Why evolution isn't scientific

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

this is indeed what they are saying:

figure 5/b: "Effect of adding the Zachełmie tracks to the phylogeny: the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended"

so they basically push back tetrapods and elpistostegids. exactly like I said.

No, it's not the same thing. Pushing something back a few million years is not the same as completely rewriting the theory of evolution, which is what YOU ARE SAYING scientists are doing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but its a peepr review paper. so now we see that we have peer review papers that support id. and yet you dont believe in id.

Except it's not the same. The Discovery Institute is a shill organization who do absolutely zero science.

 

[xianghua]

No, it's not the same thing. Pushing something back a few million years is not the same as completely rewriting the theory of evolution, which is what YOU ARE SAYING scientists are doing.

no. i actually said that evolution has no problem to push several species back.

 

[xianghua]

Except it's not the same. The Discovery Institute is a shill organization who do absolutely zero science.

these pappers were not published in Discovery Institute but in peer review jornals. the Discovery Institute just gave the list.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

no. i actually said that evolution has no problem to push several species back.

Which you have said means they can push back evolution far past any point. Evolution CANNOT do that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

these pappers were not published in Discovery Institute but in peer review jornals. the Discovery Institute just gave the list.

Many of which are not papers that are in favour of intelligent design. They are just papers that have been co-opted by the Discovery Institute to try and prove their lies.

 

[xianghua]

Which you have said means they can push back evolution far past any point. Evolution CANNOT do that.

why not? do you agree for instance that we cant push back dolphins to about 50 my ago?

 

[xianghua]

Many of which are not papers that are in favour of intelligent design. They are just papers that have been co-opted by the Discovery Institute to try and prove their lies.

many of them in fact do support id and even mention it. so these pappers are scientific pappers which support id. period.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

why not? do you agree for instance that we cant push back dolphins to about 50 my ago?

If you can show me evidence for that claim, I would accept it. At least that claim has a bit more factuality for it than your asinine claim about evolution working if you found a 200 million year old bear fossil.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

many of them in fact do support id and even mention it. so these pappers are scientific pappers which support id. period.

An example of one of which is?
And there's also the matter of the fact that many ID papers that claim to have passed peer review have not actually passed the peer review that would see them posted in larger international science forums. So, no. Just no.

 

[Kylie]

its a good question for you actually: why should I waste my time trying to explain it to you when you have already shown many times that you are not interested in explanations? i showed clearly that this is indeed what these scientists claiming. if you have a counter evidence you are welcome to show it.

You've been shown several times at least that scientists are not claiming what you say they're claiming, and yet you persist on saying they are claiming it. It's gone beyond the point where your responses can be viewed as a misunderstanding.

 

[Kylie]

a mutation isnt random?

Evolution isn't random.

when you said that mutation (or a mixing event) isnt random its a clear evidence that you are the one who have no idea about this topic.

I said that evolution isn't random.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

i actually said that evolution isnt science. and so far no one here showed otherwise.

Evolution is science. It makes testable predictions, which have been tested and verified.

However, you don't understand how science works, you don't understand how evolution works, you don't understand how to determine if something is science and you don't understand the evidence people have shown you that evolution is scientific.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

are you saying that if we have a peer review article that support intelligent design then intelligent design is true?

If we have a peer reviewed article about intelligent design published in a reputable journal in a relevant field that has had scientists in a relevant field examine it and agree with it, then yes, I would count that as evidence for intelligent design.

Can you produce such an article?

 

[Kylie]

its actually already happened:

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

Yeah, this is laughable.

The article in question was a literature review article and contained no new research at all. The following month, the publisher of the journal released a statement rejecting the article (the text of which is copied below), stating that the person who handled the review process not only had done it all himself (a very unusual move), but had actually put in his resignation from the position six months previously.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (イソフラボンでイライラ解消) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

​

SOURCE

 

[Kylie]

why not? do you agree for instance that we cant push back dolphins to about 50 my ago?

Didn't we already go over this with bears? You think using a different group of animals is going to make a difference?

 

[the iconoclast]

I think denying physical reality like you do is stupid and ignorant.

Hey hey my dear.

Hahaha nice!!, the stupid and ignorant angle - you missed out dishonest and arrogant . It seems that you want to hurt my feelings. Why do you feel the need to mock me?

So evolution is linked to physical reality? How is this so and why are you smarter than me for agreeing with it?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Just another religious claim that requires faith belief to be accepted.

Hey hey dh

Im glad you joined the discussion. Ive kept it short and sweet so there should be not issue with you replying.

Why is faith erroneous? Why dont you do faith?

Just like all other religious claims.

What religions make the same claims as Christianity?

"Logic" is not part of the equation. Only "faith" is.


I don't do faith. Nore is faith logical.

Why is faith illogical?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

No idea. But let's not get off topic, okay? I have given you a testable and repeatable way by which I could prove to you that I exist.

Hey hey kylie

We are still on topic.

Iconoclast - "So if we wanna know if each other is a being and can be known. One or the other will need to make contact, go through the right channels, get the right info and find where the other is?"

Kylie - "That's one way of doing it. There are other ways, I'm sure."

Iconoclast - " What other ways can you suggest"

Kylie - "No idea."

Please excuse me. At one stage you are sure there is another method but then you conclude you have no idea and cannot produce another method.

So we can safely conclude that if we wanna know if each other is a being and can be known. One or the other will need to make contact, go through the right channels, get the right info and find where the other is.

The objective evidence for your existance can only be proven if we make a meaningful contact ie you come to me and shake me by the shoulders. One or the other will need to make the effort and seek the other out. One or the other will need to abide by terms or a criteria.

Now, your turn.


Lets say my argument is God does not exist and i refuse to believe. I could be myself, a more complex form of imaginary friend, or maybe this is a hallucination?


How do you prove to me - with objective evidence - that God exists and can be known?

The fact or state of living or having objective reality - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

To get the proof we must follow the christian method ie open your heart to Jesus, confess your sins and acknowledge that He is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that Jesus is who He says He is and you must humble your self.

Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of God and He can be known through the Holy Spirit.

Lets get some back and forth. What do you think about this reply?

Is there something we can explore in detail?

James 1:6
But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.


Deuteronomy 10:12)
God requires only that you fear the LORD your God, and live in a way that pleases him, and love him and serve him with all your heart and soul

Matthew 7:7
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

No. Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding how biological life works.

Cool so there is purpose or reason? What would that be?

Tool is an interesting word to use in context with evolution.



a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

a thing used to help perform a job.

a person used or exploited by another.

a piece of software that carries out a particular function, typically creating or modifying another program.

a distinct design in the tooling of a book.

a stupid, irritating, or contemptible man



What did u mean by using that word?


Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Meaning is what you think of it.

Hey hey my dear

Kylie replied to my question to you.



Icon - "is evolution meaningless?"

@Kylie - "No. Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding how biological life works."

What do you think about kylies response?

Do you believe there is purpose or reason for evolution?

Cheers