Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Astrid]

And what are those "other" scientific methods of which you speak?

I put this in the physical science section
and asked a specific question for the purpose
of avoiding the derails that certain persons
specialize in.

The topic is facts, not the fact free and or
false RELIGION based claims made by any
dishonest and / or ignorant person.

I respectfully request that you not assist in these
fatuous posts that violate forum rules and the
purpose of the thread.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I put this in the physical science section
and asked a specific question for the purpose
of avoiding the derails that certain persons
specialize in.

The topic is facts, not the fact free and or
false RELIGION based claims made by any
dishonest and / or ignorant person.

I respectfully request that you not assist in these
fatuous posts that violate forum rules and the
purpose of the thread.

It's not fatuous if I'm asking AV to cite supposed scientific methods that supposedly point to "FACTS" that he thinks disprove evolution.

If anything, I'm augmenting and facilitating the focus of your thread, Estrid. .... but I'm done now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I put this in the physical science section
and asked a specific question for the purpose
of avoiding the derails that certain persons
specialize in.

The topic is facts, not the fact free and or
false RELIGION based claims made by any
dishonest and / or ignorant person.

I respectfully request that you not assist in these
fatuous posts that violate forum rules and the
purpose of the thread.

Also, my citation of Niles Eldredge was done for a reason.

 

[BCP1928]

Um, derails? Please?

For clarity this is a science, not a religious
opinion thread. Please cooperate.

Quite right. Religious opinion is not evidence.

 

[Astrid]

Feel free. But as Estrid correctly reminds us, religious opinion is not evidence. It is not even useful for deciding what is and what is not evidence.

I avoided the word " evidence" having seen
too often the creationist SEDI ( same evidence,
different interpretation) trick.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's not fatuous if I'm asking AV to cite supposed scientific methods that supposedly point to "FACTS" that he thinks disprove evolution.

@Estrid did not claim that it was fatuous. She asked that you not assist fatuous posts by responding to them. The language and grammar were crystal clear, as was the consequent meaning.
I am not discussing whether or not your post may have intended to be on topic, I am critiquing your error or choice to ignore what Estrid actually said. Not your usual standard.

 

[Chesterton]

...asserting that they are identical in all respects is a standard set-up for a classic creationist argument...

It is? Darn it, I thought I was being highly original. I don't know the argument.

 

[Astrid]

Oh, some biologist guy I met at the bus stop. I admit my version of the story is lacking in details, but that's because the actual story is lacking in details.

Which a" actual story" is lacking details?
Something about tetrapods that take up
aquatic habits or life?

It's good btw not to confuse a version of a story
from a rando with facts, which is, again, what i
asked for.

 

[Chesterton]

Can you say what facts prove that humans (whose fossil remains first appear in Pleistocene rocks) are not descended from apes that lived during the Miocene epoch?

Is this a trick question? I said "monkey" and you said "apes". I thought humans were apes. Could it be that taxonomy is all just useless arbitrary semantics? For example, I have a banana in the kitchen which is yellow. I also own a shirt which is yellow. So obviously, bananas and shirts are the same type of thing.

 

[Astrid]

It's not fatuous if I'm asking AV to cite supposed scientific methods that supposedly point to "FACTS" that he thinks disprove evolution.

If anything, I'm augmenting and facilitating the focus of your thread, Estrid. .... but I'm done now.

Done or not you are mistaken.
I didn't call you fatuous.
And as a general thing, responding
to ot quips is facilitating only the derail.

 

[Chesterton]

Snark is a poor substitute for facts but
it serves an unintended purpose, revealing as
it does that it's all the denialistas have.

Actually, there was no snark in that particular post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Estrid did not claim that it was fatuous. She asked that you not assist fatuous posts by responding to them. The language and grammar were crystal clear, as was the consequent meaning.
I am not discussing whether or not your post may have intended to be on topic, I am critiquing your error or choice to ignore what Estrid actually said. Not your usual standard.

Excuse me, Ophiolite. So, what you're saying to me here is that Estrid doesn't want me to do AV's homework for him?

I stand "corrected."

 

[Chesterton]

Um, derails? Please?

For clarity this is a science, not a religious
opinion thread. Please cooperate.

Yes this is a science sub-forum, but you need to remember it's within a site called ChristianForums. I don't think you're entitled to complain when you get religious opinions.

 

[Astrid]

Is this a trick question? I said "monkey" and you said "apes". I thought humans were apes. Could it be that taxonomy is all just useless arbitrary semantics? For example, I have a banana in the kitchen which is yellow. I also own a shirt which is yellow. So obviously, bananas and shirts are the same type of thing.

People tend to casually use "monkey"
and "ape" interchangeably.
Could you attempt an answer rather
go ( off on) bananas?

 

[Astrid]

Yes this is a science sub-forum, but you need to remember it's within a site called ChristianForums. I don't think you're entitled to complain when you get religious opinions.

Could you please read the statement of purpose
for this subforum and make a good faith effort to
hi our the rules?

 

[Astrid]

Actually, there was no snark in that particular post.

There's been enuf elsewhere to make up for it, if so.
Statement stands it's own anyway.

 

[BCP1928]

It is? Darn it, I thought I was being highly original. I don't know the argument.

It's a teleological argument so it wouldn't be appropriate here anyway.

 

[Chesterton]

Which a" actual story" is lacking details?
Something about tetrapods that take up
aquatic habits or life?

It's good btw not to confuse a version of a story
from a rando with facts, which is, again, what i
asked for.

So it's not a fact that something like a cow which lived on land became a whale?

 

[Chesterton]

People tend to casually use "monkey"
and "ape" interchangeably.
Could you attempt an answer rather
go ( off on) bananas?

I thought it was apparent. My answer is - the fact that things have characteristics in common in no way necessitates that one of those things came from the other, nor that they are related other than the fact that they have something(s) in common.

 

[Astrid]

So it's not a fact that something like a cow which lived on land became a whale?

Reductio ad absurdum is not amusing or
helpful.