Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Obliquinaut]

Exactly where I thought you were headed with that to begin with, yet you denied it.

"You are not a scientist so you haven't a chance here" Don't you just wish I and the rest of the world were that gullible. As I already stated, if you are, you would believe anything you hear. Regardless of credentials and how highly one thinks of themselves, they still have to prove what they claim, and when all they have are excuses when it comes to doing so, that tells the whole story.

For the billion and one-th time: science does NOT deal in absolute proofs. They deal in PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

You are MORE THAN WELCOME to learn the science. You seem to have a modest interest. But do not for ONE SECOND think that your misapprehensions of science are somehow as meaningful as those of people who do it for a living.

I think you had better take a pole now so those that don't meet your criteria know the score. And do ask SZ, for credentials as well.

I don't care about credentials when one shows facility with the topic. I ask your credentials because you talk so long and loud about what is or isn't correct in science and you seem to be so woefully unprepared for the discussion.

I've seen the "workproduct" of SZ on this forum and they seem reasonably knowledgable.

I honestly do NOT care if you have a PhD or not but I ask you what your credentials are because you don't really seem to know much of what you are talking about in regards to science. (If anything I'm hoping it will slow you down a bit and maybe cause you to actually read what others are saying to you.)

Did you happen to notice how I cannot get anything close to proof from someone who said they could prove it to even find out what I/we can do with it?

Now you are simply bearing false witness. There has been evidence shown on this thread (as well as countless times all over this forum). The fact that you blithely ignore it is NOT the same as people not providing it for you.

Are you saying we have to have a degree to discern if it is proof?

NO

, along with all the prior excuses? Don't ya' think someone should have made that criteria clear from the start if it's a problem? Did you actually assume we are all scientists?

When someone gets haughty and tries to tell me that I need to be spoken to like a 3rd grader about how to be a scientist you better BET I'm going to push back. If you want to tell me, a professional scientist with 3 college degrees, 2 postdocs and 20 years of professional R&D experience how to be a scientist YOU BETTER BE ONE TOO.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Seriously? you're resorting to spell checking now? Things not going well at all here, eh?

Usually one is able to overlook poor grammar and misspellings (typos?) if the person producing them isn't acting in a haughty and prideful manner.

When one starts berating others then one opens themselves up to more critiques.

They all tell untruths, claim evolution a fact, accepted by most, blah blah blah, then when asked to back it up, they all fall to pieces.

How can you say that in all honesty? Either you are trolling here or you are just going to continue bearing false witness.

Unfortunately their proof all just turned out to be opinion of what the natural meant...nothing substantial.

Please, we are begging you to stop misrepresenting the facts. Bearing false witness is never a good debate gambit.

If you don't understand what is being said to you, then ask for some help. We will be more than happy to explain science to you.

But you must admit that your pride is so great that you are blinding yourself to what others are saying.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You mean like being distant cousins to bananas and turnips?

''It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired.” Pope Dawkins.

And this is why it is important to look at evidences for Universal Common Descent.

But more importantly why is so scary to consider that all life's commonalities pull us all together? Why is it so terrifying to some people that we might, gasp, be related to other animals? I don't get it. I can only assume that some people are so uncertain of themselves that any indication that they aren't a special creation unique to the universe threatens their very sense of self-worth.

We are all made up of largely the same compounds in different arrangements. Why is this so scary?

Blind watchmaker evolution is embraced more for the support it provides to atheistic history myth then it's supposed science value which is zilch.

Utter silliness, sorry. That isn't why evolution is believed. It is believed because it explains the data as parsimoniously as possible and with has low a risk of making an erroneous conclusion.

If you think it has anything to do with atheism then you don't understand atheism and you don't understand science.

You are free to believe any nonsense you choose. Be careful not to eat your distant cousin and good luck with that.

I am more than happy to eat other living things (cows, plants) as that is what life is all about. You do it to. We are top predators in our ecosystem. If you want desperately for that to be a case of you being outside of all life and hence not really eating life forms who are distantly related to you, be my guest. You are still a meat-eating mammal beholden to the raw animals needs every other animal has.

If it makes you feel better about yourself, fine. Lots of people self-identify as beings more exalted than they actually are.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Usually one is able to overlook poor grammar and misspellings (typos?) if the person producing them isn't acting in a haughty and prideful manner.

