proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

As far as designing a video camera stepwise from a still camera, that’s pretty much how the progression of technology works.

thanks. so can you change stepwise a still camera into a video camera?

the same about the car: can you make a car stepwise from a non car? again: since you are an intelligent designer we dont need the ability to reproduce in this case.

 

[Almost there]

Yes, I hear a lot about "interpreting evidence" from people who don't believe scientists know what they are doing. Oddly enough I never hear it from scientists. Likely because the tests they perform are designed to falsify a position and there is no way to interpret that.

You should follow the AGW fiasco. Just sayin'.

 

[tas8831]

Two sides in this case, for illustrative purposes. And my point is about both sides. One sees a certain attribute and sees proof of evolution. The other sees the exact same attribute and sees proof of a designer.

Interestingly, as the former gains evidence, they need to change their position while the latter does not.

That is not a compliment to those that refuse to change.

Ken Ham said it best - when asked what evidence could make him change his mind about creationism, he said that nothing could, as he believes the bible is true.

A closed mind will never change, regardless of evidence, yet you seem to see that as a strength?

 

[Almost there]

Not really.

That picture is more about perceptions and how the brain interprets visual inputs. More about physiology than presuppositions.
...

You are overthinking it. A simple picture to make a simple, and valid, point.

 

[gaara4158]

thanks. so can you change stepwise a still camera into a video camera?

the same about the car: can you make a car stepwise from a non car? again: since you are an intelligent designer we dont need the ability to reproduce in this case.

Right. Because we observe designers of cars, we don’t need to theorize in how they came to exist. Since we can’t say the same for flagella, evolution remains the best explanation for their existence. See how that works?

 

[Almost there]

Is that a presupposition?

Do you consider living things to be engineered?

Absolutely.

The body I occupy is a self healing, self replicating biological machine. It is a marvel more complex and efficient than anything man has ever imagined creating. It is nanotech at its finest, but far more than that.

It is also very well engineered.

 

[tas8831]

You are overthinking it. A simple picture to make a simple, and valid, point.

You are overstating and over-simplifying it to the point of absurdity.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is not something one should be proud of.

 

[Almost there]

That is not a compliment to those that refuse to change.

Ken Ham said it best - when asked what evidence could make him change his mind about creationism, he said that nothing could, as he believes the bible is true.

A closed mind will never change, regardless of evidence, yet you seem to see that as a strength?

Guilt by association. I'm not Ken Ham. I disagree with him.

The bible is true, but our interpretations need a lot of work.

 

[tas8831]

Absolutely.

The body I occupy is a self healing, self replicating biological machine. It is a marvel more complex and efficient than anything man has ever imagined creating. It is nanotech at its finest, but far more than that.

It is also very well engineered.

And so you have revealed your presupposition.

Complete with buzzwords, hyperbole, and unwarranted certainty.

And will you soon link to that youtube video of kinesin?


IT guy, right?

 

[Belk]

You should follow the AGW fiasco. Just sayin'.

I know a climate scientist and believe him over someone who has no background in science. Just saying.

 

[Almost there]

Right. Because we observe designers of cars, we don’t need to theorize in how they came to exist. Since we can’t say the same for flagella, evolution remains the best explanation for their existence. See how that works?

Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far. A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.

 

[Almost there]

You are overstating and over-simplifying it to the point of absurdity.

Opinions vary.

 

[Almost there]

And so you have revealed your presupposition.

Complete with buzzwords, hyperbole, and unwarranted certainty.

And will you soon link to that youtube video of kinesin?


IT guy, right?

So, you disagree, then?

A friend of mine has a friend that is an actual rocket scientist. I love his take on stuff. He says, "Even rocket science ain't rocket science."

Fact is, none of this is complicated. People just try to make it seem so. What is difficult is coming up with NEW theories and information. A lot of folks here are just parroting what some professor told them.

Bottom line is that for most of us here, what we believe depends on which authoritative sources we most respect. And most of the scientists doing the boring work in evolution theory are the ones least sure of it.

 

[Almost there]

I know a climate scientist and believe him over someone who has no background in science. Just saying.

Me too.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far. A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.

What is your evidence to show ID is the best explanation? Do you have a falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?

 

[gaara4158]

Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far. A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.

Wrong. If your explanation is missing a mechanism (the designer, in your case) then you have no explanation.

 

[tas8831]

The female hyena and her pseudopenis - which she often has to tear open to give birth...

The birth of hyena cubs: The good, the bad and the gory - Africa Geographic



"It is a marvel more complex and efficient than anything man has ever imagined creating. It is nanotech at its finest, but far more than that.

It is also very well engineered."

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is not a compliment to those that refuse to change.

Ken Ham said it best - when asked what evidence could make him change his mind about creationism, he said that nothing could, as he believes the bible is true.

A closed mind will never change, regardless of evidence, yet you seem to see that as a strength?

You would think they'd have learned something from observing God's creations -- the tree that does not bend, breaks.

 

[tas8831]

So, you disagree, then?

Very much.

A friend of mine has a friend that is an actual rocket scientist. I love his take on stuff. He says, "Even rocket science ain't rocket science."

Why didn't you say so!

Obviously, living things are 'designed'...

Fact is, none of this is complicated. People just try to make it seem so. What is difficult is coming up with NEW theories and information. A lot of folks here are just parroting what some professor told them.

Or some minister.

Of course, I have a background and research experience in this stuff.

I parrot the things that I actually know.

Bottom line is that for most of us here, what we believe depends on which authoritative sources we most respect.

I just love it how creationists just totally KNOW what goes on in everyone else's heads and hearts.

For me, and I would venture for most reality-grounded folks, we "believe" what there is actual evidence for, not what we are told we must believe lest our 'souls' be tormented in a lake of fire....

We are not so impressed with buzzwords and ancient texts.

And most of the scientists doing the boring work in evolution theory are the ones least sure of it.

If you say so, IT guy.

 

[bhsmte]

Science, yes. Evolution theory proponents, not so much.

You agree science does reliable work then, except when it comes to evolution, would that be correct? That wouldn't have anything to do with your personal beliefs now, would it?

Also, what is your take on Francis Collins, the devout Christian and former head of the human genome project? Here is what he says about the evidence to support evolution, do you claim to be more qualified then him, or is he just part of a conspiracy?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics


Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2