Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 7815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10940
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #638 on: August 12, 2014, 01:28:14 PM »
Brilliant, BS.Yet again you avoid the actual topic while demanding that others concentrate, like you, on the irrelevant.

I see it as an admission that he's wrong, which is why I played along with it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #639 on: August 12, 2014, 01:53:13 PM »
There is no weasel wording going on. I came right out and said that if someone claims that evolution has been proven, they are being dishonest. How is that using weasel wording? Besides, if I am incorrect in making that accusation, then please explain why instead of just babbling on that I am incorrect.
You are claiming[1] that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven.  However, science is not about proving things to begin with; it is about demonstrating things using evidence.  A lot of people use the concept of proof as a shortcut for this, but that's nothing more than linguistic sloppiness.  I am providing a link to a good article which debunks the misconception that science has anything to do with proof.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

I will let the article speak for itself, but I want to elaborate on one specific point:  "all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives."  This exactly describes the theory of evolution; it is the best explanation that we have for the diversity of life.  Trying to claim that since evolutionary theory is not 'proven', it is not scientific, is plain and simply wrong.  It is based off the false idea that something must be proven to be scientific.  When I accused you of weasel-wording, that's what I meant; however, I since looked up the definition of weasel-wording, and that isn't it.  Weasel-wording is a way to imply something without coming right out and saying it, and I have to admit you weren't doing that.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Yes. Perhaps some people are getting pissed off. What I am exposing in this thread is a tough pill to swallow for those that have to admit that certain aspects of the ToE are unscientific.
Except you are incorrect, because your premise is that something must be proven in order to be scientific (thus why you are asking for a "soup-to-humans" proof).  However, science does not work through proof, it works through evidence.  Therefore, your claim that "certain aspects of the ToE are unscientific" is unsupported, because you are basing it off of the concept of proof, which is itself not scientific to begin with[2].  The point is that "macro-evolution", one of those aspects of evolutionary theory that you are referring to, is indeed scientific, for the reason that it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life (even though the evidence for it is far from complete), whereas trying to explain the diversity of life as being due to a designer has very little actual evidence going for it.

Quote from: BibleStudent
That is a completely cop out. Instead of explaining why I am incorrect or ignorant, an honest and genuine effort to respond to the specific claims and questions I have posed in this thread? You seem far more interested in discrediting me than you do in actually arguing the points I am making.And, these accusations some of you make about the level of knowledge and intellect a theist allegedly lacks are some of the most lame and stupid accusations made. They are an obvious tactic to smear the poster with the intent  a being to dodge the topic(s).
I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that by demanding that people here must 'prove' macro-evolution by providing a "soup-to-humans" chain or else admit that it's 'unscientific' shows only two things; that you don't really understand the science involved, and that you're not interested in trying to.  If you understood the science involved, you wouldn't be asking for proof, you'd be asking for evidence, and you wouldn't be demanding a level of evidence that is so purely arbitrary as to be ridiculous[3].  If you were interested in trying to understand it, you wouldn't be trying to draw a line in the sand like you are[4].

Quote from: BibleStudent
Where in this thread have I said that macroevolution is false?
It's statements like this that lead me to conclude that you're using weasel-wording; the implication of fixating so much on proof is that if it is not proven, then it is not true and therefore false, but you are carefully avoiding saying that so that you can deny it if someone challenges you on it.  That is the definition of weasel-wording, and I suggest you avoid the appearance of it in the future.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I am simply challenging any assertion that evolution is proven or that the entirety of the ToE is 'scientific' in nature.
Except these two things have nothing to do with each other.  Science is not about proving things in the first place, and nothing in science is proven; indeed, nothing in science can be proven.  As for the theory of evolution (or portions of it) not being scientific, since your basis for this was that it wasn't 'proven', and the concept of proof is itself not scientific, you must come up with a different rationale if you wish to argue that it is not scientific.

