Could cars reproduce?

Kenny'sID · Feb 15, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
It is "unsupported" to say that life exists?
Seriously?

I'll just answer this one post, since it shows you are just making things up now, and I see no need to read other posts that may well be based on other made up criteria...it's just a waste of time.

Where did I state, "It is "unsupported" to say that life exists"? I didn't, and if you want to waste our time with desperate defenses/hopes to make the other side appear foolish with untrue comments, that is up to you, just know, that action/stooping to that level tells a huge story. It shows you have no defense.

Kenny'sID · Feb 15, 2018

bhsmte said:
No, I don't think that is what he means. I understand, you need to think that though.

Well that was informative. lol

See, since he replaced the answer with that, I assumed he had no answer, very reasonable assumption since that same dodge happens often. Not only do I still think that IS what happened, I think it may be you that "needs to think that"..

Want to blindly defend anyone else?

bhsmte · Feb 15, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Well that was informative. lol

See, since he replaced the answer with that, I assumed he had no answer, very reasonable assumption since that same dodge happens often. Not only do I still think that IS what happened, I think it may be you that "needs to think that"..

Want to blindly defend anyone else?

LOL

Larniavc · Feb 15, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
It's not like you have life on the one hand and evolution on the other and they exist seperatly.

What are you talking about? I have three evolutions in my sack but I won’t be able to get any lifes until next market day.

Speedwell · Feb 15, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Nope, as I've shown before science does "prove" in the sense you should be able to prove evolution, in spite of the efforts to say it does not.

To say it is not possible to prove evolution, and then turn around and create the false reasoning that science proves nothing, when in fact it proves all the time, that's one of it's major uses, is ridiculous. To put that deceitful, at best, explanation, on the table for lack of proof, so one can hide behind something that isn't even close to a fact, tells a huge story...you got no proof whatsoever.

Another example, with experimentation science can create, and prove, a vaccine works. I feel silly even having to explain that, because that's what science does...it proves.

Is that geometry? Want more examples that aren't math/geometry?

More waste of time with untruthful defenses.

If one can't prove something, attack the term itself, and prove proof cannot be expected because prove can no longer prove, hence it cannot be proven.

OK, if that's the way you want it, fine.

Science "proves" evolution in the colloquial sense of the term, which I gather is the way you wish to use it.. That is, the various propositions which make up the theory of evolution are supported by empirical evidence.

It does not "prove" evolution in the narrow, technical sense of the term because the propositions which make up the theory of evolution are not conclusions of deductive logic from axiomatic statements.

But the distinction is still an important one for you to keep in mind. The conclusions of axiomatic formal systems like logic and math are "proven" absolutely, within the framework of the system. On the other hand, the conclusions of science are based on empirical evidence, not axioms, so they are never "proven" absolutely, because new evidence may "disprove" them at any time.

In future, when you ask for "proof" of the theory of evolution.we will lead you to the empirical evidence which supports it. That's all we can do.

Kenny'sID · Feb 15, 2018

Speedwell said:
OK, if that's the way you want it, fine.

Science "proves" evolution in the colloquial sense of the term, which I gather is the way you wish to use it.. That is, the various propositions which make up the theory of evolution are supported by empirical evidence.

It does not "prove" evolution in the narrow, technical sense of the term because the propositions which make up the theory of evolution are not conclusions of deductive logic from axiomatic statements.

But the distinction is still an important one for you to keep in mind. The conclusions of axiomatic formal systems like logic and math are "proven" absolutely, within the framework of the system. On the other hand, the conclusions of science are based on empirical evidence, not axioms, so they are never "proven" absolutely, because new evidence may "disprove" them at any time.

In future, when you ask for "proof" of the theory of evolution.we will lead you to the empirical evidence which supports it. That's all we can do.

It's not the way I want it, I'd prefer proof, not outlandish... and here's that word again because you all keep asking for it... ridiculous excuses for having none.

I doubt it's even the way they want it, but if they insist on presenting something that isn't true as fact, they have to stoop to those levels...no other choice..

Think about it, trying to tell me/us that science doesn't prove anything but what you claim it does, when the common sense of a 6yr old would see through that. It's an insult to our intelligence it's so wrong. And you all are completely oblivious to the reasoning behind the claim. I'd bet the claim was styled just for evolution. I'm surprised some evolutionists even buy it.

All I can do is hope some here that are on the fence about evolution will see the desperate attempts that are being put out there in order to back it up, instead of dead proof.

Speedwell · Feb 15, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
It's not the way I want it, I'd prefer proof, not outlandish... and here's that word again because you all keep asking for it... ridiculous excuses for having none.

I doubt it's even the way they want it, but if they insist on presenting something that isn't true as fact, they have to stoop to those levels...no other choice..

Think about it, trying to tell me/us that science doesn't prove anything but what you claim it does, when the common sense of a 6yr old would see through that. It's an insult to our intelligence it's so wrong. And you all are completely oblivious to the reasoning behind the claim. I'd bet the claim was styled just for evolution. I'm surprised some evolutionists even buy it.

All I can do is hope some here that are on the fence about evolution will see the desperate attempts that are being put out there in order to back it up, instead of dead proof.

DO YOU,
OR DO YOU NOT
REGARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSITION AS "PROOF" OF THAT PROPOSTION?

DogmaHunter · Feb 16, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Where did I say "It is "unsupported" to say that life exists"?

Then what are you claiming is "unsupported"?

, where did I even indicate such a thing? Nowhere, you are making things up

I thought you were refering to the point of evolution "starting".
I guess i'm mistaken. But it's hard to follow. You are all over the place.

So you see, not much sense in even reading your posts when they reach the deceptive level like that, I mean what other of your defenses here are just made up?

Defenses? I just asked a question.
What are you saying is "unsupported"?

