Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[Subduction Zone]

And yet another meaningless, empty and worthless claim from you.

If that was true you would not be so afraid to learn what evidence is.

Nothing but meaningless, empty and worthless claims.

See above.

When the claim is made that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today, that eliminates God from the equation.

And this is a bit of a strawman since the claim is that there is strong evidence that only naturalistic mechanism were responsible for all life that we observe today. There is no elimination of God, there is the simple acknowledgement that there is no scientific evidence of his existence.

You can't show, based on the scientific method, that the diversity of life is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms. That view is a faith-based view.

Of course we can. Of course we have. That is why experts on evidence, impartial judges that are neither "evolutionist or creationist" can see that your beliefs are based upon religion and evolution is based upon evidence. It is why your nonsense is illegal to teach in public schools in the U.S..

 

[ecco]

A million years from now, some acorns may have tiny little feet too? Amirite?

Proving, once again, that you have no understanding of Common Descent.

 

[justlookinla]

Since you want to use your own, incorrect, definition of evolution, I'll just use Common Descent to avoid any confusion.

You're wanting to ignore the various views of evolution, even after I actually posted content showing the differences.

One of your links says god ordained Common Descent. The other does not mention god.

One says God ordained, the other indicates no God wanted, needed or allowed.

Both agree that humans and whales and dinosaurs and trees all had a common ancestor.

Ok

You do not believe the shared conclusions of either of these organizations.

That's not the point. The point is, there are various, disparate, faith-based views of evolution.

So far, in this entire thread, all you have done is nitpick about advances in scientific knowledge and point out differences in the beliefs of people regarding some of the mechanisms of Common Descent.

So far, in this thread, I've shown that evolution isn't a monolithic term, with various faith based views of the how/process of evolution.



Why don't you state your beliefs on the origin of humans and provide some evidence to support your beliefs?[/QUOTE]

 

[ecco]

It is a rejection of God as Creator.

I reject god as a creator. However, the folks over at biologos support Common Descent and also accept god as a creator.

They just reject a literal reading of genesis. Something you cannot do.

 

[justlookinla]

If that was true you would not be so afraid to learn what evidence is.

And still another meaningless and worthless response.

See above.

See above.

And this is a bit of a strawman since the claim is that there is strong evidence that only naturalistic mechanism were responsible for all life that we observe today.

And yet another empty, meaningless and worthless claim.

There is no elimination of God, there is the simple acknowledgement that there is no scientific evidence of his existence.

Yes, 'solely naturalistic mechanisms' eliminates God.

Of course we can. Of course we have. That is why experts on evidence, impartial judges that are neither "evolutionist or creationist" can see that your beliefs are based upon religion and evolution is based upon evidence. It is why your nonsense is illegal to teach in public schools in the U.S..

And yet another empty, meaningless and worthless claim concerning the faith-based view of Darwinistic evolution.

 

[whois]

Since you want to use your own, incorrect, definition of evolution, I'll just use Common Descent to avoid any confusion.

this is exactly the type of fraud i am referring to, or have to forgotten what maynard smith says?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Can't be done.

Exactly. There is no peer reviewed scientific study that agrees with your views. So instead of trying to offer evidence for creationism, you try to attack evolution with arguments that have been easily shot down umpteen times.

And as this thread has shown, there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the Darwinist view of evolution.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence. Only a teeny tiny bit has been presented to you and you are terrified of it so you cower to your corner with "NO EVIDENCE PINE TREES HOW/PROCESS GODLESS DARWINSIM" response.

You have no argument.

 

[ecco]

You're wanting to ignore the various views of evolution, even after I actually posted content showing the differences.
One says God ordained, the other indicates no God wanted, needed or allowed.
Ok
That's not the point. The point is, there are various, disparate, faith-based views of evolution.
So far, in this thread, I've shown that evolution isn't a monolithic term, with various faith based views of the how/process of evolution.

Interesting that you addressed all my points except:

Why don't you state your beliefs on the origin of humans and provide some evidence to support your beliefs?

 

[justlookinla]

Exactly. There is no peer reviewed scientific study that agrees with your views. So instead of trying to offer evidence for creationism, you try to attack evolution with arguments that have been easily shot down umpteen times.

I'm simply showing, repeatedly, that the how/process claims of Darwinist evolution aren't based on the scientific method, but is a faith-based view consisting of guesses and suppositions.

Of course I believe in evolution. But I don't believe in evolution.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence. Only a teeny tiny bit has been presented to you and you are terrified of it so you cower to your corner with "NO EVIDENCE PINE TREES HOW/PROCESS GODLESS DARWINSIM" response.

You have no argument.

All the responses consist of now, after pages of failures, are meaningless and worthless claims.

