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

[Bungle_Bear]

You can repeat all day long your excuses for not doing so, but that only proves one thing.

It doesn't "prove" anything. It merely supports it.

By now I would have thought you'd understand the correct meaning of the word

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I understand how science works perfectly, it's actually quit simple.

Scientific experiment: Put hand in fire, fire burns hand, I now have proof and it is no theory that when we put out hand in the fire it will get burned.

I've put that out there before and you all couldn't stand it. You grabbed it twisted and turned it in every direction possible to make it not a science experiment at all, among other things. It was laughable. This "you don't understand science is just another excuse, and with what you did with my even very simple experiment, I'd have to wonder if some of you understand science.

Actually I demonstrated that you were wrong, but you choose to ignore it. Why is that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Actually I demonstrated that you were wrong, but you choose to ignore it. Why is that?

I think you thought you did, just as you think something might support evolution when in the end, that is just an opinion that is does, and nothing like proof.

But fine, go ahead and prove that putting ones hand in the fire, doesn't prove that the fire will burn their hand. Or prove it's not a science experiment resulting in "proof"...or whatever it is you are going on about.

Just the challenge sounds ridiculous, but it's not me they're going to laugh at, so go for it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you thought you did, just as you think something might support evolution when in the end, that is just an opinion that is does, and nothing like proof.

But fine, go ahead and prove that putting ones hand in the fire, doesn't prove that the fire will burn their hand. Or prove it's not a science experiment resulting in "proof"...or whatever it is you are going on about.

Just the challenge sounds ridiculous, but it's not me they're going to laugh at, so go for it.

I already demonstrated it is perfectly possible to put an unprotected hand in a fire and not get burned, yet you say that is not "proof". So, in your world, what would "proof" actually be?

Here's the video again. This time, please address the evidence. Don't just handwave it away or falsely claim "he protected his hand somehow".

 

[Kenny'sID]

I already demonstrated it is perfectly possible to put an unprotected hand in a fire and not get burned, yet you say that is not "proof". So, in your world, what would "proof" actually be?

Here's the video again. This time, please address the evidence. Don't just handwave it away or falsely claim "he protected his hand somehow".

I think I remember not even commenting on that because it introduces something else into the mix. IOW, it's another experiment altogether.

Sheesh, had I known you were the one that posted that in the last thread, I'd a not commented this time either. Sorry you couldn't put 2 and 2 together there, even after all this time...

If you weren't on the evolution side of this, all those people would be all over you right about now, but knowing them like I do, they will sit there quietly and not say word about the failure of your presentation, and how science doesn't work that way..

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think I remember not even commenting on that because it introduces something else into the mix. IOW, it's another experiment altogether.

Sheesh, had I known you were the one that posted that in the last thread, I'd a not commented this time either. Sorry you couldn't put 2 and 2 together there, even after all this time...

If you weren't on the evolution side of this, all those people would be all over you right about now, but knowing them like I do, they will sit there quietly and not say word about the failure of your presentation, and how science doesn't work that way..

I asked you not to handwave, but there you go again doing just that. It's pathetic, really, that you have to continue with the dishonesty rather than addressing the point I am making. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong and will openly admit it if you can demonstrate the error I am making. So why don't you either admit you are wrong or show how I am wrong? After all, one of us is making a demonstrably false claim. I presented my side, now it's your turn to refute my evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I asked you not to handwave, but there you go again doing just that. It's pathetic, really, that you have to continue with the dishonesty rather than addressing the point I am making. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong and will openly admit it if you can demonstrate the error I am making. So why don't you either admit you are wrong or show how I am wrong? After all, one of us is making a demonstrably false claim. I presented my side, now it's your turn to refute my evidence.

If you insist on doing this to yourself, fine.

HINT: Hand/sanitizer/hand fire, that's your experiment

Fire/Hand, that's my experiment.

Understand now?

You really didn't understand my last post at all, did you? Just Wow.

I'm afraid to tell you to try just my experiment in jest, because you might just do it. lol

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you insist on doing this to yourself, fine.

