The Creationist Explanaton

[Jimmy D]

And I should be clear. Science doesn't "prove" anything. We offer evidence for things. We continue to offer evidence for things until there's basically no doubt of those things. But, there's always the chance that something could come along... for example. Gravity is generally accepted to be caused by mass warping spacetime and causing objects to "fall" toward each other. But... there could be invisible beings grabbing every object whenever we let go of them and pulling them down toward the earth. It's not bloody likely but it's not impossible. So... we don't deal in proof. The evidence is what we deal with. When it comes to evolution we have multiple lines of evidence from multiple disciplines that all point to the same conclusion. Life evolves. The Theory of Evolution describes HOW life evolves. I'm not going to be cutting and pasting thousands of pages of information for you here. If you want to learn more it's up to you to visit some places like this: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

Don't bother mate, he's not interested.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, since we have already determined you claim it true, but cannot can't prove it, hence my view it's a lie, what else, specifically, am I incorrect about when it comes to evolution?

Do you not think that evidence has any bearing on the truth of something?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So what is it, exactly, that I am supposed to be "undecided" about?

What you aren't "convinced" of one way or another.

 

[Speedwell]

What you aren't "convinced" of one way or another.

Well, since you want speak in terms of being "convinced,"

I am "convinced" that the theory of evolution is provisionally true, as all scientific scientific theories are only provisionally true.

I am "convinced" that biblical creationism is absolute balderdash.

There is no "one way or another."

Does that clear it up?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't even know what you think evolution really is.

Are you kidding? I think it's what everyone thinks it is...the basics are pretty simple.

Please don't start the play confusion/"you don't understand evolution" bit, because I'm not what's causing your frustration...it's not me, it's your evolution that's the problem, something you clearly cannot defend/prove.

To be honest, other than you claiming you think it's a fairy tale or lie or whatever, I don't even know what you think evolution really is. The fact you're starting with that claim doesn't bode well, though...

Tell ya what, how about you describe what you think evolution is, how you think the process of evolution works, what are the major mechanisms, and so on?

Let's find out how much you know.

I don't think it "works", and I'm waiting for someone here to explain how it does. And of course I know the basic idea, just as anyone does.

Or are you just trying what I've seen before, you'll challenge/burden me to go study up on something I think is ridiculous in order to prove what? Something that of course I'm not going to do anymore than you would flat earth. Would my *not* doing that actually make you feel like you have a win? You know, like creating a game and making the rules as such, you cannot lose. Also, why is that even necessary? Or are you actually trying to tell me I cannot disagree with finds unless I know all of it in detail?

Besides, haven't I already told you, I'm not going to take a course on something I think is ridiculous, something that's so involved, it would take time, especially knowing the reason it's involved is it's based on assumptions that just don't pan out. And it takes a lot of those time consuming assumptions/bogus claims to spin it into what it is. Why anyone would want to learn that mess in detail is beyond me...I can only assume it's because they choose to believe it over an explanation they don't want to be real.

So, no thanks, I'll settle for calling out individual false claims as they present themselves when you try to prove it. Something you clearly cannot do. Why, because you get shut down every time.

 

[pitabread]

Are you kidding? I think it's what everyone thinks it is...the basics are pretty simple.

Then why not just state what you think those basics are?

I mean, for all the words you a writing about not explaining what you think evolution is and how it works, you could just as easily give a high level overview of what you think it is.

So tell us: what do you think evolution is?

Please don't start the play confusion/"you don't understand evolution" bit

You've given zero indication you understand anything about it. I'm giving you an opportunity to show us what you know.

Or are you just trying what I've seen before, you'll challenge/burden me to go study up on something I think is ridiculous in order to prove what?

Understanding the evidence for evolution requires understanding the subject matter. And that involves some effort on the onus on the individual to make effort on their part to understand it.

If you don't want to make the effort that's fine. Just don't complain about everyone else not being able to "prove" evolution to you. You clearly have no desire to learn about it in the first place.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think it "works", and I'm waiting for someone here to explain how it does.

What a joke. When anyone here tries to explain to you how evolution works as a prelude to presenting the evidence which supports it, you get your nose out of joint because the explanation isn't "proof."

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then why not just state what you think those basics are?

