Have we not covered this already? Evidence? Every shred of evidence provided has been tossed so far. No prove/proof is a better word as it would settle the matter. It also should show that is not possible for either side!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evidence.
Have we not covered this already? Evidence? Every shred of evidence provided has been tossed so far. No prove/proof is a better word as it would settle the matter. It also should show that is not possible for either side!
What evidence has been tossed? "Proof" is not a term used in science.
Surely you don't expect ID to be evolution-friendly, do you?The only thing I got from the OP was that it trashed and ridiculed evolution. I don't see how that has anything to do with an intelligent designer.
No, evidence is not subjective.Well then we should let scientist know that because I constantly read about proofs and tests prove etc.
Evidence is subjective wouldn't you agree?
Of course not. The "wedge" document made that abundantly clear.Surely you don't expect ID to be evolution-friendly, do you?
If I remember correctly, a theory has to have the potential for falsifiablility, does it not?ToE is supported by 150 years of research the world over, and enjoys MILEs of evidence. In fact, the ToE is the only theory supported by the evidence, there is no competing theory - not one. Surely, as a man who accepts ToE, you were aware of that?
Big deal -- you guys are way ahead of us with your Humanist Manifesto III.Of course not. The "wedge" document made that abundantly clear.
It does.If I remember correctly, a theory has to have the potential for falsifiablility, does it not?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't read that yet. A very reasonable and insightful perspective.Big deal -- you guys are way ahead of us with your Humanist Manifesto III.
I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature. -Adolf HitlerThanks for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't read that yet. A very reasonable and insightful perspective.
"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanismguided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experienceencourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance."
Quoting Catholics now, are we?*I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature. -Adolf Hitler
Well then we should let scientist know that because I constantly read about proofs and tests prove etc.
Evidence is subjective wouldn't you agree?
You want to know but you won't read? Can't help ya M8. binthere donethat.
If genes transferred horizontally are later inherited, how can you claim it has nothing to do with inherited traits? True, it does make determing inheritance difficult at the base of the tree.... so what? That's just reality. Are you now claiming the "tree is dead" because of this?HGT is used to account for problems in the tree. It has nothing to do with inherited traits, so renders descent useless at the bottom of the dead tree.
Post 629. We have mostly discussed whales, but there are plenty of others. The reptile-mammal transition is particularly well preserved, including species showing the transition from reptile jaw joint to mammalian jaw joint.Please point me to the "plenty" of transitional fossils we have already discussed? post the post #'s.
It gives us a tool to measure the time between divergences.And we are to take your word for this? and that it relates to common descent how?
"No, sorry it isn't." Brilliant! I post several papers, and news articles saying it is, and come back with "No, sorry it isn't"?
The only "dismal" aspect was your use of Falsehoods like:Post #637, and that dismal Whale thread.
He have more than "a couple." Give me ONE for I.D.Now don't go all emotional on me and blowing things out of proportion. Not every step, but more than a couple would be a good start.
Even under stabilizing selection for some traits, others are changing. They may change in a cyclic fashion, or in small ways, but populations are always changing. This expalins why nature does not produce "species," as I have explained more than once to you. Now, please use I.D. to explain why populations undergo such variation.Constant evolution except for the stasis of no change that is the rule?
So, logic is OK, but I shouldn't use logic to prove my position??? I guess that makes sense for you, since you don't use any logic in your arguments. Sorry, but I will continue using logic.There you go again. I didn't say logic was bad. It just isn't a basis for proving your position. You have been screaming for evidence this whole thread, but require non to defend your position? The OP of this thread has a list of posts and the major information I have not stated.
You were given some examples earlier by another poster. But I will repeat some here:"Yes, and we see how fast speciation occurs in nature" Really? where? how? again, no cite, no source, just commentary. in posts 65, and 467, I discussed speciation.
You want a list of observed speciations?"There are volumes of it" So I keep hearing. The problem is the volumes are for variation within species, small changes that just lead to more variation. Non that point to common descent. Please list the post # where I have refused to listen to all this evidence. List any posts that are something other than opinions and hear say? That will really bring the number down.
So, logic is OK, but I shouldn't use logic to prove my position??? I guess that makes sense for you, since you don't use any logic in your arguments. Sorry, but I will continue using logic.
It's fun taking apart creationist claims piece by piece isn't it? It's like playing Jenga except when it all finally falls and crashes all around them, they still claim that it's still standing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?