HINT: Hand/sanitizer/hand fire, that's your experiment

Fire/Hand, that's my experiment.

lol

Your experiment: Fire/Hand
My experiment: Fire/Hand

Can you see what the difference is between the two experiments? Let me spell it out for you: F-U-E-L

 

[Kenny'sID]

Can you see what the difference is between the two experiments? Let me spell it out for you: F-U-E-L

I kept expecting you to catch on but guess I'm going to have to explain directly, and exactly, something I should have picked up on right off the bat.

You are adding a protective coating, not part of my experiment.

If you are still in disbelief, stick your hand in fire without the sanitizer/any protection, then while you are waiting, dwell on how how you also missed the whole point that this was about science does prove things, and how you made my point just the same, and proved with protection you will not burn your hand, even though you got the experiment wrong, and were very very slow to catch on to what you were not seeing and never actually did, not on your own, even after several weeks or even months. But that's another area of science altogether.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How many times must I repeat, prove it.

I'm guessing, until you finally figure out that in science, theories are never considered proven.
As people on this site have been explaining to you since 2016 now.

You can repeat all day long your excuses for not doing so, but that only proves one thing.

It proves that you don't understand how science is done.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand how science works perfectly, it's actually quit simple.

Clearly you don't, since you keep asking us to prove scientific theories.

Scientific experiment: Put hand in fire, fire burns hand, I now have proof and it is no theory that when we put out hand in the fire it will get burned.

That's an observation. We're talking about theories.
Theories in science, are never proven. Only supported by evidence.

I've put that out there before and you all couldn't stand it.

Because it is ridiculously wrong and just more evidence of your ignorance on how science is done.

You grabbed it twisted and turned it in every direction possible to make it not a science experiment at all, among other things. It was laughable. This "you don't understand science is just another excuse, and with what you did with my even very simple experiment, I'd have to wonder if some of you understand science.

Your arrogance, knows no bounds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

speciation is just variation of the same family. so its not evolution if terms of new kind of creature.

If a speciation event would cause a jump to another family, evolution theory would be falsified.

Another one who thinks to be qualified to argue against a theory he literally doesn't know the first thing about.

 

[xianghua]

Already happened. Whales.

you are welcome to believe it but its only a belief.

 

[xianghua]

If a speciation event would cause a jump to another family, evolution theory would be falsified.

Another one who thinks to be qualified to argue against a theory he literally doesn't know the first thing about.

i didnt said that it will prove evolution so you just making a straw men. by the way: can you give any calculation for this claim that its indeed impossible?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you are welcome to believe it but its only a belief.

You can't show that it is just a belief though.

 

[Jimmy D]

back to topic, can you prove evolution?

The topic is not to prove evolution, that's just the subject of your trolling. The topic is "If there is no evidence for evolution what have they been publishing in these journals"

Your response was....

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

pitabread said:
Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Try and catch the wind?

Which seems to be implying that the evidence for evolution is a "lie".

It sounds like another example of your ignorant trolling but maybe you would like to explain your comments, what is a "lie" specifically? That evidence is published in the journals mentioned? That the evidence published is deceitful?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i didnt said that it will prove evolution so you just making a straw men. by the way: can you give any calculation for this claim that its indeed impossible?

That's not what he said.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i didnt said that it will prove evolution so you just making a straw men

Don't lie.

Here's what you said:

speciation is just variation of the same family. so its not evolution if terms of new kind of creature.


This implies, literally, that to have an example of actual evolution, one would have to have an example of a speciation event where the new species belongs to a different family then the one it evolved from.

THAT would falsify evolution. It would thus not be an example of evolution, like you are implying. If such a thing would happen, it would confirm evolution, it would falsify it.

. by the way: can you give any calculation for this claim that its indeed impossible?

I have no idea what you are asking.

 

[Speedwell]

i didnt said that it will prove evolution so you just making a straw men. by the way: can you give any calculation for this claim that its indeed impossible?

It is impossible by definition of the taxonomic terms involved, not by math.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Not sure if serious...

But this type of denialism does seem rampant amongst creationists on this forum. Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Evolution is a model.

Nothing in math, or science is true; it is simply a currently working model or axiom. That is an impprtant distinction to make.