|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
My argument is that no one can prove that ToE (or any other theory) describes the process that shaped the fossil record ... We don't have to prove. We already know the evolutionary mechanisms that wrote the fossil record.
Even if ToE is an accurate description of the process that shaped the history of life on earth, no one will ever know, because no one can prove that it is. Yet, we do know. We know very well the mechanisms of evolution and how they affected life today and in deep time. No proofs necessary.
Darwinists (like those on this site, for example) claim to know how evolution works, but they can't prove it, Don't need to prove it. We already know.
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” (Psalms 14:1) The sane person says out aloud, "Gods are asinine concepts concocted by charlatans to fleece their flock and fuck their women." (AZPaul3 7-31-22)Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Science is based on evidence and not on "proof". That's the opposite of religion. Thank you for admitting that your quasi-religious beliefs are based on faith and not on facts."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Nor do we want to. "Proof" doesn't enter into it. You might as well say we can't make ice cream out of it.
Prove it. You can't. Dredge writes:
You have already admitted that you are unintelligent - i.e. that you are mindless. Why would you be the one who can distinguish fact from folklore? All you can do it is recite Darwinist folklore and mindlessly claim it's factual."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes: ... he argues that ToE can't account for what is observed. That's not what you've been saying. Your claim is that we "can't know", not that we can't account for it. We can account for it to everybody's satisfaction but yours - and yours doesn't count because you're an admitted idiot."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You don't uderstand what knowlege is. It isn't about "proof". It's about what works. Even if ToE is an accurate description of the process that shaped the history of life on earth, no one will ever know, because no one can prove that it is. As long as you keep talking about proof, you're just making yourself look stupid."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
My argument is that no one can prove that ToE (or any other theory) describes the process that shaped the fossil record, therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works. Well, so far your argument has failed to prove anything. The evolutionary processes left evidence that we observe is the same as the processes leave today. You keep saying "no one can", but the biologists of the world are ignoring you and carrying on with describing their observations.
Bechly and Behe are not going to persuade all those rusted-on atheist biologists out there. They sure want to, but their ID argument is completely based on religious fiction, not science.
On the contrary, all those rusted-on atheist biologists out there will be hostile to any suggestion of intelligent design in nature. Not so much hostile, but dismissive. I don't know what happened to Bechly, but if it has biased his presentation of evidence, then the validity of all of his work should be questioned, by his colleagues. I have never heard of "rusted-on atheist biologists" before but I kind of like it, especially coming from a member of the Catholic Pedo Cult.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Dredge writes: You can't prove that ToE describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. A simple argument based on simple logic - how come you don't understand it? Just out of curiosity, if we keep telling you over and over again that science isn't in the business of proving things, that theories are accepted, not proven, will there come a point where the lightbulb finally goes on for you, or is that never going to happen? Trying to put a finer point on it, your argument only makes sense if science *were* in the business of proving things. But it's not. So your argument just makes no sense.
You can't prove that ToE describes the process that produced whales, so you can't claim to know how whales evolved. There's that word "prove" again.
