To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then don't tell me science doesn't run on the No True Scotsman principle and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of salt.

Wow. Talk about a non-sequitur. Usually, people try to find a roundabout way of bringing the discourse back to their side. You just straight-up re-assert it as if it's magically become true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Find me a primary scientific source that says that [macroevolution is one animal 'chaning into' another animal]. I dare you.

I can't ... and I have a feeling if one was ever written, it would be rejected; so your dare can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. Talk about a non-sequitur. Usually, people try to find a roundabout way of bringing the discourse back to their side. You just straight-up re-assert it as if it's magically become true.

I don't dance with scientists ... they can take a hike.

 

[RickG]

Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?

How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed? how many times does this 'established methodology and standard of practice' add, delete, or modify a previous 'established methodology and standard of practice'?

Wow! Just wow. This needs in the "The Craziest Thing You've Heard" thread.

So, I gather by your comment that that science has no business updating the Periodic Table when new information becomes available.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow! Just wow. This needs in the "The Craziest Thing You've Heard" thread.

So, I gather by your comment that that science has no business updating the Periodic Table when new information becomes available.

When you make conclusions like this, Rick, it only reinforces my attitude toward today's scientists in general.

Science can ... and should ... update the Periodic Table.

Just don't claim science doesn't run on the No True Scotsman principle and expect me to believe it.

ETA: Just for fun:

Awesome.

*braces self for AV's inevitable Periodic Table nonsense*

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I can't ...

Really? Knock me over with a mouse fart.

and I have a feeling if one was ever written, it would be rejected

If it were merely 'written', then yes.

If it were written, supported by a body of critically robust evidence and passed peer review, it would disprove evolution as we know it, turn the scientific community on its head and win a Nobel prize.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Knock me over with a mouse fart.

Someone has a high center of gravity, doesn't he?

If it were merely 'written', then yes.

If it were written, supported by a body of critically robust evidence and passed peer review, it would disprove evolution as we know it, turn the scientific community on its head and win a Nobel prize.

Don't worry. Evolution is not going to be disproved this side of the Rapture.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Someone has a high center of gravity, doesn't he?

Gravity is just a theory. Gravitationalists are promoting a fairy tale for adults.

Just don't claim science doesn't run on the No True Scotsman principle and expect me to believe it.

How presumptuous. I never have these exchanges with creationists with the intent of changing their beliefs.

No, this is for the benefit of the people reading along. Not for me, and absolutely not for you.

Don't worry.

The people actively opposing evolutionary biology don't even have the slightest clue what it is, let alone what it would take to disprove it. I'm not even a little bit worried.

 

[RickG]

When you make conclusions like this, Rick, it only reinforces my attitude toward today's scientists in general.

Science can ... and should ... update the Periodic Table.

Just don't claim science doesn't run on the No True Scotsman principle and expect me to believe it.

ETA: Just for fun:

Well, your post seemed to suggest otherwise. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Davian]

...
Don't worry. Evolution is not going to be disproved this side of the Rapture.

Until then, evolution remains fact?

 

[AV1611VET]

Until then, evolution remains fact?

Absolutely ... "fact" is a relative term.

Just like Phlogiston was a "fact", Pluto being our 9th planet was a "fact", Thalidomide being a prenatal wonder drug was a "fact", and L'Aquila was safe to stay in was a "fact".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Just like Phlogiston was a "fact", Pluto being our 9th planet was a "fact", Thalidomide being a prenatal wonder drug was a "fact", and L'Aquila was safe to stay in was a "fact".

Why do you keep repeating the same vacuous canard?

To review, again, none of these were ever 'facts' in the same sense that evolution is a fact. Fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Davian]

Until then, evolution remains fact?

Absolutely ...

And if there is no rapture, it remains fact?

 

[Elendur]

Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?

How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed? how many times does this 'established methodology and standard of practice' add, delete, or modify a previous 'established methodology and standard of practice'?

Here's your 'established methodology and standard of practice': 74

I get the impression that you expect everything to be perfect from the start.

That's not how things work, that's not even what scientists claim or what the scientific method is about.

It's about approximations. The strength of those approximations may, or may not, be strongly supported.
When the hypotheses reach the level of theories they are approximations with strong support.

 

[AV1611VET]

To review, again, none of these were ever 'facts' in the same sense that evolution is a fact. Fallacy of equivocation.

They are 'facts', just the same ... (or were facts at one time).

 

[AV1611VET]

And if there is no rapture, it remains fact?

If or until it gets falsified ... yes.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

They are 'facts', just the same ... (or were facts at one time).

This is still a fallacy of equivocation. It will never not be a fallacy of equivocation. Repeating it does not magically remedy the situation.

 

[Jamin4422]

And if there is no rapture, it remains fact?

Rapture or not, ALL of Christianity is based on the Resurrection. If we are NOT raised from the dead, then we all die and that is the end of it. There is no eternal life without the Resurrection. Our atoms are going to be resurrected. Even if you cremate the body and scatter the atoms all over the world, God at a point in time will bring them all back together again.

This is the story of Jesus and the fish. The disciples thought he was Spirit and did not have a physical body. So he ate fish to show them that HE had a physical body and His actual body was raised from the dead. People will eat the fruit from the tree of life and they will be healed and live forever.

 

[Jamin4422]

If or until it gets falsified ... yes.

You can not really falsify the rapture, it would just become symbolic and not literal. Do we not hear that fifty million billion times right here on this very board? It is not literal, it is symbolic, so they claim it is not real just a myth or a story that people tell each other, a product of the imagination.

Of course the storm that hit New Orleans and the storm that hit NY were very real. But perhaps we should say there were symbolic and were not a implication of the sin that goes on in those places. David Wilkerson and Grant Jeffery may not be with us anymore. But the storms they told us about are very much still coming our way.

As some people say: Just wait, you ain't seen NOTHING yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if there is no rapture, it remains fact?

If or until it gets falsified ... yes.

You can not really falsify the rapture, it would just become symbolic and not literal.

I think he was asking me about falsifying evolution, not the Rapture.

In my opinion, evolution will be the Antichrist's trump card in getting scientists to take the Mark of the Beast.

The Antichrist will explain evolution so eloquently as to make it easy enough that a child can understand it, and his magnum opus will be a demonstration of abiogenesis.