Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[omega2xx]

Lol! Well done, your prediction is correct

There are many pages of articles, and I'm not going to copy & paste them here because you are unwilling to click on a link. It's your loss, not mine.

Spoon feeding is for babies and the paralysed. The information is out there for anyone curious enough to look.

Surely you can cut and paste a paragraph or 2. I have looked. It is not out here. Evidently you do not know what constitutes reliable evidence. Accepting as evidence what can't b e proved is for the gullible and those ignorant of real science.

 

[Speedwell]

proof requires evidence.

No, proof requires valid logical deduction from axioms. Evidence only provides confirmation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Surely you can cut and paste a paragraph or 2. I have looked. It is not out here. Evidently you do not know what constitutes reliable evidence. Accepting as evidence what can't b e proved is for the gullible and those ignorant of real science.

Clearly, if you have your own personal definition of what constitutes 'Real Science'™, you're going to find what real scientists consider to be real science different. I can't help you with that.

 

[Jimmy D]

You don't even understand what constitutes verifiable evidence. Hint---It ain't rhetoric

So why not present some for whatever explanation you have for the diversity of life on Earth? All I’m hearing is unconvincing rants against mainstream biology, what have you got aside from rhetoric?

 

[Jimmy D]

A characteristic cause by a mutation may not be passed on to the next generation. Even if it continues, the species does not change.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Please provide citations.

 

[Jimmy D]

The albino remains whatever its parents were and it will reproduce after its kind. That is verifiable land can't be falsified.

Well done, you posted something accurate!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am not interest in colloquially. It is not science.

And yet you insist on applying the colloquial, not the scientific, use of "proof". That makes your statement dishonest. Colour me surprised.... I predict that you'll insist on that usage again.

By not accepting that real science proves/disproves theories, proves you have been indoctrinated and are ignorant of real science.

Bingo!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Do you think what has been given as your blood type is accurate? Why?

I accept the science that shows the best explanation is different blood types, just as I accept the science that shows evolution to be the best explanation for the diversity of life.

Your indoctrination has cause you to accept a false premise. Learn to think for yourself.

Pot calling the silverware black? That's not a good look for you....

 

[omega2xx]

Well done, you posted something accurate!

That TRUTH falsifies evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Please provide citations.

Let me quote you---well done, you posted something accurate..

 

[omega2xx]

So why not present some for whatever explanation you have for the diversity of life on Earth? All I’m hearing is unconvincing rants against mainstream biology, what have you got aside from rhetoric?

I ask first. When you present the evidence for natural selection, I will present the evidenced for the diversity of life.

 

[omega2xx]

Clearly, if you have your own personal definition of what constitutes 'Real Science'™, you're going to find what real scientists consider to be real science different. I can't help you with that.

I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That TRUTH falsifies evolution.

Putting something in capitals doesn't make it more true. What actual evidence do you have that falsifies evolution?

I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?

Here are 29+ evidences for macroevolution that you have been shown before, and which you will once again tap-dance away from despite not being able to counter even one of them. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any.

There's a world of evidence out there (and a fair amount on these forums) - if you are really interested.

You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?

Lol, no. I've given you links to evidence; the rest is up to you.

 

[Jimmy D]

I ask first. When you present the evidence for natural selection, I will present the evidenced for the diversity of life.

Lol, not Interested thanks, we’re all aware of your MO.

I am also perfectly aware that you have absolutely zero evidence for whatever particular brand of creationism you believe in so don’t bother posting if you don’t want.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?

Wait a minute... Nobody is interested in "proving" anything to you, and you are not in a position to demand it. You could come down off your high horse and discuss evolution and the evidence which supports it, but really, we don't feel any need to talk you out of being a creationist, especially if you are going to be snarky about it.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I don't need your help. I need something you consider scientific evidence. Evidently you don't have any. You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong, but you can't. Is it not embarassing for me to keep asking for evidence and you keep making excuses not to?

There is no evidence for evolution?
What about the fossils we have found?
Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.
Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Plants?
Cycas is a gymnosperm but has circinnately coiled yound leaves, Ramanta and multiflagellate male gametes, features of fern.
It is pretty obvious how the sporophylls evolved. In pteridophytes, all plants are not even heterosporous. In angiosperms, the megasporophyll modifies to wrap around the megasporangium.
Algae follow a haplontic life cycle, gymnosperms and angiosperms follow a diplontic one. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are the transition states and follow a haplodiplontic life cycle.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.
Fungi
Fungal evolution is seen by changes in sexual reproduction. Oomycetes from gametes and at times, fuse gametangia. Zygomycetes just conjugate their gametangia. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes get rid of all that and just fuse two cells.
If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims.
For more information on transitional fossils, visit
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

And I'm sure this isn't the first time you've seen this. So, either you're lying or suffer from memory loss or have spent no time on this forum.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As usual nothing in your post included HOW is happened. Rhetoric is not evidence. Notrhing in you post can be proved.

-_- all that post was doing was demonstrating that the abiogenesis hypothesis is different than spontaneous generation. I don't need to demonstrate either process to show that they have different definitions, and since this is an creationism vs EVOLUTION debate subforum, I have no obligation to defend abiogenesis at all. It's a hypothesis, not a theory, so I view it as more than reasonable to question it.

I suppose you are abandoning your claim that the theory of evolution included the origin of life in it, yes? If not, defend it with actual examples.

 

[Snappy1]

As usual nothing in your post included HOW is happened. Rhetoric is not evidence. Notrhing in you post can be proved.

It's posts like this in response to what PsychoSarah posted that make it obvious one of two things is happening.

1) The poster isn't reading the posts they're responding to.

Or

2) The poster can't understand the post they're responding to.

 

[USincognito]

Formal proofs apply to closed axiomatic systems (logic, mathematics). This does not apply to statements of affairs in the real world, which are always potentially uncertain due to the possibility of errors in observation, interpretation, random chance, etc. This is why even Popperian falsification is not a guarantee that an hypothesis is incorrect, and why the scientific method aspires to minimise such errors and ideally requires independent replication.

You are correct that many scientific observations (e.g. plurality of blood groups, evolution by natural selection) are backed by so much accumulated evidence that they are beyond all reasonable doubt, and might colloquially be called 'proven', but this is not formal proof, as it is not purely deductive but relies on inductive reasoning from multiple observations. This is the 'Problem of Induction' identified by David Hume back in the 18th century.

I don't know why this is so hard for them to grasp. They just can't seem to grasp that things are never proven not by what we know now, but by what we might know in the future.