Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Subduction Zone]

You will see by my other post on the thread that I analysed the evolutionary process in terms of the scientific method and came to the most logical conclusion about it.

No, you did not. For example you said that there was no way to test it. That is false. So you failed to analyze the evolutionary process in terms of the scientific method.

 

[MIDutch]

You will see by my other post on the thread that I analysed the evolutionary process in terms of the scientific method and came to the most logical conclusion about it.

By reading a book written by Ken Ham.

Yeah, that's real convincing. [/s]

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, that is not the scientific method. 6 is a lie. You got that from a bogus source. You cannot go to a source that lies and expect to be taken seriously. You probably did a copy and paste from AiG. If you understood the scientific method you would know that they were lying when they got to 3 and again at 6.

Would you like to discuss the scientific method. Here is a better version:

Steps of the Scientific Method

If you understood this you would see that the theory of evolution is covered by it.

The background research has to include observation from substantive material evidence such as complete skeletons, fossils, photographs, etc., and not just guess work from random bones collected from different parts of Africa. Guesses on probabilities is not reliable research evidence.

Also, even if a hypothesis is gained from whatever evidence is produced, it has to be tested by experimentation or replication of the process. If it cannot, then the hypothesis cannot go any further than just being a hypothesis, and if the research evidence is incomplete then even the hypothesis itself is unreliable.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am sure that that false version of the scientific method comes from AiG. Ken Ham is infamous for his dishonest version of observation. We can observe evolution in countless ways. That Ken Ham does not like those methods does not mean that they are invalid.

How many peer reviewed articles in actual well respected professional peer reviewed journals are there out there? Almost none. There may be one or two, but the concept of creationism is so wrong that they often have to try to hide their tie in to creationism because that makes their errors to obvious.

To accuse a recognised scientist of being dishonest may also be against the forum rules.

 

[pitabread]

You will see by my other post on the thread that I analysed the evolutionary process in terms of the scientific method and came to the most logical conclusion about it.

Which post?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The background research has to include observation from substantive material evidence such as complete skeletons, fossils, photographs, etc., and not just guess work from random bones collected from different parts of Africa. Guesses on probabilities is not reliable research evidence.

Also, even if a hypothesis is gained from whatever evidence is produced, it has to be tested by experimentation or replication of the process. If it cannot, then the hypothesis cannot go any further than just being a hypothesis, and if the research evidence is incomplete then even the hypothesis itself is unreliable.

Sorry, that version, with your analysis fails repeatedly. Why no link to the source?

You only confirmed that you do not understand the scientific method. I am willing to discuss the scientific method to you and we need not bring up evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Also, by insulting and flaming me for being a Christian

Nobody has insulted you for being a Christian, have they?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To accuse a recognised scientist of being dishonest may also be against the forum rules.

Not if he can be proven to be dishonest in that regard. Tell me what "recognised scientist" are you talking about? Ken Ham is not a scientist. He requires anyone that works for him to swear to not use the scientific method.

 

[Speedwell]

To accuse a recognised scientist of being dishonest may also be against the forum rules.

That's OK. Ken Ham is not a recognized scientist.

 

[pitabread]

That's OK. Ken Ham is not a recognized scientist.

Or even a scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The background research has to include observation from substantive material evidence such as complete skeletons,

Nope, no need for complete skeletons. Why do you think that is the case?

fossils, photographs, etc., and not just guess work from random bones collected from different parts of Africa. Guesses on probabilities is not reliable research evidence.

Scientists do not do this. Creationists lie and say that they do. You quoted them in a lie. You tried to claim that parts of Lucy were found elsewhere. That is a creationist lie. All of Lucy was found at one site. Now early one a creationist may have conflated two different articles about two different finds, but they were corrected on that over 20 years ago and countless times since then. By repeating that claim after being corrected makes it a lie.

Also, even if a hypothesis is gained from whatever evidence is produced, it has to be tested by experimentation or replication of the process. If it cannot, then the hypothesis cannot go any further than just being a hypothesis, and if the research evidence is incomplete then even the hypothesis itself is unreliable.

Nope, that is wrong too. On several different levels again. Please try to get your scientific method from a valid source. Evolution can be tested. In fact every new fossil find is technically a test of the theory. But you have no understanding of the sciences and appear to be bound and determined to maintain that lack of understanding.

A very important point. Just because you do not know how a hypothesis can be tested that does not mean that it cannot be tested. You could ask how aspects of the hypothesis could be tested. Just a helpful hint.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think that you have been corrected. I don't think that they has been any flaming aimed at you. In fact everyone has assumed that you are able to learn.

It would be flaming if we said that you were not bright enough to learn. That does not seem to be the case, and yet you are appear to be afraid to learn.

I quote this from another post from one of your people:
"Oscarr is spouting a very large load of infantile, uneducated, ill-informed tom-foolery and I was recommending ignoring his posts so that he gradually dries up and withers away. But there you go."
What are your comments about that?
Have I ever on these posts accused you or any one of your people of being infantile, uneducated, and spouting ill-informed tom-foolery because you are debating and disagreeing with me?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

By reading a book written by Ken Ham.

Yeah, that's real convincing. [/s]

Yep. Pretty convincing to me, because he is presenting substantive evidence to support his thesis. All I need from you is just one small item of evidence to support the evolutionary process.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nobody has insulted you for being a Christian, have they?

"Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause."

Seeing that I am a Creationist and a Christian, then being accused of being a wilful liar, which has the penalty of being thrown into the lake of fire, what is your opinion of the post I quoted here?

 

[pitabread]

"Wow. Are creationists still using these willfully told falsehoods? I thought creationism had progressed beyond promoting lying for the cause."

Seeing that I am a Creationist and a Christian, then being accused of being a wilful liar, which has the penalty of being thrown into the lake of fire, what is your opinion of the post I quoted here?

I don't see you being insulted for being a Christian in that comment. I don't even see you being insulted for being a creationist.

I do see you being called out (albeit strongly) for repeating a known false claim. I suppose if you didn't know it was a false claim, perhaps you aren't deliberately lying. But you still should probably fact-check your sources of information.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nope, no need for complete skeletons. Why do you think that is the case?



Scientists do not do this. Creationists lie and say that they do. You quoted them in a lie. You tried to claim that parts of Lucy were found elsewhere. That is a creationist lie. All of Lucy was found at one site. Now early one a creationist may have conflated two different articles about two different finds, but they were corrected on that over 20 years ago and countless times since then. By repeating that claim after being corrected makes it a lie.



Nope, that is wrong too. On several different levels again. Please try to get your scientific method from a valid source. Evolution can be tested. In fact every new fossil find is technically a test of the theory. But you have no understanding of the sciences and appear to be bound and determined to maintain that lack of understanding.

A very important point. Just because you do not know how a hypothesis can be tested that does not mean that it cannot be tested. You could ask how aspects of the hypothesis could be tested. Just a helpful hint.

But it was proved by examination that the bones came from different animals and the picture of the shape of the skull does not match the artist's impression of the actual baby. By the shape of the skull, which was of an ape, the face depicted on the artist's picture should have had more ape-like properties and not a human shape face.

From the bones collected, which incorporated less than a third of the complete body, the missing parts were constructed by an artist to show what the full body might have looked like.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't see you being insulted for being a Christian in that comment. I don't even see you being insulted for being a creationist.

I do see you being called out (albeit strongly) for repeating a known false claim. I suppose if you didn't know it was a false claim, perhaps you aren't deliberately lying. But you still should probably fact-check your sources of information.

So, how can you prove that I am putting forward a false claim, when my posts have consisted in asking for just one small item of proof that the evolutionary process is scientific?

And implying that someone is a willful liar without evidence to prove it, isn't that an insult to that person? Did you know that calling a politician a willful liar can end up a person being sued for slander?

 

[pitabread]

So, how can you prove that I am putting forward a false claim, when my posts have consisted in asking for just one small item of proof that the evolutionary process is scientific?

So you didn't write the following post?

They found a skull from one part of Africa, an arm from somewhere else, and a jawbone. It was discovered that the skull was that of an ape, the arm was from a baboon and the jawbone was from a pig. What they did was to put these bones together, and filled in the rest from their own imagination. No full set of bones has been found of any of these intermediate ape/man species. It was a total hoax, like the Pitdown man.

And implying that someone is a willful liar without evidence to prove it, isn't that an insult to that person? Did you know that calling a politician a willful liar can end up a person being sued for slander?

In this case, you appear to be accusing anthropologists of fraud. Maybe you should be the one fearing a lawsuit?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you didn't write the following post?






In this case, you appear to be accusing anthropologists of fraud. Maybe you should be the one fearing a lawsuit?

I just read the account of when scientists actually analysed the bones themselves and found that only one of the bones was actually human and the others were non-human. I don't think that the anthropologists were willfully lying - just fitting in what evidence they had to make up their theory that this was an ape-human and part of the missing link between apes and humans. This is because evolutionary anthropologists are trained from high school through university in evolutionary theory so that by the time they gain their degrees they are thoroughly convinced that evolutionary theory is so true that is is fact for them. This is not wilful lying, but a strong faith in their belief system.

A willful liar is one who knows what the real truth is and seeks to deliberately deceive people. I don't think that most evolutionary scientists are like that at all, and I don't think that Creation scientists are any different.

But to deliberately construct a hoax like the Pitdown man to deceive people when the people who made it up knew exactly that it wasn't an ape man at all but a deformed human being, is willful lying, and it worked to deceive scientists for years until the hoax was exposed.

 

[pitabread]

I just read the account of when scientists actually analysed the bones themselves and found that only one of the bones was actually human and the others were non-human. I don't think that the anthropologists were willfully lying - just fitting in what evidence they had to make up their theory that this was an ape-human and part of the missing link between apes and humans. This is because evolutionary anthropologists are trained from high school through university in evolutionary theory so that by the time they gain their degrees they are thoroughly convinced that evolutionary theory is so true that is is fact for them. This is not wilful lying, but a strong faith in their belief system.

You seem to be projecting an awful lot onto what you think anthropologists actually do.

But to deliberately construct a hoax like the Pitdown man to deceive people when the people who made it up knew exactly that it wasn't an ape man at all but a deformed human being, is willful lying, and it worked to deceive scientists for years until the hoax was exposed.

Piltdown Man was a real hoax. However, it's the only hoax I know of when it comes to hominid fossils that was perpetuated by those in the field.