Where is the evidence for evolution?

Did the evidence they provided meet your standards? And if so, how was it different from any other scientific evidence?You never did explain what criteria you feel are valid for considering something as 'evidence' - you abandoned the thread when 1. your old identity was reveraled and 2. nobody was buying your piffle.Care to try again?or will you just flame and run away as is your usual game?

PB: The booknook topic has been closed since you evo-guys were not able to defy the unwarranted 'microbe-to-man' extrapolation made by Darwin. Maybe I am going to open a new thread on it.This is incredible beyond words...

quote:

---

quote:

---

Did the evidence they provided meet your standards? And if so, how was it different from any other scientific evidence?

---

​

Read again. Those were conclusions, not evidence. I just happen to agree with those conclusions based on the evidence and lack thereof.

---

Are not conclusions based on evidence? Why yes they are - you imply as much yourself. So back to the question - what was the evidence they presented and explain how it was that IT met your personal standards. Thanks.

quote:

---

You people never did provide a peer-reviewed definition of evidence, "scientific" or otherwise. We were looking for an objective definition of evidence, which you failed to provide at any time. Thus, you are incorrect again to imply that evidence must meet my personal subjective standards. Recall that real evidence is objective. We went over that before.

---

No, you kept making demands, then denigraded any attempt to provide one, then you blew off my reference to the Daubert decision which quite clearly lays out the legal standards - and quite clearly indicates that the standards for evidence in a legal setting are different than those within science.
You refised or were unable to provide your definition. I think for obvious reasons.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You never did explain what criteria you feel are valid for considering something as 'evidence' - you abandoned the thread when 1. your old identity was reveraled and 2. nobody was buying your piffle.

---

​

My intent was to expose your utter lack of understanding of the concept of real evidence. I did so quite effectively. In fact, it caused at least one of you to have an imaginary conversation with himself. That was funny!

---

You, of course, did no such thing. Creationists revel in mental masturbation followed by repeated rounds of claiming to be Sex Machines... What

quote:

---

"What is evidence?" was of course my question FIRST, and turning it around (shifting the burden of proof - a tactic impermissible to the dictates of the establishment of real evidence, but how would you know?) and asking me something I already know the answer to does little to establish you have a working knowledge of the concept.

---

The evidence indicates that you in fact do NOT know the definition and how it differs from legal to scientific. This conclusion is reached by the fact that you were never able to provide a defintion. Legal clerks have little influence on the workings of science. You are no exception.

quote:

---

Therefore, I and the other enlightened beings who are keenly aware of what real evidence is (i.e. the experts in evidence), continue to laugh whenever people like Schraffy, SLPx, et al rely on a concept they are simply unable to satisfactorily define or demonstrate their understanding of the concept.

---

Yes, you amazing expertise on evidence was demonstrated for all to see. It was most impressive. I'll bet you think OJ was innocent, too...

quote:

---

Accordingly, I was merely suggesting that you shouldn't use a word like "evidence" if you are unable to satisfactorily articulate its meaning.

---

That the definitions provided were ignored, handwaved away, etc. by you is not an indication that those defintions were incorrect. Indeed, quite to the contrary - your antics indicated that you yourself do not understand the concept and like many creationists, have convinced yourself that somehow you know much about something you actually do not. It is a commonplace psychological condition, so do not be ashamed:Page Not Found

quote:

---

And, btw, my "real" identity has never been revealed, just like you never defined "real" evidence. Keep using the word "evidence" though. It's been entertaining to observe you people struggle with the concept.

---

I did not say that your 'real' identity had been revealed. I don't think anyone really cares, frankly, Ten-sai.
There is much evidence for evolution. That you are too undereducated to realize that is a given.

quote:

---

In short, you have no argument unless and until you can provide a working definition of evidence OR until you can put forth an argument without relying on the word "evidence".

---

You were given several such definitions. Your refusal to accept them is your problem. Science - including the science of evolutionary biology - trudges on regardless of what anonymous internet creationists, clearly with no proper education or understanding of the subject, have to say on the issue.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Care to try again?

---

That's up to you. You are the one ignorant of what evidence is, not me tough guy.

---

Actually, I see evidence all the time. I have analyzed - even generated some. Reprints of my scientific publications have been requested by the Museum of Human Evolution in France and the Japanese Institute of Genetics. I would say that, therefore, my abilities and knowledge of what counts as evidence in science is quite appropriate, whether or not some anonymous wannabe accepts that or not.
And yes, I am a tough guy. I'm a bit out of shape at the time, but I am confident that I would qualify as such.

quote:

---

quote:

---

or will you just flame and run away as is your usual game?

---

​

I'll continue to be around to demolish any self-serving subjective definition of evidence you care to put forth for the express purpose of exposing just how ignorant you are of the concept.

---

One has ot actually do something once in order to claim to be able to continue to do so.
The fact that you will not provide what you believe to be the true definiton of evidence indicates that youi, in fact, do not know what the defintion is and are simply playing juvenile games.
The trick to asking a question is often knowing what the answer is. Then, to demonstrate your knowledge, you answer the question you ask when unsatisfactory answers are provided.
As is the case with many internet lay creationists, you are only doing the asking. You cannot answer. That is indicative not of superior knowledge, but an inability.

quote:

---

You have just been too embarassed yourself to even attempt to define the word. Silence is tantamount to acquiescing to my point.

---

Many wannabes adopt such a stance. It is idiotic on the face of it, and what you say is false. While I did not bother to engage your games direcly, I did refer to the Daubert case. It impeached your rantings. You blew it off, Ten-sai.
Run along now.

Ten-zeph,You basically bailed in the thread in question:http://EvC Forum: Zephan: What is Evidence? -->EvC Forum: Zephan: What is Evidence?more bluster form the incompetent...

quote:

---

S: Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationists

​

Hi SLPx...don't forget not reading about, researching, or making any effort at all to understand the topic they are supposedly so passionately opposed to as a modus operandi...that stategy has served PB and other creationists very well.

​

Back to the grind..

---

Greetings, oh frozen one!Oh - I have not forgotten at all....

I did not mention the mythology of GUToB, MRG, etc.I fail to see why I was called out on it.

quote:

---

And, according to SLPx, Margulis' statement is evidence we should all believe since SLPx seems to believe that evidence is whatever evo-scientists say it is!!!

---

Appletoast, tensai, etc.,It appears that you actually have no clue what evidence is.Or you would have explained it to us all by now.The level of your discourse indicates that you, like sonnike, have a minimal desire to actually learn anything, but unlike sonnike, you are angry and belicose.Typical, really.