Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Davian]

They're the ones who are constantly discarding old guesses and suppositions and introducing new guesses and suppositions. They're either incompetent or dishonest.

Or, they are simply increasing their degree of accuracy.

As I said, I should have said 'truth'. Notice the single quotes.

truth |tro͞oTH| noun - the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation.• (also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality: tell me the truth | she found out the truth about him.• a fact or belief that is accepted as true: the emergence of scientific truths.

I do not take issue with this.

 

[justlookinla]

Better to trust a new thing that appears, based on all the evidence, to be factual, than to trust something that contradicts itself.

If there was evidence, no change would be necessary.

 

[justlookinla]

Or, they are simply increasing their degree of accuracy.

Or decreasing it.

truth |tro͞oTH| noun - the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation.• (also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality: tell me the truth | she found out the truth about him.• a fact or belief that is accepted as true: the emergence of scientific truths.

I do not take issue with this.

Truth becomes untrue, therefore it wasn't true to begin with.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If there was evidence, no change would be necessary.

Illogical, our ability to evaluate and detect evidence improves over time; not all information we can detect now was detectable in the past, nor will all that is known in the future be found out with equivalent technologies to what we currently have.

 

[Davian]

Or decreasing it.

Perhaps. It is a self-correcting process.

Truth becomes untrue, therefore it wasn't true to begin with.

Or, it simply was not as accurate. Newton's work can still land a space probe on a moon of Saturn, even with the development of Einstein's theory of relativity. What's the problem with calling them truths? You do it yourself.

 

[justlookinla]

Illogical, our ability to evaluate and detect evidence improves over time; not all information we can detect now was detectable in the past, nor will all that is known in the future be found out with equivalent technologies to what we currently have.

Bottom line, conclusions are offered based on flawed evidence. You can't be sure about the conclusion. It's a best guess which is subjective.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps. It is a self-correcting process.

Not necessarily. It's a dynamic process and may, or may not, be more accurate than the earlier 'truth'.

Or, it simply was not as accurate. Newton's work can still land a space probe on a moon of Saturn, even with the development of Einstein's theory of relativity. What's the problem with calling them truths? You do it yourself.

Again, I should have said 'truths'. Single quotes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Bottom line, conclusions are offered based on flawed evidence. You can't be sure about the conclusion. It's a best guess which is subjective.

So... lacking any means of drawing conclusions, what do you suggest we do?

 

[justlookinla]

So... lacking any means of drawing conclusions, what do you suggest we do?

Keep guessing.....and be honest enough to say, this is nothing more than a guess.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Keep guessing.....and be honest enough to say, this is nothing more than a guess.

If we didn't have that kind of honesty already, no scientific theory would ever be tested...

 

[justlookinla]

If we didn't have that kind of honesty already, no scientific theory would ever be tested...

I never see it. For example, when is the last time you saw the caveat that the 'how' of Darwinist evolution is based on guesses? It's always presented as fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never see it. For example, when is the last time you saw the caveat that the 'how' of Darwinist evolution is based on guesses? It's always presented as fact.

Have you explained what you mean by that nonsense phrase yet? You couldn't yesterday, you failed utterly.

To be fair evolution is always presented as a fact today because it has been tested successfully probably millions of times by now. It is easy to show that there are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers, each which reflects testing on at least one factor of the theory, at PubMed alone.

So when you correctly define your phrase we can tell you what evidence there is that supports it.

 

[justlookinla]

Have you explained what you mean by that nonsense phrase yet? You couldn't yesterday, you failed utterly.

You responded to that "nonsense phrase" with a link you claim contained the evidence, based on the scientific method. Now you suddenly don't know what it means.

Make up your mind and I'll explain it to you in simple terms.

be fair evolution is always presented as a fact today because it has been tested successfully probably millions of times by now. It is easy to show that there are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers, each which reflects testing on at least one factor of the theory, at PubMed alone.

So when you correctly define your phrase we can tell you what evidence there is that supports it.

When you acknowledge your failure in offering a link for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution, we'll go forward. You're suddenly feigning ignorance.

Of course you're never going to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Neither has anyone else. And neither will anyone else.

It doesn't exist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I never see it.

How is that anyone else's problem?

For example, when is the last time you saw the caveat that the 'how' of Darwinist evolution is based on guesses? It's always presented as fact.

