Evolution or not?

[Manc Skipper]

This is the opinion of the naive, the true believer, ever faithful to the cause, defend the mantra.



If you truly believe that evolution theory is devoid of opinions then this really emphasizes your narrow study of the subject.

Poor old Dave, what would he do if he discovered evolution can't account for what we see...

Being a scientist, he would adapt his theory to accommodate the new data. Such data does not exist. The fact and theory of evolution does.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Not exactly. Science has to be factual and verifiable. That is not being subjective.

Except many of the claims made by devout evolutionists are not verifiable Dave, you appear to be blissfully unaware of this rather important detail.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Being a scientist, he would adapt his theory to accommodate the new data. Such data does not exist. The fact and theory of evolution does.

As you wish, if it makes you happy who am I to spoil all the fun.

 

[roguenuke]

True in principle of course, but evolution doesn't lend itself well to traditional experimental testing, for example it is impossible to do an experiment to repeat some past activity attributed to evolution because we cannot establish the initial conditions as they were 20 million years ago nor can we wait 20 million years for the results.

So for all the lofty talk of science and experiments and so on, evolution is almost entirely untestable in the sense you allude to, pretending it is tested as rigorously as we test theories in physics, chemistry, genetics etc is simply an act of deception.

It does though. We can observe and test to see the similarities and differences coming from Evolution.

There are experiments we can do though and observations that can be done on the information we have about past life on Earth and current life on Earth and reach the same conclusions most of the time. Independent researchers coming to those same conclusions, some even looking at similar but still different data about how the world and its species change with time does go into proving Evolution.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Manc Skipper]

As you wish, if it makes you happy who am I to spoil all the fun.

Elementary.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It does though. We can observe and test to see the similarities and differences coming from Evolution.

OK so please tell me a claim made by evolutionists and how this has been tested?

There are experiments we can do though and observations that can be done on the information we have about past life on Earth and current life on Earth and reach the same conclusions most of the time.

This is probably true for some kinds of claims, but there are many that are not testable in this way.

Independent researchers coming to those same conclusions, some even looking at similar but still different data about how the world and its species change with time does go into proving Evolution.

Well what about when people don't come to the same conclusions?

 

[watsup]

We're human...we get just as frustrated with ignorance as the next person...sue me...

Ad hom. It’s all she ever has.

 

[watsup]

Science is prone to human fallacy. The difference is that science is repeatable, your personal experiences aren't. Ten different people can have the exact same experience and come to ten different conclusions on its meaning and provide it as evidence for ten different things. In science, if ten different people do the exact same scientific experiment, most if not all will come to the same results, same conclusion.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Excellent.

 

[watsup]

This is the opinion of the naive, the true believer, ever faithful to the cause, defend the mantra.



If you truly believe that evolution theory is devoid of opinions then this really emphasizes your narrow study of the subject.

Poor old Dave, what would he do if he discovered evolution can't account for what we see...

Where can we read the scientific papers that you have written in the manner that life has come to its present form on this planet. And are you ever going to tell us how it was accomplished?

 

[watsup]

True in principle of course, but evolution doesn't lend itself well to traditional experimental testing, for example it is impossible to do an experiment to repeat some past activity attributed to evolution because we cannot establish the initial conditions as they were 20 million years ago nor can we wait 20 million years for the results.

So for all the lofty talk of science and experiments and so on, evolution is almost entirely untestable in the sense you allude to, pretending it is tested as rigorously as we test theories in physics, chemistry, genetics etc is simply an act of deception.

Such a simplistic view of science? Evolution is indeed falsifiable through the studies of the fossils laid down in geologic layers through the ages. This is basic science. Why can’t you understand it?

 

[watsup]

Except many of the claims made by devout evolutionists are not verifiable Dave, you appear to be blissfully unaware of this rather important detail.

They are all verifiable. Which ones do you claim are not?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Don't forget watsup you're posts are being ignored, not the fact that you're posting but their content, just a reminder, try ignoring yourself then you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[watsup]

Don't forget watsup you're posts are being ignored, not the fact that you're posting but their content, just a reminder, try ignoring yourself then you'll see what I'm talking about.

