mark24,
mark24 writes:
Well, I made a prediction that you would seek reasons to dismiss the evidence, rather than critically examine it, & I wasn't disappointed.
Good.
mark24 writes:
Basically your mental gymnastics have led you to dismiss all of science. To paraphrase your argument, you can only have evidence of X if it has been proven. If it hasn't then it's just "theoretical". Why would you need evidence of something that is already proven?
I understand that science starts with evidence first, then theory then more evidence to back it up. I must say, when a person comes in from the outside (i.e. a creationist) They start with the theory and move to the evidence after. When I view the TOE I see a theory with many mechinisms which could be true. I give the TOE the Benefit of the doubt, which means I give it a chance. I first Begin to understand the difference between the word Evolution and the TOE. Then understanding that the word Evolution is factual I move to try and understand the TOE. I find that in the TOE there is many mechinisms, and some of these mechinisms, have a specific definition which represents more then one mechinism, and in a way gives a list of mechinisms a classification, but more then one classification such as Micro and Macroevolution. I see that Microevolution has the idea that evolution has occured and is based on factual evidence because we have proof that speciation occures we have proof that things change all the time, but we dont see macro-evolution (organic evolution) such as some people proclaim the fossil record demonstrates. I honestly dont see how the fossil record demonstrates this idea beyond the metaphorical idea (the imagination realm). I accept that the fossil record COULD be evidence but I wont say that the Fossil record "is" evidence such as, just because I see a fat female who looks like a "female dog"(i.e. bad word) does not mean she actually is a bad person or a "female dog". What I see when people try to tell me that the fossil record is evidence that organic evolution occured, I see people judging the book by its cover. I dont do that, never will eather. I have read many books which the cover poorly represents, and vice versa. Through this process it is fact to me not to judge a book by its cover.
mark24 writes:
Going back 500 years, most things we consider as fact today would not be anything but mere speculation.
Ok
mark24 writes:
Why? Because nothing can be evidence in favour of an idea, according to you, unless it is proven first. But it can't be proven without evidence, right? It therefore follows that you accept no evidence at all, if you are being consistent, that is.
(why? because nothing can be evidence in favour of an idea, according to me, unless it is proven first.) Wrong, Evidence can favour an idea if the evidence is not an idea. Lets use the fossil record for example. Evolutionists proclaim that the fossil record is evidence of macroevolution. I disagree because to me evidence cannot be debated. Evidence is factual.
Evidence: To render evident or clear; to prove; to evince; as, to
evidence a fact, or the guilt of an offender. --Milton.
The idea behind evidence is clearly "a factual item which is with no doubt proof that something occured"
The fossil record has doubts, the fossil record could just be skeletons and not proof that evolution occured. Evidence is something without objection.
mark24 writes:
A corollory of this is that you don't accept that:
1/ Gravity is associated with mass;
2/ Electrons are discrete charge carrying entities;
3/ There are such things as atomic elements;
4/ Elements are mostly made up of space;
5/ The sun is made of mainly hydrogen;
6/ etc. etc. etc.
All of these things began as ideas that were subsequently tested. They aren't "proven", even today. It's just that they are so well supported that to withhold consent would be considered unreasonable. According to you they cannot have been tested, it is inadmissible, any such facts that support these ideas are to be dismissed on the strenth that they are mere unproven theoretical ideas. And if we listen to you they will remain so.
This is a serious, serious, serious flaw in your reasoning.
No, I accept these ideas as ideas and I give them a chance before I say they are wrong. I give all things chance, Giving them chance means that I require evidence before I say they are factual. I have no evidence by the definition given that Macro-evolution has occured.
When I give something a chance, I am saying that it is possible. According to my definition of evidence which was copy and pasted from
Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com and authenticated with other defintions I have in my library there is no evidence that macroevolution occured. That does not mean it didn't happen it just means I wont support the idea. I wont support something unless it is factual and has evidence.
mark24 writes:
Science works like this, an inductively derived hypothesis is conceived on the strength of an observation. Predictions are made, potential falsifications are stated, & as other facts come to light, they either support or refute the hypothesis. That is what evidence does, it allows us to deductively test a hypothesis.
True
mark24 writes:
In the case of cladistics, it is true that there is an evolutionary assumption, but that is the assumption that is being tested. If something is being tested then the results will either refute the assumption, or confirm it, to whatever degree (or be non-informative either way, of course).
Agreed
mark24 writes:
The results show an average 0.75 correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy, strong positive evidence of evolution. This is not a trivial observation. If evolution hadn't have happened there would be near zero correlation. If a global flood happened there would be a near zero correlation. The odds of getting an average 0.75 across 300 tested cladograms by chance is staggering. Staggering. As a result, the evidence is extremely good that macroevolution occurred. It's not sciences, nor poor old deceived evolutionists fault that there's such a good correlation rather than none at all. I'm just asking you to accept that it exists.
The logic is sound.
No, This congruence as you say gives 75%/100% evidence. In other words the congruence is really only 3/4 of 1 pieace of evidence.
This kind of evidence would be garbage in a courtroom because it is not factual evidence. As such I wont support this idea.
mark24 writes:
So when you don't agree with something, Godidit, despite the evidence?
No evidence yet as I have pointed out(i.e. concerning macro-evolution).
mark24 writes:
Unfortunately this is also untestable, unfalsifiable, & is therefore on the same intellectual & logical ground as fairies & unicorns. Let's be led by evidence, not speculation opposed by evidence, shall we? Interesting that you reject something supported by high quality evidence in favour of something with none.
No other conclusion and I dont need evidence to believe in god that is part of the bibles teachings. If you want to present a TOE in a scientific way then you need evidence you have none regarding macroevolution.
mark24 writes:
But just so you understand what you're up against, explain the correlation between stratigraphy & cladistics brought about by a common creator after the whole shithouse got mixed up by a global flood.
Rephrase please.
Thank You
Sonic
P.S. All evidence concerning Macro-evolution is nothing more then 3/4, 1 piece of evidence. Not even 1 entire piece of evidence. Sure you may have 4 or 5 or 100 3/4 pieces of evidence, but none of them are factual evidence (i.e. 1 whole piece or 3 or 400 whole pieces of evidence). I thought science started with evidence first, as such you have no evidence so how did macroevolution ever get created as an idea or theory.
™ Version 4.2