I mean, for all the words you a writing about not explaining what you think evolution is and how it works, you could just as easily give a high level overview of what you think it is.

So tell us: what do you think evolution is?

You've given zero indication you understand anything about it. I'm giving you an opportunity to show us what you know.

If you don't want to make the effort that's fine. Just don't complain about everyone else not being able to "prove" evolution to you. You clearly have no desire to learn about it in the first place.

LMXO!

Who didn't see that coming!

But what about my question on confining evidence? What does my knowledge on evolution one way or another have to do with you presenting that "confirming evidence? None, it's just an excuse you worked out for yourself You've been going on about CE over proof and I finally give you the chance to show us confirming evidence shows evolution is fact, and you excuse yourself by adhering to another rule you just invented?

That rule being, if I don't define how evolution works, the very thing I'm try to find out from you, then you won't prove...er, show me, it's a fact with confirming evidence. and for that reason I should now not expect you to. In short, I don't know how evolution works so I now need to be penalized , and my penalty? You will now not "confirm" evolution is a fact (Like you ever could)

Are you listening to yourself, and exactly what you are saying?

Truth is, when I put the proof issue YOU had, aside as irrelevant, and asked for that confirming evidence evolution was a fact, you then needed another way out, you had lost your proof doen't exist in science excuse so you latched hold of what was an irrelevant request to begin with, and are now using it as your new excuse. It has suddenly, after all these months, become critically important I say how evolution works. lol

But in spite of it's irrelevance, and after I dry my tears of laughter...here are your basics of evolution so you cannot use it as an excuse.

From what I gather evolution says life evolved from a lesser form to what we are today over many yrs. Same basics we all know.

So, now I've told you...now show me your confirming evidence evolution is a fact.

Anyone care to guess what the next stall will be?

If you don't want to make the effort that's fine. Just don't complain about everyone else not being able to "prove" evolution to you. You clearly have no desire to learn about it in the first place.

LMXO!

Who didn't see that coming!

But what about my question on confining evidence? What does my knowledge on evolution one way or another have to do with you presenting that "confirming evidence? None, it's just an excuse you worked out for yourself You've been going on about CE over proof and I finally give you the chance to show us confirming evidence shows evolution is fact, and you excuse yourself by adhering to another rule you just invented?

That rule being, if I don't define how evolution works, the very thing I'm try to find out from you, then you won't prove...er, show me, it's a fact with confirming evidence. and for that reason I should now not expect you to. In short, I don't know how evolution works so I now need to be penalized , and my penalty? You will now not "confirm" evolution is a fact (Like you ever could)

Are you listening to yourself, and exactly what you are saying?

Truth is, when I put the proof issue YOU had, aside as irrelevant in the post you are replying too, and asked for that confirming evidence evolution was a fact, you then needed another way out because you had lost your "roof doesn't exist in science" excuse so you latched hold of what was an irrelevant request to begin with, and are now using it as your new excuse. It has suddenly, after all these months, become critically important I say how evolution works. lol

But in spite of it's irrelevance, and after I dry my tears of laughter...here are your basics of evolution so you cannot use it as an excuse.

From what I gather evolution says life evolved from a lesser form to what we are today over many yrs. Same basics we all know.

So, now I've told you...now show me your confirming evidence evolution is a fact.

Anyone care to guess what the next stall will be?

 

[Speedwell]

LMXO!

Who didn't see that coming!

But what about my question on confining evidence? What does my knowledge on evolution one way or another have to do with you presenting that "confirming evidence? None, it's just an excuse you worked out for yourself You've been going on about CE over proof and I finally give you the chance to show us confirming evidence shows evolution is fact, and you excuse yourself by adhering to another rule you just invented?

That rule being, if I don't define how evolution works, the very thing I'm try to find out from you, then you won't prove...er, show me, it's a fact with confirming evidence. and for that reason I should now not expect you to. In short, I don't know how evolution works so I now need to be penalized , and my penalty? You will now not "confirm" evolution is a fact (Like you ever could)

Are you listening to yourself, and exactly what you are saying?

Truth is, when I put the proof issue YOU had, aside as irrelevant in the post you are replying too, and asked for that confirming evidence evolution was a fact, you then needed another way out because you had lost your "roof doesn't exist in science" excuse so you latched hold of what was an irrelevant request to begin with, and are now using it as your new excuse. It has suddenly, after all these months, become critically important I say how evolution works. lol

But in spite of it's irrelevance, and after I dry my tears of laughter...here are your basics of evolution so you cannot use it as an excuse.

From what I gather evolution says life evolved from a lesser form to what we are today over many yrs. Same basics we all know.

So, now I've told you...now show me your confirming evidence evolution is a fact.

Anyone care to guess what the next stall will be?

The question is, what is there to prove? The theory of evolution is a complex theory with many elements. Each element will have its own array of confirming evidence. It may be that you will find some of the elements do not need proving to you--you accept them already.
For example, what do you believe about randomly distributed reproductive variation? Do you believe that it occurs?

 

[USincognito]

What a joke. When anyone here tries to explain to you how evolution works as a prelude to presenting the evidence which supports it, you get your nose out of joint because the explanation isn't "proof."

He's not actually interested in evidence. That was made abundantly clear two years ago.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

 

[Kenny'sID]

The question is, what is there to prove? The theory of evolution is a complex theory with many elements. Each element will have its own array of confirming evidence. It may be that you will find some of the elements do not need proving to you--you accept them already.
For example, what do you believe about randomly distributed reproductive variation? Do you believe that it occurs?

What's to prove? How evolution is a fact, but don't concern yourself with that now, we are past it and this is evidently a whole different question I'm now asking. Someone is just not paying attention.

Was that confirming evidence evolution is a fact? And if so, please go into more detail. as well as explain how it confirms evolution is a fact, and then I'll tell you what I think.

 

[Kenny'sID]

He's not actually interested in evidence. That was made abundantly clear two years ago.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

You know better than to post a link. And you aren't paying attention either, I'm now asking for confirming evidence evolution is a fact. I'm playing your way how and not asking for proof, So the least you can do is cooperate.

 

[Speedwell]

What's to prove? How evolution is a fact, but don't concern yourself with that now, we are past it and this is evidently a whole different quest

Do I need to provide you with confirming evidence that randomly distributed heritable variation occurs, or can we move on to the next element of the theory?

Was that confirming evidence evolution is a fact? And if so, please go into more detail. as well as explain how it confirms evolution is a fact, and then I'll tell you what I think.

What evidence? I haven't presented any evidence yet. I asked you a question (repeated above) which you haven't answered. Why should I waste my time presenting you with evidence that random heritable variation occurs if you already accept that it occurs?

 

[pitabread]

You know better than to post a link.

"I demand proof of evolution, but I refuse to read anything about it! See, you evolutionists can't prove anything to me! Mwahahahahahaha!"

 

[USincognito]

>> He's not actually interested in evidence. That was made abundantly clear two years ago. <<

And as if to prove (see what I did there) my point...

You know better than to post a link.

You mean the link to the thread that says right in the link, "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread"? That link? To a thread you posted a bunch of nonsense to, but never actually addressed the evidence that was posted? That link?

And you aren't paying attention either, I'm now asking for confirming evidence evolution is a fact.

Right. That's what that link was. It was right in the text of the hyperlink, "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread".

I'm playing your way how and not asking for proof, So the least you can do is cooperate.

I did. My giving you a link to a thread with a hyperlink that clearly labeled the content of the thread when I called it, "The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread".

 

[pitabread]

To a thread you posted a bunch of nonsense to, but never actually addressed the evidence that was posted?

Indeed. His response: "You are going to think that way regardless of what I think, but I don't and never will accept your evidence as reason to believe evolution is a fact. "

It just reinforces the obvious insincerity of his demands that people "prove" evolution to him.

 

[DaveDavids]

No such thing as " scientific proof " ( look it up for yourself )

As soon as I hear someone ask for " scientific proof " of something, I know they don't grasp basic scientific principles

 

[AV1611VET]

As soon as I hear someone ask for " scientific proof " of something, I know they don't grasp basic scientific principles

Like: science is myopic?

 

[DaveDavids]

Like: science is myopic?

No, like you have no clue about science in Mesopotamian times

 

[AV1611VET]

No, like you have no clue about science in Mesopotamian times

Science in Mesopotamian times would have been myopicer.