Quote from: BibleStudent
By what means or criteria does macroevolution become 'scientific? Is it by consensus? Is it because Joe "the ToE" Evolution says so? By what authority can someone claim the entirety of the ToE is scientific?
Why didn't you simply ask this to begin with, rather than roaring into the topic and claiming that macro-evolution wasn't proven and therefore not scientific?  Science isn't about authority, nor is it about consensus.  It's about evidence.  The reason the theory of evolution - and I mean the whole theory, not the highly artificial distinction between micro and macro that you're focused on - is scientific is because it is extremely well supported by the evidence we've found from examining the natural world.  There isn't anything else that even comes close to its explanatory power; it's so strong of an explanation that even finding evidence of a designer wouldn't counter it.

In every single simulation of evolution ever made, the initial simulated organism is designed.  A human programmer made it for the simulation, not to mention that the simulation itself was designed.  And yet, it has no problems whatsoever with dramatic divergences from its initial parameters, to the point where it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original designed organism; macro-evolutionary changes, in other words.  In short, there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that just because something was originally designed, that it somehow could not have "macro-evolved".  Indeed, people have actually written programs which demonstrated that something designed would still be able to change at the macro level, such as Macrophylon.  Indeed, you should note that the Macrophylon program was written specifically to address macro changes, rather than micro, such as major changes in size or respiration.

Quote from: BibleStudent
WHAT??!!!! You mean there is a different scientific method? Is it a secret method...one that only scientists researching the ToE use? I have never heard this before so please do enlighten me....or provide a link to a credible source for this 'other' method.
I am not impressed with your attempt to be disingenuous.  I did not say that they used a different scientific method, I said it was a common misunderstanding of the scientific method that was at fault.  Specifically, the idea that scientific methodology has anything to do with proof.  It does not; it has to do with evidence.  The scientific method does not prove anything; you cannot prove that something is true or false using it.  All you can do is demonstrate that your hypothesis or theory matches the evidence, and that it does so better than other explanations.

Quote from: BibleStudent
So, this whole business about testing and experimenting to verify the accuracy of a hypothesis is a bunch a nonsense? According to you, basically all you have to do is demonstrate that other hypotheses don't trump the one being studied. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were making this stuff up in a desperate attempt to somehow demonstrate a scientific basis for some of the claims being made because now there is a variation or different scientific method that can be used when the other one(s) don't provide the outcome that is needed. Interesting and,frankly, unbelievable. I have heard or read somewhere that people who are completely sold on the ToE will make things up as they go along in order to protect it and now I think I am seeing first-hand that that may be true.
Your inability (or perhaps unwillingness would be a better term) to understand only reflects on you.  Especially your continued attempt to misconstrue my earlier statement as some kind of "alternate scientific method" that is used to support evolution.  There is no alternate scientific method.  However, it is certainly possible for people who are not very knowledgeable about it to misunderstand it (especially since it's common to understand proof and evidence as meaning the same thing) and thus assume that the scientific method is about proving things, when it has nothing to do with that.  People such as you, as you have clearly demonstrated through this thread, and are further demonstrating by continuing to misunderstand and misconstrue things.

Quote from: BibleStudent
You just admitted that all claims of soup-to-humans is unscientific. There is no known pathway and no known mechanism so you are left with a form of deduction based on observation which cannot be supported by the scientific method. In effect, you are ASSUMING it to be true. That is not a scientific basis for anything !!!!
If it weren't for the fact that I'm aware of how fundamentally you're misunderstanding the scientific method and evidence vs proof, I would be quite offended at the insinuations you make here.  I'm hoping that my post will help to clear this up, but I'm not able to hold out much hope for that due to how much you've stuck to the false idea of "scientific proof" since you came into this topic.

As it happens, science is indeed about seeing how closely a proposed explanation fits the facts; it is either inductive (meaning, you start with an observation/hypothesis and then try to work up to a more general theory) or deductive (meaning, you start with a general theory and work down to the specifics), as described here.  Inductive reasoning is usually how we come up with theories, and then we use deductive reasoning to test them  Every branch of science works that way.  It's more than a bit ironic that you described exactly how science and the scientific method works, and then immediately claimed that it couldn't be supported by the scientific method and that it wasn't a scientific basis for anything. 

