|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
"Evolution" (defined briefly as speciation) is an interpretation of scientific evidence. Since the interpretation is false there is no evidence of evolution. More nonsense. Unsupported nonsense at that. Just because creationists choose to ignore the evidence for speciation doesn't make it go away. In addition to all of the other examples, we can see evidence for speciation in a number of living species called ring species. In ring species, between the endpoints you can also see any number of transitionals (another thing creationists claim--incorrectly--do not exist). Here is one example. But if you ignore any data that goes contrary to your religious belief you can support just about any belief, no matter how much it is contradicted by the evidence. And that's why they call it creation "science," as opposed to real science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Rrhain, you wrote "We have presented the evidence to you over and over again here. The fact that you deny it doesn't change the fact that it exists."
Creationists have to deny the evidence. Their belief is not based on evidence, but on scripture or revelation or the like, so no amount of evidence will persuade them that their belief is incorrect. Any evidence which appears to do so must be wrong and will be denied. Creationists are frequently not sure why that evidence is wrong, as they don't study science as a rule, but if its not one reason its another. The details don't matter much anyway because they know that that evidence is wrong. Because of this, debating these issues with them and presenting evidence as we do in science is generally pointless. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
All mutational experiments and selective breeding ever achieves is a loss of information. Never anything new. We need lots of 'new' in order for 'evolution' to be feasible so why can't anybody show us some of this new information? Why is it that all we ever see is a loss or distortion of information. This is not true; it is a standard creationist talking point based on the religious concepts of created kinds and devolution since "the curse." In other words, it has no scientific merit whatsoever. I started a thread on "new" information, based on an article that presented both the evidence for new genes and mechanisms showing how those genes arose. But as I pointed out in post #67, above, creationists won't be able to see the evidence; they have to deny it because it contradicts their beliefs. They don't have a scientific reason why its wrong, just a bunch of talking points passed from creationist website to website--and refuted by scientific data over and over. But that's OK, they know its wrong anyway. Now, this is off topic here. Go to the thread I started [New genes do arise in the genome] and present your talking points there and we can get into it in more depth. Edited by Coyote, : Added thread title Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On the grounds of experimentation that only ever demonstrates negative mutational change and no increase in information content. How is it that we can demonstrate lots of negative informational changes but no increase in information ever? Until I see that limit breached, I choose to stick with the evidence and curb my imagination. See the thread I referred you to in my earlier post. It has the details on new genes (information) that you are denying. Until you can address and overturn that evidence your "no new information" talking point is refuted, and you should have the common courtesy to retire it until you can come up with some actual counter evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Percy writes: A hundred and fifty years ago Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. Except in the minds of creationists, there was no confusion then and there is no confusion now. quote: To this we can add:
quote: Seriously, most creationists distrust and dislike science. It is normal for those individuals not to have studied it much, or to have simply failed to learn the details of that which they disagree. To expect them to use definitions as they are used by scientists is simply too much to hope for. Their arguments are based on faith and carried out through apologetics. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory. Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.
False! Typical uninformed creationist propaganda. Evolution will work equally well if: 1) Some deity (Old Man Coyote, perhaps) poofs life into existence2) Life begins naturally 3) Life is seeded here by aliens, 4) Humans from the future time travel back to start it, or 5) Other It is only creationists who try to dishonestly claim otherwise. Face it, evolution is a fact! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I'd like to see a listing of the "accepted laws of science" that evolution fail to follow as well.
I wonder if the "second law of thermal documents"* will be among those cited. * That is what was claimed, on another website, that evolution violated. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So tell me Coyote, how's this innorant christian doing? And if I am so ignorant, why aren't I getting any factual refutations from you who self righteously believes you are intellectually superior to me? Methinks you lie to yourself about more than "just" the deceptions which evolution promotes.
At religious apologetics you're doing well. You are doing what most religious apologists do--hand waving away any evidence that doesn't fit your religious belief. What RAZD posted is mainstream science, and all you have done is make some quibbles about extracting DNA millions of years into the past. That's a bunch of meaningless nonsense--what, can't you refute his post? At science--well, don't give up your day job. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What I did was confront the evidence as offered and revealed the dishonest inconsistency which it attempts to spoon feed us. The evidence claims directly that it was arrived at through genetic testing which proved a change in alleles on fossils between 30 and 50 million years old, when evolution science also claims that this is impossible to accomplish on fossils older that 100,000 years old.
Is that an example of creation "science?" If so, I'm not impressed. You have provided no evidence against what RAZD posted. What you did was erect a monstrous strawman and proceed to belabor it. That type of argument might be looked upon with approval in religious apologetics or creation "science" but it doesn't mean anything in real science. Care to try again? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are a science denier.
You are so far out on the fringe that you couldn't see the mainstream with the Hubble! And you'd deny it if you could see it. You have to deny science! Creation "science" and creationism have to deny science because the findings of science contradict their particular religious beliefs. You are one of the best examples of religious apologetics I have ever seen! Onward rhetoric, evidence be damned. You make up your own version of science, only to shoot it down--classic strawman argumentation. But that doesn't mean anything in the real world. And those of us who actually do science know it. Science is based on evidence, not rhetoric or apologetics, nor tilting at strawmen. But thanks for playing! [Johnny, what fantastic prizes has this great player won?] Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024