Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

[shinbits]

Yep. It's widely accepted because it's true.

1) It hasn't been proven true.
2) The Geocentric theory was also widely accepted.

Valkhorn;
What medicines have been made because of evolutionary theory?

 

[Nightson]

1) It hasn't been proven true.

2) The Geocentric theory was also widely accepted.

1) Can you name one thing that is proven in science?
2) Did science come up with geocentrism?

 

[shinbits]

1) Can you name one thing that is proven in science?
2) Did science come up with geocentrism?

1) Gravity.
2) The scientists of the day came up with geocentrism, which the church then adopted.

Unfortunately, history is repeating somewhat, and once again incorrect science (this time evolution) is even corrupting Christianity.

 

[Nooj]

Gravity is an observation. It can be falsified tomorrow if Earth goes flying out of the Solar System and we start floating.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

I think it's also fair to point out that just because something is widely accepted, that also doesn't make it true or false.

I agree. That would be a fallacy of ad numerum: It's accepted by almost everyone, so it must be true!

 

[shinbits]

Gravity is an observation. It can be falsified tomorrow if Earth goes flying out of the Solar System and we start floating.

As it is, this has never happened. Gravity is currently a fact. If you doubt this, please find a twelve story building and jump out of it.

The fact that Earth has not gone flying uildly out into the universe, nor any of the other planets, nor thier moons, shows Intelligent Design.

hehe.

......."If the Earth goes flying out of the Solar System".

Evolutionists say the darndest things.

 

[notto]

1) Gravity

The effects of gravity are an observation. The mechanism of gravity is still a mystery. You don't 'prove' observations.

If that is proven, then evolution is proven as well. It is a fact that life in the past is much different than life today and that those changes took place over millions of years through diversification of exising populations.

That is an observation and is fact.

The theory of evolution seeks to understand the mechanisms involved just like the theory of gravity seeks to understand the mechanisms involved in the observations related to gravity.

Theories are never 'proven' and are open to falsification (although evolution is a theory that is pretty much shown to be valid beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

[notto]

As it is, this has never happened. Gravity is currently a fact. If you doubt this, please find a twelve story building and jump out of it.

Evolution is a fact in this sense as well. If you doubt it, please demonstrate that life in the past was not different than life today and that the frequency of traits does not change in a population over time.

Theories deal with determining the mechanisms responsible for observations. The theory of gravity is not proven nor a fact and is a lot more elusive than the theory of evolution and the mechanisms it discusses.

 

[shinbits]

The effects of gravity are an observation. The mechanism of gravity is still a mystery. You don't 'prove' observations.

There's no need to prove an observation. If rain is observed falling from the sky, there's no need to prove that rain is falling from the sky.
The observation is proof of what is being observed.

If that is proven, then evolution is proven as well. It is a fact that life in the past is much different than life today and that those changes took place over millions of years through diversification of exising populations.

What fact? Unlike with gravity, there are no observations that prove evolution ever happened.

 

[notto]

Unlike with gravity, there are no observations that prove evolution ever happened.

Sure there are. You just deny they exist.

1) Genetic markers show common descent
2) Life in the past was much different than life today
3) Speciation has been observed.

That is only 3 defined briefly, there is much more.

What reading have you done that leads you to your conclusion?

How can you deny the observation that life in the past was much different than life today and these changes happened over time?

How can you deny that traits in a population change over time and that speciation is observed?

 

[Kripost]

There's no need to prove an observation. If rain is observed falling from the sky, there's no need to prove that rain is falling from the sky.

Actually, you need to acknowledge there is an observation. For instance, a person can still deny that rain is falling from the sky, and use an ad hoc expalnation instead.

 

[shinbits]

Sure there are. You just deny they exist.
Genetic markers show common descent

What genetic markers?

Speciation has been observed.

Is speciation, the changing of one species into another one? If so, what population has been observed turning into a different species?

How can you deny the observation that life in the past was much different than life today and these changes happened over time?

I've never denied that life was different in the past.

Surely envirornments have slowly changed, but there is no observation made whatsoever that populations from long ago, changed into completely different ones.

How can you deny that traits in a population change over time and that speciation is observed?

I never did. Traits do change, but they still remain the same species.

 

[shinbits]

Actually, you need to acknowledge there is an observation. For instance, a person can still deny that rain is falling from the sky, and use an ad hoc expalnation instead.

Thank you for saying that. What you've said is true and makes perfect sense.

If rain is acknowledged as an observation, then rain is proved.

In the case of evolution, there are no observations that have ever been made, to even acknowledge that an observation is even being made.

 

[Donkeytron]

In the case of evolution, there are no observations that have ever been made, to even acknowledge that an observation is even being made.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It would seem that your pants are on fire.

 

[Tomk80]

Thank you for saying that. What you've said is true and makes perfect sense.

If rain is acknowledged as an observation, then rain is proved.

Nope, because the observers that acknowledge the observation might be incorrect. Observations are not 'proved'. There is no proof in real life, only evidence. Proof is for math and alcohol.

In the case of evolution, there are no observations that have ever been made, to even acknowledge that an observation is even being made.

In the case of evolution, the observations include observations of speciation (the splitting of a population of a species into two new populations of two species), the observation of competition for resources (ie, natural selection), the observation of mutations.

For common ancestry, the observations include genetic markers (such as comparisons of conserved and non-conserved genetic sequences, ERV's and comparisons of whole DNA), the fossil record, morphological similarity etc.

 

[shinbits]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It would seem that your pants are on fire.

Copy and paste where in this very wordy link it says that observations have been made.

I just saw a bunch of acknowledgements and so forth.
Copy and paste it.

Then we'll discuss what's been pasted.

 

[Tomk80]

Copy and paste where in this very wordy link it says that observations have been made.

I just saw a bunch of acknowledgements and so forth.
Copy and paste it.

Then we'll discuss what's been pasted.

Chapter 5 of the link. Just pick one example out of that chapter, we can discuss that. There's no point in copying half the link to the board.

But it might be good for you to read the preceding chapters first. We're no doubt going to have to explain to you what a species actually is if you don't.

 

[Arik Soong]

What genetic markers?

I am not a geneticist but short tandem repeats, pseudogenes non functional versions of genes in the genome (like the pseudogene vitamin C), homologies in proteins like cytochrome c, chromosome banding should suffice for your criterion. Perhaps, the genetic evidence is the strongest aspect of the theory of evolution since this was a prediction even before Watson and Crick's discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid.

 

[shinbits]

I am not a geneticist but short tandem repeats, pseudogenes non functional versions of genes in the genome (like the pseudogene vitamin C), homologies in proteins like cytochrome c, chromosome banding should suffice for your criterion. Perhaps, the genetic evidence is the strongest aspect of the theory of evolution since this was a prediction even before Watson and Crick's discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid.

Okay. Thank you for that information.

How, using the genetic markers, is an observation made that humans have evolved?

 

[Tomk80]

Okay. Thank you for that information.

How, using the genetic markers, is an observation made that humans have evolved?

By comparing the comparison of genetic markers in different species with the predictions that are made by common ancestry.

For example. humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps, gorillas and orangutans 48. If all have a common ancestor, a fusion of chromosomes should have occurred, and this leaves evidence in the DNA. If we find evidence of this fusion (and we did), we have reason to believe common ancestry is correct.