Quote from: BibleStudent
I never said it was wrong !!! I said it was unscientific. In fact, I've said it repeatedly in this thread and am yet to receive a response either demonstrating that it is or explaining why my position is false.
It is anything but unscientific.  The only reason you think it is unscientific is because you think science is about proof, when it never has been.

Quote from: BibleStudent
So, it is a GUESS then?? If this is a valid scientific method you just described then you just opened a can of whoop-ass for some of the creationist and IDT crowd to use. Can you even imagine the ridicule and criticism they would be subjected to if they used your nonsensical version of how science works. Yikes !!!
Actually, the creationist/"intelligent design" crowd regularly make insinuations to that effect all the time, but they're making the same mistake as you did - seeing a word and jumping to conclusions.  You see, I said it was an educated guess - that is, based on knowledge and experience and thus likely to be correct.  And that is, in fact, the point.  Science always starts with educated guesses (otherwise known as hypotheses), which are either confirmed or falsified.  If they're falsified, then it's time for another hypothesis.  If they're confirmed (and more importantly, continue to be confirmed), they progressively become more likely to be correct.  But the point is that there is no stage at which a scientific theory is 100% certain to be correct.

And the even further irony is that this is actually how science works, and thus the only way creationism/"intelligent design theory" could possibly be taken seriously as science.  Instead, their advocates fixate on the idea of "disproving" elements of science which contradict what they want to be true, as if that would somehow make those things true.
 1. or at least so I understand
 2. which does not mean it is useless or bad; proof is necessary, even vital, for mathematics and logic, otherwise all you would have are conjectures
 3. especially since I'm pretty sure you knew nobody could produce that level of evidence to begin with, and thus were simply looking for an excuse to dismiss the whole concept
 4. see the above footnote for why I think that is

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #640 on: August 12, 2014, 02:06:31 PM »
Instead of these speeches you provide, spend some time and try to provide us with an example of an experiment that demonstrates how one organism evolved from another organism. We’ve had 60,0000+ generations of Lenski's e-coli and bacteria never changed into anything but bacteria.

In one sentence you want evidence that "one organism evolved from another organism" and then in the very next sentence you cite an example of it, but subtly shift the goal posts: "bacteria never changed into anything but bacteria."  Bacteria is not a species.  It used to be a genus, but that was changed.  It used to be a family, but that was also changed.  Now, it is just a general, vulgar term.  So your point is meaningless.  Of course it is still bacteria.  All bacteria is bacteria, even if they are not the same genus.

Was that sloppy? Dishnoest? Or just garden variety not knowing wtf you are talking about?  I think that last is the most likely.


...perhaps you could use that to demonstrate the step by step process...

you make it sound so simple.  Yet, it is an absurd proposition because you know that no matter what was provided, nothing would satisfy you.  Well, perhaps if we had a continuous chain within a family of lizard (its offspring, its grand children, great grand children, etc.) until it was a snake.  But again, you know that is impossible.

You know, this would be a lot less galling if you made an actual attempt to learn evolution, instead of the perverted carichature of it you constantly portray. How can you not believe in a thing if you don't actually know what it is?

 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #641 on: August 12, 2014, 02:11:26 PM »
Then why didn't you correct One Above All for this:

1. I am discussing this with you, not OAA
2. I have him on ignore


(I don't really.  I was just funny to say.)

....or do you just conveniently choose to correct us theists for some reason?

No, no.  I correct everyone.  He was wrong to use the "p" word.

Now, if you are done being pedantic and playing victim, did you want to, you know, actually address the meat of what I said?  Because the whole "you only pick on xians, poooooor meeee" thing just looks like a dodge from where I sit.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #642 on: August 12, 2014, 02:37:54 PM »
For the sake of time saving, I want to request that Bible Student reviews the fossil record for himself.

I would like to point him towards the horse fossil sequence, to show that Macro evolution does happen.

And also, I would like for him to refrain from using the term "macro" and "micro" evolution, as they are useless. Evolution is evolution.

Off topic: I also have OAA on ignore. I'm allergic to his intelligence.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 02:40:17 PM by Defiance »
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #643 on: August 12, 2014, 02:39:34 PM »
You are claiming[1] that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven.
<snipped pending an answer to below question>
 1. or at least so I understand

Before I respond to your post, please identify the post(s) where I said this or where I asked for proof. I’m not saying that I definitely did not but I scanned back through my posts and I don’t see it.

Also, remember that I jumped into this thread based on the following comment made by a ToE worshipper:
One species evolving into another takes millions (yes, with an "m") of years most of the time. At best, hundreds of thousands of years. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, in, at best, 1809, assuming he proposed it the year he was born. That means we've known about evolution for 205 years at best. 205<<100,000. However, even time is not the issue. Evolution has been proven. Creationists just can't accept it. To deny that one species can turn into another is to deny that 1+1=2, which itself has also been proven (seriously; Google it, though I doubt you can understand it). They also demand impossible things from science, as if that made their beliefs any more true.
……………..
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again. Theists whose beliefs are contradicted by science (that is, when they believe their beliefs are being contradicted by facts) just tend to be slower than the rest of humanity when it comes to accepting new information.

Plus, what “proof” is Graybeard referring to?:

I am surprised that you are surprised. I do not think that you are willing to accept any proof at all that macro -evolution took place.

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific. In other words, if I asked for “proof” (which I do not believe I ever did) then it was for the proof of the “proof.”

Your most recent post seems intent on correcting my non-existent requests for “proof” that evolution is true. Why?

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #644 on: August 12, 2014, 02:56:01 PM »

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific.

Then set aside the minutia and do so please.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #645 on: August 12, 2014, 02:59:26 PM »
For the sake of time saving, I want to request that Bible Student reviews the fossil record for himself.

I would like to point him towards the horse fossil sequence, to show that Macro evolution does happen.

Take a look at the line of horse evolution and identify which is not a horse. Please identify it by naming the species. And, also, if you could, please identify the organism from which horses evolved. Last, but not least, identify the biological mechanism that carried out this amazing transition and then explain how it worked along with whatever evidence you have that it actually occurred as you believe. Please, no guesses, or assumptions, or “we’re pretty sure” stuff. I anxiously await your reply.

Quote
And also, I would like for him to refrain from using the term "macro" and "micro" evolution, as they are useless. Evolution is evolution.

Yes, I’m sure you would like that very much. And do you know why you would like me to stop differentiating the two? Because it represents the chasm that you cannot bridge in your attempt to reconcile that the ToE is indeed what you have been indoctrinated to believe. Besides, I could point to numerous examples of where the two terms continue to be used in the scientific community.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #646 on: August 12, 2014, 03:01:15 PM »

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific.

Then set aside the minutia and do so please.

I already have....unless you can point me to examples of where the scientific method was used to test and verify the hypothesis???

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #647 on: August 12, 2014, 03:14:52 PM »
Technically, that is not what you have been asking for.  You have been asking for evidence that small changes amount to large ones. Which is an absurd question on its face, since, as has been pointed out to you, appears to be self evident.  It is like saying the psychrophilic bacteria in a jug of milk could never make it go bad since each bacterium only creates a small quantity of proteinase and lipase and it could not possibly amount to bad milk.  Sorry, son.  Eventually you end up with lumpy milk in your cherrios.

Since you are so quick to judge my so-called ignorance, I'm just curious what you make of this:

James Tour, who is one of the most cited chemists in the world:

"… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules." 1

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”
Lecture: James M. Tour Ph.D, Georgia Tech, November 1, 2012

Online jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1772
  • Darwins +87/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #648 on: August 12, 2014, 03:36:10 PM »
Why is it that the Young Earth Creationist demands such rigorous "proof" of evolution, and happily discounts the masses of evidence which all point to the same conclusion simply because they don't have time to watch while a multi-million-year experiment is run to verify the process, but at the same time will insist that the fact that god cannot be disproven is such a huge point in their argument for faith?

