What does the data support?

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Actually the computer reference was to The Worthy One formerly known as theunworthyone.

The fact is I can absolutely observe a working computer. We can even observe how a computer works. We CANNOT 100% observe that any species has evolved to another, or by what process it did this. Sure, I'll even concede there is evidence for evolution but I will also concede it is evidence for extinct animals...

That is my point.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by the worthy one


The fact is I can absolutely observe a working computer. We can even observe how a computer works. We CANNOT 100% observe that any species has evolved to another, or by what process it did this. Sure, I'll even concede there is evidence for evolution but I will also concede it is evidence for extinct animals...

That is my point.

Uh oh. You used the "s" word. Even though every evolution knows exactly what you meant, they're all going to come out of the woodwork now and tell you about a mosquito that proves speciation.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by the worthy one


The fact is I can absolutely observe a working computer. We can even observe how a computer works. We CANNOT 100% observe that any species has evolved to another, or by what process it did this. Sure, I'll even concede there is evidence for evolution but I will also concede it is evidence for extinct animals...

That is my point.

Worthy one,

This is my first post to you. I have read many of your other posts on this board, and I respect your position. The fact is, we cannot observe how a computer works. We can observe the present results of its past work and test our theories about how it works.

We need not, because the people that build them are happy to explain to us how it works. They, however, had to rely on solid state electronics and other knowledge that was gained by the exact same method of examining present data that exists because of past events. The events we care to study usually happened in the past. They usually left marks discernible in the present. It is by examining data in the present that we can make conclusions about what happened in the past.

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
It is by examining data in the present that we can make conclusions about what happened in the past.

Accepted and agreed. Conclusions mean nothing except that you've made one. Now when you get that time-machine just let me know...cool?

I accept your position as well, which is pretty much why I really don't have a true position on evolution.

Bones in dirt dug up. Conclusion:

Bones in dirt dug up.

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by npetreley
Uh oh. You used the "s" word. Even though every evolution knows exactly what you meant, they're all going to come out of the woodwork now and tell you about a mosquito that proves speciation.

LOL. I don't know if evolution is true or not. I just think its a lost cause.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by the worthy one

Accepted and agreed. Conclusions mean nothing except that you've made one.

I don't know about that: remember we are talking about the same kind of conclusions that made the technology for a moon-shot possible. That may not be of utmost importance to you, but it does speak to the credibility of such conclusions. A scientific idea is a lot more credible to me than (say for instance) an opinion - even if is an opinion I like..

Now when you get that time-machine just let me know...cool?

I'm afraid that even a time machine could not produce absolute certainty about the past. Science gives as much justification for certainty as is possible about the natural world. You may feel more certainty about a position held from faith on some general ideas, even about nature. When it comes to the nuts and bolts though, faith is usually silent. It may be that the kind of faith that forces some to utterly reject the facts of science is a different breed than the kind that lends you certainty about spiritual matters.

I accept your position as well, which is pretty much why I really don't have a true position on evolution.

Bones in dirt dug up. Conclusion:

Bones in dirt dug up.

Fair enough!

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I'm afraid that even a time machine could not produce absolute certainty about the past.

Fair enough!

I know, thats why I said I was just sticking my moronic nose in, in the first place. LOL!

 

[randman]

"And thus, you feel you are more qualified than most other scientists viewing the evidence

"Well, I was taught to think for myself, and not just accept popular opinion. You should try it sometime."

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by the worthy one


LOL. I don't know if evolution is true or not. I just think its a lost cause.

ROFL! IMO it is not true. But I agree it is a lost cause. After all, just look at the most compelling evidence. A mosquito takes the wrong subway train and ends up in the seedy part of London, after which his girlfriend won't have anything to do with him. That's called a specious argument, and it somehow proves evolution.

Hey Vork, am I funny yet?

 

[chickenman]

your lack of understanding is certainly amusing me