DogmaHunter · Feb 16, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Nope, as I've shown before science does "prove" in the sense you should be able to prove evolution, in spite of the efforts to say it does not.

To say it is not possible to prove evolution, and then turn around and create the false reasoning that science proves nothing, when in fact it proves all the time, that's one of it's major uses, is ridiculous.

Theories are never considered proven in science.
I've already pointed this out several times to you.

Theories (ie, explanations of phenomena / sets of facts) are never considered proven. Theories can only be supported by evidence. Because there's always that possibility, no matter how improbable it may seem, that future discoveries will show a certain model of explanation to be incomplete / inaccurate / incorrect.

To put that deceitful, at best, explanation, on the table for lack of proof, so one can hide behind something that isn't even close to a fact, tells a huge story...you got no proof whatsoever.

There's nothing "deceitful" about that.
The only seemingly deceitful thing here, is you ignoring the fact that this has been explained to you on multiple occasions by several different people.

Another example, with experimentation science can create, and prove, a vaccine works. I feel silly even having to explain that, because that's what science does...it proves.

Vaccines aren't theories / models of explanation.

They are more like practical applications. The result of engineering.

Jimmy D · Feb 16, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
It's not the way I want it, I'd prefer proof, not outlandish... and here's that word again because you all keep asking for it... ridiculous excuses for having none.

I doubt it's even the way they want it, but if they insist on presenting something that isn't true as fact, they have to stoop to those levels...no other choice..

Think about it, trying to tell me/us that science doesn't prove anything but what you claim it does, when the common sense of a 6yr old would see through that. It's an insult to our intelligence it's so wrong. And you all are completely oblivious to the reasoning behind the claim. I'd bet the claim was styled just for evolution. I'm surprised some evolutionists even buy it.

All I can do is hope some here that are on the fence about evolution will see the desperate attempts that are being put out there in order to back it up, instead of dead proof.

Good grief man, the "debate" has been done and dusted for over a hundred years. We get it, the Theory of Evolution conflicts with your fundamentalist Christian views.

I can't imagine that many people are really "on the fence" either... Maybe people who have been brought up in creationist households /communities who come to the realization what a steaming pile Creationist "arguments" really are - as soon as they gain a decent education in the appropriate topics.

doubtingmerle · Feb 16, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
Is that to say you cannot back it up?

The Theory of Evolution? There is plenty of evidence to support it.

But what is your view of Creation? Poof, there was a tiger, poof, suddenly there is a bear, poof, a lion?

So maybe you should call your view Poof Theory, yes?

Direct Driver · Mar 16, 2021

Speedwell said:
The car itself can change over time. It wears out and gets rusty. But that is not evolution by reproductive variation and natural selection.

Yep. And just because it's rusting and "de-evolving", we are still able to resist the temptation to make the argument that that rust process is what created the car.

Speedwell · Mar 16, 2021

Direct Driver said:
Yep. And just because it's rusting and "de-evolving", we are still able to resist the temptation to make the argument that that rust process is what created the car.

Why would we even be tempted by something so silly?

Direct Driver · Mar 16, 2021

Speedwell said:
Why would we even be tempted by something so silly?

Because we understand the difference between creation and decomposition. And we know the mind of the folks that designed and created the car. Otherwise we'd probably think it evolved, literally, because of it's complexity and function of its parts. It reeks of creation - intelligent design. Just like life does.

Speedwell · Mar 16, 2021

Direct Driver said:
Because we understand the difference between creation and decomposition. And we know the mind of the folks that designed and created the car. Otherwise we'd probably think it evolved, literally, because of it's complexity and function of its parts. It reeks of creation - intelligent design. Just like life does.

You sure are good at coming up with silly things that "other people" might think.

Direct Driver · Mar 16, 2021

Speedwell said:
You sure are good at coming up with silly things that "other people" might think.

I'm 67. I've been around a lot of them. Heck, I've been discussing evolution vs creation with folks on both sides for almost 50 years. And there are highly qualified - and utterly foolish - people on both sides.

gaara4158 · Mar 16, 2021

Direct Driver said:
Yep. And just because it's rusting and "de-evolving", we are still able to resist the temptation to make the argument that that rust process is what created the car.

The process of automotive manufacturing and the process of evolution are both incredibly well-understood by those who work in the respective fields. The idea that scientists might be so far off the mark regarding the origin of biodiversity as to making a mistake parallel to supposing rust creates cars is absurd. You say you’ve been studying this subject for 50 years, and this is the level of argument you come up with? Say it ain’t so.

Direct Driver · Mar 16, 2021

gaara4158 said:
The process of automotive manufacturing and the process of evolution are both incredibly well-understood by those who work in the respective fields. The idea that scientists might be so far off the mark regarding the origin of biodiversity as to making a mistake parallel to supposing rust creates cars is absurd. You say you’ve been studying this subject for 50 years, and this is the level of argument you come up with? Say it ain’t so.

It's an analogy to help explain the concept. Analogies can often be hyperbolic to better illustrate the point being made.

Speedwell · Mar 16, 2021

Direct Driver said:
It's an analogy to help explain the concept. Analogies can often be hyperbolic to better illustrate the point being made.

But the processes must still be similar in some important way. A good analogy, however hyperbolic, should illuminate that similarity.

gaara4158 · Mar 16, 2021

Direct Driver said:
It's an analogy to help explain the concept. Analogies can often be hyperbolic to better illustrate the point being made.

I am unfortunately very familiar with the concept of people who deny evolution. It’s a bad analogy because the parallel you’re trying to draw requires one to accept your conclusion (that the scientists are wrong) as a premise of the comparison before it can make any sense. You might as well just say “I scoff at scientific consensus.”

Could cars reproduce?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency