Nothing changes in this forum.

[Kenny'sID]

So why should we have to prove it? Other scientific theories aren't required to be proved.

Seems to me at lest one out of the tree of you would have had a comment that meant something and was even worth responding to.

Your just talking to hear yourself talk at this point...out of gas I reckon.

 

[Speedwell]

Seems to me at lest one out of the tree of you would have had a comment that meant something and was even worth responding to.

Your just talking to hear yourself talk at this point...out of gas I reckon.

So if "proof" is so important, why don't you prove creationism for us? After all, just because we can't prove evolution doesn't mean creationism is true.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So if "proof" is so important, why don't you prove creationism for us? After all, just because we can't prove evolution doesn't mean creationism is true.

For me I either believe the bible or I do not, and you can do as you choose. They both went on so long ago, neither can be proven so why bother trying?

 

[Speedwell]

For me I either believe the bible or I do not, and you can do as you choose. They both went on so long ago, neither can be proven so why bother trying?

Because some of us are satisfied that in the absense of "proof," confirming evidence is sufficient to establish the provisional truth of scientific theories. This approach has some utility, having given us numerous benefits in medical science and other technologies which we would have to do without if we had insisted on waiting for proof. On the other hand, creationism has neither proof nor confirmation and doesn't seem to be useful for anything.

 

[HitchSlap]

For me I either believe the bible or I do not, and you can do as you choose. They both went on so long ago, neither can be proven so why bother trying?

And here you have it folks... this is how he justifies his personal faith. You choose to believe that anything that doesn't comport with your personal faith, must be as murky and unverifiable as your religious faith, thereby rendering it as unknowable as your god.

So I ask you, why bother?

 

[Speedwell]

And here you have it folks... this is how he justifies his personal faith. You choose to believe that anything that doesn't comport with your personal faith, must be as murky and unverifiable as your religious faith, thereby rendering is as unknowable as your god.

So I ask you, why bother?

That's what it always comes down to--the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's what it always comes down to--the Bible.

When a person's need to believe is greater than their need to know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because some of us are satisfied that in the absense of "proof," confirming evidence is sufficient to establish the provisional truth of scientific theories. This approach has some utility, having given us numerous benefits in medical science and other technologies which we would have to do without if we had insisted on waiting for proof. On the other hand, creationism has neither proof nor confirmation and doesn't seem to be useful for anything.

So you are saying because those things happen to work out, and were never proven, that makes evolution a fact, or I should believe evolution is a fact? C'mon, that's not even an argument worth considering, actually it's not an argument period. It just seems like it means something to those that choose to see it that way.

To make my point, what technology was it that did what you claim, and had not been proven before it did it? See how ridiculous is just that question about what you mention?

 

[Kenny'sID]

And here you have it folks... this is how he justifies his personal faith. You choose to believe that anything that doesn't comport with your personal faith, must be as murky and unverifiable as your religious faith, thereby rendering it as unknowable as your god.

So I ask you, why bother?

Who says I have to justify anything?

And what do you think of Creation, Mr Kettle?

 

[HitchSlap]

So you are saying because those things happen to work out, and were never proven, that makes evolution a fact, or I should believe evolution is a fact? C'mon, that's not even an argument worth considering, actually it's not an argument period. It just seems like it means something to those that choose to see it that way.

I'm saying that there is no amount of evidence that could convince you. As you said, you choose to believe your interpretation of the bible, and anything contrary to that is discarded. You have essentially taken yourself out of the conversation.

 

[Speedwell]

So you are saying because those things happen to work out, and were never proven, that makes evolution a fact, or I should believe evolution is a fact?

You should never believe that a scientific theory is a fact. Facts are facts, and scientific theories only provide provisional explanations for facts.

To make my point, what technology was it that did what you claim, and had not been proven before it did it? See how ridiculous is just that question about what you mention?

All of it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You should never believe that a scientific theory is a fact. Facts are facts, and scientific theories only provide provisional explanations for facts.

I don't

All of it.

Evasion.

IOW you aren't telling the truth so you cannot answer, and I was exactly right about your comment. But that's fine, I never expected an answer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm saying that there is no amount of evidence that could convince you.

Nope, only proof....proof you do not have.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't

Good. So, why are you making the false claim that anyone is trying to get you to believe that the theory of evolution is a fact?

Evasion.

IOW you aren't telling the truth so you cannot answer, and I was exactly right about your comment. But that's fine, I never expected an answer.

Since no scientific theories are proven, none of the technologies which derive from them are based on proven theories. That is neither an evasion nor a lie.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope, only proof....proof you do not have.

Your world view precludes you from seeing proof.

 

[Speedwell]

Who says I have to justify anything?

And what do you think of Creation, Mr Kettle?

That it's a fond notion, based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis. There is no real harm in it, I suppose, as it does not seem to subtract from essential Christian doctrine. However, it should never be imposed as a requirement for Salvation or as a test of faith for other Christians.

 

[rjs330]

Can you make that assertion into a testable hypothesis? Well, you had better get busy. If there is any observable evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution, there are thousands of Nobel Laureate wannabes in there ahead of you looking for it already.

Observation says everything remains what it is in the family to which it belongs. Show me something observed that doesn't. Observed DNA says everything can be identified as what it is by DNA. There is no observed crossovers or changes in DNA which leads us to think or believe it may be something it isn't. It's not that hard.

Let me quote once again.

Then God said all these words:א “I am Adonai your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.ד “Remember the day, Shabbat, to set it apart for God.You have six days to labor and do all your work,but the seventh day is a Shabbat for Adonai your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work — not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.For in six days, Adonai made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why Adonai blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself. - Exodus 20:1-2,8-11 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-2, Exodus 20:8-11 - Complete Jewish Bible

 

[HitchSlap]

Observation says everything remains what it is in the family to which it belongs. Show me something observed that doesn't. Observed DNA says everything can be identified as what it is by DNA. There is no observed crossovers or changes in DNA which leads us to think or believe it may be something it isn't. It's not that hard.

Yep, it's how we know pine trees and elephants are related.

 

[pitabread]

Observation says everything remains what it is in the family to which it belongs. Show me something observed that doesn't.

Er, you do know that "families" (in terms of taxonomy) have no biological reality right? It's just part of the taxonomic hierarchy and used to make the identification of broad groups of organisms easier.

 

[Ophiolite]

Observation says everything remains what it is in the family to which it belongs. Show me something observed that doesn't.

With one slight modification I can do this for you. Just let me know you agree to the terms and conditions. Since it will involve some effort on both our parts I would want some sort of legal consequence if either of us defaulted.

We can work out the details later, but all that is required is that you arrange for one of your descendants to meet with one of my descendants in one million years time, at which point my descendant will show yours an example of what you have requested.

I'm sorry its going to take so long, but since you refuse to acknowledge well attested speciation events in the present I believe we need to take the long haul, so that the evolutionary path is very clear to your descendant.

Just let me know when you are ready to proceed.