Ontogeny doesn't recapitulate ontology in anything like the strict way that Haeckel insisted, but it does provide clues. Please speak English. "Ontogeny" has something to do with dentistry, doesn't it? What does dentistry have to do with evolution? Well now you're just shouting to the world, "I'm fairly unfamiliar with the creation/evolution debate in which I'm attempting to participate anyway." Haeckel is one of the most famous biologists in history. He did most of the work he's famous for in the latter half of the 1800s. Until recently he was the constant focus of creationists arguing how wrong was his claim that "ontogeny recapitulates ontology," and that Darwinists were trying to indoctrinate generations of school children by including that point as established science, even including embryo drawings from Haeckel's papers in biology textbooks, which may still be true in school districts that haven't replaced their textbooks in a really long time, like since the 1950's. "Ontogeny recapitulates ontology" is just a biologically concise way of saying that embryo's go through the same stages of development as the organism's evolutionary development. Haeckel was very influential during his lifetime and was able to make this questionable claim stick. His arguments and drawings began appearing in biology textbooks, and they survived in them for a long, long time (there's a lot of inertia in the textbook industry), long after we knew Haeckel had only uncovered a sort of general tendency, not a law. Hope that clears it up for you, but the key issue is that you need a better understanding of what it is that science actually does, which definitely isn't proving anything. And you also need to take on more responsibility for moving the discussion forward. Many of your messages say almost the exact same thing, that we can't prove evolution explains the fossil record. Any sane person would recognize that not only is your broken record approach not working, it's also a horrible way of conducting yourself in a discussion. You should give some thought to alternative approaches to the discussion, ones that might actually make your point for you if it happens to be correct. The other side is telling you there are a couple important concepts that you're missing, so maybe you could look there first and see where it leads you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dredge writes: You can't prove that ToE describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record ... therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. You're repeating yourself once again. Maybe it would help if I pointed out that science has never proven anything in its entire history. Gravity? Unproven. Theory of Relativity? Unproven. Boyle's Gas Law? Unproven. The Standard Model? Unproven. Theories become accepted amongst the relevant scientific community via replication and the accumulation of evidence. When we say we *know* something we mean it in the scientific sense of having a broad body of supporting evidence and interpretation, not in a "rigorously proven" sense.
If you are allergic to the truth, it's not my fault. Science doesn't deal in truth, either. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dredge writes: You can't prove that ToE describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. While there's no basis for the old saw that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting something different to happen, the determination with which you repeat yourself almost word for word while completely ignoring the rebuttals does bring it to mind. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dredge writes: You can't prove that ToE describes the process that produced the changes evident in the fossil record, therefore you can't claim to know how evolution works. You remind me of a turtle retreating into its shell. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
vimesey writes:
Fine. If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.
Once again Dredge, proof is not a concept that exists in science - only falsifiable hypotheses backed by evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dredge writes: Fine. If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works. I don't think you've given any consideration to the implications of this claim. It's not just the ToE that Science can't prove, it's everything else, too. Science can't prove anything. Proving things is not what science does. What science does do is build interpretational frameworks of understanding around bodies of evidence, and it attempts to add to the evidence and understanding through replication and further investigation. When a framework of understanding convinces enough members of the relevant scientific community then it is said to have become accepted, but definitely not proven because, again, nothing is ever proven in science. In an informal sense we say that we now *know* something. So if you're right that science doesn't know how evolution works, then it follows that science doesn't know anything else, either. Of course we know that's not true, so your claim that science can't know how evolution works is disproven. Oh, since I've used the word "disproven" I should say that science *is* in the business of disproving things, more formally, falsifying hypotheses. A famous disproven hypothesis is that of the luminiferous ether. Another important scientific concept is tentativity. A falsified hypothesis is only tentatively falsified. Further investigation and study may force a reconsideration. Similarly, an accepted theory is only tentatively accepted. Further investigation and study may force a reconsideration. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
nwr writes:
If science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.
Science isn't about proof. Neither you nor Bechly nor Behe has a better explanation.
Irrelevant to my argument.
There are also many Christian biologists out there. "Atheist" has nothing to do with the issue.
"Nearly 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Sciences describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, a far higher percentage than in any other scientific discipline." (Larry Witham,
Where Darwin Meets the Bible (2002), pp. 271-273) I'm not hostile to the idea that there is intelligent design in nature. But I am hostile to the stream of lies and bullshit coming from the intelligent design movement.
Translation: "the idea that there is intelligent design in nature" = "the stream of lies and bullshit coming from the intelligent design movement"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Please stop repeating this stupid falsehood. You're making a fool of yourself. It's embarrassing to watch. We already know the evolutionary mechanisms that wrote the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
In that case, if science can't prove that ToE describes the process responsible for producing the fossil record, then science can't claim to know how evolution works.
Science is based on evidence and not on "proof".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024