When one starts berating others then one opens themselves up to more critiques.

Your completely blind to what brought all that on, aren't you?

"Usually" one is a little more on the ball, or in your case being a scientist, more observant. Wake up and look at the whole picture before you comment, not just the part you wish to see.

Hint: see what brought that on.

If you don't understand what is being said to you, then ask for some help. We will be more than happy to explain science to you.

You claim it's pride you are dealing with, and there are a few reasons it comes off that way to you. I already explained one, where you aren't paying attention to any more than you wish to see. The other? look what/who I'm dealing with here? See you are now actually telling me to ask questions if I don't understand what's being said. What?! When I've all but begged SZ to "say" something, show me your proof. I've nothing to comment on, nothing to understand, nothing to agree or disagree with, just people making claims, not backing them up, and to cover that fact they cannot back them up, attacking their adversary by whiny, bogus accusations of pride, inability to know the meaning of evidence, or whatever nonsense you can come up with.

And now I have to deal with you who is still completely oblivious to what's going on here, in spite of how many times I've asked...is it any wonder I sound like I do?

But of course, now it "poor you", and I'm going to be made the bad guy since neither of you will be able to offer proof of evolution. Yes, that's the only reason behind it. This is the expected point where you stop taking any responsibility and now try to put the problem off on others, because *you* are unable to produce.

How sad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your completely blind to what brought all that on, aren't you?

"Usually" one is a little more on the ball, or in your case being a scientist, more observant. Wake up and look at the whole picture before you comment, not just the part you wish to see.

Hint: see what brought that on.



You claim it's pride you are dealing with, and there are a few reasons it comes off that way to you. I already explained one, where you aren't paying attention to any more than you wish to see. The other? look what/who I'm dealing with here? See you are now actually telling me to ask questions if I don't understand what's being said. What?! When I've all but begged SZ to "say" something, show me your proof. I've nothing to comment on, nothing to understand, nothing to agree or disagree with, just people making claims, not backing them up, and to cover that fact they cannot back them up, attacking their adversary by whiny, bogus accusations of pride, inability to know the meaning of evidence, or whatever nonsense you can come up with.

And now I have to deal with you who is still completely oblivious to what's going on here, in spite of how many times I've asked...is it any wonder I sound like I do?

But of course, now it "poor you", and I'm going to be made the bad guy since neither of you will be able to offer proof of evolution. Yes, that's the only reason behind it. This is the expected point where you stop taking any responsibility and now try to put the problem off on others, because *you* are unable to produce.

How sad.

Blatant dishonesty. Kenny knows that he does not understand the concept of evidence. I told him that we had to go over what is and what is not evidence first before he got any more from me. Obliquinaut has noted the same thing that I have, when presented with evidence Kenny denies it or ignores it. Supplying him with evidence is an exercise in futility.

I gave Kenny the "proof" that he asked for. He has not even commented about it yet. I am still willing to go over what is and what is not evidence with him so that we can discuss the evidence that confirms the fact of evolution.

Perhaps he has not had a chance to watch this video yet:

 

[bhsmte]

Blatant dishonesty. Kenny knows that he does not understand the concept of evidence. I told him that we had to go over what is and what is not evidence first before he got any more from me. Obliquinaut has noted the same thing that I have, when presented with evidence Kenny denies it or ignores it. Supplying him with evidence is an exercise in futility.

I gave Kenny the "proof" that he asked for. He has not even commented about it yet. I am still willing to go over what is and what is not evidence with him so that we can discuss the evidence that confirms the fact of evolution.

Perhaps he has not had a chance to watch this video yet:

Did you expect anything different?

 

[Kenny'sID]

For the billion and one-th time: science does NOT deal in absolute proofs. They deal in PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

Then you need to make that clear to SZ, didn't I already tell you that? You come in late to a conversation and want to start changing the rules, you have a bit of a chore ahead of you, so do it or don't. Have SZ explain he actually doesn't have proof, and he never will because he isn't able to provide it with his science because of some scientists convenient claim, science doesn't provide proof.

And that's fine with me, I mean it's as good a cop out as any, saying you cannot offer proof because that isn't done with science when it absolutely is. Evolutionists make that very embarrassing concept up so they can say evolution is a fact and now not have to prove it.

Sit in at any murder trial where the details are sketchy and see if proof is not offered and required. what's more, proof often provided by science.

You can't prove it, then you got a problem my friend, plain and simple.

 

[bhsmte]

Then you need to make that clear to SZ, didn't I already tell you that? You come in late to a conversation and want to start changing the rules, you have a bit of a chore ahead of you, so do it or don't. Have SZ explain he actually doesn't have proof, and he never will because he isn't able to provide it with his science because of some scientists convenient claim, science doesn't provide proof.

And that's fine with me, I mean it's as good a cop out as any, saying you cannot offer proof because that isn't done with science when it absolutely is. Evolutionists make that very embarrassing concept up so they can say evolution is a fact and now not have to prove it.

Sit in at any murder trial where the details are sketchy and see if proof is not offered and required. what's more, proof often provided by science.

You can't prove it, then you got a problem my friend, plain and simple.

Science seems to work quite well and reliably without this absolute proof. You see, you personally rely on this science every hour of every day and it keeps producing for you. You should be thankful.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I gave Kenny the "proof" that he asked for

LOL, you guys really do need to agree on your terminology.

"I got proof, but you can't have poof because science can't offer proof, so here is the proof you asked for"

What a riot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you need to make that clear to SZ, didn't I already tell you that? You come in late to a conversation and want to start changing the rules, you have a bit of a chore ahead of you, so do it or don't. Have SZ explain he actually doesn't have proof, and he never will because he isn't able to provide it with his science because of some scientists convenient claim, science doesn't provide proof.

And that's fine with me, I mean it's as good a cop out as any, saying you cannot offer proof because that isn't done with science when it absolutely is. Evolutionists make that very embarrassing concept up so they can say evolution is a fact and now not have to prove it.

Sit in at any murder trial where the details are sketchy and see if proof is not offered and required. what's more, proof often provided by science.

You can't prove it, then you got a problem my friend, plain and simple.

More falsehoods.

What else is there to expect? bhsmte was right.

 

[bhsmte]

More falsehoods.

What else is there to expect? bhsmte was right.

The best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL, you guys really do need to agree on your terminology.

"I got proof, but you can't have poof because science can't offer proof, so here is the proof you asked for"

What a riot.

I'd like to see a source for "I got proof." Science doesn't offer proof. It offers evidence, the conclusions drawn from it and the reasons for drawing those conclusions rather than others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, you guys really do need to agree on your terminology.

"I got proof, but you can't have poof because science can't offer proof, so here is the proof you asked for"

What a riot.

Wow, I did not know that your lack of education applied to the English language as well. The word "proof" has several meanings. In the world of math a "proof" is something proved absolutely. Many scientists have strong math educations so they do not like the word "proof". But when you demanded "proof" for a scientific topic I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I guess that was an error on my part. I thought you mean the word "proof" as one would use in a court of law.

In the sense of a legal trial there is more and stronger evidence for the fact that life evolved than has ever been supplied in any murder trial anywhere. I even supplied you a video to watch, which is more than you merit since you refuse to learn what evidence is. That video explains the proof to anyone with at least a high school level of scientific literacy. I even offered to explain the parts to you that you will have trouble with.

Here it is again:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like to see a source for "I got proof." Science doesn't offer proof. It offers evidence, the conclusions drawn from it and the reasons for drawing those conclusions rather than others.

He may have demanded "proof" at and I may have told him that we have it, but since as in my last post I explained I assumed that he meant more in a legal sense than in a mathematical sense I offered to give him that proof. I have done so now, at least in a legal sense of the word.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't care about credentials when one shows facility with the topic.

I don't care about credentials when one shows facility with the topic. I ask your credentials because you talk so long and loud about what is or isn't correct in science and you seem to be so woefully unprepared for the discussion

I don't care about credentials when one shows facility with the topic. I ask your credentials because you talk so long and loud about what is or isn't correct in science and you seem to be so woefully unprepared for the discussion.

I've seen the "workproduct" of SZ on this forum and they seem reasonably knowledgable.

I honestly do NOT care if you have a PhD or not but I ask you what your credentials are because you don't really seem to know much of what you are talking about in regards to science. (If anything I'm hoping it will slow you down a bit and maybe cause you to actually read what others are saying to you.)

