. Newtonian mechanics is still 'right' with regards to the things that it covers, Relativity just encompasses that plus more. The anti-science crowd has trouble with the distinction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I watched a video about the fallacy employed by those claiming 'science changes its mind, so it cannot be trusted' the other day. It ended with a clip of NGT talking about how relativity "replaced" Netwonian mechanics - it was not that Newton was "wrong", it was that his theories and equations did not cover things that were discovered later. Newtonian mechanics is still 'right' with regards to the things that it covers, Relativity just encompasses that plus more. The anti-science crowd has trouble with the distinction.

I think the anti-science crowd actually doesn't have much trouble with that distinction.
I think what they actually have trouble with, is when science comes up with things that contradict their a priori beliefs.

After all, they are totally fine with any and all science, including "replacing" theories, they feel agrees (or doesn't contradict) their faith based a priori beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

I think the anti-science crowd actually doesn't have much trouble with that distinction.
I think what they actually have trouble with, is when science comes up with things that contradict their a priori beliefs.

After all, they are totally fine with any and all science, including "replacing" theories, they feel agrees (or doesn't contradict) their faith based a priori beliefs.

True - but when science comes up with things that contradict their a priori beliefs, they also are very quick to take the tiniest of 'anomalies' (so-called) as 'evidence' that the theory as a whole is defunct.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

a scientific theory is a theory that we can test. mean it can be falsified. the problem with evolution is that it cant be test. for instance: some evolutionists (like dawkins and others) claiming that if we will find even a single out of place fossil- evolution will be false. but we actually found many such fossils like this one:

New dinosaur found in the wrong place, at the wrong time

but as you can guess- they just push back the evolution of the creature and dont claim that evolution is false. the problem is that in this way any fossil will not falsify evolution. other evolutionists claimed that if we will find more shared ervs with far species than close species evolution will be false. but in this case they can just claim for convergent evolution or convergent loss or even ils. so even such a case will not be a problem for evolution, and therefore its not a scientific theory by definition. as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. thanks.

People need to stop calling it a theory.

It’s a hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

People need to stop calling it a theory.

It’s a hypothesis.

If it's evolution, it's a wrong.

 

[pitabread]

If it's evolution, it's a wrong.

Coming from creationists, that means little.

 

[AV1611VET]

Coming from creationists, that means little.

Jesus is a creationist, so I know what you mean.

You have all of academia on your side.

 

[pitabread]

You have all of academia on your side.

As do you.