Anecdotal "miracles" and gut feelings give them all the proof they need that god exists, but evolution must be discounted because there is no moment which can be pointed to specifically showing the full emergence of one species from another within a human lifetime. No matter how much evidence there is that small changes add up to major ones, their presupposition of the creationist model will not allow them to accept that any of that evidence is valid.

But at the same time, they want to preach how easy the leap of faith is to accept a deity with no evidence for its existence other the words in an ancient, vague and contradictory volume with a pretty mixed up pedigree, and urge us to just "decide" to believe.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2106
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #649 on: August 12, 2014, 03:40:57 PM »
Nick Matzke, an evolutionary biologist, actually took up Tour on his challenge and offered to explain macroevolution to him. Maybe you can tell me why one of the most cited chemists in the world didn't want their conversation recorded? If that doesn't make you raise an eyebrow to Tour's sincerity I don't know what will.

More here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/#comment-447110
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #650 on: August 12, 2014, 04:25:25 PM »
Nick Matzke, an evolutionary biologist, actually took up Tour on his challenge and offered to explain macroevolution to him. Maybe you can tell me why one of the most cited chemists in the world didn't want their conversation recorded? If that doesn't make you raise an eyebrow to Tour's sincerity I don't know what will.

More here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/#comment-447110

I don't know. Why do you suspect he may not want to be recorded?

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #651 on: August 12, 2014, 04:28:28 PM »

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific.

Then set aside the minutia and do so please.

I already have....unless you can point me to examples of where the scientific method was used to test and verify the hypothesis???

Demonstrate and show, sweet pea, not just claim that it's wrong. By addressing the issue this way, you are actually asking us to demonstrate that it's true, while claiming that you are trying to demonstrate that it's false.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #652 on: August 12, 2014, 04:31:02 PM »
Before I respond to your post, please identify the post(s) where I said this or where I asked for proof. I’m not saying that I definitely did not but I scanned back through my posts and I don’t see it.
Be careful what you wish for.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg627829.html#msg627829 - "If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method."  This was in the very first post you made, the one you refer to being made by a "ToE worshiper" (which is itself an example of equivocation fallacy).

Granted, that's the only one I could find, but since it was the very first post you made, it set the whole tone of the discussion.  That, combined with the adversarial and aggressive tone of your posts in general was more than enough to make it clear you had no intention of actually listening to a single thing anyone said, especially evidenced by your second post:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg627847.html#msg627847 - "Since you (or anyone else) can demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and fact, I think you know what I believe."  Granted, you apparently left a word out, but it was pretty clear that what you meant was "since you (or anyone else) cannot demonstrate..." (or possibly, "since neither you (or anyone else)..."), since otherwise the sentence makes no sense.  In short, you knew going in that nobody could do what you were asking, which means that your 'question' was no such thing.  The only thing you intended by coming into this topic was to attack "macro-evolution", because you expected there were only two possible outcomes; either they would recognize the actual nature of your 'question' and refuse to answer, so you could accuse them of 'dodging', or they would answer it honestly, which you would then use to attempt to undermine "macro-evolution".

The problem is, you do not get to dictate what is and isn't science, or what is and isn't scientific.  Especially when you came in demanding 'proof' that you knew didn't even exist, and would never exist, for the sole purpose of trying to claim that something that you personally disagree with isn't scientific.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Plus, what “proof” is Graybeard referring to?:
The only thing you are doing here is trying to play the same pedantic, legalistic game that you've been playing since you jumped into this thread on August 4.  I am no longer willing to indulge you in it, especially since I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that your intention was never about asking serious questions about evolutionary theory, but in trying to play 'gotcha!'

Quote from: BibleStudent
My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific. In other words, if I asked for “proof” (which I do not believe I ever did) then it was for the proof of the “proof.”

Your most recent post seems intent on correcting my non-existent requests for “proof” that evolution is true. Why?
I am not interested in playing this game you seem so fond of, especially since you deliberately, intentionally, and with malice aforethought constructed your approach so you could insinuate things which, when confronted, you could then deny.  And if that didn't work, then you could quote-mine, like you tried to do to me, to try to hit me with a straw-man argument.

My first sentence was:  "You are claiming that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven."  In fact, you quoted it.  Yet somehow, you came away from my post with the impression that I was "correcting your non-existent requests for 'proof' that evolution is true".  Even though I wrote the word 'true' in my post four times total.  The first was my statement that "the implication of fixating so much on proof is that if it is not proven, then it is not true and therefore false, but you are carefully avoiding saying that so that you can deny it if someone challenges you on it", the second was "the scientific method does not prove anything; you cannot prove that something is true or false using it", and the third and fourth were "their advocates fixate on the idea of "disproving" elements of science which contradict what they want to be true, as if that would somehow make those things true".

Of the three sentences thus quoted, the second one was a general statement about the scientific method, and the third was a general statement about advocates of creationism/"intelligent design".  So they are not relevant.  The first one was a statement about something you were implying but didn't say outright, as a way to say I wasn't fooled by you not actually saying it.  I fail to see any indication of my post being "intent on correcting non-existent requests for 'proof' that evolution is not true", therefore your statement was a straw-man.  And I am not amused.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 04:34:03 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #653 on: August 12, 2014, 04:31:07 PM »
Why is it that the Young Earth Creationist demands such rigorous "proof" of evolution,

Where did I ask for proof of evolution? For the umpteenth time, I simply asked for evidence that the entirety of the ToE is scientific in nature.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #654 on: August 12, 2014, 04:34:00 PM »

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific.

Then set aside the minutia and do so please.

I already have....unless you can point me to examples of where the scientific method was used to test and verify the hypothesis???

Demonstrate and show, sweet pea, not just claim that it's wrong. By addressing the issue this way, you are actually asking us to demonstrate that it's true, while claiming that you are trying to demonstrate that it's false.

The absence of the evidence I have been seeking is evidence enough. What more would you like?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #655 on: August 12, 2014, 04:38:28 PM »
Where did I ask for proof of evolution? For the umpteenth time, I simply asked for evidence that the entirety of the ToE is scientific in nature.
No, you asked for proof of the mechanism/pathway of a large-scale biological phenomenon (or more concisely, proof of macro-evolution), and stated that such proof should be supported by the scientific method.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #656 on: August 12, 2014, 04:38:57 PM »
Quote
You are claiming[1] that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven.
<snipped pending an answer to below question>
 1. or at least so I understand

Before I respond to your post, please identify the post(s) where I said this or where I asked for proof. I’m not saying that I definitely did not but I scanned back through my posts and I don’t see it.


Plus, what “proof” is Graybeard referring to?:

I am surprised that you are surprised. I do not think that you are willing to accept any proof at all that macro -evolution took place.

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific. In other words, if I asked for “proof” (which I do not believe I ever did) then it was for the proof of the “proof.”

Your most recent post seems intent on correcting my non-existent requests for “proof” that evolution is true. Why?

Probably because of this post in which you state (erroneously and without any supporting evidence):
... If you were honest with yourself, you would see this and begin referring to the theory for what it is....an unproven hypothesis.

It would seem from this that you are stating that the Theory of Evolution is "unproven". From which point, it becomes valid to ask you why you believe this (such responses usually are based on a state of knowledge prior to 1850) and what reasonable evidence you would require so that you might be brought into the normal world and accept the Theory of Evolution.

I am quite surprised that everyone else understood what you had written and its implications, but you chose not to.

At this point it would be really helpful if you were to explain how your theory is superior to The Theory of Evolution. (Answers involving magic will not be counted.)

Yours GB Mod.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 04:40:30 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #657 on: August 12, 2014, 04:51:42 PM »
Where did I ask for proof of evolution? For the umpteenth time, I simply asked for evidence that the entirety of the ToE is scientific in nature.
No, you asked for proof of the mechanism/pathway of a large-scale biological phenomenon (or more concisely, proof of macro-evolution), and stated that such proof should be supported by the scientific method.

Just out of curiosity, let me ask you this:

Has the process of microevolution been proven?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #658 on: August 12, 2014, 04:54:35 PM »
Quote
You are claiming[1] that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven.
<snipped pending an answer to below question>
 1. or at least so I understand

Before I respond to your post, please identify the post(s) where I said this or where I asked for proof. I’m not saying that I definitely did not but I scanned back through my posts and I don’t see it.


Plus, what “proof” is Graybeard referring to?:

I am surprised that you are surprised. I do not think that you are willing to accept any proof at all that macro -evolution took place.

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific. In other words, if I asked for “proof” (which I do not believe I ever did) then it was for the proof of the “proof.”

Your most recent post seems intent on correcting my non-existent requests for “proof” that evolution is true. Why?

Probably because of this post in which you state (erroneously and without any supporting evidence):
... If you were honest with yourself, you would see this and begin referring to the theory for what it is....an unproven hypothesis.

It would seem from this that you are stating that the Theory of Evolution is "unproven". From which point, it becomes valid to ask you why you believe this (such responses usually are based on a state of knowledge prior to 1850) and what reasonable evidence you would require so that you might be brought into the normal world and accept the Theory of Evolution.

I am quite surprised that everyone else understood what you had written and its implications, but you chose not to.

At this point it would be really helpful if you were to explain how your theory is superior to The Theory of Evolution. (Answers involving magic will not be counted.)

Yours GB Mod.



That doesn't answer the question of why YOU used the word "proof" in your August 7th post ??

Probably because we posted at more or less the same time.

GB Mod


You posted on August 7th. I posted today. How does that work?
If you don't want to have to explain why you used the word "proof" then just say so.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 05:31:21 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #659 on: August 12, 2014, 04:54:49 PM »
Before anyone answers BS's question, he will address my point above:

At this point it would be really helpful if you were to explain how your theory is superior to The Theory of Evolution. (Answers involving magic will not be counted.)

Yours GB Mod.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline shnozzola

Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #660 on: August 12, 2014, 05:03:18 PM »
I don't suppose those that disagree with evolution will enjoy questioning and broadening their horizons, so this ends up preaching to the godless choir, as it were.  Still, an interesting look at a cool chimpanzee:

 http://www.radiolab.org/story/91705-lucy/



Quote
Chimps. Bonobos. Humans. We're all great apes, but that doesn’t mean we’re one happy family. This hour of Radiolab: stories of trying to live together.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 05:05:18 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #661 on: August 12, 2014, 05:25:20 PM »
Before anyone answers BS's question, he will address my point above:

At this point it would be really helpful if you were to explain how your theory is superior to The Theory of Evolution. (Answers involving magic will not be counted.)

Yours GB Mod.


I have not indicated in this thread that my theory was "superior" to the Theory of Evolution. Why are you introducing this Red Herring into the discussion?

Also, are you going to answer the question I asked you in my previous post? <-- sorry, I missed your post.

edit: retracted the last sentence.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 05:27:46 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #662 on: August 12, 2014, 05:30:57 PM »
Just out of curiosity, let me ask you this:

Has the process of microevolution been proven?
Just out of curiosity, could you tell me where you got this idea that anything in science had to be proven?

Nothing in science is proven.  Not macro- or micro-evolution.  Not gravity.  Not atomic theory.  Not germ theory.  Not radio waves.  Not electromagnetism.  Not chemical reactions.  Not quarks.  Not the Higgs boson.  And so on.  Science doesn't deal with proving things the way math or logic do.

But all of those things have been sufficiently demonstrated with evidence.  Some better than others, of course, but they all have been demonstrated past a reasonable doubt.  That of course includes macro-evolution.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #663 on: August 12, 2014, 05:34:21 PM »
Probably because we posted at more or less the same time.