So sorry that you are unable to answer my very simple yet relevant question as to how you feel life on this planet has come to its present form. But that’s okay. We are enjoy the many different forms of your dance of avoidance.

 

[watsup]

Don't forget watsup you're posts are being ignored, not the fact that you're posting but their content, just a reminder, try ignoring yourself then you'll see what I'm talking about.

To say again: Your ignore has not cancelled my free speeech. Just so you know.

 

[Daisy]

No, all you can do is get personal when your arguments fail.

Your failing to understand is not an argument failed...no surprise you cannot tell the difference...

 

[watsup]

You failing to understand is not an argument failed...no surprise you cannot tell the difference...

Ad hom.

 

[zyzygy]

Ad hom.

As usual. Ignore her.

 

[devildavid]

Let me spell it out for you since you don't seem to be able to reason very well, if at all...man knows he is destroying his own home and yet, he continues to do it...selfishness...no thought about tomorrow or future generations...

Let me spell it out for you. Man is improving his lot in life. Has nothing to do with being selfish. It has to do with reasonable desire to make life easier for future generations, which is exactly what has happened.

 

[devildavid]

We're human...we get just as frustrated with ignorance as the next person...sue me...

Many here would claim they get tired of ignorance as well, and it has to do with stubborn people who mistake their beliefs with facts.

 

[devildavid]

This is the opinion of the naive, the true believer, ever faithful to the cause, defend the mantra.



If you truly believe that evolution theory is devoid of opinions then this really emphasizes your narrow study of the subject.

Poor old Dave, what would he do if he discovered evolution can't account for what we see...

Everything you try to pin on me can be applied to you.

People have opinions about evolution but evolution does not rely on opinion.

Evolution does account for what we see and you have provided no valid points to demonstrate that it does not.

 

[Daisy]

Let me spell it out for you. Man is improving his lot in life. Has nothing to do with being selfish. It has to do with reasonable desire to make life easier for future generations, which is exactly what has happened.

Keep dreamin', bud...:roll:

 

[devildavid]

Except many of the claims made by devout evolutionists are not verifiable Dave, you appear to be blissfully unaware of this rather important detail.

The truth of evolution is backed by scientific facts, not claims of anyone. You don't seem to understand how science actually works. Evolution has been scientifically verified, and you blissfully ignore that fact.

 

[devildavid]

OK so please tell me a claim made by evolutionists and how this has been tested?



This is probably true for some kinds of claims, but there are many that are not testable in this way.



Well what about when people don't come to the same conclusions?

The science of evolution is not based on "claims by evolutionists". It is based on scientific facts.

 

[watsup]

True in principle of course, but evolution doesn't lend itself well to traditional experimental testing, for example it is impossible to do an experiment to repeat some past activity attributed to evolution because we cannot establish the initial conditions as they were 20 million years ago nor can we wait 20 million years for the results.

So for all the lofty talk of science and experiments and so on, evolution is almost entirely untestable in the sense you allude to, pretending it is tested as rigorously as we test theories in physics, chemistry, genetics etc is simply an act of deception.

When you use the word “tested” in reference to evolution, it once again shows that you simply do not understand how science works. You have a fifth grade “understanding” of science.

 

[Variant]

I want to stop you right there and draw your attention to what you're saying.

You're saying the record is discontinuous because fossils are rare, well the evidence for their supposed rarity is their absence - how can you prove whether they never existed or did exist but were not fossilized?

So fossilization is rare, we know this because of the gaps yet the fossil record has gaps, we know this because fossils are rare!

This is in fact ludicrous (and evolution is full of such silliness).

No, we understand the fossil record because how fossils form is a matter of well known geological processes and we have plenty of evidence for the rarity of the events. We also understand species to usually consist of a fairly large number of individuals over a long period of time, and we can count how many fossils we find. We also know that to get a fossil you need to have an unperturbed corpse for along period of time, which happens rarely in nature.

Just because you don't understand why we think something, doesn't mean it is ludicrous.

Do however go on flaunting how you ignore good evidence and have little real understanding or patience for the subject you are pretending to be an expert in, but you are willing to jump to conclusions based on stock arguments to evolutionary theory.