Because it's based on observation and inference -- same as everything else in the "known" universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You responded to that "nonsense phrase" with a link you claim contained the evidence, based on the scientific method. Now you suddenly don't know what it means.

How many times do I have to tell you? I did that to support my claim, that there are mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. That article supports my claim. It uses evidence that was gathered using the scientific method. I still don't know what your nonsense phrase means, but I now what I mean and what scientists mean when they talk about evidence.

Make up your mind and I'll explain it to you in simple terms.

I am sorry that you have such a short short term memory. I can't help you in that respect. All I can do is to repeat the explanation.

When you acknowledge your failure in offering a link for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution, we'll go forward. You're suddenly feigning ignorance.

Since you won't define what you mean I have no idea if the evidence I supplied fits that category. Again, scientists usually work on "what" not "how" questions.

Of course you're never going to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. Neither has anyone else. And neither will anyone else.

It doesn't exist.

Since you can't explain what you mean by that nonsensical phrase you may be correct. There is more than ample evidence that supports the theory of evolution. That is why scientists talk about the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They are about as sure as possible that evolution occurred and is the right answer. The theory of evolution explains what path life used when it evolved. Now this may be the "how" that you are talking about, but unless you define it no one will be able to help you.

 

[justlookinla]

How is that anyone else's problem?

It's a problem when one is led to believe that the 'how' of Darwinist evolution is based on the scientific method, when it's not. Why would one behave in such a misleading manner?

Because it's based on observation and inference -- same as everything else in the "known" universe.

It's not based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

How many times do I have to tell you? I did that to support my claim, that there are mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. That article supports my claim. It uses evidence that was gathered using the scientific method. I still don't know what your nonsense phrase means, but I now what I mean and what scientists mean when they talk about evidence.

I didn't ask about evolution, I asked about the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You, in your failure, gave a link as alleged evidence. You understood and responded. Doesn't matter that your response was a failure.

I am sorry that you have such a short short term memory. I can't help you in that respect. All I can do is to repeat the explanation.



Since you won't define what you mean I have no idea if the evidence I supplied fits that category. Again, scientists usually work on "what" not "how" questions.

My request was for the 'how'. How was humanity, as well as life we observe today, produced from an alleged single life form of long ago? You then offered something other than evidence, based on the scientific method. Thing is, you'll not offer evidence based on the scientific method for the 'how'.

Since you can't explain what you mean by that nonsensical phrase you may be correct. There is more than ample evidence that supports the theory of evolution. That is why scientists talk about the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They are about as sure as possible that evolution occurred and is the right answer. The theory of evolution explains what path life used when it evolved. Now this may be the "how" that you are talking about, but unless you define it no one will be able to help you.

No one will offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. That's because none exists.

We'll see plenty of evasion though, such as we've seen from your recent posts.

 

[Davian]

Not necessarily. It's a dynamic process and may, or may not, be more accurate than the earlier 'truth'.

Perhaps. It is a self-correcting process. Old planes do not plummet from the sky when new aerodynamic principles are discovered.

Again, I should have said 'truths'. Single quotes.

We are talking about scientific truths. You will need to be more explicit.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps. It is a self-correcting process. Old planes do not plummet from the sky when new aerodynamic principles are discovered.

We are talking about scientific truths. You will need to be more explicit.

The point is, scientific 'truths' may, or may not, be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't ask about evolution, I asked about the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. You, in your failure, gave a link as alleged evidence. You understood and responded. Doesn't matter that your response was a failure.

Sorry, but all I can respond with is my understanding of evolution since you keep using an undefined phrase. Since it is undefined I do not know how to react to it, all that I can do is to try to correct some of your grosser errors.

My request was for the 'how'. How was humanity, as well as life we observe today, produced from an alleged single life form of long ago? You then offered something other than evidence, based on the scientific method. Thing is, you'll not offer evidence based on the scientific method for the 'how'.

This is not an explanation of what you mean. I can show you "what" happened. Who we are related to. What the rough path is. I don't understand your "how". All of my "whats" are supported by scientific eivdence.

No one will offer the evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how'. That's because none exists.

We'll see plenty of evasion though, such as we've seen from your recent posts.

No, that is merely because you can't define what you mean by how your are using "how".