 

[justlookinla]

Interesting that you addressed all my points except:

Why don't you state your beliefs on the origin of humans and provide some evidence to support your beliefs?

My beliefs do not affect the fact that one of the views of evolution, Darwinism, is a faith-based view supported by guesses and suppositions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this is exactly the type of fraud i am referring to, or have to forgotten what maynard smith says?

How was that a fraud? And I hope that your quote is not a quote mine. Quote mining is an invalid way of trying to prove a point. I can quote mine the Bible and say that it claims that "There is no God" twelve times. That would be a wrong and dishonest approach. You may have gotten your quote from a creationist source and they are infamous for using this sort of falsehood. If you can't find a link to the actual source of the quote, and it came from a creationist source, it is best not to use it. Otherwise it may look like you are being dishonest and I know that you do not want that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm simply showing, repeatedly, that the how/process claims of Darwinist evolution aren't based on the scientific method, but is a faith-based view consisting of guesses and suppositions.

Of course I believe in evolution. But I don't believe in evolution.



All the responses consist of now, after pages of failures, are meaningless and worthless claims.

And you can repeat that error of yours as often as you like. It won't change the fact that you are demonstrably wrong. Your Ostrich Defense will not fool too many people.

The simple fact is that the evolution side wins in courts of law because their beliefs are evidence based and creationists lose because their beliefs are faith based.

 

[ecco]

this is exactly the type of fraud i am referring to, or have to forgotten what maynard smith says?

Are you referring to the article Maynard Smith co-authored? The article where you tried to quote the introduction out of context by ignoring the word "nevertheless"? Yes, I remember. I also asked you several times to quote from the body the article those portions which supported your view point. It was only after you refused several times that you admitted you had no views.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I'm simply showing, repeatedly, that the how/process claims of Darwinist evolution aren't based on the scientific method, but is a faith-based view consisting of guesses and suppositions.

And you're repeatedly shown to be incorrect.

Of course I believe in evolution. But I don't believe in evolution.

Evolution isn't a belief, it's an understanding. You don't understand it. Any evidence that has been presented, you reject automatically because it contradicts with your religious beliefs. You give the same ad-nauseam response over and over without responding to anything. You fall back on "But not scientific method for how/process!" when you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand the scientific method either.

 

[justlookinla]

And you can repeat that error of yours as often as you like. It won't change the fact that you are demonstrably wrong. Your Ostrich Defense will not fool too many people.

The simple fact is that the evolution side wins in courts of law because their beliefs are evidence based and creationists lose because their beliefs are faith based.

No single court of law has upheld the how/process claim of Darwinist evolution.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No single court of law has upheld the how/process claim of Darwinist evolution.

Wrong again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

You can even read the court transcripts from this case.
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Well, there you go with your 'links are evidence' evasion again.

Can you actually, maybe, possibly post some content which supports your claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No single court of law has upheld the how/process claim of Darwinist evolution.

You don't seem to have a clue as to how science is done. Even if we did not know the "how" we could still know that we evolved. Your little chart does not explicitly say that we have to understand "how" we only need to understand if an event has occurred. Many of the details of the "how" are still being found out today.

So your argument was a strawman. The courts of law have recognized the evolution is evidence based and the creationism is faith based. That is why your side loses.

 

[justlookinla]

You don't seem to have a clue as to how science is done. Even if we did not know the "how" we could still know that we evolved.

The how/process is the issue. And will continue to be the issue.

Your little chart does not explicitly say that we have to understand "how" we only need to understand if an event has occurred. Many of the details of the "how" are still being found out today.

Yet, claims have been made hundreds of times that we have evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process. Now it seems that we don't. We don't, that's why there wasn't a single bit of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process. Plenty of 'mountains of evidence' claims, plenty of attempts to change the focus to common ancestry, plenty of meaningless and worthless claims, but nothing, not one thing, of substance.

Glad you finally admit the how/process is "still being found out today". Maybe one of these days, after chasing rainbows, they'll catch one. Until then, it's simply wishful thinking, based on the faith-based, pseudo-science of guesses and suppositions.

So your argument was a strawman. The courts of law have recognized the evolution is evidence based and the creationism is faith based. That is why your side loses.

Where? You're great a making worthless and baseless claims.

 

[whois]

Are you referring to the article Maynard Smith co-authored? The article where you tried to quote the introduction out of context by ignoring the word "nevertheless"? Yes, I remember. I also asked you several times to quote from the body the article those portions which supported your view point. It was only after you refused several times that you admitted you had no views.

yes, that's the one.
here is the link yet again for the curious.
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

maynard makes it plain that life does indeed show an increasing complexity, but there is no empirical evidence on how it happens.
eldridge makes it clear that the fossil record cannot be used. see upload.

but don't let such evidence deter you, just keep goosestepping like he never said a word.