You are back peddling now.

Now you are simply bearing false witness. There has been evidence shown on this thread (as well as countless times all over this forum). The fact that you blithely ignore it is NOT the same as people not providing it for you.

"Bearing false witness?"...IOW how can you call yourself a Christian when *I* say you are a liar.

Once again, you need to take responsibility instead of making irrelevant cuts at others, in order to "try" to discredit them. That stuff has nothing to do with the subject, but again, I do understand you need it with such a weak case.

Discrediting your opponent, excuses, all your whining, and claims science proves nothing, is not getting us anywhere.

When someone gets haughty and tries to tell me that I need to be spoken to like a 3rd grader about how to be a scientist you better BET I'm going to push back. If you want to tell me, a professional scientist with 3 college degrees, 2 postdocs and 20 years of professional R&D experience how to be a scientist YOU BETTER BE ONE TOO.

You both need to be spoken to that way, and I' still can't get through.

You really do need to go back and read the whole thread, you are either missing so much coming in late or you choose to miss it. Isn't that what scientists do, get all the evidence before they present their findings?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Wow, I did not know that your lack of education applied to the English language as well. The word "proof" has several meanings.

Wow, you need to pay attention, I already said it means one thing to the scientists that cannot prove what they claim and to the rest of us it means another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are back peddling now.



"Bearing false witness?"...IOW how can you call yourself a Christian when *I* say you are a liar.

Once again, you need to take responsibility instead of making irrelevant cuts at others, in order to "try" to discredit them. That stuff has nothing to do with the subject, but again, I do understand you need it with such a weak case.

Discrediting your opponent, excuses, all your whining, and claims science proves nothing, is not getting us anywhere.



You both need to be spoken to that way, and I' still can't get through.

You really do need to go back and read the whole thread, you are either missing so much coming in late or you choose to miss it. Isn't that what scientists do, get all the evidence before they present their findings?

Nope, no back peddling. He gave a qualifier. You failed to meet the qualifications.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, you need to pay attention, I already said it means one thing to the scientists that cannot prove what they claim and to the rest of us it means another.

Then you were merely being a hypocrite earlier?

Please make up your mind.

By the way, scientists can "prove" their case in the sense that you use the word. So once again you bore false witness against your neighbor, in this case scientists.

You are the one that is using that word inconsistently and complaining about the use of the word "prove".

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'd like to see a source for "I got proof."

Then go online and find a scientist that has claimed he has proven something. I guarantee you will find it. I'm that confident the claims about science offering no proof are completely bogus, and just another excuse. And you will be sure to report back here once you've found it...correct?

Speedwell, the following is not aimed at just you or your comment, I just happen to mention it in this post.

See folks, look and listen, THIS is how evolution is proven by the scientific community or it at least plays a huge role along with something perceived as evidence. Wait, that's right, it can't be proven. Then this is how evolution is made a fact, or er, can it be a fact if it's not proven? Then it's a theory? No, they are touting it as fact, not theory now...so what have they actually got and how in the world did they conclude it if they cannot prove it.

Yep, that confusing mess there, is a big part of how it's done, and how the preposterous is made believable to this who choose to believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then go online and find a scientist that has claimed he has proven something. I guarantee you will find it. I'm that confident the claims about science offering no proof are completely bogus, and just another excuse. And you will be sure to report back here once you've found it...correct?

And they will mean that in the same sense that a person is "proven guilty" in a trial. And you got your "proof". What are you complaining about?

Speedwell, the following is not aimed at just you or your comment, I just happen to mention it in this post.

See folks, look and listen, THIS is how evolution is proven by the scientific community or it at least plays a huge role along with something perceived as evidence. Wait, that's right, it can't be proven. Then this is how evolution is made a fact, or er, can it be a fact if it's not proven? Then it's a theory? No, they are touting it as fact, not theory now...so what have they actually got and how in the world did they conclude it if they cannot prove it.

Yep, that confusing mess there, is a big part of how it's done, and how the preposterous is made believable to this who choose to believe it.

You are once again using multiple definitions of "proof" in your post. That is not honest.


And once again here is the proof that you keep asking for: