Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[7djengo7]

Hypocrite.

Pardon the pun, but that is an understatement!

 

[7djengo7]

If you aren't prepared to do the work to defend your claim, then I guess you didn't really mean it. I accept your implicit retraction, as I'm sure would Lawrence Krauss.

Stuart

Oh, then I guess you haven't really meant anything you've written on TOL, for you've never defended any of the stupidity you've plastered throughout these threads. Bravo, hypocrite.

 

[Jonahdog]

Oh, then I guess you haven't really meant anything you've written on TOL, for you've never defended any of the stupidity you've plastered throughout these threads. Bravo, hypocrite.

Why are you soooo angry?

 

[7djengo7]

Why are you soooo angry?

What makes yoooou say I'm angry? In your view, must somebody be angry in order to be able to call a hypocrite a hypocrite?

Is this what you mean?

Why are you [saying things I find soooo distasteful]?

If not, then what (if anything) do you mean?

 

[Stuu]

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy. You should refrain from using such to argue against a position.

It's not an argument against it. It is an accurate description of it.

Yes, when testing to see if a theory is valid, it is normal to assume the conditions of the theory to be true. Doing so, allows predictions to be made, such as you you are herein trying to discredit, that there is a way to determine WHEN the Flood happened. You don't seem to have read the qualifications portion for selecting which comets to use.
Well, no, that's an estimate based on the evidence for when the flood would have likely happened. Which is called corroborating evidence. Two or three witnesses (the two comets + a geneology that corroborates the date) shall establish a matter. More evidence: Remember how I said I had used Universe Sandbox 2 to model the universe back to the supposed date? I forget which comet it was, but I do know that the result was that the comet came within a few hundred billion kilometers. More corroborating evidence. That's three witnesses. More than enough evidence to support the theory.

1. Assuming a global flood as a precondition to quoting a date of that flood is the logical fallacy of begging the question that there was a global flood.

2. Performing calculations on comet trajectories in order to date a global flood that produced them is also begging the question of the global flood. It is not necessary for a flood to have happened for many comets to share a time of perihelion a few thousand years ago.

3. How do you know this 'dated' global flood didn't happen the previous time that the two comets were at perihelion together, or the time before that?

4. Calculations based on a religious text do not constitute scientific evidence at all, let alone corroborating evidence.

This is not science. You clearly have little idea about what it would take to establish a theory. Perhaps start with establishing a reasonable probability that there was actually a flood instead of assuming it then cherry picking the data you like while denying without justification the data you don't like.

The assumption about a global flood is disproved by ice cores and dendrochronology. The assumption about asteroids flying off the earth is disproved on at least two points of the composition of meteorites. Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data show that humans have not been through a population bottleneck that recently.

As Stripe says, 'With a rational scientific approach, it does not matter what idea people hold as long as they toss it out when it is shown impossible.'. That is his challenge to you now.

So there is no reason at all to think there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. The only reason this is even discussed is because religious fundamentalists want christian dogmas taught in schools. That's what creation science was invented for. It's not about science, it's about the US constitution.

So since you have the power, I would suggest you move this thread to a theology area, or to politics. It is thoroughly discredited as attempted science.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Hypocrite.

Please tell me what claim I have not defended, or perhaps withdraw the accusation.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

No, it doesn't. Today does not tell you about the distance past.

You don't even believe there was a distant past.

Listen AGAIN... YOU made a CLAIM that "humans could never have lived that long".

I did claim something like that. And it's true, and I provided a link to a paper that showed you typical results for neolithic human remains. But of course with no justification for it, you don't believe there was a neolithic.

YOU must THEREFORE provide EVIDENCE for THAT CLAIM (to which you have NOT come close).

You should tell that to Stripe. He is always banging on about evidence without supplying any.

You are ONCE AGAIN using "peer review" as a way of "proving" that something is true. It is just the same old fallacy of the appear to authority.

Peer review is fallible, like any human activity. But it is a correction mechanism that works eventually. So, maybe in the future neolithic skeletons will proved to have been closer to 40 years at death on average.

Not sure what the appear to authority is. Am I appearing in front of some authority? Isn't it more likely you will, given your attempt at libel?

I'm not worried... I am expressing an honest opinion, which is my God given right.

It is absolutely your right to be wrong. What would be your defense case against libel for trying to smear the reputations of professional scientists?

It amuses me that JudgeRightly set up a rule in this section 'No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect (sic) but perhaps is quite happy for peer reviewed science to be called the equivalent. But then religions have always fought hard to avoid criticism by threatening critics, whereas science is up for any honest discussion.

FIRST, you need to support YOUR CLAIM (which BTW, started this).

I've already done that more than sufficiently in my earlier reply. Your denial is irrelevant.

Look, sorry to say, I'm actually not that interested in your reply regarding the accuracy of the bible. I already have quite a good idea of how historically accurate it is and isn't.

So don't bother yourself, OK?

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

It amuses me that JudgeRightly set up a rule in this section 'No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect (sic)

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but I'm not the one who made that rule.

That was the site owners. If you have issue with it, maybe you shouldn't be posting on a Christian forum.

 

[Right Divider]

You don't even believe there was a distant past.

Of course it was the distant past... it was THOUSANDS of years ago.

I did claim something like that. And it's true, and I provided a link to a paper that showed you typical results for neolithic human remains. But of course with no justification for it, you don't believe there was a neolithic.

Your "proof" is non-proof.

You should tell that to Stripe. He is always banging on about evidence without supplying any.

That is completely IRRELEVANT to you and I discussing anything. Take up Stripe with Stripe.

Peer review is fallible, like any human activity. But it is a correction mechanism that works eventually.

Go ahead for prove that claim.

So, maybe in the future neolithic skeletons will proved to have been closer to 40 years at death on average.

Your "proof" is based on the theory of millions/billions of years. That is fantasy and I will not accept fantasy as fact.

Not sure what the appear to authority is. Am I appearing in front of some authority?

Appealing to something as fact simply because it's peer-reviewed is a FALLACIOUS argument of appealing to authority.

I've already done that more than sufficiently in my earlier reply. Your denial is irrelevant.

No, you haven't.

Look, sorry to say, I'm actually not that interested in your reply regarding the accuracy of the bible. I already have quite a good idea of how historically accurate it is and isn't.

You're not interested in any factual information. That's par for the course for an atheist that can get his mind to believe that nothing created everything.

 

[7djengo7]

You don't even believe there was a distant past.

You don't believe 6-10,000 years ago is a distant past?

I did claim something like that. And it's true, and I provided a link to a paper that showed you typical results for neolithic human remains.

In other words, you've merely asserted that your claim is true, and you've merely asserted that something you've "provided a link to" "shows" that your claim is true. So what? Anybody can do that. Your problem is that you've not provided evidence that your claim is true, and you've not provided evidence that your link "shows" that your claim is true. More hypocrisy from you.

But of course with no justification for it, you don't believe there was a neolithic.

Oh, so NOW one needs justification to not believe something? That's rich; why, it's you and your ilk who go about chirping stupidity like "I lack belief....so I have no burden of proof"; remember, the silly Lawrence Krauss shtick that you haven't been able to defend--the "I don't believe anything!" shtick. I guess when those who oppose your stupidity don't believe--lack belief of--some idiotic thing you wish and demand they should believe, it's not a two way street in your eyes; for you're telling them they ought to be able to justify their lack of belief--that they are under a "burden of proof" because of their lack of belief, even though, in your view, such things ought not be expected of you when you "don't believe"/"lack belief". What glaring stupidity and inconsistency from you. What abject hypocrisy from you!

You should tell that to Stripe. He is always banging on about evidence without supplying any.

You've stonewalled all the questions I've asked you about evidence, though you're always banging on about evidence. Of course, you never supply any evidence for the stupidities you promulgate on TOL.

Not sure what the appear to authority is. Am I appearing in front of some authority? Isn't it more likely you will, given your attempt at libel?

Why are you attempting to libel those of us on TOL who don't subscribe to the nonsense, falsehood, and irrationality you promulgate on TOL? Why do you--one given to attempting to libel your opponents (because you have no hope of rationally answering our rational criticism of your irrationality)--accuse us of doing what you're doing? Answer: because you're a hypocrite.

It is absolutely your right to be wrong.

More stupidity from you. Nobody has a right to be wrong. Not even a right to think wrongly. It's just that neither you, nor I, nor anybody else, has a right to persecute someone when we think he/she thinks wrongly. But you're an anti-Christ, materialist, statist, so naturally, you're all for persecuting those who disagree with you.

What would be your defense case against libel for trying to smear the reputations of professional scientists?

Why do you call truth-speaking, "libel"? That's what you're doing, here--calling truth-speaking, "libel", you libelous hypocrite.

It amuses me that JudgeRightly set up a rule in this section 'No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect (sic) but perhaps is quite happy for peer reviewed science to be called the equivalent.

I'm sure that JudgeRightly would agree with me in calling Darwinism--all the nonsense and stupidity that you, as a Darwin cheerleader, are wont to promulgate, falsely calling it "science"-- a fable, or a fairy tale, or fraudulent, or non-science, or anti-science, or irrationalism, or any number of other things. And your calling Darwinism "science" is, itself, an unsuccessful attempt at magic, seeing as your vain repetitions of the falsehood that your Darwinism is science have never yet caused it to be true that your Darwinism is science--and they never shall ('cause it's still, and always shall be, false that your Darwinism is not science).

But then religions have always fought hard to avoid criticism by threatening critics, whereas science is up for any honest discussion.

Well, since you're a manifest liar and committed to your stonewalling against criticism of the stupidity you promulgate on TOL, you're obviously not up for any honest discussion. So, by your own criterion, that you just gave, you have declared that you're not speaking on behalf of science.

I've already done that more than sufficiently in my earlier reply. Your denial is irrelevant.

False. You've not supported any of your claims. Your assertion is irrelevant.

Look, sorry to say, I'm actually not that interested in your reply regarding the accuracy of the bible. I already have quite a good idea of how historically accurate it is and isn't.

So don't bother yourself, OK?

Stuart

What's new? Hey, at least, to your credit, here you are admitting that you are forced to stonewall against truth and logic, and that you are not interested in attempting to defend your irrationality against truth and logic. Nothing newsworthy, though. We already knew that.

 

[Stripe]

Begging the question, or petitio principii, is when an argument assumes its foundations without justification.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume an idea is true and test it under those conditions.

It's called science.

What is irrational nonsense is to attempt to undermine an idea you disagree with by using language only a Darwinist could accept.

 

[oatmeal]

Intro

I have created this thread for the single purpose of settling the long-running discussions about the veracity of evolution in the scientific sense (yeah, very ambitious, I know).

I would like to keep this thread as concise as possible by providing a summary for all the arguments from both sides that I will be keeping up-to-date in the first few posts.


IMPORTANT:
The purpose here is solely to talk about science - not about faith, philosophy, theology or ethics or anything else unrelated.


Any feedback is appreciated and I'll try to adjust accordingly.




Proposition

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact. It explains every observation concerning biodiversity on our planet and is not contradicted by anything in the natural world.

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!




Definitions

Evolution:
Gradual change over time

Biological evolution:
Evolution of populations of living organisms.
Commonly known as: "descent with modifications"
Formally known as: "changing of allele frequencies across generations"

Scientific method:
The process of systematic investigation of the properties and behaviour of any system by empirical means and inductive inference, which improves its own conclusions by repeated validation of predictions and deductive hypotheses.
a.k.a "methodological naturalism"
Formally: Ask a question --> design experiment/observation --> analyse data and draw tentative conclusion --> critically evaluate the conclusion by asking deeper questions and attempting to falsify the conclusion

Scientific theory:
A comprehensive body of knowledge corresponding to the current consensus about a particular scientific subject. A theory is comprised of all relevant facts, laws and explanations. A scientific theory is the highest degree of confidence available for any field of study.




Rules

• Be polite!
• Stay on point
• Address every argument and explain your position
• Don't assume that others know what you mean - provide references
• Keep an open mind
• Enjoy!

VERY IMPORTANT:
In order to guarantee a fair discussion and that everyone is on the same page here, I'd like to ask all of you to be patient and first let's establish a consensus regarding the format that I have proposed before we delve into the actual conversation.
So please, don't start arguing just yet, I'll announce in due course when the preparations are complete. Right now, I'd like to ask for feedback on what you think about this idea and the current setup.


I propose the following order:

STEP 1: Agree on terms

STEP 2: Agree on initial positions

STEP 3: fight!

Though evolution does happen, ie, there are a variety of dog breeds and colors and sizes and other characteristics chosen by breeders that they want enhanced, they are still dogs, they do not evolve into a higher species, they do not become dolphins nor apes nor humans.

Darwin does not explain anything but very minor changes with species or possibly a larger category.

Darwinism is absolutely useless for major changes, It does not explain the origin of life, nor is there any scientific evidence that supports Darwinism's claim that a species can change into another species. rather the contrary. The Cambrian explosion by Darwin's own admission was a major stumbling block to his hypothesis. Since Darwin there has been no evidence to support his claims in regards to major changes.

I am still waiting for any scienctific experiment that will take a pond of tadpoles and turn them into kittens even by selective breeding let alone, random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Jonahdog]

Though evolution does happen, ie, there are a variety of dog breeds and colors and sizes and other characteristics chosen by breeders that they want enhanced, they are still dogs, they do not evolve into a higher species, they do not become dolphins nor apes nor humans.

Darwin does not explain anything but very minor changes with species or possibly a larger category.

Darwinism is absolutely useless for major changes, It does not explain the origin of life, nor is there any scientific evidence that supports Darwinism's claim that a species can change into another species. rather the contrary. The Cambrian explosion by Darwin's own admission was a major stumbling block to his hypothesis. Since Darwin there has been no evidence to support his claims in regards to major changes.

I am still waiting for any scienctific experiment that will take a pond of tadpoles and turn them into kittens even by selective breeding let alone, random mutation and natural selection.

Please explain the Cambrian Explosion, when did it occur, how long did it last, is there no fossil record before it, what was its cause?

 

[ok doser]

... I am still waiting for any scientific experiment that will take a pond of tadpoles and turn them into kittens even by selective breeding let alone, random mutation and natural selection.

unsurprisingly, JD ignores this, the defining characteristic of the scientific method, reproducibility

 

[Right Divider]

Please explain the Cambrian Explosion, when did it occur, how long did it last, is there no fossil record before it, what was its cause?

The FLOOD.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution does happen, ie, there are a variety of dog breeds and colors and sizes and other characteristics chosen by breeders that they want enhanced, they are still dogs, they do not evolve into a higher species, they do not become dolphins nor apes nor humans.

This manner of explanation just plays into Darwinists' hands. They define evolution as "change." If we were to accept that definition, then OP is rendered moot, as nobody claims that nothing changes.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. That is what is being debated.

Thus, no opponent of Darwinism should ever say that "evolution" happens.

 

[Stripe]

The FLOOD.

There is no such thing as a "Cambrian explosion."

 

[Right Divider]

There is no such thing as a "Cambrian explosion."

Totally agree. What I was saying is that the fossils that they call the "Cambrian explosion" are simply the results of a global flood.

 

[ok doser]

There is no such thing as a "Cambrian explosion."

happens all the time:

Cambria is a name for Wales, being the Latinised form of the Welsh name for the country, Cymru.[1]

Inquiries launched into explosion at Tata steelworks in Wales Two men injured in blast at Port Talbot plant where three men were killed in 2001 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-at-tata-steelworks-port-talbot-south-wales

The Senghenydd colliery disaster, also known as the Senghenydd explosion (Welsh: Tanchwa Senghennydd), occurred at the Universal Colliery in Senghenydd, near Caerphilly, Glamorgan, Wales, on 14 October 1913. The explosion, which killed 439 miners and a rescuer, is the worst mining accident in the United Kingdom.

Man killed in Pontypool house explosion was on unsupervised leave from mental health unit https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-killed-pontypool-house-explosion-16710903

 

[oatmeal]

Please explain the Cambrian Explosion, when did it occur, how long did it last, is there no fossil record before it, what was its cause?

Why?

You probably know more about it than I do.

However it is clear that many many species showed in a the fossil record in a very short time period without explanation or evidence of where those species came from.

Darwin acknowledged that this fossil record was a majory problem to his theory for which he had no explanation for.

The evidence against Darwin's hypothesis has increased not decreased in regards to this Cambrian explosion.