toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Arthur Brain]

It's funny how you keep running back to this silly stuff.

Nobody starts with a blank page and just evidence.

Everyone has the SAME evidence, but look at it differently depending on their assumptions about the nature of things.

There is NO unequivocal and unambiguous evidence that all life on earth has descended from a universal single common ancestor.

It was NOT pristine beautiful evidence ALONE that led to that idea.

Um, no RD, that's not how science works so no wonder you keep making the same mistakes. Assumptions, personal beliefs, preferences about how things should be are entirely irrelevant. If a theory doesn't stand up to continual scrutiny and testing then it's altered accordingly or even discarded. Science is not interested in personal beliefs, whatever they might happen to be. The theory of evolution did not come about because scientists the world over wanted to wind up young earth creationists. It came about because of the evidence. The global consensus in the scientific community regarding it is again, because of the evidence that supports it. Plenty of scientists are also Christians.

It may be crucial for you to have an earth that's no older than ten thousand years old but science doesn't care.

 

[Right Divider]

Um, no RD, that's not how science works so no wonder you keep making the same mistakes. Assumptions, personal beliefs, preferences about how things should be are entirely irrelevant. If a theory doesn't stand up to continual scrutiny and testing then it's altered accordingly or even discarded. Science is not interested in personal beliefs, whatever they might happen to be. The theory of evolution did not come about because scientists the world over wanted to wind up young earth creationists. It came about because of the evidence. The global consensus in the scientific community regarding it is again, because of the evidence that supports it. Plenty of scientists are also Christians.

It may be crucial for you to have an earth that's no older than ten thousand years old but science doesn't care.

If you think that the idea that all life has descended from a single universal common ancestor came about solely by "looking at the evidence", then you are incredibly dense.

Personally, I don't care how old the earth is. But the actual evidence does not support billions of year.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you think that the idea that all life has descended from a single universal common ancestor came about solely by "looking at the evidence", then you are incredibly dense.

Personally, I don't care how old the earth is. But the actual evidence does not support billions of year.

Yes, it does, otherwise there wouldn't be global agreement on it, because of the evidence. It does not support the earth being a few thousand years old. If it did then that's what science would say on the matter. It is not "dense" to understand how the scientific method actually works.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, it does, otherwise there wouldn't be global agreement on it, because of the evidence. It does not support the earth being a few thousand years old. If it did then that's what science would say on the matter. It is not "dense" to understand how the scientific method actually works.

Please actually read what I post. Here it is AGAIN.

If you think that the idea that all life has descended from a single universal common ancestor came about solely by "looking at the evidence", then you are incredibly dense.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Please actually read what I post. Here it is AGAIN.

Repeating something that didn't do you any favours to start with isn't accomplishing much. The theory of evolution along with an old earth etc etc came about because of the evidence. That's how science works.

 

[Right Divider]

Repeating something that didn't do you any favours to start with isn't accomplishing much.

I repeated it because it was clear from your response that you never read it.

The theory of evolution along with an old earth etc etc came about because of the evidence. That's how science works.

Please demonstrate how the the idea that all life has descended from a single universal common ancestor came about solely by "looking at the evidence".

 

[ok doser]

artie is demonstrating with abundance the problem facing us as a modern society, a modern global society

artie doesn't understand the arguments - he relies on the understanding of others and trusts that they'll get it right

people like this shouldn't be allowed to vote, to speak in public, to breed


he reminds me of this classic monty python sketch:

 

[ok doser]

I repeated it because it was clear from your response that you never read it.


Please demonstrate how the the idea that all life has descended from a single universal common ancestor came about solely by "looking at the evidence".

good luck

 

[Arthur Brain]

I repeated it because it was clear from your response that you never read it.


Please demonstrate how the the idea that all life has descended from a single universal common ancestor came about solely by "looking at the evidence".

Do some research on the theory of evolution and see how it came about. It didn't come about on a whim and it isn't accepted globally on a whim either. Be honest RD, if it wasn't for your religious belief that requires a literal reading of the Genesis account, then would you really have such a problem with it or the earth being old?

 

[ok doser]

IOW, he doesn't have a clue


Classic! :darwinsm:

 

[Right Divider]

Do some research on the theory of evolution and see how it came about. It didn't come about on a whim and it isn't accepted globally on a whim either. Be honest RD, if it wasn't for your religious belief that requires a literal reading of the Genesis account, then would you really have such a problem with it or the earth being old?

Please show us the "scientific method" by which we can unequivocally and unambiguously determine the age of rocks. Still waiting....

Theories of evolution have been around long before the so-called science that you worship.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Please show us the "scientific method" by which we can unequivocally and unambiguously determine the age of rocks. Still waiting....

Theories of evolution have been around long before the so-called science that you worship.

I don't "worship" science, I just accept it. Something you apparently cannot do but as before, science doesn't care. You've had everything explained to you in detail by Alate but it doesn't matter what anyone says or provides because your belief system just won't allow it, right? You say you don't care how old the earth is but that's not entirely true is it?

 

[Right Divider]

I don't "worship" science, I just accept it.

I accept science as well.

Something you apparently cannot do but as before, science doesn't care.

False accusations will get you nowhere.

You've had everything explained to you in detail by Alate but it doesn't matter what anyone says or provides because your belief system just won't allow it, right? You say you don't care how old the earth is but that's not entirely true is it?

Instead of hiding, as you have done from the start, why don't you actually discuss the scientific details of "rock dating"?

No, I don't care. But I also don't believe that the evidence supports billions of years. You've certainly done nothing to persuade me.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I accept science as well.

I'm sure you do, just not anything that contradicts a certain belief.

False accusations will get you nowhere.

Well, it's just as well I didn't make any then, certainly not in context of the subject.

Instead of hiding, as you have done from the start, why don't you actually discuss the scientific details of "rock dating"?

I haven't "hidden" at all. I've repeatedly provided you with links that go into depth about such dating methods only for you to say it's all debunked although, tellingly, without any accredited evidence to support it.

No, I don't care. But I also don't believe that the evidence supports billions of years. You've certainly done nothing to persuade me.

If you didn't care then you'd accept what science the world over has to say on the matter.

 

[User Name]

I accept science as well.

Except for all the science that contradicts your political and religious beliefs.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm sure you do, just not anything that contradicts a certain belief.

:banana:

Well, it's just as well I didn't make any then, certainly not in context of the subject.

:chuckle:

I haven't "hidden" at all. I've repeatedly provided you with links that go into depth about such dating methods only for you to say it's all debunked although, tellingly, without any accredited evidence to support it.

You have repeatedly refused to understand science and believe that a method based exclusively on unverifiable assumptions can somehow be considered a valid scientific method.

Your belief system overrules the facts. What a hypocrite!

If you didn't care then you'd accept what science the world over has to say on the matter.

Appeal to popularly is a fallacy. Why do insist on using fallacious arguments?

P.S. Even your wording "what science the world over has to say" is indicative of your problem.

 

[Right Divider]

Except for all the science that contradicts your political and religious beliefs.

More false accusations. Childish and boring.

 

[User Name]

More false accusations. Childish and boring.

What's false about it? Don't you deny the science behind evolution and global warming?

 

[Right Divider]

What's false about it? Don't you deny the science behind evolution and global warming?

• I deny that all life shares a single universal common ancestor.
• I deny that man-made factors are the root cause (or primary cause) behind variations in the global temperature of the earth.

Real science gives me no problems at all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:banana:


:chuckle:


You have repeatedly refused to understand science and believe that a method based exclusively on unverifiable assumptions can somehow be considered a valid scientific method.

Your belief system overrules the facts. What a hypocrite!


Appeal to popularly is a fallacy. Why do insist on using fallacious arguments?

P.S. Even your wording "what science the world over has to say" is indicative of your problem.

Um, no, I understand how the scientific method works. You're just objecting to anything that doesn't fit in with your belief system, namely the earth having to be as young as ten thousand years old. You haven't had any "facts" to debunk either the theory of evolution or the age of the universe as globally accepted in science. There's no "problem" with accepting science so it's not my problem in any shape. You've had absolutely nothing besides assertion that doesn't require being taken seriously at all. Oh, and just to remind you, the reason it's accepted globally is because of the evidence that supports it, so no fallacy there.