You posted on August 7th. I posted today. How does that work?
If you don't want to have to explain why you used the word "proof" then just say so.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6362
  • Darwins +748/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #664 on: August 12, 2014, 06:01:20 PM »
I have not indicated in this thread that my theory was "superior" to the Theory of Evolution. Why are you introducing this Red Herring into the discussion?

You seem to think that you can say that the ToE is false, but without providing any alternatives to the observed phenomena. You have said before that you don't care about alternatives. You say it is a red herring, but you don't say why it is a red herring.

So if fossils are buried in predictable layers (as per the science you discredit) what other possible explanations could there be for that layering? Because science can't think of a one, and apparently you can't either. Without alternatives, the ToE looks to most of us like the most likely explanation. If you and yours cannot provide some alternate explanation, that explains undeniably observed phenomena and supports whatever it is you want to support, then you are in no position whatsoever to claim some other explanation is faulty because you have nothing to replace it with.

Lets say you and I are out for a walk, and we see a cow walk across the road with two dead iguanas tied to a rope around its neck. I say, "Hmmm, looks like someone tied a couple of dead iguanas to a cow."

And your response would be something like "Where do you get that stuff. All we saw was a cow and two two dead iguanas, and now you're trying to tell me that we just saw a cow with two dead iguanas tied around its neck! Where's your proof. That thing? That cow with the dead iguanas around its neck? That's not proof. That's just a cow with two dead iguanas tied around its neck. There is no connection. Where do you get this crap?"

Prove me wrong.



Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #665 on: August 12, 2014, 06:14:48 PM »

My primary intent was to demonstrate that these claims are not proven and to do so by showing that the so-called proof is not even scientific.

Then set aside the minutia and do so please.

I already have....unless you can point me to examples of where the scientific method was used to test and verify the hypothesis???

Demonstrate and show, sweet pea, not just claim that it's wrong. By addressing the issue this way, you are actually asking us to demonstrate that it's true, while claiming that you are trying to demonstrate that it's false.

The absence of the evidence I have been seeking is evidence enough. What more would you like?

Thank you for asking. Here's what more I would like - say what you mean and mean what you say.

So far, you are only making claims. Interestingly, one of your claims is that you are here to demonstrate  a lack of "proof" and show that the "proof" accepted by PWUWTFtToEAS[1] is not scientific. Please do so. Demonstrate that your claims are valid. Show the lack of scientific rigor.

Tell me why I'm wrong to accept what the ToE says as the most reasonable explanation of the question of how life got distributed across the planet as we see it today. I'm far form an expert on this topic, but I've had two recent[2] college courses on this and am very curious to hear just what it is that you find so impossible to believe that you are willing to publicly insist that it cannot be true due to a perceived-by-you lack of scientific validity.

I've been optimistically assuming that you understand that abiogenesis and evolution seek to address two different questions. Am I wrong to do so?
 1. People Who Understand WTF the Theory of Evolution Actually Says
 2. less than a year ago
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6362
  • Darwins +748/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #666 on: August 12, 2014, 06:20:50 PM »
One more thing, BS. You are assuming that all people who support the ToE are equally educated in science and in the terminologies of science. You are assuming we are of one mind, and all know exactly how to state our case, without error. Hence when the "proof" thing came up, mostly because you were insisting on proof, a variety of answers, that didn't mesh exactly, showed up. And you decided then and there that you must be right because a few people used the same word in different ways, which proves, in and of itself, that the ToE can't possibly be correct.

If theToE went away today, how would you explain the fossil record, the 350,000 species of beetles, the reason for the appendix, why genes change when they're not supposed to and other mysteries? Or is it simply that you don't care, that such things are totally irrelevant, and that we should concentrate on pleasing your god?

If your alternative to evolution is some other explanation, fine. Lets hear it. If you just prefer sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that nobody ever thought of anything except god, fine, lets hear that. But this I'm right, you're wrong, there is nothing to discuss stuff sucks big time. Because it doesn't match my world at all.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.