If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Speedwell]

And the fact you or someone else prone towards that direction, accepts those axioms and "accepted" premises, does not fool the rest of us.

Nobody is trying to fool you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong and offer up some meaningful challenge to what I posted, I won’t hold my breath though.

Prove what wrong?

I have little doubt you state some fact there. If I thought those facts proved evolution, I would try to prove you wrong, but until that happens, I'm not sure what you want me to do?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nobody is trying to fool you.

Please pay attention to what I replied to.

 

[Speedwell]

Please pay attention to what I replied to.

I meant it as a general observation on your behavior.

 

[pitabread]

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Creationism 101

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And the fact you or someone else prone towards that direction, accepts those axioms and "accepted" premises, does not fool the rest of us.

So what do you think of the flat earth folks? Do you agree with them? They reason in just that way as you show here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So what do you think of the flat earth folks? Do you agree with them? They reason in just that way as you show here.

My comment was on your reasoning.

What go you mean "in just that way as you show here"?

 

[Speedwell]

My comment was on your reasoning.

What go you mean "in just that way as you show here"?

I'm not sure I agree with Paul about that. Your reasoning skills seem fine to me. The problem is, as I see it, is that much of what you think you know about the theory of evolution is wrong. I'm not tallking about whether the theory is valid or not, but in what it actually says, what it claims for itself, how it is supposed to work.

We're actually not out to "prove" the theory of evolution to you. I doubt we could do that to your satisfaction in any case. What we are about is to explain the theory to you and describe the evidence which confirms it. That's all.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not sure I agree with Paul about that. Your reasoning skills seem fine to me. The problem is, as I see it, is that much of what you think you know about the theory of evolution is wrong. I'm not tallking about whether the theory is valid or not, but in what it actually says, what it claims for itself, how it is supposed to work.

We're actually not out to "prove" the theory of evolution to you. I doubt we could do that to your satisfaction in any case. What we are about is to explain the theory to you and describe the evidence which confirms it. That's all.

I've looked the "evidence" over in the past so I know what you know, or what was presented at the time as evidence, and as I recall it entailed a lot of assumption when there could be numerous explanations.

And things like "We can't prove, but it's true" don't hep your case at all, and would make anyone skeptical.

 

[Speedwell]

I've looked the "evidence" over in the past so I know what you know, or what was presented at the time as evidence, and as I recall it entailed a lot of assumption when there could be numerous explanations.

And things like "We can't prove, but it's true" don't hep your case at all, and would make anyone skeptical.

Forget about trying to "prove" things. Try to learn what the theory of evolution actually says. Then when you argue against it you will be arguing against the real thing and not some creature of your imagination.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you misunderstood the question.

Then perhaps you should clarify the question?

Oh, I see, "nuthin' done it" is a much more plausible a master plan?

No. Who's making that claim? Certainly not me.

Then evolution is not provable?

No. Just like literally every other theory/hypothesis in all of science.
Did you not read the quote you are responding to? When it comes to explanations, science does NOT deal in absolute certainties (= "proof"). It only deals in supportive evidence.
The idea is that unless you know and understand everything there is to know and understand, there's always that chance that among the things you do not know, there is data there that shows your theory to be incomplete or plain incorrect.

This is why every idea in science is provisional. Because future discoveries might force you to rethink certain things.

Mighty convenient.

Not "conventient". Instead, just intellectually honest.

And you are 100% wrong, science does deal in proof, it's used to prove things every day

Not theories.

That's just a common and convenient cop out, born of the fact you haven't any.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how the scientific method works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Says the people that cannot prove evolution.

Says also the people that cannot prove:
- atomic theory
- germ theory of desease
- plate tectonics
- theory of relativity
- insert any theory you can think of

In other words: it is said by anyone that actually understands how science is done.

Science does deal in absolute proofs

Give a concrete example.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First you claim scientist don't say that, then you confirm that is exactly what it ends up being "for all intents and purposes" just as I said.

You tried to disagree with that but clearly could not.

You must be reading a very different post then speedwell wrote down. Nowhere in that paragraphe is their ANY kind of claim that "nothing" did anything at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How is it that you claim "we don't know" is the explanation everyone gives?

For crying out loud...........................

Saying "i don't know" is not an "explanation".
It is saying that we have no explanation.

Until then, I call it from nothing because you offer nothing....

Which is incredibly dishonest of you.

But whatever makes you sleep at night...............

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so human is a fish. ok.

Well, strictly speaking, every animal (spare insects?) came from fish. so, yeah.

here is the relevant part:

"The benefits of publishing in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics include:

• Worldwide visibility and dissemination of your paper via our distribution network
• Rapid publication times
• High production values associated with a leading specialist publisher
• Full-colour publication in both print and digital format
• A commitment to permanent digital archiving
• An efficient and constructive peer review process
• All abstracts and papers freely accessible online"

nothing about being a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal, there's probably a reason for that - also, this is just a self-serving plug for a propaganda mill wanting to attract research papers to hide their "creationism" amongst. If you're referring to the bit where it says "An efficient and constructive peer review process" - then who is peer-reviewing these articles, the Publisher's Aunty? What are her qualifications? Again, still not listed on the database of reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals...

 

[Jimmy D]

Prove what wrong?

I have little doubt you state some fact there. If I thought those facts proved evolution, I would try to prove you wrong, but until that happens, I'm not sure what you want me to do?

Er, they do (for the sake of argument let's say that "proof" and "evidence" are synonymous).

.......................................

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
noun: evidence

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;

...................................

I anticipate more obfuscation rather than an actual attempt to address the evidence (or proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation or documentation - whichever you prefer).

I just want to draw your attention to the title of the thread by the way, and also your first post in the thread...

"I'm not sure if the OP was serious, people lie all the time...that really perplexes you?"

At least now you can retract that statement as you can no longer say that there is no evidence, nor that the evidence is a "lie".

 

[Kenny'sID]

Forget about trying to "prove" things.

I guess I have to say it again...how convenient is that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Er, they do (for the sake of argument let's say that "proof" and "evidence" are synonymous).

.......................................

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
noun
noun: evidence

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation;

...................................

I anticipate more obfuscation rather than an actual attempt to address the evidence (or proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation or documentation - whichever you prefer).

I just want to draw your attention to the title of the thread by the way, and also your first post in the thread...

"I'm not sure if the OP was serious, people lie all the time...that really perplexes you?"

At least now you can retract that statement as you can no longer say that there is no evidence, nor that the evidence is a "lie".

Funny, I'm not seeing what you have pretended I said in the comment. But it doesn't surprise me you are twisting it into something that works for you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Says also the people that cannot prove:
- atomic theory
- germ theory of desease
- plate tectonics
- theory of relativity
- insert any theory you can think of

In other words: it is said by anyone that actually understands how science is done.



Give a concrete example.

Making things up aren't going to get much in the way of replies from me. Post using facts.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Which is incredibly dishonest of you.

Says the poster who just made up several things I said...pulled em' right out of thin air. Besides, coming from you, they cut means nothing, it's a common ploy here.

If you all want to pretend "it just happened" is not a common explanation, if you want to play like that never happened, that's fine, but I still live in the real world, and remember the big bang out of nowhere theory. If some of you have chosen to change that because it wasn't working for you, fine but you need to ageree on one thing, because it can't be whatever way you choose it to be at any given moment, and all for your convenience. Tell you what, once you all get on the same page, let me know, until then I will cite the "nothing" that some claim started it all.

How quickly people forget reality when they need too.